[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H2652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  STREAMLINED TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 
                               (STEP 21)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Boyd] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I also rise and want to thank the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Condit] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] 
for giving us the opportunity to address this issue of transportation 
funds.
  Twenty-five States have received less than they put into the highway 
trust fund, and 17 States have gotten back less than 90 cents on the 
dollar. When that happens, the Federal highway program is clearly 
broken.
  Personally, I am also cosponsoring a piece of legislation called the 
Transportation Empowerment Act that would return most of the highway 
program dollars to the States. However, because of our makeup here in 
Congress and particularly in the Senate, that is a piece of legislation 
which probably will not move as STEP 21 will. So I am also supporting 
STEP 21. I think that is the logical mainstream proposal that can fix 
the existing problems in the current law while still maintaining an 
appropriate Federal role in highways.
  It is intriguing to me that as we stand here, 3 years from the 21st 
century, that we are dealing with proposals in our Federal highway 
funding program that uses formulas that date back to 1916. These two 
particular formula factors that we are talking about, lands area and 
postal route mileage, come from a time when the national highway system 
did not exist, for obvious reasons; there were not any cars. In fact, 
the national highway system did not come into effect until 1956.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that these two factors, land area and postal 
route mileage, may have made some sense in a time when we were trying 
to get our horse and buggy out of the mud, but today they have little 
value at a time when we are trying to get our cars out of traffic. I 
would just like to remind my colleagues that what we are dealing with 
here is a gas tax, not a hay tax for horses.
  I applaud the fact that the administration has stepped up to the 
plate and released their own plan for the reauthorization of ISTEA, 
which is called NEXTEA, but I want to remind you that this proposal is 
a giant step in the wrong direction.

  The proposal maintains a State guarantee payback from the highway 
trust fund is at 90 cents, 90 percent, 90 cents on the dollar. However, 
I would like to remind my colleagues that over the last 5 or 6 years, 
even though we were guaranteed 90 cents return in ISTEA, Florida has 
averaged 77 cents on the dollar in gas taxes cents to Washington that 
would come back to Florida to help us with our roads. That is 
unacceptable.
  According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's own 
calculations, the funding allocation under ISTEA for the State of 
Florida during the fiscal years 1991 through 1997 was approximately 
4.28 percent. Under the NEXTEA proposal, those numbers will move to 
4.08 percent. Certainly, that is less money. I am in the situation, 
Florida is in the situation with many other States in that we will be 
getting a much smaller slice of a larger pie, and that is not 
acceptable.
  Proponents of NEXTEA have been arguing that 49 States also receive 
more dollars. But as I said earlier, that is simply because we have 
more dollars in the pot to carve up and we, in fact, will be getting a 
smaller slice. As a long-time donor State, Florida has consistently 
worked to provide greater funding equity in the Federal highway 
program. This legislation, STEP 21, is a clear step in the right 
direction, while also giving States more flexibility over how best to 
meet their individual transportation needs.
  STEP 21 is a streamlined, commonsense approach to the current Federal 
program. It replaces a 40-year-old program, a program which was put in 
place to build an interstate highway system, and it replaces a system 
with a more decentralized approach that will allow the States to the 
respond to changing statewide needs with adequate resources.
  STEP 21 streamlines the program's structure, increases State 
flexibility and provides financial equity. STEP 21 will guarantee a 
return of at least 95 cents on the dollar back to the States. It does 
that through allocating 40 percent into a Federal highway pot, and then 
it takes 60 percent and returns it to the States through a new 
streamlined surface transportation program.
  Many opponents argue that it will derail such programs as congestion 
mitigation and air quality programs and also transportation enhancement 
programs, such as bicycle trails and pedestrian trails. That simply is 
not true. There is nothing in this piece of legislation that prohibits 
those programs from going on.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that the CMAQ, that is 
congestion, mitigation, and air quality program, is governed by the 
Clean Air Act, and actually it is the Clean Air Act and not the 
Transportation Act that governs that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our colleagues that if we truly 
believe that we ought to have a government that is closer to the 
people, that the dollars ought to stay back in our States where they 
can best be used by local folks.

                          ____________________