Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. But I also asked that 10 minutes I will have on the veto override be included. And so that will be 10 minutes off my time in that.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me echo the sentiments that have been expressed by my friend from Texas. We want to see this 4.3-cent gas tax that the American people are paying every time they drive up to the pump--they pay 4.3 cents, which, added to the previous taxes, amounts to 18.3 cents on the gallon. Now, of course, some of that goes for mass transit, but of the 4.3 cents, 3.45 cents on each gallon goes to the highway trust fund for highways, and .85 cents goes to the trust fund for mass transit, am I correct on that? My colleague nods in the affirmative. Now, Mr. President, I have been on this floor each day urging that the leadership take up the highway bill. I compliment the majority leader on his indications that he intends to take up the highway bill, perhaps as early as tomorrow. That would still be his judgment to make. I also compliment the distinguished majority leader for having some of the principals in his office this morning to discuss this matter so that, hopefully, we can arrive at some conclusions and agreements which will pave the way for expeditious action on the floor in connection with the highway bill when it is taken up. The majority leader did a worthwhile service when he did that. The majority leader also stressed that this was nonpartisan, and it is. This is not a Republican bill. It is not a Democratic bill. So for the first time, this morning we sat down to discuss this matter and we had the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Chafee, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Baucus, we had Senators Gramm, D'Amato, Warner, and myself. We had these Senators together in the room. Now, Mr. President, I have been reading almost daily--and even this morning before I went to that meeting--that there is a deal. There is no deal. I have been reading little headlines and statements in various publications to the effect that a deal is near. Well, we don't know about that. This is the first time that I have sat down with the principals to discuss this matter. I have talked about it with my friend from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and with the other two cosponsors of the amendment, Mr. Baucus and Mr. Warner, but there is no deal, not yet. We all hope that we will reach a point where we can hold each other's hand and say we, as principals in this effort, have agreed to thus and so, and then we will come to the floor and see where we go from there. I should state at the very beginning, again, that the Byrd-Gramm- Baucus-Warner amendment provides for every State in the United States to have an increase in their highway contract authority--every State, am I not correct on that?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, other Senators and I have spoken numerous times over the past several weeks about the significant problems that will arise in States across the country if the Senate further delays action on the highway bill. Each day we delay adds to the burden of commuters sitting in traffic that is often moving at a crawl or brought to a complete stop because many of our highways are simply overcrowded. Each day we delay brings us closer to the May 1 deadline--just 39 session days away from today. That includes today--39 days. The time bomb is ticking. Senate session days remaining before May 1 deadline: 39. That includes May 1 as it includes today. Since 1969, the number of trips per person taken over our roadways increased by more than 72 percent and the number of miles traveled increased by more than 65 percent. The combination of traffic growth and deteriorating road conditions has led to an unprecedented level of congestion, not just in our urban centers but in our suburbs and rural areas as well. Congestion is literally choking our roadways as our constituents seek to travel to work, travel to the shopping center, to the child care center, and to the churches. According to the Department of Transportation, more travelers, in more areas, during more hours are facing high levels of congestion and delay than at any time in our history. And these congested conditions make us more susceptible to massive traffic jams as the result of even the most minor of accidents. The DOT tells us that, during peak travel hours, almost 70 percent or the urban interstates and just under 60 percent of other freeways and expressways are either moderately or extremely congested. That is lost man hours, reduced productivity, wasted fuel, and wasted time. The worsening congestion is taking a horrible toll on our economic prosperity. I direct the attention of my colleagues to a study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University. According to the Institute's study, the annual cost of highway congestion in our nation's 50 most congested cities has grown from $26.6 billion in 1982 to almost $53 billion in 1994. In other words, it has doubled. Delay accounted for 85 percent of this cost, while fuel consumption accounted for 15 percent. While more recent data are still being collected, the Institute's researchers state that, in the last four years, the cost of congestion in these cities has only continued to grow. This multi-billion dollar hemorrhage is found not only in our largest cities where eight of the top ten cities had total annual congestion costs exceeding $1 billion; we find congestion taxing severely the economies of several small- and medium-sized cities as well. According to the Institute, the economy of Albuquerque, New Mexico endures an estimated annual cost of congestion approaching $150 million per year; Memphis, Tennessee-- almost $150 million per year; Nashville, Tennessee--almost $200 million per year; Norfolk, Virginia-- more than $350 million per year; Columbus, Ohio-- more than a quarter of a billion dollars per year; Jacksonville, Florida--more than $350 million per year; and San Bernadino-Riverside, California--over $1 billion per year. There are a lot of explanations for traffic congestion's growing impact on our cities, but a principal cause of congestion, clearly, is the fact that road mileage has not kept pace with a growing population, a growing work force, and an American lifestyle in which the personal mobility afforded by automobiles is as essential to daily life as are eating and sleeping. Many people say that Americans have a love affair with their cars. More than a love affair, however, Americans simply depend on their cars to squeeze their myriad chores and activities into a busy work day. A vehicle is one tool that many American workers cannot do without. They do not just drive to and from work anymore. Americans stop at the day care, the grocery store, the dry cleaners, the PTA meeting, the gymnasium, and at volunteer programs, all in the course of driving to and from work. Transportation researchers call this phenomenon ``trip- chaining,'' and it is a trend that continues to grow and shows no sign of slowing. While the size of our highway network has remained relatively static for years, the condition and performance of those roads has deteriorated. Poor road and bridge conditions must share part of the blame for our nation's congestion problem. According to a 1995 U.S. Department of Transportation's report to Congress, 28 percent of the most heavily traveled U.S. roads are in poor or mediocre condition. That means that those roads need work now--work now--to remain open and protect the safety of the traveling public. And more than 181,000 bridges, or 32 percent of our nations' 575,000 bridges, are in need of repair or replacement, including 70,000 bridges built in the 1960's and designed to last 30 years under 1960's travel conditions. These roads and bridges that have outlived their useful life or that are falling apart from under-investment often are traffic choke-points that can be corrected with the proper repairs. And Senators don't have to travel very far away to see the traffic choke-points, as they attempt to cross the bridges, get on the bridges and cross the Potomac every morning and every evening. It took me an hour and 15 minutes to get from my home in McLean, 10 miles away, this morning, to get to my office because of traffic congestion feeding into the streets, and feeding on and feeding off the bridges. We have to get across that Potomac. As I say to my colleagues, we don't have to travel far to see these choke-points working against us, against the traveling public. If Senators would like examples of a choke points, they need look no further than the bridges that cross the Potomac River. Most of these bridges were not designed to carry the traffic that accompanies the morning and evening rush hours. As a result, traffic jams back up for miles every work day, in both directions. That is the gridlock that poor roads and bridges can cause. I am sure that if Senators contact their own state transportation departments, they will find numerous examples of traffic choke-points in their own states where a new bridge, smoother pavements, where an additional lane would alleviate the problem and get people and freight moving again. And congestion means more than just economic costs. Obviously, congestion costs Americans time that could otherwise be spent with the family, with those children who are coming in from school and times that otherwise could be spent at work, time that could be otherwise spent in school or elsewhere. According to a study by the Texas Transportation Institute, commuters in the country's 50 largest urban areas lose an average of 34 hours each year idling in traffic. Now that is not only time wasted, it is not only gasoline wasted, it is pollution in the air. Another, and equally important, cost of congestion is, as I say, its impact on air quality. As cars and trucks are slowed by traffic congestion, they emit more pollutants, thereby impeding efforts in many parts of the country to come into compliance with federal air quality standards. Road improvements aimed at smoothing the flow of traffic can reduce auto-related pollutant emissions substantially. All such improvements, however, cost money. And the Senate should be doing everything possible to ensure that our state and metropolitan officials do not run out of federal highway funds that can help them relieve congestion and improve air quality. Today, Mr. President, Americans rely on automobiles for 90 percent or more of all trips. In many areas of the country, we need additional highway capacity to accommodate that travel. And federal highway funds are often a critical source of capital for these projects. What can we do about congestion, Mr. President? What can Congress do to help eliminate the $53 billion annual burden borne by commuters in our large cities? What can we do to give people more time at home with their families or on the job instead of stuck in traffic? What can Congress do to our cities and counties to help their air quality? Probably the single most important action Congress can take to help alleviate these problems is the prompt enactment of the 6-year highway bill. That bill is on the Senate calendar, ready to go, and the country cannot afford to wait any longer. The May 1 deadline after which States will have no more Federal money--the Governors are in town and I hope that some of them are watching the Senate at this moment--the May 1 deadline after which States will be unable to obligate any more money, and if there is any doubt as to whether or not the States may obligate any more money after midnight, May 1, take a look at what the law says, public law 105-130, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997, which is the short-term highway authorization that Congress passed last November before adjourning Sine die. Here is what it says. This is the law. ``. . . a State shall not''-- it doesn't say it may not--``. . . a State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal-aid highway program project after May 1, 1998 . . . .'' There it is. That is the law. Unless a new law is passed that will be the law on midnight, May 1, all the highway departments throughout the country, the Governors and mayors and other officials and the employees of the various highway agencies throughout the country, will feel the pinch. So the May 1 deadline, after which States cannot obligate new Federal money to finance congestion relief projects, as I say and I repeat it, is just 39 session days away--including today and including May 1. It is drawing nearer with every passing minute. Mr. President, we cannot afford to delay. Our constituents stuck in traffic jams need our help. They want their highway taxes used to get them out of gridlock, but we cannot do that while the Senate is stuck in legislative gridlock. I urge the majority leader to get the Senate--and the country--out of gridlock by calling up the highway bill now.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to reiterate the pressing need for early Senate action on S.1173, the highway bill, commonly referred to as ISTEA II. The federal-aid highway program expired on September 30, last year. In November, Congress passed a short-term extension of the program, but we included in that stop-gap measure a deadline for enacting a new highway bill this year. And I remind my colleagues, the deadline of May 1 is fast approaching. The clock is ticking; the calendar is running. After May 1, 1998, no state will be able to obligate any federal highway funds unless a new highway bill has been signed into law by that time. So, Mr. President, at this point, there are exactly 40 session-days remaining--including today--until the clock strikes midnight on May 1 and every state's ability to obligate federal highway funds is suddenly and indefinitely cut off. The longer the Senate waits to take up the legislation, the more likely it is that the federal-aid highway program will lapse and road work in many states will slow to a trickle or come to an abrupt halt. Unlike past delays in reauthorizing the highway program, the obligation of highway funds will not go forward after that date, if there is not new authorizing legislation enacted by Congress in the meantime. Mr. President, that means that unlike those past reauthorizations of the highway program, this year it will come at the height of the construction season. As a result, construction workers are likely to be laid off, at a time of the year that many of them depend upon their largest paychecks to come in to help them and their families. And these lay-offs will not be mere statistics, Mr. President. We are talking about the loss of real jobs for real people who have real families. There are thousands of road construction workers around the country whose jobs are in greater and greater risk each day that we delay action on the highway bill. We in the Congress have an obligation to those workers and their families, our constituents, to beat the May 1 deadline and prevent those lay-offs and work stoppages from occurring. Let me describe just how important this highway legislation is for the construction industry. According to the most recent biennial report of the U.S. Department of Transportation on the condition and performance of the nation's highways, federal, state, and local governments combined invest approximately $39 billion annually in capital improvements to our roads and bridges. That is a lot of money. That is $39 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Federal funds account for 44% of that investment. That means, in little more than two months, almost half of all the funds spent on road construction in this country will dry up--disappear--and the results will be unfortunate for many who work in road construction and related industries. Construction laborers and employers, those who supply construction materials and equipment, thousands employed at engineering and design companies-- these people and their families face an uncertain future because of the Congress' failure to act promptly on this very important highway bill. Even now, the approaching May 1 deadline is having a disruptive impact on road construction in some states, and the disruptions will grow exponentially if the deadline comes and passes without enactment of a new highway bill. For instance, the state of Missouri has announced it will stop bid-lettings in April, Illinois and Ohio will follow suit on May 1, and the Tennessee Department of Transportation has told contractors that the state will delay all federally-funded highway projects beginning in March, when they will run out of available intrastate maintenance money. They will run out of resources from other Federal programs soon thereafter. So the State of Missouri will let its last Federal contract in March. As I have already indicated, the State of Ohio will stop bid-letting on or around May 1, and the State of Illinois has reported that in the April-to-June timeframe it will be required to defer over one-quarter of a billion dollars in planned Federal projects. As states announce delays in project bid-lettings, contractors know they will have more difficulty in finding work for their employees and making payments on their machinery and facilities. If Congress has not enacted a new highway bill by May 1, contractors across the country will have to begin laying off their employees as projects are completed. According to officials at the Associated General Contractors, most companies will not begin rehiring construction workers until at least a month after new legislation is enacted. Furthermore, companies will stop using their concrete, pipe, steel, cement, asphalt and guardrail suppliers and won't use them again until 45-60 days after new legislation becomes law. In addition, if the federal highway program is left unfunded for a number of months, the employees of the construction companies will attempt to find employment elsewhere, I should think. They have to continue to put bread on that table for a wife and for children. If they are successful in gaining other employment, the construction companies will have to hire new employees, often requiring expensive and time-consuming job training. If new federal highway funds are not available after May 1, much of the summer construction season will be gone. If there is no new highway bill until September, the entire fall construction season will be lost, and since winter road construction is nearly impossible in many of our northern tier states, construction and related industries in those states may be out of work until spring, 1999. How many companies will survive the loss of income for that lengthy period of time, Mr. President? What effect will it have on the families of construction workers left unemployed because of our inaction, our delay on the highway bill? Remember, construction does not operate like an assembly line that can be stopped and started again on short notice. The design and construction of highway projects are carefully planned months in advance. Projects to be constructed in September generally must be planned early on and funded by May. And if our inaction on the highway bill cripples the construction industry, what effect will it have on the national economy? Mr. President, the last Census of the Construction Industry tallied 572,851 construction companies with a total employment of 4.6 million persons. The industry's annual estimated payroll is $118 billion, and construction companies work on projects valued at approximately $528 billion a year in the United States. Clearly, crippling the construction industry will have a ripple effect on our overall economy. The U.S. Department of Transportation has estimated that every one billion dollars invested in highway construction creates 42,100 jobs. Passing the highway legislation by May 1 will release to the states billions of federal highway dollars, creating and preserving hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. But the clock, Mr. President, is ticking, and those jobs are put at greater risk with each passing day. Already, uncertainty about future highway funding is affecting the economy. I am told by people in the construction industry that contractors are putting off hiring and purchasing decisions until they have a clearer idea of how much federal highway funding there will be and when it will become available. And if highway contractors aren't hiring or buying, other firms aren't selling. Therefore, jobs are threatened in construction-related industries, too. With so much at stake, the Senate should delay no longer. I implore the leadership to call up the highway bill now. The deadline is looming and a lot of work lies ahead before we can send a bill to the President's desk for his consideration and signature. We should be debating the bill today while the Senate is not preoccupied with other matters. With only 40 session-days remaining, every day counts for those thousands of Americans whose livelihood depends on the uninterrupted flow of federal highway funds. Let us fulfill our responsibilities, and our obligation to those working Americans, without further delay. We should begin debating ISTEA now. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished senior Senator from Vermont for his remarks. They are both timely and appropriate. I deeply appreciate his contribution to this colloquy. Vermont, like West Virginia--and like many other States, as he has pointed out--has a short construction seasons, especially when we think of winter, and spring, fall, and winter again. So the time is now. And I feel greatly emboldened and encouraged by the comments of the distinguished Senator from Vermont. He is a stalwart supporter of all things that benefit his State, and the other States of the country. I thank him very much.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has been blessed with the presence of many fine men and women over the past two centuries. Many of the great figures in our country's history played their parts before a Senate backdrop. Names such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun leap to mind. I should say, incidentally, that I have been unable to find any piece of legislation, certainly any major piece of legislation, that carries the name of Webster, Clay or Calhoun. They did not achieve their greatness by introducing legislation and by seeing it enacted, but they spoke to the great issues of the day and spoke with fervor and courageously and with great vision. But there are speakers, thinkers and leaders in more recent times as well, and I think of Robert Taft of Ohio, renowned in his day for his integrity and intelligence; I think of Georgia's erudite, gentlemanly Richard Russell; and of the wise, capable Mike Mansfield from Montana. To these names I would like to add, today, one of my most esteemed colleagues and best friends in the Senate family--Edward M. Kennedy, who, on yesterday, celebrated his 66th birthday. Oh, to be 66 again! From my perspective, of course, turning 66 places one in the springtime of one's life. What is truly remarkable about Senator Kennedy is that, despite his relative youth, he ranks third in seniority in the Senate. Indeed, having begun his senatorial career at the tender age of 30, there is no reason why Senator Kennedy may not grace this chamber with his presence for another 35 years (although I assure my colleague that, while he may have the upper hand on me in years, I am in no rush to relinquish my seniority to him!). But Senator Kennedy's career is not adequately measured in years. Rather, if we are to fairly and truthfully evaluate the career of the senior Senator from Massachusetts, we must reckon with the hard work, the legislative skill, and the undiminished idealism that have been the hallmarks of his Senate tenure. I shall elaborate on each of these points in turn. I begin with hard work. For, far from relaxing upon his well-deserved laurels, Senator Kennedy continues to put many of his far younger colleagues to shame with his willingness to put in long hours. I for one have always found it doubly fitting that Senator Kennedy is the ranking member (and former Chairman) of the Senate Labor Committee. For the Senator is not just a passionate advocate of the causes of working men and women; he is also one of the most industrious members of this body, and a man whose tireless labor continues to inspire others. Senator Kennedy knows well that, as Thomas Edison pointed out several generations ago, ``there is no substitute for hard work,'' and his success as a legislator owes much to his energy and dedication. This brings me to my second point: the remarkable legislative acumen of my dear friend from Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy first ran for the Senate in 1962 under the slogan ``He can do more for Massachusetts,'' and he has certainly more than lived up to those words. Massachusetts and the rest of the country owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Kennedy. I will not try to recite all of his legislative achievements. Though many may consider me an orator of the old school, I have no intention of delaying the business of this body for the many hours that such a recitation would require. Instead, let me just point out a few of his more recent achievements, such as AmeriCorps, the School-to-Work Opportunity Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Job Training Partnership Act (and subsequent amendments). Few Senators have been as successful and as skillful as Senator Kennedy at passing bills. Never content simply to endorse the efforts of his colleagues or to introduce a bill for the sole purpose of providing fodder for a self-serving press release, Senator Kennedy brings to each of his legislative endeavors the diligence, savvy, and bipartisanship that have made him a great lawmaker. Finally, I wish to salute Senator Kennedy's idealism. Throughout his career, Senator Kennedy has fought for a simple premise: that our society's greatness lies in its ability and willingness to provide for its less fortunate members. Whether striving to increase the minimum wage, to ensure that all children have medical insurance, or to secure open access to higher education, Senator Kennedy has shown time and time again that he cares deeply for those whose needs greatly exceed their political clout. Unbowed by personal setbacks or by the terrible sorrow that has been visited upon his family time and time again, his idealism burns forth as resolutely and indefatigably as the torch burning over the grave of his brother, President John F. Kennedy. And so, Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to wish my good friend and beloved colleague, Ted Kennedy, a happy, healthy 66th birthday. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to commend the members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and especially the distinguished chairman of the committee, my lovable colleague from Rhode Island, Senator John Chafee, that old crusty New Englander, whom I greatly admire, for including some very important provisions in S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, or ISTEA II. In my statement today, I will focus on the important provisions in the committee-reported bill that will expedite the delivery of desperately needed transportation projects to the American people--that is, if we ever get the opportunity to debate and amend and adopt this important bill. I think most members would agree that addressing environmental issues in this body in a strong bipartisan way is--to say the least-- difficult. Yet, Senator Chafee has managed to accomplish what few Senators have been able to do--craft legislation that enjoys strong support from Senators on both sides of the aisle that would help put order and efficiency in the way transportation projects are reviewed by both state and federal agencies, and as a result, reduce the time it takes to plan a project by as much as three years. The ISTEA bill as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, recognizes that every day counts when planning and constructing a highway or bridge in this country are undertaken. The problem that was addressed in S. 1173 is a serious one. It now takes ten years to plan, design, and construct a typical transportation project in this country. I am sure that if Senators contacted their own state transportation departments, they would be disturbed to find the number of transportation projects that are being delayed due to overlapping and often redundant regulatory reviews and processes. These delays increase costs and postpone needed safety improvements that would save lives. One of the lives it saves may be yours. Think about it. I can tell my colleagues that, in my state of West Virginia, these numerous regulatory reviews have delayed critical improvements to the two most dangerous segments of roadway in the state. Why does it take so long to plan a project? These delays are occurring because the development of a transportation project involves multiple federal and state agencies evaluating the impacts of the project and possible alternatives, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While it would seem that the NEPA process would establish a uniform set of regulations and procedures for the submission of documents nationwide, this has not been the case. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and their companion state agencies each require a separate review and approval process, forcing separate reviews guided by separate regulations and requiring planners to answer separate requests for information. Moreover, each of these agencies issues approvals according to separate schedules. The result: the time period from project beginning to completion has grown to at least 10 years in many instances, and that assumes that the project is not controversial and that adequate funding is available. If either of these assumptions is not the case, the time period may be even longer. The highway bill reported by the Environment & Public Works Committee effectively improves the project planning process by establishing a coordinated environmental review procedure within the U.S. Department of Transportation. This change would allow all reviews, all analyses, and all permits to be performed concurrently and cooperatively within a mutually-agreed-upon schedule, by both the federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Effective environmental coordination, as envisioned under the ISTEA bill, would result in less staff time and less expense for all the agencies and stakeholders in the NEPA process and reduce the time it now takes in reaching a final decision with respect to receiving project approvals and permits. The committee studied a problem, the committee sought a solution, and the committee put that solution in their bill. I understand that further improvements to those provisions may be offered on the Senate floor, if and when we finally take up and debate S. 1173, the 6-year highway authorization bill. But here is the problem: we are not considering S. 1173. We are not considering the 6-year highway authorization bill. When will the bill be brought up? How long, Mr. President, must we wait? Every day counts when planning and constructing a transportation project. But soon, there will be no more days to count because the program--the short-term, 6-month highway authorization measure--will have expired and the funds will have dried up. Counting today--counting today--there are only 42 session days remaining through May 1. So, we count today, and we count the day of May 1. And counting these 2 days, there are only 42 session days remaining. The time bomb is ticking. You can hear it tick. And with every tick a minute, an hour, a day will be gone. The time bomb is ticking--tick, tick, tick, tick. No projects will be delivered under any review process after May 1, because that is the drop-dead date in the short-term extension legislation presently in place, beyond which no State may obligate any Federal dollars. Let's pause to read the language that is in the law--the law which Congress passed last November and which was signed by President Clinton on December 1 of last year. Read the language in the law. Read the language, I say to the Governors and the mayors and the highway agencies and to Senate and House Members. Read it. Here it is. I now read from Public Law 105-130: The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997. Here it is. Read it. Hear me as it is: `` . . . a State shall not-- It doesn't say ``may not.'' `` . . . a State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal-aid highway program project after May 1, 1998 . . . .'' Let me read it again. This is the language in the law which the Senate and House passed and which the President signed. Here is the language: `` . . . a State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal-aid highway program project after May 1, 1998 . . . .'' As I say, counting today, and May 1, also, we have only 42 days in which the Senate will be in session, not counting Sundays, not counting Saturdays, not counting holidays. We have 42 session days. The time bomb is ticking. The clock is ticking. The days are counting down now before this deadline. If an ISTEA reauthorization bill is not enacted by midnight on May 1, highway program obligations will cease and projects will not move forward. Any delay in the planning and construction phases of a project may cause the price of the project to rise considerably. In addition, a delay in federal funding can cause a logjam of projects to be let for bidding, resulting in a ``crowding'' of a large number of proposed projects into the latter part of a construction season. The construction seasons are soon going to be upon us, when The lark's on the wing; The snail's on the thorn; God's in his heaven-- All's right with the world. Spring will be here. But will a 6-year highway authorization bill have been passed? This increased workload may strain the capacity of the construction industry and subsequently increase the cost of projects. Stopping the Federal-aid highway program, even for a brief period, will also impact project delivery schedules in the long run. If preliminary engineering and design work is not allowed to proceed, then construction will not occur and, in fact, will be deferred into a second construction season, thus crowding out and delaying projects that were planned for the second year. Such a delay would have a ripple effect--a ripple effect--from which it may take years for states to fully recover. Remember, we are talking about critical transportation projects designed to improve highway safety, reduce traffic congestion, and clean our air. We hear much about global warming--much about global warming. This is the place to start. Pass a highway bill. Cut down on the traffic congestion, the traffic jams, and the long lines of cars. Cut down on the pollution that is filling the air while those cars sit and idle and the time bomb ticks away. The programmatic reforms in the committee-reported bill that I have discussed here are very important. They will save time, they will save money, and they will save lives. Yet, because we have not begun consideration of the bill in this session, not one of these gains has become a reality. The single most important factor that will determine the timeliness of project delivery in 1998 will be the timely reauthorization of ISTEA --the 6-year highway reauthorization bill. So the time bomb is out there. It is in that language that I read a moment ago from the law. The American people cannot afford to wait even 1 day past May 1 for the United States Congress to reauthorize ISTEA. The U.S. Senate has the time now to consider ISTEA, and that is what we should do. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Let me close for now with a passage from the Book of Isaiah, 58th chapter and the 12th verse. And I read only from the King James version of the Bible. In all probability, that is the version that our forefathers brought over on the Mayflower--the King James version. Read these other versions, and they will say, ``In my father's House are many dwelling places.'' But the King James version says ``In my father's House are many mansions.'' Ah, how much more beautiful is that elegant language! I read now from the King James version of the Bible, 58th chapter and the 12th verse. And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in. Mr. President, I urge the majority leader to be the ``Repairer of the Breach'' by calling up ISTEA now, so that we may be one step closer towards enacting the provisions called for in S. 1173 that would help accelerate the delivery of vitally-important transportation projects to the American people. Let me say again as I have said here before, I have been majority leader. I was majority leader during the years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980, and I was again the majority leader during the 100th Congress in 1987-1988. I know the pressures that are on any majority leader. I have felt them. I have walked in those same footprints that other majority leaders have tread on the sands of time. I know that it is very difficult, and many times impossible, to adhere to the wishes, to the pleas of those who implore, those who beseech, those who importune the majority leader to do this, to do that, to do something else. The majority leader cannot please everybody. This is not a partisan bill. This is a nonpartisan bill. There is no partisanship in this bill. There is no partisanship in the amendment that I have offered with Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, and Senator Warner as the chief cosponsors. There are 54 Members of the Senate who are cosponsoring the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, and they are from both sides of the aisle. They are Republicans and Democrats, about evenly divided, I would say, among those names that are on that amendment. There is no partisanship here. There is no partisanship in my urging the majority leader to call up ISTEA--no partisanship. I know he is under great pressure from some of the Senators on the Budget Committee, including, I am sure, the distinguished chairman, Mr. Domenici, a man who has one of the finest brains in this Senate. He does not want the ISTEA bill brought up, he and Mr. Chafee. Mr. Chafee has said so. So I am not saying anything behind their backs that I would not say anywhere. They prefer to wait until the budget resolution is called up. Mr. President, the country needs a 6-year highway authorization bill, and the time is ticking. Failure to call it up will only undermine the very necessary progress that this bill is designed to make. I believe that if the majority leader were left to his own pursuits-- he has not told me this--he would call this bill up. But my good friend, Senator Domenici, is a very powerful Senator. He was here a moment ago. He will be back later today. And I am not saying anything to make him feel that I am taking any advantage of him. But if he would just leave it to the majority leader, I think we would get this bill up. That is my own opinion. Mr. President, failure to take up the bill, as I say, will undermine the very necessary progress that that bill is trying to make, and it deprives me and other Senators from calling up amendments to that bill. Our transportation system, our people's safety, and the country's economy all await action by the Congress on the 6-year highway authorization bill. What are we waiting for? How long, Mr. President, how long will we have to wait? How long? Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. How many minutes?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is an unfortunate fact of life in today's Senate that, as Members go about the business of fulfilling their duties, it is increasingly difficult to find time in our hectic schedules to acknowledge the personal milestones of our colleagues. I intend to rectify this situation in part today by taking just a few minutes to congratulate my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter, on the occasion of his 68th birthday. Oh, Mr. President, only to be 68 again. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ``Oh, just to be 70 again.'' Well, I feel very much in that same mode. Born in the prairie town of Wichita, Kansas, at the start of the Great Depression, Arlen Specter, through the diligent application of his intellect and his tenacity, has become the 1,750th individual to serve this great nation as a United States Senator. Mr. President, Senators serve with Presidents. I hope Senators will remember that. Senators don't serve under Presidents. Senators serve with Presidents. President is another office, a high office, indeed, in the executive branch. But Senator Specter is the 1,750th individual to serve this great Nation as United States Senator, and he has served with Presidents in both parties. Woodrow Wilson reportedly said, ``The profession I chose was politics; the profession I entered was law. I entered the one because I thought it would lead to the other.'' Mr. President, I do not know if, in Senator Specter's case, he came to the same conclusion or if politics was for him a natural calling, but whatever the case, the melding of politics and law in the person of this thoughtful, soft- spoken Pennsylvanian has resulted in an inspired result for the people of the Keystone State. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Yale University Law School, Arlen Specter began his remarkable public career as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, where he won the first conviction in the Nation of labor racketeers, fought consumer fraud, and relentlessly prosecuted corrupt public officials. That willingness to take on the tough fights, no matter where they might lead, has become the hallmark of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter. But dogged pursuit of righting criminal wrongs is only one facet of Arlen Specter's many-faceted character. As a Member of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, Senator Arlen Specter has worked long hours, and with great determination, in an effort to see that Federal dollars are wisely usedto combat breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. Indeed, I believe it is fair to say that my friend from Pennsylvania takes a second seat to no one when it comes to his commitment to doing all that he can to provide a better, healthier life not only for those whom he represents in Pennsylvania, but also for all Americans. Mr. President, it is this fortuitous combination of legal acumen, tenacity, and compassion for the difficulties of others that has made Arlen Specter a highly-respected Member of this body, one whose counsel is so valuable to all who know him and work with him. As Henri Frederic Amiel noted in his Journal on April 7, 1851, ``man becomes man only by the intelligence, but he is man only by the heart.'' Senator Specter is a superior example of what Henri Frederic Amiel meant by that pronouncement. So I offer my friend and colleague my heartfelt congratulations, and also my thanks to him for his wisdom, his character, and his decency on this day which marks the beginning of his 68th--almost the beginning--I suppose it is the beginning of his 68th year. Oh, but to be 68 again. So I say to my friend from Pennsylvania: The hours are like a string of pearls, The days like diamonds rare, The moments are the threads of gold, That bind them for our wear. So may the years that come to you Such wealth and good contain That every moment, hour and day Be like a golden chain. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Montana for his kindness in yielding to me. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator for his remarks on this very important subject. I sat and listened to them. I found them to be very illuminating, very interesting, very informative and refreshing. I have been around a good many years. I didn't realize all of the steps, the lengthy process, the consumption of time that is required from the alpha to the omega of planning and completing the highway. This has been most edifying to me as I have listened. I thank the Senator. I recommend to all Senators that they read in the Congressional Record the statement that has been made today by Senator Baucus. He sits on the authorizing committee, and he has had an opportunity because of the jurisdiction of that committee over highways, he has invested many years in the study of this subject matter, and it is a real privilege to have him part of the Senate. I thank him for imparting to me, and I am glad I took the time and sat here and listened to him. This vast knowledge--I am sure he could speak all afternoon on this subject without notes. I thank him. His comments have been very helpful. I hope all Senators will read these remarks in the Record and that Senators will join in cosponsoring the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment. If the Senator will allow me 10 more seconds, I ask unanimous consent that the following three Senators be added as cosponsors to the Byrd- Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment numbered 1397 to the bill S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997: Senator Dodd, Senator Bingaman, Senator Thurmond.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend, and I will be about 5 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I may or may not use all of that today. Whatever I use at this point, I ask that it be taken off my time that has been reserved.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining under my reservation?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I just wanted to establish my right under the rules--which I sought recognition. The fact that another Senator has been here does not mean anything under the rules, but I am happy to yield and have the Senator proceed.

Mr. BYRD. Now, if the distinguished Senator from Maine would prefer to go ahead, I would be happy to await her. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I am seeking recognition first.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield very briefly?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Moynihan and I may speak for not to exceed 30 minutes. I do not think we will use all that time, but I make that request.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at 12:30 p.m. today Senator Moynihan and I wish to make some remarks on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 I be recognized.