[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H2648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           STEP 21--RESTRUCTURING OUR HIGHWAY FUNDING SYSTEM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue that is of great concern 
to the Nation this year, the restructuring of our system of highway 
funding.
  Earlier this year, with the help of my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. CONDIT], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], and many others, I introduced 
the ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act, H.R. 674, also known as the STEP 
21 proposal.
  Our bill has 101 cosponsors and it is very bipartisan. It has strong 
support in the Senate and has a bipartisan coalition of 20 State 
departments of transportation behind it. The Southern Governors 
Association has endorsed STEP 21, and many private sector industries 
and associations have mobilized behind our bill.
  H.R. 674 accomplishes four primary objectives. First, it maintains a 
strong Federal role in transportation by funding the national highway 
system as the key responsibility. Under STEP 21, 40 percent of a 
State's funds must be spent on NHS roads or bridges.
  Second, it simplifies and makes more flexible the Federal highway 
program by consolidating the myriad of existing highway programs into 
two, the national highway system program and the streamlined surface 
transportation program. Within these programs, Federal funds may still 
be spent on all ISTEA activities that are currently allowed. This means 
CMAQ enhancements, bridges, et cetera. However, removing the mandated 
Federal setasides gives States and local transportation officials the 
flexibility and responsibility to decide on what, when, where, and how 
much to spend to meet the individual and diverse transportation needs.
  Third, our bill updates the antiquated Federal funding distribution 
formulas. Currently, outdated factors such as 1980 census figures and 
postal route mileage are used to determine each State's share of 
highway funds. We believe formulas should be based on need.
  The Federal Highway Administration issued a scientific study that 
defines need in a statistically accurate manner to show what factors 
are related to road maintenance needs. The top three factors are: 
vehicle miles traveled, annual highway trust fund contributions, and 
lane miles. H.R. 674 uses these three factors, which demonstrate where 
highways are actually being used, in allocating resources to the 
States.
  Fourth, our bill creates an objective, simple method of distributing 
highway funds among the States that strikes a more equitable balance 
between taxes paid and funds returned. We ensure that all States 
receive at least 95 percent return on the payments made to the Federal 
highway trust funds. States like Texas have been short-changed for too 
long.
  Over the life of ISTEA, Texas taxpayers received 77 cents back for 
every dollar they contributed to the highway trust fund. Clearly there 
is a need for greater equity where States like Massachusetts receive 
$2.41 back for every dollar they put in. However, in order to guarantee 
that we maintain a strong national road system, our bill also has 
provisions to ensure an adequate level of resources for highways in low 
population density States that do not have the tax base to support 
their needs.
  This point leads me to one other issue. Many have characterized 
supporters of STEP 21 as a southern State coalition or a donor State 
coalition. Our provisions to protect the current highway funding levels 
of low population States were included specifically to reach out to 
nonsouthern and nondonor States such as Montana, Wyoming, and New 
Hampshire. Further, while the STEP 21 coalition includes many southern 
States, it also includes nonsouthern and nondonor States such as 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska.
  In sum, we call our bill the ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act because 
we believe it restores the original intent of ISTEA to promote State 
flexibility and to direct dollars where the greatest need exists. It 
strikes the appropriate balance between the national interests in 
highways and the rights and responsibilities of each State.
  I look forward to continue to work with the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the rest of my colleagues on this 
legislation as it develops.

                          ____________________