[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11547-S11549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Coats, 
        Mr. Lugar, Mr. Gramm, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Robb, Mr. Faircloth, 
        Mr. Hollings, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Nickles):
  S. 2143. A bill to authorize funds for construction of highways, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                  THE ISTEA INTEGRITY RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along 
with my distinguished colleague from Florida, Mr. Graham, the ISTEA 
Integrity Restoration Act. We have a number of cosponsors, I am pleased 
to say, whom I shall not list. But it is a bipartisan group.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
and the distinguished Senator from Florida is a member of my 
subcommittee, we do this on behalf of many Senators and invite others, 
hearing of this introduction at this time, to consider adding their 
names as cosponsors.
  This legislation is the product of 2 years of work on the part of 
many Senators and, indeed, specifically a group of States, 21 in 
number, known as STEP-21. The goals of this group of States, referred 
to as STEP-21, are incorporated in this legislation. This group shares, 
among those goals, that of ensuring that our surface transportation 
system is prepared to respond to the economic challenges of the 21st 
century.
  The current surface transportation authorization bill, known as 
ISTEA--I might refer to it as ISTEA 1, and next year I, hopefully, will 
be a part of the legislating group to provide for ISTEA 2--but ISTEA 1 
expires September 30, 1997. So it is imperative that the Congress of 
the United States draft and legislate ISTEA 2 next year.
  American products are reaching domestic and international markets in 
shorter times. Manufacturing plants are reducing inventories and 
relying on just-in-time deliveries. I visited an industrial plant in my 
State, in Luray,

[[Page S11548]]

VA, which is primarily making blue jeans. I asked them, ``How do you 
compete with the low-cost labor market in Asia? Indeed, how do you 
compete with the European markets?'' They came straight to the point. 
No. 1, the hard work delivered by the citizens of Virginia in that 
plant. But, No. 2, it is very clear, is turnaround time. We get an 
order in, we fill the boxes, we put it on the truck, and that truck 
turns around and goes back, back to the purchasers in a very short 
period of time. Mr. President, that turnaround time, that ability to 
turn goods around on the roads as they exist in America today that will 
exist even in better form tomorrow through improved bridges and other 
forms of transportation, that gives us an edge in this ``one world 
market'' to beat those other competitors.

  Throughout Virginia, all types of industries tell me that their 
ability to get the goods to domestic or international markets makes the 
difference in their competitiveness here at home, indeed, and 
worldwide. In this one-world market, our existing modern transportation 
system is probably one of the major factors that gives us such a 
competitive edge as we have here today. But we must improve that for a 
tougher competitive environment of tomorrow.
  We are a mobile society here in the United States, but our 
transportation challenges are growing as we face an aging surface 
transportation system. As we work to develop a national consensus on 
transportation policy, I remain committed to a future that provides for 
easier access for every community to a modern, safer road system 
designed for ever-increasing volumes of traffic.
  Responding to the congestion on our Nation's highways and the 
resulting lost productivity is a primary focus of the legislation we 
are introducing today, such that all in America can study it. And 
tomorrow, next year, we will begin work in response to the needs of our 
country.
  It is not too early to begin the discussion, to ensure that the next 
multiyear surface transportation bill provides a system that:
  First, effectively moves people and goods--that is more effectively;
  Second, provides for the safety of the traveling public, and this 
Senator and, indeed, my colleague from Florida have always stood in the 
forefront for provisions which add safety to our transportation system;
  Third, fosters a healthy economy;
  Fourth, ensures a consistent level of performance and service among 
the 50 States and provides an equitable distribution of highway trust 
funds that responds to the challenging demographics in America.
  These are our national priorities that must be met.
  The legislation Senator Graham and I are introducing today is a sound 
approach that meets these priorities.
  With the completion of the Interstate Highway System, the mobility of 
Americans has steadily increased.
  Every day we commute longer distances to our jobs. We travel longer 
distances for vacations or to visit friends and family.
  In testimony before the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Subcommittee this year, Secretary of Transportation Pena indicated that 
gridlock on our Nation's highways wastes $30 billion annually. The 
ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act addresses this critical problem by 
redirecting Federal dollars to our States on a more equitable basis.
  Our legislation also builds upon the successes of ISTEA by: 
preserving public participation and the role of local governments in 
transportation decision-making; continuing the national goal of 
intermodalism; expanding State and local authority to determine 
transportation priorities; and, increasing the flexibility to use 
transportation dollars on other modes of transportation that improve 
air quality, facilitates the flow of traffic or enhances the 
preservation of historic transportation facilities.
  The ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act continues to move our surface 
transportation policy forward. It responds to the single most glaring 
failure of ISTEA by modernizing our outdated Federal apportionment 
formulas.
  Virginia and many other States have historically been ``donor'' 
States--sending more into the Highway Trust Fund that we receive in 
return.
  This legislation addresses the needs of the ``donor'' States and also 
recognizes the demands of our rural States and small States with dense 
populations.
  This bill is an honest, good-faith effort to reduce the extremes in 
the funding formulas. It provides that all States should receive at 
least 95 percent of the funds their citizens pay into the highway trust 
fund by way of the Federal gas tax.
  We are introducing this legislation today, near the end of the 104th 
Congress, to stimulate discussion among the States, local governments 
and various interested groups on how the Congress should approach the 
reauthorization of ISTEA.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the subcommittee will 
hold extensive hearings next year of ISTEA reauthorization.
  I pledge to work with all of my colleagues to craft a multiyear 
reauthorization bill that addresses the issues I have outlined. I 
welcome all comments on the legislation I am introducing today as we 
share the common goal of providing for an efficient transportation 
system for the 21st century.
  I want to credit my distinguished colleague from Florida, because the 
two of us, along with others, have stood toe-to-toe on this floor 
trying to bring into balance a more equitable system of allocation of 
the public highway trust funds donated by our respective States. As I 
said, some of our States, like Virginia and Florida, are referred to as 
donor States, meaning we send more to Washington than we get back. That 
must be adjusted next year.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity this 
afternoon to join my friend and colleague from Virginia in the 
introduction of this important legislation. I believe there are a 
couple of historical notes that should be made at this time.
  First is, we are introducing legislation to carry on a program which 
will expire 368 days from today. By introducing this legislation today, 
we are giving to our colleagues--but more important to the millions of 
Americans who will be affected by this legislation--more than a year to 
give full consideration to the policy proposals which we are advancing.
  We are doing that at the very time that, here on the Senate floor, 
other important matters are being denied that kind of full attention 
and exploration. I commend the Senator from Virginia for his vision and 
his farsightedness in making it possible for such a dispassionate, 
thoughtful consideration of this important legislation.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
helping draft the first blueprint of this exciting challenge for 
America.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The second historical point is consistent with what my 
friend from Virginia has just said, and that is we are at a new point 
of departure for our surface transportation system. We could date the 
current era with adoption of the Interstate Highway Act during the 
administration of President Eisenhower. We have had a great national 
objective over almost a half century, to link America with the highest 
standards of highway engineering, design and construction and 
maintenance. We have largely accomplished the task that we set out for 
ourselves in the 1950's.
  Now the question is, what will this generation's contribution be to 
America's transportation for the first half of the 21st century? The 
decisions that we will be making in 1997 will be an important step 
toward answering that question of what we shall do for the future of 
America's transportation.
  I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation which has a 
number of significant provisions. One of those provisions is the need 
for equity in the funding of our highway system. In report after 
report--and I bring to the Senate's attention just two of many. One, a 
report in 1985, ``Highway Funding, Federal Distribution Formulas Should 
Be Changed,'' which was produced prior to the 1991 act upon which we 
are currently distributing our Federal highway funds, and then a second 
dated November of 1995, 4 years after

[[Page S11549]]

the adoption of the 1991 Highway Act, which is entitled ``Highway 
Funding Alternatives for Distributing Highway Funds'' in which it 
states that ``the formula process in the current law is cumbersome, 
yielding a largely predetermined outcome and partially relies on 
outdated and irrelevant factors.''
  So, Mr. President, in spite of repeated reports pointing out 
shortcomings in our past and current distribution laws, we still are 
subject to the criticism of being cumbersome, predetermined, and 
outdated and irrelevant in our distribution facts.
  One of the important objectives of this legislation that we 
introduced today is to bring greater rationality and modernity into our 
distribution of highway funds while we also strive to give greater 
flexibility to the States that have the responsibility for 
administering these funds.
  I am glad that we commenced the debate today. I look forward to more 
than a year of opportunity to move this idea into a form that can come 
before the Senate and our colleagues in the House for passage and to 
usher in a new postinterstate era for American highway transportation.
                                 ______