Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, next week Chinese President Jiang Zemin will arrive for his first State visit, the first State visit by a Chinese leader in 12 years. As this visit approaches, I rise to discuss our China policy and the things we might hope to see from this event. Let me begin with the broad goals of our Asia policy. I think they are clear. First, a peaceful Pacific. Second, open trade. Third, joint work on problems of mutual concern like environmental problems and international crime. And fourth, progress toward respect for internationally recognized human rights. Generally speaking, our Asian policy has helped move us toward these goals. We have a permanent military force in the Pacific which, coupled with strong alliances with Japan and South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, and Australia, has helped to keep the peace for 20 years. While we have a lot of work ahead on Asian trade, our work has produced over $100 billion in export growth, an increase of 70 percent. That is since 1991. We are beginning to adopt a more systematic approach to the region's growing environmental problems, and can cite the democratization of the Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, and South Korea as human rights success stories. Where does China fit in? China is the largest country in Asia, the fastest growing economy, the largest military power, and the Asian nation with which our relationship has been most volatile during this decade. If we can establish a stable, workable relationship with China, all of our goals will come closer to realization. If we cannot, both Americans and Chinese, and other Pacific nations, will suffer a great deal. Next week's summit offers us a chance to make a start. Following it must be a work program focusing on a very practical agenda. And as we approach the summit, I think we can help ourselves by putting the issues we must address in three broad categories. They are: mutual interests, areas of dispute, and issues we will face in the future. First are the areas where we have mutual interests. Regional security is one case. We must work with China to maintain peace in Korea. Both countries want to avoid a conflict over Taiwan. We need to ensure that Japan does not feel pressured to become a military power. On weapons proliferation, if India and Pakistan develop nuclear missiles, China will suffer from it a lot more than we would. Environmental issues are another matter. We both need to ensure sustainable management of fisheries and to address air pollution and acid rain problems caused by the boom in Chinese power production. We also must work much closer together to do our best to protect biodiversity and prevent large-scale climate change. One concrete proposal that will help in this area, if the public reports that China has agreed to our proposals on nuclear proliferation are accurate, is opening up civil nuclear technology sales. A number of domestic Chinese issues also fall into this area. Helping China establish a broad rule of law will contribute to our human rights goals. Labor safety is a second case where we could contribute to China's own efforts to improve factory safety and improve the lives of many ordinary Chinese; and helping Chinese farmers take advantage of cleaner pesticides, modern agricultural technologies, and an up-to-date infrastructure is a third. We also clearly have some disputes with China. We should not make them the whole focus of our relationship, but neither should we try to duck them. At times we will need simply to understand one another's positions and agree to put off disagreements into the future. Taiwan policy has been handled reasonably well in this manner for the past few decades. Perhaps with some adjustments in detail, we should continue that policy. Likewise, China has recently expressed some unhappiness with our stationing of troops in Asia. They need to understand that the issue is between us on the one hand and Japan and Korea and our allies on the other. It is not on the table for discussion. In other areas we should expect to do better. We seem to be doing well in nuclear proliferation. It is my hope that the President will seal that achievement by certifying China as in compliance in the nuclear area, and open up civil nuclear power trade with China. On missiles and chemical weapons, we see less thus far. And while I do not regard sanctions as a tool appropriate for every issue on the table with China--and I do not believe Congress should be passing broad new sanction laws--these are areas where we should use targeted sanctions if necessary. We did this last spring in the case of the sale of chemical weapons precursors involving a Nanjing company. If it happens again, we should use tougher penalties. Trade is another example. Despite the optimism of United States business, since 1980 our exports to China have grown more slowly than our exports to any other major market, whether it be Canada, Japan, Europe, Mexico, or ASEAN. Meanwhile, we have been tremendously generous to China, keeping our market to Chinese goods more open than any other in the world. This is not acceptable. It is wrong when Chinese shoe companies can sell to Montana but Montana wheat farmers cannot sell to China. We should expect China to be as fair and open to us as we are to them. And we should offer an incentive to do that. Specifically, we should make MFN status permanent when China comes up with a good WTO package. But we should also be clear that we cannot wait forever. Our 5-year bilateral trade agreement negotiated in 1992 is about to be completed. And if the pace of the WTO talks does not pick up soon, we should use our retaliatory trade law, section 301, to win a broad successor to it. On human rights, while we should seek common ground and recognize where China is doing better, we should also not shrink from bringing up the tough issues. The time is past when these questions could be considered strictly domestic concerns. We should bring up individual cases of political prisoners, ask for talks with the Dalai Lama and Red Cross access to Chinese prisons. If the Chinese want us to stop sponsoring resolutions at the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they need to show some understanding of our concerns and the world's concerns on these issues.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I would. I think most Senators would support it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a lot of sympathy with the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota. Being in a deadlock we are not accomplishing very much. The Senator is suggesting that we get off this deadlock; that we start to accomplish something. And he is suggesting that we vote on one of the amendments on this tree and suggesting under the parliamentary rules that we vote on the first one, which is the second-degree amendment. I am very sympathetic to that. I want to move, too. I also would like to get campaign finance reform passed. Why? I can tell you, having just been through an election, that this country has dramatically changed the way campaigns are run and financed from just a few years ago. The present system is so bad. It is so obscene with virtually no limit on the total number of dollars raised or spent on behalf of, or for, or by candidates that it is demoralizing the country. It is causing the American people to think that the whole system stinks and becoming less and less involved in the democratic process and beginning to lose interest. And we run the risk of fragmenting a country--a country where Americans are going their own way; not a country that works together as a whole. It is a huge problem. I can tell you, Mr. President. It is a huge problem. And if this Senate and this House does not do something about campaign finance reform very soon, this country, as we know it, is going to no longer be the greatest country on the face of this Earth just because we are going to be so awash in campaign money that the American people are just going to begin to lose interest in the U.S. Government--certainly in the Congress, and in the Presidential campaigns as well. That is a vivid exaggeration. I grant you. They will have some interest. But they are not going to be nearly as proud of this Congress and their Federal Government as they would like to be. At the same time, I think we have to pass this highway bill. Why do I say so? Because if the Senate does not pass the highway bill very soon--that is, within the next week or so--then the chances of it passing this year are virtually nil. If we do not pass a highway bill-- we know the House wants a 6-month bill. The House's 6-month bill is something that is just totally unacceptable, in my view, because every year, or every couple of years, we would be reauthorizing the highway bill. And it makes no sense. We need to pass a 6-year highway bill. It is that simple. I have a lot of sympathy for the Senator from North Dakota. He is right. We have to start moving. I hope that leadership on both sides of the aisle sits down and reaches an agreement today, and figure out a way to get off of this impasse so that we can do both--find a way to take up and work campaign finance reform, and also pass this highway bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Certainly.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is absolutely correct. We are at dead center. We are not moving at all. One way to perhaps get a little more momentum is the procedure outlined by the Senator. I hope that we could count on the same objective by the leadership sitting down and working out an agreement so that we don't have to go through this process. But we may have to.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I very much hope, as I said many times, that the leadership works out an agreement so we can solve this thing and get moving. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. I think the Senator makes a very good point. At least it is moving--the glacier.

Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator wishes, I will take the Senator up to Grinnell Glacier in Glacier Park where you can virtually watch the glacier move because the Earth is warming at such a rapid rate. It is moving in the wrong way. It is receding, is diminishing. In fact, in 20 years that glacier will totally evaporate.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, while the chairman is waiting for Senators to come over and give their views on the bill, I thought I would explain the main provisions in our bill and how the formula works so that Senators will better understand these items. If at any time a Senator wants to come over and speak, I will be more than pleased to interrupt my statement and let that Senator say whatever he or she wishes to say. Mr. President, today we are currently operating under a 6-year ISTEA highway bill. The bill before us is a new 6-year ISTEA bill. This new bill will bring up to date some of the provisions that are in the current law. By up to date, I refer to the formulas. Believe it or not, our current formula uses some historical factors such as the 1980 census data, as well as the 1916 postal road miles. That outdated data is included in the current funding formula to allocate dollars among the States. When writing the new bill, the committee thought it made a lot of sense to dispense with the use of the old data. After all, some of the data are pretty old. The 1980's is old enough, but the 1916 postal road miles is going a bit far. The current ISTEA program also has a lot of accounts. Eleven to be exact. It is difficult for States to work with all the different accounts. And it is a bit complex. So the new bill we are debating today eliminates that old historical data and brings the funding formulas up to date. This new bill also reduces the number of accounts from 11 to 5. This provides States with a lot more flexibility. Let me briefly discuss how the current formulation works. As I said, the new bill has five major accounts. One is the Interstate National Highway System, which has two components--the Interstate component as well as the National Highway System component. Another is the Surface Transportation Program and another is the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, more commonly known inside the beltway as CMAQ. And we have two equity accounts to kind of even things out for States. Let me say a little bit about the Interstate National Highway System account. It has two components--the interstate component and the National Highway System component. We all know what Interstates are; that is pretty obvious. Let me say that the National Highway System component is essentially our other principal Federal roads. What do we do with the interstate components? How are dollars allocated to States with respect to the Interstate System that they have? It is very simple. Fifty percent of the formula for interstate use is interstate lane miles. So the more interstate lane miles a State has, the more dollars that State is going to receive under our formula in the bill. Well, what about the States that have, say, not quite so many interstate lane miles, but the ones they do have are traveled very heavily? Those States feel they should receive adequate interstate funds because their maintenance costs are higher because they have more traffic on their interstates. We take care of that. Fifty percent of the interstate component is lane miles and the other 50 percent is what we call interstate vehicle miles traveled, otherwise known as VMT. So there is a balance here with respect to the interstate dollars that are sent out to States. Fifty percent of the interstate component is based upon the number of interstate lane miles that a State has. This helps a State like my State of Montana which has a lot of interstate lane miles. For States without a lot of interstate lane miles, the other 50 percent measures congestion as vehicle miles traveled. So my State does not have a lot of vehicle miles traveled. Contrast that with the State, say, of my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, the chairman of the committee. I suppose he does not have a lot of lane miles, but his vehicle miles traveled is probably high in Rhode Island compared with my State of Montana. That is how we allocate dollars that go to interstate highways. Virtually all of that money is for maintenance, because we have completed the interstate construction in our country. Those dollars go to maintenance. And again, we feel we have a fair formula that measures the extent and use of the interstate system. I should mention that about $6 billion a year that goes into the interstate account. The other portion of the Interstate National Highway System we call the National Highway System component. That is for non-interstate highways or highways that have a lot of traffic. Again, $6 billion a year goes into the National Highway System component. The formula for dividing this money among the States is also fair. It measures the extent and use of the other highways. Twenty percent of it is apportioned to what we call principal arterial lane miles. Twenty-nine percent is apportioned according to principal arterial vehicle miles traveled. So a larger percentage goes to those States that have more traffic on principal arterials. Eighteen percent is allocated according to what we call arterial bridge square foot deficiencies. That is, if you look at bridges that are deficient and calculate the number of square feet on the bridge, 18 percent of the dollars in our bill in the National Highway System account go to States that have those deficiencies. Twenty-four percent is allocated according to the State's diesel fuel consumption. That is to measure truck use because the large trucks that travel our highways do pound our highways much more than average cars. Those States that have a lot of diesel fuel consumption are probably States that have a lot of truck use and, therefore, need more dollars to maintain their highways. Twenty-four percent of the National Highway System component is divided according to diesel fuel consumption. Nine percent is allocated according to what we call principal arterial lane miles per person. This measures the population density on principal arterials. So that is the first main component of the funding formulas in this bill --the Interstate National Highway System. Let me mention the next major portion in this bill. It is called the Surface Transportation Program. The Surface Transportation Program is used for other transportation needs, and it is about $7 billion a year; 20 percent is allocated according to Federal aid lane miles, 30 percent according to Federal aid VMT, vehicle miles traveled--again, congested States--25 percent to Federal aid for bridge square foot deficiency, and 25 percent according to contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. That totals $7 billion. Again, that is the Surface Transportation Program. The next major program is the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program. This is designed to allow our highway spending to merge, in some sense, with our Clean Air Act. That is, we want our highway spending to be planned to meet our environmental concerns. CMAQ helps States meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. We don't want our bill to encourage States to be not in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Rather, we would like our bill to encourage cities and States to be in compliance with the standards in the Clean Air Act. So this bill spends about $1.15 billion a year, according to the severity of air quality nonattainment for ozone and carbon monoxide, and also for populations living in nonattainment areas. I must say, Madam President, that ISTEA, this bill, led the way on programs like congestion mitigation air quality, otherwise known as CMAQ, and flexibility for States. The person who is principally responsible is Senator Moynihan from New York. When he wrote the ISTEA legislation about 6 years ago, which we are currently operating under, he was the main person that added those provisions in there. So I might repeat, Madam President, that our current bill, ISTEA II, uses updated data, not old historical data, 1980 census data and 1916 postal road data. Rather, we use the latest census data available each year. We also use data based upon current fuel consumption because we think that is somewhat of an indication-- not a perfect indication--of how much State highways get used, therefore, the number of dollars that State would need for maintenance and upkeep. I think this is a pretty good formula. It is one that is fair to different regions of the country. We have a very diverse nation. There is a wide variety of transportation needs among the States. From Maine, the State of the current occupant of the chair, to California to Nevada or my State of Montana, every State is different. We have done our very best to try to balance the different needs. I think that passage of this bill out of committee by a vote of 18 to 0 somewhat reflects the views of the Senators on that committee that this is a balanced and fair bill. Those eighteen Senators come from the West, from the East, from the South. We have Senators from so-called donee States and Senators from so-called donor States. I think we have done a good job. I hope that Senators who have ideas on how to further improve this bill will come down and speak with the chairman of the committee and with me because we are more than open to ways to improve this bill. Madam President, I will pause now to allow Senators to come down and speak. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Than anyone else in this entity. Very often he draws upon his vast reservoir to enlighten us and remind us of something that happened in the past and how it is relevant to what we are attempting to do in the future. He is also most interesting because he is, I think, the most profound. He comes up with more new ideas, has a broader perspective on what is happening, which enables him to approach a subject from more angles, more ways, and he thinks more outside the box, if you will. There are many examples of that but one that comes to mind is what he did in the last ISTEA bill, focusing on intermodality, a big word but very important concept. Not just building concrete highways but all the various ways that transportation has to and should be connected. For example, the Senator will remember we had a field hearing in New York. I flew up to New York on an airplane. I didn't drive. I took a water taxi in the Delta terminal over to some pier in New York and then a taxi over to where the hearing was located. The point is that States, under the vision of the Senator from New York, can spend ISTEA dollars on a Delta water taxi. That is permissible. I don't know whether any dollars were spent, maybe, but they can be. In addition, in our bill we give States added flexibility. Our bill allows States to spend money on Amtrak if they choose. In some States, Amtrak is a lot more important, or in parts of some States Amtrak it is more important than others. The intermodality, that flexibility, is made available here, to say nothing of spending money on transit. Highway dollars can be spent on mass transit. We don't have much mass transit in my State of Montana, but certainly in the State of New York and other States transit is very, very important. Bus lines, bike paths, you name it, States have a lot more flexibility and there are many more uses on the various components of transportation that make up the totality of transportation instead of just highways. Again, that was a vision of the Senator from New York that put in place that concept 6 years ago and is continued and improved upon in this bill. That is why we named it ISTEA II, and the next one, I am sure, will be ISTEA III. There is no Senator who, as I said, is more interesting and can contribute more than the Senator from New York. We deeply appreciate it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join my colleague and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in recognizing and praising the intelligence and the vision of the senior Senator from New York. I think I can state without reservation and categorically that the Senator from New York is the most interesting Senator in the U.S. Senate. He is most interesting not because he makes outrageous statements but for a lot of reasons. One is his historical knowledge. The Senator from New York has a deeper historical knowledge of many facets, whether it is American history, world history, technical history----

Mr. BAUCUS. The chairman of the committee is accurate. We all know that very often there is the tendency to wait until the last moment, and we do not get an opportunity sometimes to say what we want to say or offer amendments. Now is the opportunity to speak on the bill. Senators may have questions about the bill. This is an excellent opportunity to take advantage of that because there may not be another opportunity. So I, first of all, encourage Senators who have an interest in one of the more important pieces of legislation, certainly one of the more expensive bills that this Congress is going to pass this year, to come on over. Tell us what you think. If you may have a problem with the bill, perhaps we can work it out. But now is the time. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to do so because this is an opportune time. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield, I will enthusiastically describe the contents of the amendment so Senators know what it is. The amendment, it is true, has not been finalized in its final form but it certainly will be very quickly, and I might say to my good friend from Rhode Island, it is a very good amendment because it is an amendment which does not take money from other programs, as has been said by opponents. It is an amendment that does not require any additional spending, a claim sometimes made by its opponents. I might also say that the proposed amendment to be offered apparently by the Senator from New Mexico to be cosponsored by the Senator from Rhode Island which is an amendment that I think will cause much more mischief than is currently realized because under that amendment it gives vast additional powers to the Budget Committee above which that committee now has which would necessarily take it away from the authorizing committees. In addition, that amendment the Senator described in conjunction with the Senator from New Mexico would also be very mischievous because it would require reauthorizing committees to go back and at least go to conference with the House every year on the highway bill, which would be the cause of all kinds of disruption. I urge Senators to be very careful and not be taken in by the language of that amendment. Again, the amendment we will provide will not mandate additional spending this year or any other year and will not take dollars from any other program that are important to people. It only says if there are savings next year beyond those provided for by the budget resolution, and if there is discretion of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee that those committees want to spend on highway, that is their discretion. I think the Senators will find it is a very good amendment and it is good for the country.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that John Hemphill and Elizabeth Cummings of my staff be given floor privileges during the debate on this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I first want to give by deepest respects and thanks to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee. He has put together a bill that has passed our committee unanimously 18 to 0. Not many committees can come up with a unanimous vote on major bills. But since that bill passed the committee, it has become quite apparent that some Members want us to improve upon it. So we are going to try to do that with this amendment. So, I am going to give five reasons why I think the amendment offered by Senator Gramm, Senator Byrd, Senator Warner, and myself is such an improvement to this bill. First, as has been pointed out, the dollars we are discussing are trust fund dollars. I would point out that the American motorist who pays these fuel taxes expect those dollars to go into transportation, including highways. Second, despite what some are going to state on this floor later, this amendment does not break the budget. Let me repeat that. It does not break the budget. Third, despite what some might say later, this amendment does not take one penny--as Senator Byrd mentioned, ``not one thin dime''--from any other program. Fourth, this amendment is needed to meet our infrastructure needs. We are not spending enough in America to maintain our transportation system and our highways. We certainly are not spending at the level of other countries. And fifth, a point which I do not think is fully understood by Senators, the amounts provided for in the committee bill lock the Senate into those amounts for the next 6 years. So it is important that if we are going to increase spending that we do so now. Unlike some other spending programs, this program is funded from a trust fund. So this is a much different animal, and therefore this amendment must be addressed and hopefully passed. So let me elaborate on my five points. Mr. President, I think it is clear, when people pay their fuel taxes, they expect those dollars to go to their highways and transportation so we have the best transportation system in the world. There is not little dispute about that. I filled up my gas tank this morning coming to work. I know how expensive it is. Today about 18.4 cents of a gallon goes to Federal taxes, and then there are D.C. taxes and State taxes. There are a lot of taxes that go into the cost of a gallon of gas. All we ask is that these taxes are used for transportation. That is what we want, and that is what we expect when we pay our fuel taxes at the pump. I must remind Senators that the balance in the highway trust fund is increasing. Every year it is increasing. American motorists are not getting their money's worth. Why is it not being spent? It is not being spent because it is being used to mask the true Federal deficit. That is why it is not being spent. A lot of appropriators and the budget folks around here like those big balances in the trust funds because it masks the true deficit. Again, I say. If this amendment does not pass, the balance in the trust fund is going to continue to grow dramatically over the period of this bill. So Americans should know that when they pay their fuel taxes today, they are not being spent. A lot of it is just accumulating. It is a charade. It is a phony game that is being played with American taxpayers. Using fuel tax revenue to mask the true budget deficit is not right and it is not fair. And I have argued this many times. To my second point. This amendment in no way breaks the budget. Now, there are going to be some on the floor later, perhaps today or later, saying, ``Oh, this breaks the budget.'' It does not break the budget. It does not break the budget at all. Why? Because all this amendment does is raise the contract authority or authorizations. It would increase contract authority by $31.6 billion over 5 years. This is the 3.45 cents of the 4.3 cents just transferred to the trust fund on October 1. The amendment would provide new contract authority beginning in 1999. But it does not tell the Budget Committee this year or next year that they have to raise transportation spending. It does not tell the Appropriations Committee to raise budget caps. It does not touch the budget resolution or obligation limitations for highways. Again, it is just contract authority. Therefore, it does not break the budget. It does not require any additional spending. The amendment just says that if the projected savings from OMB are realized, and if the Congress decides to spend these savings, then they should be available for transportation. It does not require that spending increases. It just says that the Congress may spend more for transportation if there are new savings and if Congress agrees to spend them on transportation. We are just increasing contract authority. That is all. We increase contract authority by $31.6 billion over 5 years. So, again, this does not break the budget. Yes, we will have at least one point of order. But is not a point of order that we have increased spending. It is a point of order that the Environment and Public Works Committee has exceeded its contract authority allocation. That is all. But that is a minor technicality. What really counts is, does it require any additional spending? The answer is no, not one cent of additional spending is required. It does not break the budget agreement in any way. I cannot make that point enough. Point 3. Does this amendment take anything away from any other Federal program? Some are going to claim that it does. The answer is not one red cent. Nothing is taken away from other programs--nothing. Now, someone may claim that it will. They are going to say that. Not true. Not true at all. Again, because this amendment only provides for raising contract authority. It does not increase spending. I say again, Congress must still decide to spend any new savings, if those savings are in fact even available. It is clear that if today OMB projects a savings, that savings may be greater or lower next year. But if that is the case, Congress may choose not to increase spending at all. That is fine. Again, the amendment will only provide new spending if savings are available and if Congress decides to spend them. Again, this amendment takes nothing from any program at all. To my fourth point, the infrastructure needs of this country. I will talk about this in greater detail when we debate the amendment. But I do want to state that the Department of Transportation says that there is about a $15 billion annual deficit in combined infrastructure spending in America. We in America spend far less on highways and infrastructure than other countries do as a percent of their gross domestic product. Japan spends four times what we do. European countries spend at least twice as much. I fear that if this amendment does not pass, 6 years from now we are going to find that our highways in America have deteriorated more. We will continue to fall behind. Our highways and transit systems are not all in good shape today. There are a lot of bridges in our country that need repair. There are a lot of roads in our country that need repair. I just cannot emphasize too much how important it is for America to have the best highways and transportation system if we are going to remain competitive. We need to pass this amendment to make progress on our transportation needs. And to my fifth point. Let's not lock into the contract authority numbers that are in this bill unless we have to. Let's have this vote and see what happens. I think the case is there to increase transportation spending. We need to do it now and not wait. So I will sum up, Mr. President. I want to again thank all who have worked so hard on this amendment, particularly the authors of the amendment. They have come up with a very sound way of solving the problem of needing more money. Again, it does not break the budget in any way. And it does not take any dollars from any other programs. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators Chafee and Warner in bringing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 to the floor. What will the bill do? It will help this Nation meet its growing transportation demands. It will help reduce congestion. Make highways safer. Make our economy more efficient. Ease travel for businesses, farmers, and families on vacation. Develop new transportation technologies for a new century. And protect our environment as we do it. why spend the money? The bill before us today, ISTEA II, is a very big commitment. It will provide over $145 billion for highway and highway safety programs over the next 6 years. That is an increase of more than 20 percent from the funding of today. And some may ask why we do it. Why should we invest billions of dollars each year in transportation? Mr. President, the reason is simple. A good transportation system makes life better for everyone. For many years--really, since John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and the internal improvement program of the 1820's, which involved postal roads and canals--we have recognized how important it is to put some money into a system that works for everyone. Montana wheatgrowers bringing their produce to the mill; manufacturers shipping goods across the country; families driving off for a weekend in the mountains--all need a safe, efficient transportation network. Today, we benefit enormously from the work President Eisenhower began with the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's. We have the largest transportation system in the world. And we need the money to keep it the best transportation system in the world. We enjoy the premier system of highways--the 45,000 mile Interstate System--and almost 4 million miles of other roads. Our 265 million people drive over 2.4 trillion miles each year--about half the distance from Earth to the nearest star. And transportation investment means jobs. We create over 42,000 jobs with each $1 billion of Federal transportation spending. And let's not forget that these are good jobs. Jobs that support families throughout the Nation. So that is why we need to make the investment in a national transportation program. And this bill represents policy choices that will serve the Nation well. That much driving means the roads need a lot of fixing. The Department of Transportation estimates that we will need almost $50 billion a year just to maintain current conditions on our highways. And we need almost $9 billion each year just to maintain current bridge conditions. Finally, transportation investment comes with its own benefits. As hearings before our Environment and Public Works Committee show, transportation is one of the largest sectors of our economy--accounting for nearly 11 percent of our gross domestic product. Only housing and food account for more. istea and istea ii ISTEA II builds upon the successes of its predecessor, the ISTEA legislation of 1991. Authored by my colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, that landmark law has helped create a truly seamless, intermodal transportation system. Air and seaports link easily with roads, railways and transit, meaning that travelers lose the least possible time making connections and businesses move their goods as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Likewise, our transportation program is flexible. States and local governments choose transportation projects that meet their diverse needs. States can build highways, transit facilities, bikepaths, pedestrian walkways, and interomodal facilities--whatever fits the needs of Montanans or New Yorkers or Californians best. Mr. President, the bill before us, ISTEA II, continues along that path. And with the experience of 6 years behind us, I believe we have made a good product even better. This bill will give us a transportation program that meets four basic criteria. First, it will meet our economic needs. Second, it will use the most up-to-date technologies and helps develop new ones so highways are easier and travel is safer. Third, it will remember small communities as well as broad national needs. And fourth, it will be fair to all parts of the country. Finally, it will be administratively simpler. Today we have 11 categories of funding. With the new bill we will have five: the Interstate/National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, and two equity accounts. Let me explain each one of these in turn. the interstate/national highway system When Congress enacted the original ISTEA legislation in 1991, it was with the clear understanding that the Interstate System was complete and the interstate era was over. It was not time to recognize the importance of a larger network of roads and bridges in this country. Since the inception of the Interstate System in the 1950's, things have changes around the country. No longer is the Interstate the only system of roads that connect businesses to markets and jobs to homes. It is now a larger system, the National Highway System or NHS. In 1995, Congress formally approved this transition--a transition from the interstate era to the National Highway System era--when it approved the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. The National Highway System is a system of almost 170,000 miles or roads and bridges--including the 45,000 mile Interstate System--that carries the vast majority of our commercial and passenger traffic. NHS roads provide access to rural and urban areas. These roads connect our homes to our jobs, our farms to markets, and ultimately our export products to their overseas markets. So it is only appropriate that under ISTEA II we devote the majority of resources to the maintenance and improvement of the National Highway System. Under the bill, we will spend almost $12 billion a year on these roads, at least $6 billion of that going directly to maintain the Interstate System roads and bridges. And while we have eliminated the current bridge program, we have folded it into other categories. States will receive over $4.2 billion under bridge apportionment factors and will have to spend at least what they are spending today on bridges. This will ensure we continue to make improvements in the condition and performance of our bridges. surface transportation program Second, the present Surface Transportation Program or STP will continue in the new highway program at an annual funding level of $7 billion. The STP is a flexible funding category that provides for all types of transportation projects, and is particularly valuable for small towns and communities with innovative ideas. It allows new construction and, improvements to current highways; but also bikepaths, pedestrian walkways, transit capital projects, transportation enhancement projects, rail/highway crossing safety improvements, and hazard elimination projects. congestion mitigation and air quality Third, we will continue to improve air quality and reduce congestion around the country through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program or CMAQ. One of the key features of the original ISTEA legislation was the link developed between the environment and transportation. The CMAQ Program is that link. CMAQ provides funds to nonattainment areas so they may undertake projects to improve their air quality. The past 6 years have demonstrated the benefits of such investments. CMAQ projects have contributed to many areas reaching attainment and have improved traffic flows to reduce congestion. transportation technology Fourth, as well as improving the physical infrastructure, the bill before us today funds new research and deployment of transportation technologies in rural and urban areas. Technologies, such a the Intelligent Transportation System or ITS technologies, will increase the capacity of existing transportation systems without having to add new lanes. ITS also increases safety on our roads by providing information to the traveling public about roadside hazards, weather conditions, and alternate routing. These technologies will improve safety and the environment. In the past 25 years, together with seatbelt and drunk driving laws, earlier versions of these projects have helped to reduce the rate of fatal automobile accidents by more than half, from 44.5 deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles in 1972 to 21.2 last year. The new program will build on this remarkable success to help keep our highways the safest in the world. fair funding formulas Finally, fairness. Policy is very important in its own right; but it is also important that every part of the country sees the benefits. And that is what we do. Our bill recognizes the diverse transportation needs of the country. For large, sparsely populated States, the bill recognizes their dependence upon highways. In Montana, for example, we do not have mass transit, we do not have large seaports. We rely upon our highways to get from place to place. So the bill uses formula factors that recognize the extent or size of a State's highway system. That only makes sense. After all, this is a bill that provides funding for States to maintain and improve their highway systems. States in the densely populated Northeast region have an aging infrastructure in need of repairs. The bill recognizes these needs by using formula factors such as vehicle miles traveled or vmt. Vmt measures the use or wear on your roads. The bill also continues to provide funding for deficient bridges--a very important component of the transportation system in the Northeast region. And for fast-growing, so-called donor States, the bill uses formula factors that take into account this growth. The vmt factor that I mentioned above is an example, since it measures how much people are driving in your State. But the bill goes even further. The bill uses contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund as a formula factor. And of the amount apportioned to the States, every State will receive at least 90 percent of its share of contributions to the highway trust fund. And let's not forget that his bill is not just about highways. In the coming days, the Banking Committee will add their title to this bill to reauthorize the mass transit program. Over $24 billion has been authorized for those programs by that committee. So as my colleagues decide whether or not to view the highway formulas as fair or not, I urge them to examine this bill in its entirety. Because many States receive large sums of funding for their mass transit programs, while others rely solely upon highway funding to meet their transportation needs. conclusion In sum, we have a good product that will help the country. It will update and improve an already excellent highway program. And we should not wait. Some suggest that we should do only a 6-month extension of ISTEA, hoping for more transportation funding in the future. Both Senator Warner and I believe we need more funding. But waiting will not guarantee that we get it, and it will come with its own cost. States and local governments must plan for the future, and to do so they need to know that we will not be changing the rules every 6 months. The lack of a long-term transportation program will mean chaos and uncertainty across the country for government, businesses, agriculture, and citizens. So I believe we should get the job done. We have known for 6 years that ISTEA would expire in 1997. And I believe the bill we bring to the floor today will serve the Nation well. I hope it will get the Senate's support. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. In 1990, we enacted 2.5 cents to deficit reduction. In 1993, the 4.3 was passed. In 1995, due to pressure from the public, we undid the 2.5 cents so that went to the highway trust fund. And right now, because of the public pressure, we are going to put the 4.3 cents in the trust fund. In the past, Congress has diverted, but the public is now telling us--and we enacted in 1995 to put 2.5 cents back in the trust fund, and now we are putting 4.3 cents in because the public wants it back in the trust fund.

Mr. BAUCUS. Very briefly.

Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder if the Senator will yield for 1 minute on this last point.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator if he could temporarily withdraw that request--I don't foresee any problems--until it is, in fact, cleared on this side.