[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S10225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. FAITHCLOTH. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the 
surface transportation reauthorization debate. North Carolina is the 
number one donor State. We received just 82 cents on the dollar for our 
gas tax contributions to the Highway Trust Fund under the 1991 ISTEA. 
In fact, over the 40 year life of the federal highway aid program, we 
have received just 87 cents for every dollar that we sent to 
Washington. There is no State that received a lesser rate of return on 
its gas taxes than North Carolina.
  Mr. President, like other Donor State Senators, I will not support a 
reauthorization bill that fails to offer the Donor States some basic 
fairness. The Donor States accepted this role--and accepted it 
graciously--for forty years. The Chafee-Warner-Baucus bill is a step in 
the right direction. However, there is much work to be done. I served 
on the North Carolina Highway Commission and chaired it for four years. 
We understood the national importance of the interstate system. We were 
not happy about our Donor State status, Mr. President, but we accepted 
it. We understood that the interstate system was a national priority. 
However, the interstate system is now almost complete, and the 
rationale for Donor and Donee States is gone.
  The Donor States are not asking for extra dollars. We're not asking 
to be made whole for past subsidies to the Donee States. We just want 
an equitable rate of return on our gas taxes. Just a fair return after 
forty years of our subsidies to other States. I believe that there is a 
real role for the federal government in transportation. But it must be 
a fair one. Make no mistake about it, now that the rationale for Donor 
and Donee States is gone, their argument is just plain old-fashioned 
politics.
  Let me illustrate the absurd results of this long-term imbalance. One 
of the last additions to the 1991 ISTEA was a 3 billion dollar pot of 
money to reimburse States for the costs of roads built before the start 
of the Interstate system in 1956. This so-called ``equity category'' 
benefitted, for the most part, northeastern Donee States. These are the 
same States that enjoyed a huge windfall from the federal highway aid 
program during the Interstate construction era. Mr. President, these 
roads are more than 40 years old, and the construction bonds were paid 
off long ago. The toll booths are still up, though, collecting millions 
of dollars. These States received 3 billion dollars in ISTEA--for 40-
year-old roads--but, apparently, that wasn't enough for them.
  The Clinton Administration proposed in its NEXTEA that the American 
taxpayers continue to funnel their hard-earned tax dollars to these 
States. In the NEXTEA proposal--its plan for the first post-Interstate 
highway bill--the White House proposes not only to retain this program, 
but to increase it to 6 billion dollars.
  These must have been pretty expensive roads. After all, Mr. 
President, they have been paid for several times. First, the drivers 
paid tolls to pay off the construction bonds, and these roads were all 
paid off more than a decade ago. After the bonds were paid off, though, 
the States kept collecting tolls. Then the federal government sent 3 
billion dollars to pay for the roads again. And the States kept 
collecting the tolls.
  Now they want 6 billion dollars to pay for the roads another time. 
And they will still keep collecting the tolls. North Carolina drivers 
lose 20 cents off every gas tax dollar to the Donee States. The 
Southern States are growing fast and have major transportation needs. 
But, not only can't North Carolina drivers get a dollar for dollar 
return, we are supposed to pay again and again for these 40-year-old 
roads. It seems just absurd to squander money like this. It is 
especially absurd since there is such a limited pool of transportation 
funds.
  In fact, Mr. President, the transportation budget is so squeezed that 
we hear all this talk about new ``user fees'' for transportation. These 
are just new taxes, of course, just a euphemism for new ways to take 
money from the taxpayers. The American people are already overtaxed. 
These proposals to raise taxes just defy common sense. I find it 
interesting, however, that I don't hear much discussion about one of 
the most obvious ways to increase the value of our transportation 
dollars. It will not cost the taxpayers a dime and will boost the value 
of some transportation dollars by 15 percent.
  The taxpayers' friends know that I am talking about repeal of the 
Davis-Bacon Act. I am talking about a Congress that favors the 
taxpayers over the union bosses. These Davis-Bacon requirements, 
especially the ``union work practices'' provision, drive up 
construction costs because they promote inefficiency in many forms. 
Davis-Bacon is a needless surcharge, just a contribution to union 
bosses, on these construction projects. The Davis-Bacon Act drives up 
construction costs by an average of 15 percent. The Congressional 
Budget Office confirms that repeal of Davis-Bacon will save the 
taxpayers billions of dollars.
  Incredibly, the White House proposed to expand Davis-Bacon in its 
transportation bill. It is no secret, though, that Davis-Bacon repeal 
is essential if we are serious about squeezing every penny out of the 
federal highway program. It is far better for the taxpayers to root out 
these inefficiencies than to raise the taxes of the American people. I 
know that some people find it hard to imagine that there are 
alternatives to new taxes in order to increase the transportation 
budget. This Senate voted this year for billions of dollars for a 
mission in Bosnia, which was supposed to be over last year, and for 
hundreds of millions of dollars in new welfare spending.
  It is time to cut the waste--not raise taxes--to fund our 
transportation priorities. This is the first authorization bill in the 
post-Interstate era. It is also the first authorization bill subject to 
the constraints of a balanced budget plan. This bill brings new 
challenges. And, Mr. President, new obligations. This bill must be fair 
to the States that subsidized the Interstate system for 40 years. We 
need to get the most for each and every dollar in the transportation 
budget. We certainly cannot afford to squander taxpayer dollars on 
outdated rules in order to prop up the power of the labor unions.
  It's time to tell the union bosses that the good times are over! This 
is not their transportation bill! North Carolina needs a transportation 
bill that builds highways, not government bureaucracies. A 
transportation bill that works for the taxpayers, not the labor bosses. 
Mr. President, if this bill is not fair to North Carolina taxpayers, I 
will be forced to filibuster it.

                          ____________________