[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H2650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  STEP 21, THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP TO ISTEA IN REFORMING TRANSPORTATION 
                                FUNDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, as our transportation needs change going 
into the 21st century, our current funding formula dating back to 1916 
needs to be updated. H.R. 647, STEP 21, is a commonsense approach to 
reforming transportation funding that simplifies and reduces the 
complex ISTEA program and funding set-aside. STEP 21 is not a 
substitute bill for ISTEA. It represents the next logical step to 
ISTEA. Our focus is strictly on highway funding. Our purpose is to 
create equity among the States. It is time to fix an outdated funding 
formula. We need to strike a balance between equity and meeting our 
transportation needs.
  STEP 21 ensures a true 95 percent return on States' contributions to 
the Federal highway trust fund. In California, STEP 21's funding 
formula would mean an additional $500 million per year over the life of 
ISTEA. California deserves a better rate of return. When we factor out 
emergencies and transit funding, California receives 86 cents on the 
dollar, and that is wrong. The question is one of equity, and it is 
time for California to receive her fair share.
  The argument is not whether the Federal Government should play a role 
in administrating the highway program, it is how big, how big the 
Federal role should be. It is time to allow States and local officials 
the flexibility to solve their own unique set of problems. STEP 21 
gives local governments more flexibility without endangering CMAQ or 
enhancement programs. It allows them to decide how to best spend the 
money, whether it is in improving the air quality, improving traffic 
problems, or building more bicycle trails.
  It does not change current MPO structures. Under STEP 21, MPO's will 
continue to receive the same set-aside they receive under ISTEA. It is 
time for greater equity and more local control. It is time for STEP 21.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to also commend the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay] for his leadership in this area. He has done great work for 
us. I believe that the country will benefit from us passing STEP 21.

                          ____________________