[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9431-S9432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1997

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works will conduct a markup of S. 1173, the 
Intermodal Transportation Act of 1997. It is time that a bill be 
reported to the Senate for thorough and careful consideration, as the 
expiration of ISTEA is only 2 weeks away. So far, we have very little 
information about the impact of this recently introduced bill. The 
committee's report to accompany the bill, and analyses from the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, should be very helpful to Senators in 
estimating the bill's merits. I look forward to reviewing that report 
in detail.
  Some proponents of the bill say that States will be guaranteed 90 
percent of their contributions into the highway trust fund. There were 
statements like this just before ISTEA was enacted, and which never 
materialized, so my colleagues will understand if I reserve judgment. 
The committee, with the help of the Federal Highway Administration, 
will hopefully show us that that 90 percent is actual. For the moment 
however, the information available now should concern all donor States.
  According to technical assistance provided by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, it seems that paying for a 90 percent of contributions 
guarantee would cause the ITA bill to exceed the amount allotted in the 
5-year budget agreement by approximately $10.059 billion. Yet, 
committee staff have indicated that the bill is just within the budget 
targets. There seems to be a contradiction there somewhere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Fiscal years--
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1998            1999            2000            2001            2002            2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budg. Auth. in Budget Agreement.........................          24.695          23.196          23.701          24.198          24.711  ..............
Budg. Auth. to get 90% of Contrib.......................          20.291          30.374          26.085          26.654          27.156          27.655
Difference..............................................          -4.404          +7.178          +2.384          +2.456          +2.445  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  According to general information provided thus far by the committee, 
estimating the State-by-State average return from ITA, Michigan would 
see about $696 million annually over 6 years. However, according to 
Federal Highway Administration projected gas tax receipts, Michigan 
will contribute and would receive the following at a 90 percent 
guaranteed rate of return on contributions:

[[Page S9432]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fiscal years--
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Average
                                                                   1998         1999         2000         2001         2002         2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proj. Contributions (millions)...............................          795        1,198        1,027        1,049        1,066        1,087        1,037
Proj. Obligation Auth. (at 90% guarantee)....................          715        1,078          924          944          951          976          931
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  So, the average return to Michigan under a bill that provides a true 
guarantee of 90 percent of contributions would be about $931 million. 
That is about $230 million more annually than the committee's estimate. 
What's the explanation? It is not yet clear.
  I would like to support a Transportation authorization bill that 
treats States fairly. Unfortunately, there is insufficient information 
available right now to make that assessment. I am concerned about what 
I have learned about the bill. I strongly encourage the committee or 
the Department to provide Senators, as soon as possible, with charts 
showing the likely apportionments and allocations that each State can 
expect for each year for the life of the bill, including information on 
the actual average return that each State can expect in terms of total 
obligation authority, assuming USDOT's gas tax receipts projections and 
the balanced budget agreement levels for transportation.
  Mr. President, though I am generally pleased that the committee is 
proposing to modernize the factors in the basic allocation formula to 
do away with postal routes and other obsolete factors, I was dismayed 
to learn that S. 1173 would add a convoluted and highly suspect payment 
to States that seem to receive special treatment. I am referring to the 
ISTEA transition payments. I strongly urge the committee members to 
strike this unnecessary and unfair provision during markup.
  There are many questions that need to be answered about that 
provision. For instance, are these ISTEA transition payments subject to 
an obligation limitation? Can they grow over time? Shouldn't they phase 
out if they are truly transition payments? Shouldn't the fiscal year 
1997 basis used in calculating these transition payments be the 
authorized amount and not as amended in a supplemental appropriations 
bill?
  Mr. President, I would like to support a fair bill to reauthorize our 
Nation's transportation systems. This bill holds some promise, but 
there are too many unanswered questions at this point to make a final 
conclusion.

                          ____________________