Volume 144, No. 11 covering the 2nd Session of the 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S682-S684 on Feb. 12, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
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?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 43 minutes remaining.
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?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 35 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. How many minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-five minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I reserve that time until later in the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up