[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10762-S10777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate began consideration 
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, or 
sometimes referred to as ISTEA II.
  This legislation is the product of well over a year of hard work and 
careful negotiation.
  We had three different proposals, Mr. President, all commendable, and 
the requirement before us was to integrate these different proposals 
into one unified plan that all of us could rally around. When I say us, 
I was, of course, talking about the committee at the time, the 18 
members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, but hopefully 
the entire Senate. When I am taking about 18 members, I, of course, am 
referring to Democrats and Republicans.
  I am pleased that the bill before the Senate truly represents a 
consensus effort with cosponsors from all regions of the country and 
from both sides of the aisle. The results of these efforts, so-called 
ISTEA II--ISTEA, again, referring to Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1997--provides $145 billion over the next 6 years for 
our Federal highway, highway safety, and other surface transportation 
systems.
  Mr. President, this is a 20-percent increase for the Federal aid 
highway program over the level provided in the original ISTEA, which 
stretched from 1991 to 1997 a, 6-year bill. This bill preserves and 
builds upon the laudable goals of intermodalism, flexibility, and 
efficiency, all of which goals were found in the original ISTEA 
legislation.
  It does so within the parameters of the balanced budget agreement 
that Congress passed just 2 months ago, Mr. President. In my view, the 
most important aspect of this bill is that it works within the context 
of a balanced budget. We were given x amount of dollars, we stayed 
within that x amount of dollars. I feel very strongly about that, Mr. 
President.
  On the Nation's highways you get to where you are going by staying 
within the lines and playing by the rules. The budget is no different. 
I am very proud that the program that we brought out of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, so-called ISTEA II, stays within the 
parameters of the balanced budget, a budget, as I say, we only adopted 
2 months ago.

[[Page S10763]]

  S. 1173 addresses the concerns of the State by making the program 
easier to understand and by providing greater flexibility to States and 
localities. It reduces the number of ISTEA program categories. Under 
the existing ISTEA legislation there are five categories that we drop 
to three. It includes more than 20 improvements to reduce the red-tape 
involved in carrying out transportation projects. Moreover, this bill 
significantly reforms the ISTEA funding formulas to balance the diverse 
needs of the various regions of the Nation. Forty-eight of the 50 
States share in the growth of the overall program and the bill 
guarantees 90 cents back for every dollar of State moneys contributed 
into the highway trust fund. This is a very, very significant 
advancement and change from the ISTEA legislation currently on the 
books.
  Now, this ISTEA II recognizes the diversity and uniqueness of the 
country and all its transportation needs. The aging infrastructure and 
congested areas of the Northeast, the growing population and capacity 
limitations in the South and Southwest, and the rural expanses in the 
West, all of these require different types of transportation 
investments. By making the surface transportation program more 
responsible to all regions of the country, S. 1173 will ensure that the 
integrity of the original ISTEA program is upheld.
  Now, Mr. President, to bridge the gap between limited Federal funds 
and formidable infrastructure needs, this bill makes a strategic 
investment in the Nation's transportation system. During the 1950's and 
the 1960's it made more sense for the Nation to build--that is what we 
were concentrating on, building an interstate system. Today we need to 
be more creative. We must carefully plan and allocate our limited 
resources.
  ISTEA II includes a number of innovative ways to finance 
transportation projects. It establishes a Federal credit assistance 
program for surface transportation. This new program leverages limited 
Federal funds by allowing up to $10.6 billion Federal line of credit 
for transportation projects at a cost to the Federal budget of just 
over $500 million--in other words, for half a billion we are able to 
leverage up to $10.6 billion of a Federal line of credit for 
transportation projects.
  To enable States to make the most of their transportation dollars, 
this bill expands and simplifies the State infrastructure bank program. 
One of the wisest transportation investments we can make is to do 
everything we can on behalf of the safety of drivers and passengers. 
ISTEA II substantially increases the Federal safety commitment. In the 
United States alone there are more than 40,000 fatalities and 3.5 
million auto crashes every year. Those are staggering statistics--3.5 
million automobile crashes every year, and 40,000 deaths on our U.S. 
highways per year. Between 1992 and 1995 the average national highway 
fatality rate increased by more than 2,000 deaths a year while the 
annual national injury rate increased by over 38,000. We must work 
vigorously to reverse this trend. This bill will help us to do so.
  The funds set aside for safety programs such as hazard elimination, 
railroads, highway crossings under this bill total $690 million a year, 
55 percent over the current level increase. According to the National 
Highway Safety Traffic Administration, the use of seatbelts is by far 
the most important step vehicle occupants can take to protect 
themselves in the event of a collision. Wearing a seatbelt increases a 
person's chance of surviving a crash by 45 percent, and of avoiding 
serious injury by 50 percent. Think of that--by simply wearing a 
seatbelt, one's chances of avoiding serious injury are increased by 50 
percent, chances of surviving a crash are increased by 45 percent. To 
encourage the increased use of seatbelts, the bill before us 
establishes a new safety belt incentive program rewarding those States 
that increase their seatbelt usage or take other measures to increase 
seatbelt use.

  To combat the serious problem of drunk driving, the ISTEA bill 
establishes a new program that encourages States to enact laws with 
maximum penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders.
  As valuable as transportation is to our society, we have to remember, 
Mr. President, yes, transportation obviously is valuable to our 
society, but it has taken a tremendous toll on the Nation's air, land, 
and water. The costs of air pollution alone that can be attributed to 
cars and trucks has been estimated to range from $30 to $200 billion a 
year.
  ISTEA II upholds the original ISTEA legislation, strong commitment to 
preserving and protecting our environment. ISTEA provides States and 
localities with tools to cope with the growing demands on our 
transportation system and the corresponding strain on our environment.
  I am proud that the bill before the Senate increases funding for 
ISTEA's key programs to offset transportation's impact on the 
environment. Clearly, all these automobiles and trucks on our roads 
contribute to a strain on our environment.
  ISTEA II provides an average of $1.18 billion per year over the next 
6 years for the so-called congestion mitigation and air quality 
improvement programs, also known as CMAQ. This is an 18-percent 
increase over the current funding levels for transit improvement, 
shared ride services, and other activities to help fight air pollution. 
Over the past 6 years, the transportation enhancement program has 
offered a remarkable opportunity for States and localities to use their 
Federal transportation dollars to preserve and create more livable 
communities. ISTEA II therefore, provides a 24-percent increase in 
funding for transportation enhancements such as bicycle and pedestrian 
facilities, billboard removal, historic preservation, and rails-to-
trails program.
  In addition to CMAQ and enhancements, the ISTEA II bill establishes a 
new wetland restoration pilot program. Why are we doing this, spending 
highway money to restore wetlands? We are doing it to fund projects to 
offset the loss or degradation of wetlands resulting from Federal aid 
transportation projects. There is no question that all kinds of 
wetlands have been lost across our Nation over the last 25 to 30 years 
as a result of the construction and the resulting damage to our 
wetlands.
  When it was enacted in 1997, ISTEA expanded the focus of the national 
policy, transforming what was once simply a program for building roads 
and bridges into a surface transportation program dedicated to the 
mobility of passengers and goods. Mr. President, I call your attention 
to the very name of this program. This is not a highway bill. This is a 
surface transportation efficiency bill. So we do more than just focus 
on highways. The purpose is to move people and goods in the most 
efficient manner possible. S. 1173 continues this spirit of 
intermodalism by extending the eligibility of the National Highway 
System and surface transportation programs to passenger rail such as 
Amtrak and magnetic levitation systems.
  The statewide metropolitan planning provisions of ISTEA have yielded 
highway returns by bringing all interests to the table, and increasing 
the public's input into the decisionmaking process. ISTEA continues to 
strengthen the planning provisions of the original legislation. 
Admittedly, the transition from old policies and practices to those 
embodied in ISTEA has not always been easy. The bill before the Senate 
will carry forward ISTEA's strengths, but it will also correct ISTEA's 
weakness and provide a responsive transportation program to take us 
into the next century.
  Now I would like to turn, if I might, to an issue of great concern. 
Over the past few days there has been some discussion of the 
distressing prospect of going around the balanced budget agreement to 
increase funds for the Federal aid highway program. Some Members of 
Congress are trying to ensure that the 4.3-cent gas tax, which is what 
the tax reconciliation redirects into the highway trust fund, actually 
is spent on highways. Although I support increased funding for 
transportation, I cannot support the proposition of spending the 4.3-
cent gas tax.
  Let me add that transportation nearly fares better than every other 
national program in the Federal budget resolution. From 1997 through 
the year 2002--the 5-year budget period which deals with highways--the 
budget resolution increases transportation spending by almost 7 
percent. In contrast, other nondefense discretionary programs increase 
by roughly 2 percent. In other words, transportation will grow at a 
rate of three times that of other nondefense discretionary programs.

[[Page S10764]]

  It is imperative that we look at transportation funding in the 
context of countless other important legislative priorities of 
Congress. During the consideration of the bill before the Senate, 
Senators Warner, Domenici, and I plan to offer an amendment that will 
resolve the issue of potential budget surplus in an orderly manner 
through the budget process next spring. Determining what the Nation's 
priorities are during the budget process when all programs and policies 
can compete fairly is a responsible way to resolve this complex issue.
  Before I conclude, I want to express my appreciation to Senators 
Warner and Baucus and other members of the environment committee for 
their hard work and determination in developing this program.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, this came out of the committee by a 
vote of 18-0, Democrats and Republicans alike supporting it, those from 
the West, the Midwest, the South, the Southeast, the Northeast, all 
supported it. Transportation is not a partisan issue as much as it is a 
regional issue. Senators Warner, Baucus, and I represent three distinct 
regions of the country with very different points of view. It has not 
been easy and we still have a way to go before reaching the finish 
line.
  I look forward to working with other Members of the Senate as well as 
the House leadership to enact a bill this year that will take the 
Nation's transportation system into the 21st century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I recognize others are seeking recognition but I would 
like first to thank my distinguished chairman because this bill 
represents the efforts brought about by his leadership, together with 
my distinguished colleague, our ranking member, Senator Baucus.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators Chafee 
and Warner in bringing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1997 to the floor.
  What will the bill do? It will help this Nation meet its growing 
transportation demands. It will help reduce congestion. Make highways 
safer. Make our economy more efficient. Ease travel for businesses, 
farmers, and families on vacation. Develop new transportation 
technologies for a new century. And protect our environment as we do 
it.


                          why spend the money?

  The bill before us today, ISTEA II, is a very big commitment. It will 
provide over $145 billion for highway and highway safety programs over 
the next 6 years. That is an increase of more than 20 percent from the 
funding of today.
  And some may ask why we do it. Why should we invest billions of 
dollars each year in transportation?
  Mr. President, the reason is simple. A good transportation system 
makes life better for everyone. For many years--really, since John 
Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and the internal improvement program of the 
1820's, which involved postal roads and canals--we have recognized how 
important it is to put some money into a system that works for 
everyone.
  Montana wheatgrowers bringing their produce to the mill; 
manufacturers shipping goods across the country; families driving off 
for a weekend in the mountains--all need a safe, efficient 
transportation network.
  Today, we benefit enormously from the work President Eisenhower began 
with the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's. We have the largest 
transportation system in the world. And we need the money to keep it 
the best transportation system in the world.
  We enjoy the premier system of highways--the 45,000 mile Interstate 
System--and almost 4 million miles of other roads. Our 265 million 
people drive over 2.4 trillion miles each year--about half the distance 
from Earth to the nearest star.
  And transportation investment means jobs. We create over 42,000 jobs 
with each $1 billion of Federal transportation spending. And let's not 
forget that these are good jobs. Jobs that support families throughout 
the Nation.
  So that is why we need to make the investment in a national 
transportation program. And this bill represents policy choices that 
will serve the Nation well.
  That much driving means the roads need a lot of fixing. The 
Department of Transportation estimates that we will need almost $50 
billion a year just to maintain current conditions on our highways. And 
we need almost $9 billion each year just to maintain current bridge 
conditions.
  Finally, transportation investment comes with its own benefits. As 
hearings before our Environment and Public Works Committee show, 
transportation is one of the largest sectors of our economy--accounting 
for nearly 11 percent of our gross domestic product. Only housing and 
food account for more.


                           istea and istea ii

  ISTEA II builds upon the successes of its predecessor, the ISTEA 
legislation of 1991. Authored by my colleague from New York, Senator 
Moynihan, that landmark law has helped create a truly seamless, 
intermodal transportation system. Air and seaports link easily with 
roads, railways and transit, meaning that travelers lose the least 
possible time making connections and businesses move their goods as 
cheaply and efficiently as possible.
  Likewise, our transportation program is flexible. States and local 
governments choose transportation projects that meet their diverse 
needs. States can build highways, transit facilities, bikepaths, 
pedestrian walkways, and interomodal facilities--whatever fits the 
needs of Montanans or New Yorkers or Californians best.
   Mr. President, the bill before us, ISTEA II, continues along that 
path. And with the experience of 6 years behind us, I believe we have 
made a good product even better.
  This bill will give us a transportation program that meets four basic 
criteria. First, it will meet our economic needs.
  Second, it will use the most up-to-date technologies and helps 
develop new ones so highways are easier and travel is safer. Third, it 
will remember small communities as well as broad national needs. And 
fourth, it will be fair to all parts of the country.
  Finally, it will be administratively simpler. Today we have 11 
categories of funding. With the new bill we will have five: the 
Interstate/National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, and two equity 
accounts. Let me explain each one of these in turn.


                 the interstate/national highway system

  When Congress enacted the original ISTEA legislation in 1991, it was 
with the clear understanding that the Interstate System was complete 
and the interstate era was over. It was not time to recognize the 
importance of a larger network of roads and bridges in this country.
  Since the inception of the Interstate System in the 1950's, things 
have changes around the country. No longer is the Interstate the only 
system of roads that connect businesses to markets and jobs to homes. 
It is now a larger system, the National Highway System or NHS.
  In 1995, Congress formally approved this transition--a transition 
from the interstate era to the National Highway System era--when it 
approved the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
  The National Highway System is a system of almost 170,000 miles or 
roads and bridges--including the 45,000 mile Interstate System--that 
carries the vast majority of our commercial and passenger traffic. NHS 
roads provide access to rural and urban areas. These roads connect our 
homes to our jobs, our farms to markets, and ultimately our export 
products to their overseas markets.
  So it is only appropriate that under ISTEA II we devote the majority 
of resources to the maintenance and improvement of the National Highway 
System. Under the bill, we will spend almost $12 billion a year on 
these roads, at least $6 billion of that going directly to maintain the 
Interstate System roads and bridges.
  And while we have eliminated the current bridge program, we have 
folded it into other categories. States will receive over $4.2 billion 
under bridge apportionment factors and will have to spend at least what 
they are spending today on bridges. This will ensure we continue to 
make improvements in the condition and performance of our bridges.


                     surface transportation program

  Second, the present Surface Transportation Program or STP will 
continue in the new highway program at

[[Page S10765]]

an annual funding level of $7 billion. The STP is a flexible funding 
category that provides for all types of transportation projects, and is 
particularly valuable for small towns and communities with innovative 
ideas.
  It allows new construction and, improvements to current highways; but 
also bikepaths, pedestrian walkways, transit capital projects, 
transportation enhancement projects, rail/highway crossing safety 
improvements, and hazard elimination projects.


                 congestion mitigation and air quality

  Third, we will continue to improve air quality and reduce congestion 
around the country through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Program or CMAQ. One of the key features of the original ISTEA 
legislation was the link developed between the environment and 
transportation. The CMAQ Program is that link.
  CMAQ provides funds to nonattainment areas so they may undertake 
projects to improve their air quality. The past 6 years have 
demonstrated the benefits of such investments. CMAQ projects have 
contributed to many areas reaching attainment and have improved traffic 
flows to reduce congestion.


                       transportation technology

  Fourth, as well as improving the physical infrastructure, the bill 
before us today funds new research and deployment of transportation 
technologies in rural and urban areas.
  Technologies, such a the Intelligent Transportation System or ITS 
technologies, will increase the capacity of existing transportation 
systems without having to add new lanes. ITS also increases safety on 
our roads by providing information to the traveling public about 
roadside hazards, weather conditions, and alternate routing. These 
technologies will improve safety and the environment.
  In the past 25 years, together with seatbelt and drunk driving laws, 
earlier versions of these projects have helped to reduce the rate of 
fatal automobile accidents by more than half, from 44.5 deaths per 
100,000 registered vehicles in 1972 to 21.2 last year. The new program 
will build on this remarkable success to help keep our highways the 
safest in the world.


                         fair funding formulas

  Finally, fairness. Policy is very important in its own right; but it 
is also important that every part of the country sees the benefits. And 
that is what we do.
  Our bill recognizes the diverse transportation needs of the country. 
For large, sparsely populated States, the bill recognizes their 
dependence upon highways.
  In Montana, for example, we do not have mass transit, we do not have 
large seaports. We rely upon our highways to get from place to place. 
So the bill uses formula factors that recognize the extent or size of a 
State's highway system. That only makes sense. After all, this is a 
bill that provides funding for States to maintain and improve their 
highway systems.
  States in the densely populated Northeast region have an aging 
infrastructure in need of repairs. The bill recognizes these needs by 
using formula factors such as vehicle miles traveled or vmt. Vmt 
measures the use or wear on your roads. The bill also continues to 
provide funding for deficient bridges--a very important component of 
the transportation system in the Northeast region.
  And for fast-growing, so-called donor States, the bill uses formula 
factors that take into account this growth. The vmt factor that I 
mentioned above is an example, since it measures how much people are 
driving in your State. But the bill goes even further.
  The bill uses contributions to the highway account of the highway 
trust fund as a formula factor. And of the amount apportioned to the 
States, every State will receive at least 90 percent of its share of 
contributions to the highway trust fund.
  And let's not forget that his bill is not just about highways. In the 
coming days, the Banking Committee will add their title to this bill to 
reauthorize the mass transit program. Over $24 billion has been 
authorized for those programs by that committee.
  So as my colleagues decide whether or not to view the highway 
formulas as fair or not, I urge them to examine this bill in its 
entirety. Because many States receive large sums of funding for their 
mass transit programs, while others rely solely upon highway funding to 
meet their transportation needs.


                               conclusion

  In sum, we have a good product that will help the country. It will 
update and improve an already excellent highway program. And we should 
not wait.
  Some suggest that we should do only a 6-month extension of ISTEA, 
hoping for more transportation funding in the future. Both Senator 
Warner and I believe we need more funding. But waiting will not 
guarantee that we get it, and it will come with its own cost.
  States and local governments must plan for the future, and to do so 
they need to know that we will not be changing the rules every 6 
months. The lack of a long-term transportation program will mean chaos 
and uncertainty across the country for government, businesses, 
agriculture, and citizens.
  So I believe we should get the job done. We have known for 6 years 
that ISTEA would expire in 1997. And I believe the bill we bring to the 
floor today will serve the Nation well. I hope it will get the Senate's 
support.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate 
for consideration S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1997, or ISTEA II.
  ISTEA II is a 6-year bill that reauthorizes our Nation's highway 
construction, highway safety, and research programs. It provides $145 
billion over 6 years and meets the requirements of the Balanced Budget 
agreement.
  Our funding level of $145 billion is 20 percent greater than the $120 
billion funding level provided in ISTEA I.
  Our funding level of $145 billion exceeds the funding level of $135 
billion proposed in the administration's NEXTEA bill.
  Mr. President, along with my strong working partner, Senator Baucus, 
I have worked throughout the year for higher funding levels for our 
Nation's surface transportation programs.
  Unfortunately, our amendment to the budget resolution earlier this 
year failed by one vote. Later, during the conference on the budget 
resolution, Senator Baucus and I, along with 83 other Senators, urged 
the conferees to raise the allocation to the highway program so that a 
portion of the 4.3-cent Federal gas tax could be spent.
  Regrettably, these efforts were not successful. As such, I accepted 
the decision of the Senate and our commitment to the American people to 
balance the Federal budget by the year 2002.
  With the spending limitations set in the balanced budget agreement, 
Chairman Chafee, Senator Baucus and I drafted a six-year 
reauthorization bill that complies with the budget agreement.
  Mr. President, it is also critical that the Congress move forward to 
enact a 6-year, comprehensive transportation bill. Not a 6-month bill 
as some in the other House are advocating.
  Our State and local transportation partners deserve nothing less. Due 
to the significant length of time required to plan and design any 
transportation project--an average of 7 years--our states, our 
Government, and their respective highway authorities must be able to 
efficiently respond to transportation demands.
  Mr. President, in bringing this bill before the Senate, I urge every 
member to examine the bill in its entirety and to evaluate its 
provisions on the merits of balance and fairness.
  Those are the two principles that guided my efforts in the drafting 
of this bill.
  I am well aware that every Senator may not be entirely pleased with 
this bill. Most of the concern rests, not with the substantive 
measures, but with the level of funding. I am convinced, however, that 
overall we bring to the Senate a bill--that addresses the mobility 
demands of the American people and the growing freight movements of 
American goods;--that will continue to ensure America's competitiveness 
in a one-world market; and that, for the first time, provides a fair 
and equitable return to every State based on the amount of funds we 
spend. Every State will be guaranteed 90 percent of the funds we send 
to the States based on each State's contributions to the highway trust 
fund.

[[Page S10766]]

  How much will each State get at a minimum under this bill? Let me 
describe this calculation as there are many different ways to explain 
the 90-percent guarantee.
  Let's start first with what each State sends to Washington to the 
highway trust fund.
  Under the formula, each's State's share of contributions to the 
highway trust fund each year is calculated.
  Then, that percent is compared to the percent share each State 
receives under the formula.
  If necessary, the 90-percent minimum guarantee is applied to any 
State whose percent share under the formula is below their 90-percent 
share of contributions to the highway trust fund.
  For those States, the 90-percent guarantee, will ensure that each 
State's percentage return under the formula is adjusted upward to equal 
their 90-percent share of contributions to the highway trust fund.
  I want to thank Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, and all the 
members of the committee for their contributions, in developing a 
compromise bill that represents a balance among the 50 States.
  This legislation is the product of months of spirited discussions.
  It is a compromise that addresses the unique transportation needs in 
the different regions of the country--the congestion demands of the 
growing South and Southwest, the aging infrastructure needs of the 
Northeast, and the national transportation needs of the rural West.
  In putting together this bipartisan and comprehensive measure, great 
care was taken to preserve fundamental principles of ISTEA I that 
worked well.
  ISTEA II upholds and strengthens ISTEA's laudable goals of mobility, 
intermodalism, efficiency, and program flexibility.
  We were committed to continuing those hallmarks of ISTEA which have 
proven to be successful and are strongly supported by our State and 
local transportation partners, including: ensuring that our 
transportation programs contribute to and are compatible with our 
national commitment to protect our environment; building upon the 
shared decision-making between the Federal, state, and local 
governments; and ensuring that the public continues to participate 
fully in the transportation planning process.
  Mr. President, perhaps the most critical issue that the committee 
addressed in this legislation is the development of equitable funding 
formulas.
  ISTEA I failed to distribute funding to our States based on current 
contemporary data that measures the extent, use, and condition of our 
transportation system. ISTEA I apportioned funds to the States based on 
each State's historical share of funds received in 1987.
  As we prepare for the transportation challenges of the 21st century, 
reforms to the funding formulas are long overdue. This legislation uses 
indicators that measure the current needs of our transportation system. 
Many of the factors used to distribute funds are consistent with the 
alternatives identified in GAO's 1995 report entitled, ``Highway 
Funding, Alternatives for Distributing Federal Funds.''
  These indicators are standard measurements of lane miles which 
represent the extent of the system in a State, vehicle miles traveled 
which represent the extent of congestion, and structural and capacity 
deficiencies of our Nation's bridges.
  Using current measurements of our transportation system were called 
for in every major reauthorization bill introduced this session--
including the administration's NEXTEA bill, STEP-21, STARS 2000, and 
ISTEA Works.
  For those of my colleagues who do not believe their States should see 
a change in their share of transportation funds from what they have 
previously received, I simply respond that we must move forward and 
update our formulas to ensure that our national transportation program 
responds to the many needs across our Nation.
  In revising these funding formulas, I believe we have made 
significant progress to address one of the major shortfalls of ISTEA--
namely, providing every state a fair return based on their 
contributions to the highway trust fund.
  Our bill today ensures fairness. Every State will receive a minimum 
guarantee of 90 percent of the funds apportioned to the States equal to 
90 percent of their contributions to the Highway Trust Fund.
  This guarantee is very different from the so-called 90 percent 
minimum allocation in ISTEA I.
  ISTEA II provides a real and true guarantee of 90 percent of the 
funds distributed to the States. The minimum guarantee is applied to 
100 percent of apportioned funds.
  Second, the minimum guarantee calculation is reformed so that the 90 
percent guarantee is actually achieved. We all know that ISTEA I gave 
many States less than 90 percent because it did not include all the 
funds that were distributed to States.
  While I started with a goal of 95-percent return for every State, a 
true 90-percent return calculated on a larger share of the program is a 
major achievement for donor States.
  I am also pleased to report that ISTEA makes great progress in 
consolidating and streamlining the program.
  Under ISTEA I there are five major program categories. Under ISTEA 
II, those program categories have been consolidated into three major 
programs--the Interstate and National Highway System Program, the 
Surface Transportation Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality Program.
  Under ISTEA I there are five apportionment adjustments--most of them 
designed to address concerns of donor States--that have not worked. 
ISTEA II provides for two simple adjustments. First, for donor States 
and small States to provide them a minimum share of funding. The 
second, to provide a transition for States based on part of their ISTEA 
funding.
  The committee bill also includes many revisions to Federal highway 
procedures to streamline the complex process of Federal reviews of 
State projects. It is my very strong hope that these provisions will 
enable our States to improve project delivery--the time it takes for a 
project to move from design to construction to completion.
  Today, it takes on average 7 years to complete a project. We must 
provide our States with the tools to do better. I believe many 
provisions in this bill will free them from Federal redtape which has 
delayed many projects.
  Mr. President, those are some of the important highlights of the 
committee bill.
  I look forward to the Senate's consideration of this bill and will 
work with my colleagues to resolve as many amendments as possible.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this request has been cleared with the 
distinguished Republican leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that I, Senator Gramm, Senator Warner, 
Senator Baucus, not necessarily in that order, may have as much as a 
total, if needed, of one hour among us to discuss an amendment which we 
are going to offer at a later date.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Just a question, if I might. In other words, you would 
start now and go until 5:15?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which was 
enacted as part of the balanced budget agreement, included a provision 
which ended the use of the 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax for deficit 
reduction and instead placed this tax into the Highway Trust Fund 
beginning on October 1, 1997. That was a very important first step in 
restoring integrity to the Highway Trust Fund. It ended the practice of 
using any Federal gasoline taxes for deficit reduction. This Senator 
was not alone in seeking to end the practice of using Federal gasoline 
taxes for deficit reduction. On July 14 of this year, I joined 82 other 
Senators in signing a letter addressed to the Senate majority and 
minority leaders, as well as the chairman and ranking Member of the 
Senate Finance Committee, Senators Roth and Moynihan, and that letter 
is fairly brief.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S10767]]




                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1997.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader.
     Senator William V. Roth, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance.
     Senator Daniel P. Moynihan,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance.
       Dear Colleagues: We are writing to express our view that 
     additional funding for transportation programs is urgently 
     needed. As you know, Section 704 of the Senate's version of 
     the Revenue Reconciliation Act transferred 3.8 cents of the 
     federal fuel tax from the general fund to the Highway Trust 
     Fund. While that transfer is an important first step, it does 
     not, by itself, provide the needed additional funds. 
     Therefore, we ask that you urge the conferees to ensure that 
     at least a significant portion of the 3.8 cents be made 
     available for expenditure on highway and transit programs, 
     similar to the manner in which the Senate provided funding 
     for intercity passenger rail service.
       The reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) will seek to meet the 
     growing demands on our highway and transit systems. Yet the 
     scale and diversity of these national needs combined with the 
     requests for discretionary funds to address local and 
     regional transportation issues requires funding levels 
     greater than that currently available.
       We are concerned that without additional funding, the 
     reauthorization of ISTEA and the distribution of funds in a 
     fair manner will prove to be impossible and will lead to 
     divisive debate in the Senate.
       Therefore, we respectfully urge you to provide the means to 
     spend a portion of the 3.8 cents for our highway and transit 
     programs.
           Sincerely,
         Max Baucus, Herb Kohl, Byron L. Dorgan, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Dale Bumpers, Carol Moseley-Braun, John Warner, James 
           M. Jeffords, Fritz Hollings, ------ ------, Bob Kerrey, 
           Jack Reed, Wendell Ford, Barbara Boxer.
         Kay Bailey Hutchison, ------ ------, Ted Stevens, Pat 
           Roberts, Daniel K. Akaka, Larry E. Craig, Judd Gregg, 
           Dick Kempthorne, Orrin Hatch, Mike DeWine, Jeff 
           Sessions, Lauch Faircloth, Spencer Abraham, Daniel 
           Coats.
         Chuck Robb, Robert Torricelli, Carl Levin, Mary Landrieu, 
           ------ ------, ------ ------, Kent Conrad, Robert Byrd, 
           Tom Harkin, ------ ------, Dianne Feinstein, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Patty Murray, Jay Rockefeller.
         Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Conrad R. Burns, Rod Grams, 
           Michael B. Enzi, Chuck Hagel, ------ ------, Kit Bond, 
           Wayne Allard, Mitch McConnell, Olympia Snowe, Craig 
           Thomas, Paul Wellstone, Bill Frist, Arlen Specter.
         Barbara A. Mikulski, Harry Reid, Bob Smith, Ted Kennedy, 
           Tim Johnson, Max Cleland, Joe Biden, Christopher J. 
           Dodd, ------ ------, John Breaux, Ron Wyden, Bob 
           Bennett, Paul Sarbanes, Tim Hutchinson.
         Dick Lugar, Chuck Grassley, John Glenn, Susan Collins, 
           John Ashcroft, Paul Coverdell, Richard Shelby, Jesse 
           Helms, Rick Santorum, Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, 
           Thad Cochran, Frank H. Murkowski.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the important first step, as I say, which we 
83 Senators sought in our letter has now been achieved; namely, the 
transfer of the 4.3 cents per gallon gasoline tax from deficit 
reduction into the Highway Trust Fund. I believe it was Senator Gramm 
who offered the amendment to do that. He offered that amendment in the 
Finance Committee and the Finance Committee adopted that amendment. So 
that was accomplished in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  Unfortunately, the six-year ISTEA reauthorization bill reported by 
the Environment and Public Works Committee does not allow the use of 
one penny--not one copper penny--of this 4.3 cents gas tax for highway 
construction over the next six years. In effect, it allows these 
additional gas tax revenues to build up huge surpluses over the next 
six years. The time has come to put our money where our mouth is. We 
either mean it or we don't mean it when we write letters urging our 
leadership not only to place the 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax into the 
Highway Trust Fund, but also to take the next step and allow it to be 
used in the ISTEA bill before the Senate.
  Did we place the 4.3 cents gas tax into the trust fund simply so that 
the unspent balance of the trust fund could skyrocket to historic 
levels, while our bridges crumble, while our constituents sit in ever-
worsening traffic jams, and while congestion chokes off the economic 
potential of our Nation? Is that what we meant? That was not my 
intention in championing the transfer of this tax, and I don't believe 
it was the intention of my colleagues, those who supported placing the 
revenue into the Highway Trust Fund.
  And so, today, three of my colleagues and I--Senators Gramm, Warner, 
and Baucus--are joining in saying to the Senate that we are preparing 
an amendment to the pending ISTEA bill to authorize the use of the full 
amount raised by the highway account share of the 4.3 cents gas tax for 
highway infrastructure and bridge programs over fiscal years 1990-2003. 
Over the life of this bill, this will mean that an additional $31 
billion in contract authority will be made available for the National 
Highway System.
  Mr. President, we must do more to address the continuing and 
destructive trend of Federal disinvestment in our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure. According to the Federal highway 
administration, our investment in our Nation's highways is a full $15 
billion short each year, just to maintain the current inadequate 
conditions of our National Highway System. Put another way, we would 
have to increase our national highway investment by more than $15 
billion a year to make the least bit of improvement in the status of 
our national highway network each year.
  Now, as I say, joining me in offering this amendment as principal 
cosponsors are Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner. Although our 
amendment is still in the process of being drafted, we nevertheless 
have reached agreement as to the distribution of formula funds among 
the various States.
  I will now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
table which sets forth the total amount of highway contract authority 
for each State in the bill, as reported by the committee, as well as 
the additional amount of contract authority that each State will 
receive under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment over a 5-year 
period.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

FY 1999-2003 TOTAL--INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT II,
                 BYRD/GRAMM AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY DATA
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 S. 1173 FY
                                  1999-2003
             State                total as     Byrd/Gramm       Total
                                 reported by  amendment\1\
                                  committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................     2,211,500       556,579     2,768,080
Alaska........................     1,373,201       345,600     1,718,802
Arizona.......................     1,719,893       432,854     2,152,748
Arkansas......................     1,472,869       370,684     1,843,553
California....................    10,134,190     2,550,537    12,684,727
Colorado......................     1,412,391       355,465     1,767,856
Connecticut...................     1,895,552       477,038     2,372,590
Delaware......................       520,488       130,994       651,481
Dist. of Col..................       500,536       125,973       626,508
Florida.......................     5,099,176     1,283,335     6,382,510
Georgia.......................     3,882,378       977,098     4,859,476
Hawaii........................       561,113       166,380       827,492
Idaho.........................       908,085       228,542     1,136,627
Illinois......................     3,683,946       927,157     4,611,103
Indiana.......................     2,693,608       877,914     3,371,522
Iowa..........................     1,461,433       367,807     1,829,240
Kansas........................     1,450,185       364,977     1,815,162
Kentucky......................     1,921,071       483,486     2,404,557
Louisiana.....................     1,967,553       495,201     2,462,754
Maine.........................       636,102       160,097       796,199
Maryland......................     1,668,720       419,975     2,088,696
Massachusetts.................     1,968,441       495,412     2,463,853
Michigan......................     3,493,538       879,236     4,372,775
Minnesota.....................     1,655,828       416,732     2,072,558
Mississippi...................     1,396,953       351,580     1,748,533
Missouri......................     2,835,864       663,387     3,299,251
Montana.......................     1,173,866       295,433     1,469,295
Nebraska......................       929,790       234,004     1,163,794
Nevada........................       808,417       203,458     1,011,875
New Hampshire.................       575,859       144,929       720,788
New Jersey....................     2,668,883       671,691     3,340,574
New Mexico....................     1,162,791       292,646     1,455,437
New York......................     5,640,544     1,419,503     7,060,046
North Carolina................     3,129,880       787,713     3,917,593
North Dakota..................       808,417       203,458     1,011,875
Ohio..........................     3,812,849       959,599     4,772,448
Oklahoma......................     1,745,495       439,300     2,184,796
Oregon........................     1,426,177       358,934     1,785,111
Pennsylvania..................     4,199,341     1,056,906     5,256,247
Rhode Island..................       642,304       161,652       803,956
South Carolina................     1,759,595       442,846     2,202,441
South Dakota..................       863,788       217,394     1,081,182
Tennessee.....................     2,506,281       630,768     3,137,049
Texas.........................     7,623,695     1,918,693     9,542,388
Utah..........................       955,428       240,460     1,195,888
Vermont.......................       520,488       130,994       651,481
Virginia......................     2,834,290       713,320     3,547,610
Washington....................     2,035,955       512,401     2,548,356
West Virginia.................     1,131,708       284,833     1,416,541
Wisconsin.....................     2,011,684       506,291     2,517,975
Wyoming.......................       841,639       211,820     1,053,459
Puerto Rico...................       508,260       127,917       636,178
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................   110,741,037    27,871,000   138,613,037
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source of additional contract authority.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I encourage all Members to review carefully 
these tables. They will show that each and every State in the Nation 
will receive a sizable boost in funding under this amendment. Each and 
every State will receive increases under the same percentage 
distribution called for in the underlying bill.
  We have not put together a new formula in this amendment. For the 
donor States, the amendment still ensures that they will receive a 
minimum of 90 percent return on their percentage contribution to the 
Highway Trust Fund. Moreover, our amendment, like the committee 
reported bill, utilizes 10 percent of the total available resources for

[[Page S10768]]

discretionary purposes. Increased discretionary amounts of contract 
authority will be available for the Multi-State Trade Corridors 
initiative, as well as the 13-State Appalachian Highway Development 
System.
  Mr. President, we understand that a point of order will be raised 
against this amendment by its opponents. But I think it is important to 
remind Members that the bill before us is not an appropriations bill; 
it is an authorization bill. A point of order lies against this 
amendment because it causes the Environment and Public Works Committee 
to exceed the levels that they can authorize to be spent. Adoption of 
this amendment will not change the scoring of the deficit by one thin 
dime.
  Opponents of this amendment claim that the increased highway spending 
authorized by the amendment will cause drastic cuts over the next 5 
years in other discretionary spending. Included on the possible list 
for elimination or drastic cuts--I am talking about a list that I 
understand has been circulated by opponents--are such things as Navy 
ship building, law enforcement, Section 8 housing, EPA, National Forest 
Service, Title I education, Head Start, NIH, and on and on.
  Mr. President, that argument is an obvious red herring. First of all, 
because highway construction requires a number of years to complete 
projects, the amount of outlays that would be necessary in the 
discretionary portion of the budget to pay for the pending amendment is 
not $30 billion. We are told instead by the experts at the CBO that the 
figure is $21.6 billion.
  Secondly, the enactment into law of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner 
amendment will not cause any cut in any Federal program. Let me say 
that again. The enactment into law of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner 
amendment will not cause any cut in any Federal program.
  In other words, each year's transportation appropriations bill from 
fiscal years 1999-2003 will contain an obligation limit for total 
highway spending. That limitation will be set each year in light of the 
circumstances being faced by the Appropriations Committees in any 
particular year. Let me put it another way. If we do not adopt this 
amendment, we will have precluded, for the next 5 years, any 
consideration of additional highway spending.
  Third, regarding the question of outlay caps on discretionary 
spending, I fully support and will strongly urge the Budget Committee 
chairman and the Senate to include in the budget resolution for fiscal 
year 1999 the necessary provisions to increase discretionary caps for 
the following 5 years if the economy continues to perform, so that 
those savings will accrue. As Senators are aware, since the adoption of 
the balanced budget agreement earlier this year, the projections of 
revenues have dramatically increased and the projections for spending 
have been dramatically cut. The result is a far better forecast than 
was thought to be the case even when we all voted for the balanced 
budget agreement this past spring. In fact, OMB's recent midsession 
review now projects revenues over the next 5 years to be $129.8 billion 
greater--greater--than those projected in the balanced budget 
agreement. On the spending side of the budget--and this is important--
the forecast is also much brighter than it was a few short months ago. 
Compared to the balanced budget agreement, OMB now projects in its 
midsession review that total spending over the period 1998-2002 will be 
$71.6 billion less than was projected in that agreement.

  Our amendment will provide that if the savings and spending for 
fiscal 1998-2002, which I have just identified, are still projected to 
exist in connection with the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution, and if 
that budget resolution calls for using any of those spending savings, 
then those spending savings must go toward fully funding the highway 
program.
  In conclusion--and I say ``in conclusion'' because I only intended to 
take 15 minutes of the hour, I am not here to debate this amendment 
this afternoon. There will be plenty of time for that. Nobody is going 
to run for the doors when that time comes. There will be plenty of time 
to debate it when my colleagues and I have fully fleshed out the 
amendment. But we wanted to put Senators and the country on notice that 
we have an amendment, and we wanted to do that before this upcoming 
recess begins.
  Let me point out again that our amendment would provide the 
authorization of an additional $31 billion of contract authority within 
a 5-year period, 1999-2003. It doesn't add to the deficit. It will call 
for a consideration, in the fiscal year 1999 budget process, of using 
additional spending savings to cover the outlays that will occur from 
the contract authority provided in this amendment.
  So I urge all colleagues to favorably consider this amendment during 
the next week, look at the tables, and understand that your State--I am 
talking to all 100 Senators, to each of them individually--your State 
will have its highway moneys increased under this amendment. Your State 
will benefit from this amendment. So I hope that you will examine the 
benefits that will accrue to your State in additional highway spending 
under this amendment.
  Mr. President, let me, in yielding the floor, thank my three 
colleagues who are the main cosponsors of the amendment.
  Let me also thank the two leaders for allowing us to impinge upon the 
time of the Senate at this point for a whole hour if it is needed.
  Let me say to all Senators who want to debate our amendments that 
there come a time to debate it. This is an important amendment. This is 
a major amendment, and its importance to the country cannot be 
exaggerated.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me first say that I am very proud to 
join with Senator Byrd and our two other colleagues in this amendment. 
Our purpose today is not to introduce the amendment as a formal pending 
amendment before the Senate but to basically put the facts out on the 
table so that we can have a full and informed debate, and so that over 
the recess people will have an opportunity to know what this amendment 
does, why it is important to every State in the Union, and why it is 
important to the future of the country.
  I want to try to make two points as briefly as I can make them.
  The first point is that in 1993, for the first time in the history of 
America, the Congress adopted a permanent gasoline tax that did not go 
to the highway trust fund. Instead, that permanent gasoline tax went to 
general revenues and was spent for general purposes. We had a strong 
base of support in the Senate and in the House to take the action which 
was consummated in the Taxpayer Relief Act. The amendment that I 
offered in the Finance Committee was adopted as part of that bill. We 
were able to put the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline into the 
highway trust fund where it belonged. That became the law of the land. 
But our problem was that when the bill that will be before us when we 
debate ISTEA was reported from the committee, it did not include any of 
the money that was transferred into the trust fund when we took the 
4.3-cents-a-gallon tax from gasoline and put it where it belonged, in 
the highway trust fund, to fund highways and to fund mass transit.
  That produced a situation which is portrayed in this chart. I hope 
every Member of the Senate will become familiar with this chart because 
it really shows the sleight of hand that has been underway now for 
quite a while and will certainly be perpetuated and expanded in the 
future if our amendment is not adopted.
  We currently collect the money from gasoline taxes and transportation 
fuels taxes that are dedicated in the trust fund to highways and mass 
transit. But, yet, as of today, we have $23.7 billion in that account 
that have not been expended for the purpose that they were collected. 
Over the years they have, in fact, for all practical purposes, been 
spent for other purposes.
  As a result of our decision to put the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on 
gasoline where it belongs, in the highway trust fund, under the ISTEA 
bill as reported from the committee, this surplus in the highway trust 
fund would grow from $23.7 billion today to a whopping $90 billion in 
the trust funds collected for the purpose of building highways and mass 
transit but never expended for that purpose. In the year 2003 we would 
have $90 billion in the trust fund, and

[[Page S10769]]

we would have told the American people that they were paying gasoline 
taxes to fund highways and transportation, and, yet, that $90 billion 
would have been spent for other purposes.
  What the Byrd-Gramm amendment does--I am very proud that we have the 
two most knowledgeable people in the Senate on highway matters who have 
now joined us as cosponsors--but what our bill does is assure that the 
area you see in blue here, this 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline, is 
spent for the purposes that it was collected.
  This is a truth-in-government provision. This is a provision where 
you tell people you are going to do something in government and you do 
it.

  Let me also make note of the fact that, even if our amendment is 
adopted, the balance in the highway trust fund will grow from the 
current $23.7 billion to a whopping $39 billion surplus by the year 
2003. So under our amendment the unspent balance in the trust fund will 
grow every year even if we spend the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline 
where we told the American people that we would spend it.
  Let me also make note that our amendment is very conservative and 
very responsible because we don't spend the money in the year that it 
is collected. We spend it the year after it is collected. So even 
though we will be collecting the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline and 
putting it into the trust fund for the first time in 1998, we don't 
spend any of that money in 1998. We only spend what was collected in 
1998 in fiscal year 1999. And the same process continues throughout the 
period of this highway bill through the year 2003.
  We are talking about highways today because we have the highway 
portion of the bill before us. But, as everyone knows, the mass transit 
title of this bill was reported from the Banking Committee, and they 
have delayed reporting their precise spending figures for technical 
reasons. When that portion of the bill is before the Senate, we intend 
our amendment to apply to it as well because mass transit receives 20 
percent of the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline, and we want to be 
sure that this portion of the highway taxes can also be spent.
  Under this provision, every State in the Union will get additional 
funds. The increase per State will be about 25 percent. I think it is 
important to note and for every Member of the Senate to understand that 
under this amendment the ratio of funds going to States, the proportion 
going to any one State, is totally unchanged.
  But the result of truth in government, the result of spending money 
for the purpose that it was collected, is pretty remarkable. The result 
is, if we are going to spend $27.8 billion, if this full program is 
carried out through the year 2003, on highways, the purpose for which 
the tax was collected to begin with, that will make a very substantial 
difference to every State in the Union.
  Arkansas, we know from the very effective arguments that have been 
made by our colleagues from Arkansas, has felt slighted by this bill. 
Under the existing bill, they would get $1.47 billion over the five 
years covered by our amendment. But with the adoption of our amendment, 
that would grow to $1.84 billion.
  A similar proportional increase in each State would occur as a result 
of this amendment.
  I want to make it clear that we are going to hear arguments 
throughout this debate that we are, through this amendment, taking 
money away from other programs. I want to address this head on. I want 
to address it in two ways.
  First of all, those who are making that argument are in essence 
claiming that they have the right to spend this $90 billion on other 
programs, that they have that right.
  It reminds me of an argument that might be made by a rustler. There 
is this rustler who has been rustling cattle off the Byrd and the Gramm 
ranch. We call the sheriff, and the sheriff comes out. The sheriff 
hunts him down, and he brings him to us. We decided, well, we know this 
guy. We are not going to put him in jail. But the sheriff says to him, 
``You have to quit rustling these cattle.'' So the rustler says, ``But 
I am used to eating all this beef. You know. It is easy for you to say, 
but where am I going to get my beef?'' Well, I think the answer of 
Rancher Byrd, Rancher Gramm, Rancher Baucus, and Rancher Warner under 
this circumstance would be, ``That ain't my problem.''
  The point is they never had the right to spend the $90 billion for 
anything other than highways to begin with. And we are going to have an 
extensive debate about that.
  Let me address in a little bit of detail the provisions that Senator 
Byrd talked about where we are dedicating, at least in terms of a 
commitment about the future, funds to fulfill our commitment to build 
these highways. We have, I believe, very artful language. Senator Byrd 
and Senator Byrd's staff are responsible for the language. I think it 
is language that every Member of the Senate can be supportive of. We 
are not trying to judge what kind of budgets we are going to write in 
the future. We are not trying to make a judgment about what the economy 
is going to be like in the future, or what kind of expenditure savings 
we are going to have in the future. We are not making any judgment as 
to how those savings might be used.

  But what we are saying--I think if every Member of the Senate will 
look at this language, they will be in agreement--we are saying, if 
there are spending savings that occur in the future and if the Budget 
Committee decides that any of those spending savings are going to be 
used to spend money through the Federal Government--two ifs--that, if 
there are savings in other spending programs, and if any of those 
savings are spent, they have to be used in total or part to fund our 
commitment to the highway trust fund before any of those savings can be 
used for any other purpose.
  There is only one reason that anybody would be against that language. 
The only reason that anybody would be against that language would be if 
they intend to spend this money for some other purpose.
  Our point is we are collecting this gasoline tax. It has been put 
into the trust funds by the decision of the House and the Senate. We 
made a commitment that it was going to go to build highways and for 
mass transit. What our amendment does is guarantee that if any funds 
are spent, they are going to be spent for this purpose and spent for 
this purpose first.
  So I think this is a good amendment. I hope that we are going to get 
a strong vote. We have a point of order. Senator Byrd made the point, 
but I want to reiterate this. This point of order is not that we are 
busting the budget or raising the deficit. Both of those things are not 
the case. The point of order is really based on a technicality in the 
budget because we are allowing funds, if they are spent, to be spent on 
transportation needs and highways beginning in fiscal year 1999.
  So, in the technical language of the budget, we are changing the 
302(a) allocation of budget authority to the Environment and Public 
Works Committee. We are not raising the total level of outlays. We are 
not busting the budget. This is a simple technicality. There ought not 
to be a point of order against it. But there is. So, as a result, we 
are going to have to get 60 votes.
  So, if you want truth in government, if you want to have a program 
whereby when people are going to the gas pump and they are looking at 
that big tax they are paying, and they are saying, ``Well, you know, at 
least it is being spent on highways,'' we want that to be true. If you 
believe that the highway trust fund ought to be used to build the 
highways and to build mass transit, then we believe that you are going 
to vote for this amendment. We are very hopeful that we are going to be 
successful.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I first want to give by deepest respects 
and thanks to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Chafee. He has put together a bill that has passed 
our committee unanimously 18 to 0. Not many committees can come up with 
a unanimous vote on major bills.
  But since that bill passed the committee, it has become quite 
apparent that some Members want us to improve upon it. So we are going 
to try to do that with this amendment. So, I am going to give five 
reasons why I think the amendment offered by Senator

[[Page S10770]]

Gramm, Senator Byrd, Senator Warner, and myself is such an improvement 
to this bill.
  First, as has been pointed out, the dollars we are discussing are 
trust fund dollars. I would point out that the American motorist who 
pays these fuel taxes expect those dollars to go into transportation, 
including highways.
  Second, despite what some are going to state on this floor later, 
this amendment does not break the budget. Let me repeat that. It does 
not break the budget.
  Third, despite what some might say later, this amendment does not 
take one penny--as Senator Byrd mentioned, ``not one thin dime''--from 
any other program.
  Fourth, this amendment is needed to meet our infrastructure needs. We 
are not spending enough in America to maintain our transportation 
system and our highways. We certainly are not spending at the level of 
other countries.
  And fifth, a point which I do not think is fully understood by 
Senators, the amounts provided for in the committee bill lock the 
Senate into those amounts for the next 6 years. So it is important that 
if we are going to increase spending that we do so now. Unlike some 
other spending programs, this program is funded from a trust fund.
  So this is a much different animal, and therefore this amendment must 
be addressed and hopefully passed. So let me elaborate on my five 
points. Mr. President, I think it is clear, when people pay their fuel 
taxes, they expect those dollars to go to their highways and 
transportation so we have the best transportation system in the world. 
There is not little dispute about that. I filled up my gas tank this 
morning coming to work. I know how expensive it is. Today about 18.4 
cents of a gallon goes to Federal taxes, and then there are D.C. taxes 
and State taxes. There are a lot of taxes that go into the cost of a 
gallon of gas. All we ask is that these taxes are used for 
transportation. That is what we want, and that is what we expect when 
we pay our fuel taxes at the pump.
  I must remind Senators that the balance in the highway trust fund is 
increasing. Every year it is increasing. American motorists are not 
getting their money's worth.
  Why is it not being spent? It is not being spent because it is being 
used to mask the true Federal deficit. That is why it is not being 
spent. A lot of appropriators and the budget folks around here like 
those big balances in the trust funds because it masks the true 
deficit. Again, I say. If this amendment does not pass, the balance in 
the trust fund is going to continue to grow dramatically over the 
period of this bill. So Americans should know that when they pay their 
fuel taxes today, they are not being spent. A lot of it is just 
accumulating. It is a charade. It is a phony game that is being played 
with American taxpayers. Using fuel tax revenue to mask the true budget 
deficit is not right and it is not fair. And I have argued this many 
times.
  To my second point. This amendment in no way breaks the budget. Now, 
there are going to be some on the floor later, perhaps today or later, 
saying, ``Oh, this breaks the budget.'' It does not break the budget. 
It does not break the budget at all.
  Why? Because all this amendment does is raise the contract authority 
or authorizations. It would increase contract authority by $31.6 
billion over 5 years. This is the 3.45 cents of the 4.3 cents just 
transferred to the trust fund on October 1. The amendment would provide 
new contract authority beginning in 1999. But it does not tell the 
Budget Committee this year or next year that they have to raise 
transportation spending. It does not tell the Appropriations Committee 
to raise budget caps. It does not touch the budget resolution or 
obligation limitations for highways. Again, it is just contract 
authority. Therefore, it does not break the budget. It does not require 
any additional spending. The amendment just says that if the projected 
savings from OMB are realized, and if the Congress decides to spend 
these savings, then they should be available for transportation.

  It does not require that spending increases. It just says that the 
Congress may spend more for transportation if there are new savings and 
if Congress agrees to spend them on transportation. We are just 
increasing contract authority. That is all. We increase contract 
authority by $31.6 billion over 5 years. So, again, this does not break 
the budget. Yes, we will have at least one point of order. But is not a 
point of order that we have increased spending. It is a point of order 
that the Environment and Public Works Committee has exceeded its 
contract authority allocation. That is all. But that is a minor 
technicality. What really counts is, does it require any additional 
spending? The answer is no, not one cent of additional spending is 
required. It does not break the budget agreement in any way. I cannot 
make that point enough.
  Point 3. Does this amendment take anything away from any other 
Federal program? Some are going to claim that it does. The answer is 
not one red cent. Nothing is taken away from other programs--nothing. 
Now, someone may claim that it will. They are going to say that. Not 
true. Not true at all.
  Again, because this amendment only provides for raising contract 
authority. It does not increase spending. I say again, Congress must 
still decide to spend any new savings, if those savings are in fact 
even available. It is clear that if today OMB projects a savings, that 
savings may be greater or lower next year. But if that is the case, 
Congress may choose not to increase spending at all. That is fine. 
Again, the amendment will only provide new spending if savings are 
available and if Congress decides to spend them.
  Again, this amendment takes nothing from any program at all. To my 
fourth point, the infrastructure needs of this country. I will talk 
about this in greater detail when we debate the amendment. But I do 
want to state that the Department of Transportation says that there is 
about a $15 billion annual deficit in combined infrastructure spending 
in America. We in America spend far less on highways and infrastructure 
than other countries do as a percent of their gross domestic product. 
Japan spends four times what we do. European countries spend at least 
twice as much.
  I fear that if this amendment does not pass, 6 years from now we are 
going to find that our highways in America have deteriorated more. We 
will continue to fall behind. Our highways and transit systems are not 
all in good shape today. There are a lot of bridges in our country that 
need repair. There are a lot of roads in our country that need repair. 
I just cannot emphasize too much how important it is for America to 
have the best highways and transportation system if we are going to 
remain competitive. We need to pass this amendment to make progress on 
our transportation needs.
  And to my fifth point. Let's not lock into the contract authority 
numbers that are in this bill unless we have to. Let's have this vote 
and see what happens. I think the case is there to increase 
transportation spending. We need to do it now and not wait.
  So I will sum up, Mr. President. I want to again thank all who have 
worked so hard on this amendment, particularly the authors of the 
amendment. They have come up with a very sound way of solving the 
problem of needing more money. Again, it does not break the budget in 
any way. And it does not take any dollars from any other programs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know there are others who are anxious to 
speak, so therefore I will not go over the points that were very 
clearly enunciated by the distinguished senior Senator from West 
Virginia, my colleague from Texas, and my partner, Senator Baucus, who 
worked with me throughout the formulation of the underlying bill 
together with our leadership, the committee chairman, Senator Chafee. 
Senator Baucus has worked with me throughout this process.

  As subcommittee chairman, I started with a group called Step 21 and 
then eventually we joined forces with a group headed by Senator 
Baucus--Stars 2000 is my recollection--and eventually our distinguished 
chairman joined us. We were able to craft a bill which became the 
subject of a markup and then gained full support of the committee.

[[Page S10771]]

  It is, I must say, of some personal and professional concern that for 
the moment I am at odds with my distinguished lifetime friend and 
chairman, Senator Chafee, on this matter, but I hope that in due course 
I and others can persuade him to the wisdom of this amendment. He will 
speak for himself, I hope, momentarily.
  As Senators Byrd and Gramm and Baucus have said very clearly, when I 
met with them last night, I was given the assurance we did not break 
the budget, and I think the Senators have gone through that very 
clearly.
  We assure that every State gets a fair return, and 90 percent of the 
funds sent to the States under the formula is a fundamental principle 
of ISTEA II. And to give absolute credence to that statement I have 
just made, which was the basic criteria for my joining in this effort, 
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record statistical tables 
prepared by the Federal Highway Administration at my request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask the Senator, what is that again?
  Mr. WARNER. If I may, I will just pass it to the Senator. It is a 
statistical table showing that the formula of a 90 percent return that 
we established in the bill is followed in the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Absolutely. Let me just finish----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Where is the amendment you are following? I haven't 
found it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I can just finish my remarks, then I 
will be glad to yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Excuse me.
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest that the Senator consult with the distinguished 
senior Senator from West Virginia, who has put certain documentation 
into the Record earlier today.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   COMPARISON OF SHARES UNDER ISTEA, FY 1996 HTF CONTRIBUTIONS, S. 1173 AND BYRD/GRAMM
                                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                ISTEA avg.
                                                                 percent    FY 1996 HTF    90% HTF    S. 1173 5yr                Byrd/Gramm
                            State                                 (incl.       Pymts        Pymts     Avg. (1999-    Percent      5yr Avg.     Percent
                                                                  demos)     (percent)                   2003)                  (1999-2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................        1.815        2.219        1.997     $442,300        1.997     $553,616        1.997
Alaska.......................................................        1.160        0.256        0.230      274,640        1.240      343,760        1.240
Arizona......................................................        1.399        1.726        1.553      343,979        1.553      430,550        1.553
Arkansas.....................................................        1.437        1.445        1.300      294,574        1.330      368,711        1.330
California...................................................        9.133       10.096        9.086    2,026,838        9.151    2,536,945        9.151
Colorado.....................................................        1.098        1.277        1.149      282,478        1.275      353,571        1.275
Connecticut..................................................        1.929        1.000        0.900      379,110        1.712      474,518        1.712
Delaware.....................................................        0.398        0.288        0.259      104,098        0.470      130,296        0.470
Dist. of Col.................................................        0.504        0.126        0.114      100,107        0.452      125,302        0.452
Florida......................................................        4.201        5.116        4.605    1,019,835        4.605    1,276,502        4.605
Georgia......................................................        2.975        3.895        3.506      776,476        3.506      971,895        3.506
Hawaii.......................................................        0.692        0.259        0.233      132,223        0.597      165,498        0.597
Idaho........................................................        0.683        0.549        0.494      181,617        0.820      227,325        0.820
Illinois.....................................................        3.735        3.696        3.327      736,789        3.327      922,221        3.327
Indiana......................................................        2.231        2.703        2.432      538,722        2.432      674,304        2.432
Iowa.........................................................        1.206        1.165        1.049      292,287        1.320      365,848        1.320
Kansas.......................................................        1.148        1.156        1.040      290,037        1.310      363,032        1.310
Kentucky.....................................................        1.561        1.927        1.735      384,214        1.735      480,911        1.735
Louisiana....................................................        1.443        1.763        1.587      393,511        1.777      492,551        1.777
Maine........................................................        0.643        0.523        0.470      127,220        0.574      159,240        0.574
Maryland.....................................................        1.678        1.674        1.507      333,744        1.507      417,739        1.507
Massachusetts................................................        4.537        1.846        1.661      393,688        1.778      492,771        1.778
Michigan.....................................................        2.812        3.505        3.155      698,708        3.155      874,555        3.155
Minnesota....................................................        1.534        1.430        1.287      331,165        1.495      414,512        1.495
Mississippi..................................................        1.106        1.325        1.193      279,391        1.261      349,707        1.261
Missouri.....................................................        2.211        2.585        2.326      527,173        2.380      659,850        2.380
Montana......................................................        0.884        0.479        0.431      234,773        1.060      293,860        1.060
Nebraska.....................................................        0.778        0.810        0.729      185,958        0.840      232,759       0.8940
Nevada.......................................................        0.641        0.640        0.576      161,683        0.730      202,375        0.730
New Hampshire................................................        0.483        0.408        0.367      115,172        0.520      144,158        0.520
New Jersey...................................................        2.848        2.607        2.346      533,777        2.410      668,115        2.410
New Mexico...................................................        0.975        0.869        0.782      232,558        1.050      291,087        1.050
New York.....................................................        5.475        4.358        3.922    1,128,109        5.093    1,412,009        5.093
North Carolina...............................................        2.618        3.140        2.826      625,976        2.826      783,519        2.828
North Dakota.................................................        0.636        0.360        0.324      161,683        0.730      202,375        0.730
Ohio.........................................................        3.584        3.826        3.443      762,570        3.443      954,490        3.443
Oklahoma.....................................................        1.420        1.686        1.517      349,099        1.576      436,959        1.576
Oregon.......................................................        1.163        1.302        1.172      285,235        1.288      357,022        1.288
Pennsylvania.................................................        4.865        4.160        3.744      839,868        3.792    1,051,249        3.792
Rhode Island.................................................        0.580        0.275        0.247      128,461        0.580      160,791        0.580
South Carolina...............................................        1.279        1.765        1.589      351,919        1.589      440,488        1.589
South Dakota.................................................        0.653        0.359        0.324      172,758        0.780      216,236        0.780
Tennessee....................................................        1.998        2.515        2.263      501,256        2.263      627,410        2.263
Texas........................................................        6.423        7.649        6.884    1,524,739        6.884    1,908,478        6.884
Utah.........................................................        0.711        0.855        0.770      191,086        0.683      239,178        0.863
Vermont......................................................        0.435        0.293        0.264      104,098        0.470      130,296        0.470
Virginia.....................................................        2.267        2.844        2.559      566,858        2.559      709,522        2.559
Washington...................................................        1.865        1.962        1.765      407,191        1.838      509,671        1.838
West Virginia................................................        1.147        0.806        0.725      226,342        1.022      283,308        1.022
Wisconsin....................................................        1.926        2.018        1.817      402,337        1.817      503,595        1.817
Wyoming......................................................        0.629        0.466        0.419      168,328        0.760      210,692        0.760
Puerto Rico..................................................        0.448        0.000        0.000      101,652        0.459      127,235        0.459
      Total..................................................       00.000      100.000       90.000   22,148,407      100.000   27,722,607       100.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, throughout this debate of many, many 
months on the highway bill, I have expressed the need to raise the 
amount of money that had to be put forward to replenish America's 
infrastructure. And together with Senator Baucus, we cosponsored an 
amendment which lost by one vote in this Chamber to augment the 
spending under this bill. I felt a certain loyalty to that coalition 
which had joined with me and had fought so hard to get additional 
funding.
  Second, the formula that we devised in the underlying bill, ISTEA II, 
I now recognize, while it was essential in my judgment we establish 
that 90 percent return--thereby eliminating the donor-donee distinction 
that existed, I think most unfairly, for these 6 years, and we achieved 
that result--but I find, in consulting with many of my colleagues, that 
the transition is very abrupt to their States, those donee States in 
particular. This amendment, as proposed by the four of us, will help 
ease that transition.
  That point I want to make very clearly, it will help ease that 
transition, because Senators in clear conscience on both sides of the 
aisle have come to the members of the transportation committee and said 
please, we must have some relief as we begin to transition into ISTEA 
II. This bill provides the added funds to give that needed relief, 
badly needed in many instances. I think now with this important 
amendment as part of the bill if so adopted--the Senate will adopt an 
ISTEA II bill.
  I am reasonably confident it will be along the lines of the committee 
bill. But there have been reports from the other House, and they may be 
rumor but I think there is some documentation, all the way from, ``We 
are not

[[Page S10772]]

even going to conference. There won't be a bill this year.'' Or it will 
be just a 6-month bill. And I have heard a 90-day bill.
  At another time I will explain why, in my judgment, that is not good 
for the United States of America. Our transportation infrastructure and 
the need for upgrading is critical for this Nation to remain 
competitive in a one-world market. A 6-year bill has always been the 
format, beginning with ISTEA I, by which the Governors and the 
respective highway authorities in the several States have done the 
long-term planning necessary to improve their own State transportation 
systems. They need 6 years to develop the contracts which must be 
guaranteed to have a flow of funds over that period of time. They are 
not simple contracts, they are very complex contracts.
  I can go on, on that point. But we will be strengthened, the U.S. 
Senate will strengthen its bill to the point where I think the House 
will see the wisdom of the course we have charted in this body for a 
highway bill which is anxiously being awaited by the 50 States. This 
amendment, I think, will ensure the ability of the Senate to go in with 
a strengthened position and persuade the House to the wisdom of having 
a 6-year bill, and hopefully along the funding profile as outlined in 
this amendment.
  The House was deeply concerned, as was the Senate, that next year, 
with the forecast and projections of additional revenues, that they 
could be forthcoming for transportation. What this amendment does is 
literally solidifies--no longer ``bet on the come''--that next year we 
will have additional funds for highways. But this amendment in a sense 
puts that certainty into this legislation, which will enable the 
several States to do their planning.
  So, those are the three basic reasons and I shall add further, such 
that other Senators can have an opportunity to speak on this, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the remaining time let me also thank the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and others on the committee who 
worked long and hard, in putting together the bill that was reported.
  Now, I have discussed with the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, the need of the Appalachian corridor States for additional 
moneys, and that need hasn't been met by this bill. The distinguished 
chairman from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, came to my office and listened 
to my concerns. He listened courteously, and I thank him for the 
consideration that he gave me. But we have a bill here that does not 
meet those needs that have languished for 31 years. So I feel compelled 
to do what I can for the Appalachian States and the people therein who 
have been promised for 31 years that those Appalachian corridors would 
be funded. I feel the need to do what I can to advance their cause.
  And other Senators have come to me saying, ``We need more money. We 
need more money.'' Six years ago, when we had the ISTEA bill before the 
Senate, I found, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I found 
$8 billion, a little over $8 billion which enabled the Senate to get 
off the dime, as it were, where it was stalled. That bill wouldn't 
move. So we divided the $8 billion, half I think among the donor States 
and half to those States which had acted to increase the resources for 
transportation within their own borders, such as my own State, which 
had raised its gasoline tax. It had done more than many of the other 
States had done within the respective borders of those States to try to 
meet those needs.
  So, I was able in that instance to find that $8 billion, so Senators 
have again come to me and said listen, we need more money. We need more 
money. So I have done my best to find that money. There will be a time, 
as I have said, when we will debate this matter. But I did want to 
thank the distinguished chairman for his work and I hope he will 
understand the necessity that compelled me to try to get more contract 
authority for highway construction all over this country. I will be 
ready to do my best to defend the amendment when we are ready to 
introduce it.

  Mr. President, at this time I would like to state the names of 
additional Senators who have indicated they want to cosponsor the 
amendment: Mr. Akaka, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Ford, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, 
Mr. Robert Kerrey, Mr. Harry Reid, Mr. Shelby. That completes the list 
as of now.
  I urge all Senators who, having heard this discussion today and who, 
feeling that they would like to be cosponsors--I urge them to be in 
touch with my office, Mr. Gramm's office, Mr. Warner's, or Mr. Baucus', 
and let us know that.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, Senator Santorum, who presided over our 
presentations, asked to be added as a cosponsor. Mr. Faircloth would 
also like to be listed. We are not offering the amendment today, but in 
terms of putting people on notice, putting the tables out, I wanted to 
be sure that they were listed as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the lovely bouquets that have 
been thrown my way. I think I would swap them for more support than I 
am currently receiving. But, nonetheless, I appreciate it. I thank the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia and all around here, 
Senator Baucus, Senator Warner, others. I would ask the sponsors of the 
amendment that we would like to see it. We are going away, now, for a 
week, and I think it would be helpful if we could see this amendment. 
When will it be available?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman has asked a 
pertinent question. I think I have already answered it. The amendment 
is still being drafted, but, in view of the fact that the Senate is 
about to go into recess--I understand there won't be a session here 
tomorrow--we, who are the chief cosponsors, felt that we ought to 
announce to Senators that there will be an amendment. We put tables in 
the Record, and at such time as the amendment is ready to be offered, 
all Senators will then have it made available to them. Senators are 
entitled to see it when it has been finished.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would ask if it is possible to see it 
before we leave? In other words tonight, tomorrow, something like that?
  Mr. BYRD. As the distinguished chairman knows, the department has had 
some difficulty in calculating the numbers even for the bill that is 
before the Senate. Now we have an amendment that only last night the 
four chief cosponsors finally agreed upon, and it takes some time for 
the department to run the tables, run the figures and get them ready. 
Senators know that. The Senator from Rhode Island and other Senators 
know that. We could have waited until we came back to announce that we 
have an amendment, but we felt it was the better part of wisdom, 
because it is being talked around here. This amendment, without its 
having yet been produced, is already being criticized, and things are 
being said about the amendment that are not true. So we felt that 
before we go into recess we ought to make that clear, that there are 
mistaken conceptions of what the amendment does. We ought to set that 
record straight. But the amendment will be made available in due time.
  And while I am on my feet, I would like to say we ought to have an 
ISTEA bill this year. We ought not settle for a 6-months extension. We 
ought not settle for a year's bill. Next year is an election year. If 
we can't reach an agreement this year, how easy is it going to be to 
reach an agreement next year, during an election? We ought to focus our 
energies and our attention and our talents on promoting action on the 
bill this year, a full 6-year bill.
  Now, that's the best I can give the Senator in answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I understood there is a table being 
passed around that shows the allocations to the various States. That's 
really the tough part of the amendment. So, what is left?
  Mr. BYRD. I will give----
  Mr. CHAFEE. The language of the amendment must be available if----
  Mr. BYRD. I am pleased to give the Senator the table. It will also be 
in the Congressional Record in the morning, for all to see.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, I will give him the table that 
I have quickly prepared when I first learned of the amendment, which

[[Page S10773]]

shows the consistency between this amendment and the distribution of 
funds under our underlying bill, ISTEA II.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I know the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee has some comments. But let me just say briefly, I want 
to put one thing to bed around here, to rest, and that is that this gas 
tax has been collected with the people who are paying it believing it 
is all going into a highway trust fund.
  Let me just review the bidding a little bit. Many of us--I certainly 
was here, the Senator from Montana was on the Finance Committee at the 
time, I don't know whether the Senator from Texas was. But in 1990, 
there was a 5-cent-per-gallon tax started; 5-cent-per-gallon tax; 2.5 
cents of that was to go to the general fund, 2.5 cents to the highway 
trust fund. This was no secret. It wasn't something that was slipped 
over anybody. We all voted for it up or down, knowing 2.5 cents of that 
5 cents was going into the general fund of the United States. There is 
none of this business of coming to the pump, looking at it and thinking 
that tax you are paying all goes into building highways.
  Then in 1993, we added a 4.3-cent tax, all to go to the general fund, 
and that was no secret either.
  So, Mr. President, I just want to say that this idea that we are 
somehow deceiving the public by piling up money in the general fund 
from the gasoline tax is just not accurate, and everybody who was in 
the Senate at the time--that is everybody here--certainly those on the 
Finance Committee clearly knew where the money was going to go.
  Let me just say something else. I know the Senator from New Mexico is 
going to deal with this further, but I must say, this is a world record 
around here. We passed a budget in August. That is when it was signed, 
August. September, October we are going to deviate from it.
  The proponents are riding two horses here. One they are saying, ``Oh, 
it's not going to affect anything,'' and that is right, because under 
this amendment, it goes out to the States but can't be spent until one 
of two things happen: until the other domestic discretionary accounts 
are cut or the cap is, or the overall discretionary cap is raised. That 
is true.
  So on one hand you can say what marvelous things are going to be done 
for the highways, every State is going to get more, how wonderful it 
is, and then you say, ``Oh, no, none of it is going to be spent; 
therefore, it is not going to affect the budget at all.''
  When the time comes and the decision is made, you radically alter the 
budget that was just signed by the President a month and a half ago, 
probably it is 2 months ago now. That is a world record for this 
Chamber. Usually we don't deviate from a budget until we have gotten 
into it a little bit, but here we change it after a little less than 2 
months. I don't think that is a very good record we should be proud of 
in this Chamber. I know the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee will be speaking, and I look forward to hearing his remarks.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a point? I want to make it 
clear for the Record I voted against that 4.3-cent tax.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Maybe you did, but the idea that this was adopted by some 
masquerade, somehow the impression ``when my wife goes to the gasoline 
station she is thinking that all that tax money is going into the 
highway trust fund and that if we send it anywhere else we are 
deceiving her,'' that is nonsense. It was nonsense right from the 
beginning, as I said, in delineating the history of what took place in 
1990 and then in 1993.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Sure. Let me say one thing, if I might, Mr. President. I 
am now in my, I guess, 20th year here, and I have been on the side of 
the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I remember lifting 
the Turkish arms embargo about the first year I came here. And then I 
have been on the other side, against him. As a general rule, I would 
far prefer to be on his side than against him. I find it is a much more 
comfortable position, perhaps a safer position in many ways. So I am 
very, very conscious that when I duel with the distinguished senior 
Senator from West Virginia, I have to be on the alert.
  I will buckle on my breastplate of righteousness, I shall seize my 
cap of salvation, I shall grab my sword of the spirit and prepare for 
combat.
  Mr. BYRD. Come one, come all. This rock will fly from its firm base 
as soon as I.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has made 
some comments questioning the fact that people in this country--I think 
it is a fact--the people in this country go to the gas pump and buy 
gasoline under the impression that their tax money goes into the 
highway trust fund and that it comes back to meet their transportation 
needs.
  Was the Senator here in 1956? I was here in 1956. I was here and I 
supported President Eisenhower's interstate system. I was here. My wife 
was buying gas at the pump then. In 1956, Congress created that highway 
trust fund. She was buying gas at the gas pump then, and the people 
were told that the gas tax was going into the trust fund tax, and that 
money was going to be used for highways.
  And so for over 40 years the American people have believed that their 
money that they were spending at the gas tank, that portion that was 
the Federal tax, was going into the highway trust fund. That is no 
Alice in Wonderland story. That is no make-believe story. That has been 
a fact. I voted for it 41 years ago.
  In 1990, it was diverted. That is when it was diverted, 1990. I was 
here. I voted for that. I went over to those long meetings that we had 
with Mr. Sununu and Mr. Darman and Mr. Domenici and I guess Mr. Warner 
was there, Mr. Hatfield was there. Anyhow, Senators on both sides of 
the aisle were there. And we came up with a package. Yes, we diverted 
it. We voted to do that.
  But recently the Senator from Texas offered an amendment, which said 
that the gasoline tax should again go into the highway trust fund.
  So let's not break faith with the American people. They have been 
told it is for highways, and that is what this amendment says it will 
be used for if the savings are there. I just wanted to make that point.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I left a very important meeting because 
I thought I had the time at 5:15 or at least after they used an hour or 
so. I think I am being fair in saying they used an hour, and I was 
supposed to follow for a half-hour.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder if the Senator will yield for 1 minute on this 
last point.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will you set it for 1 minute?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Very briefly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. BAUCUS. In 1990, we enacted 2.5 cents to deficit reduction. In 
1993, the 4.3 was passed. In 1995, due to pressure from the public, we 
undid the 2.5 cents so that went to the highway trust fund. And right 
now, because of the public pressure, we are going to put the 4.3 cents 
in the trust fund.
  In the past, Congress has diverted, but the public is now telling 
us--and we enacted in 1995 to put 2.5 cents back in the trust fund, and 
now we are putting 4.3 cents in because the public wants it back in the 
trust fund.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since there is going to be a week or 
more intervening before we can debate the so-called amendment, I hope 
it is available for us to look at before then. I am always a little 
suspicious when a bill isn't ready, especially when everybody is 
clamoring to get on it because it seems to me they know something I 
don't know.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. And I bet they do. I bet they know this bill is going 
to promise them all a lot more money, so why don't they all get on? 
Right, I ask Senator Gramm? Every Senator should get on it. You can 
count on it, it is going to give you more money, you can count on it, 
whether it is the Appalachia Regional Commission, Texas, New Mexico--
all of you are going to get a lot more money.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield as much as you like.

[[Page S10774]]

  Mr. BYRD. I have two things to say. I hear that the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico has an amendment. I hear that he has one. I 
have seen papers to that extent, memos, or letters something like that. 
I didn't read them, but I have seen them around the desks. So he, too, 
has an amendment. I haven't seen it. We four sponsors think that even 
though our amendment is not ready, we should clear the air and clear 
the record as to what it will not do, because many things are being 
said in the Senate about our amendment that are absolutely incorrect. I 
have seen some of the papers on the desks around here saying what this 
amendment purportedly will do. We Senators wanted to clear the record 
today to say that it will not do this and it will not do that and it 
will not do other things stated in the propaganda that is being spread. 
That is all. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was delighted to yield. First, I would like to make a 
part of the Record and I would like Senators to know a little history 
about the trust fund and whether or not there really is a surplus. At 
least on the Republican side I would like them to read the Republican 
policy statement issued on October 6, just a few days ago, that 
analyzes the history of this. It will be good reading. If there ever 
was a myth, it is the myth about the great, great trust fund buildup 
that is there for highways that we ought to be using, everybody says; 
this budget process is just building that big reserve and that big 
slush fund. This will tell you that is kind of a paper tiger. I would 
call it one of the greatest myths around.
  Having said that, let me clear up the second point. No Republican 
voted for the 4.3-cent-gasoline tax. So I say to Senator Warner, you 
can get up and say you didn't. You are in good company. None of them 
did.
  On the other hand, I can say to my friend from West Virginia, you 
did, because every Democrat voted for it. The important thing is, what 
was it for? I understand that in 1956 Senator Byrd's wife was buying 
gasoline at the pump. I was just a small guy then, but I was buying 
gasoline at the pump. I had a little Chevrolet, secondhand car that my 
dad gave me, and it was secondhand from his business.
  Let me tell you, this 4.3 cents was adopted in a balanced budget 
proposal by this President, voted for by Democrats. I will tell you, 
some of us said that it wouldn't work, and maybe it worked better than 
we thought, but I say to my good friend from West Virginia, there was 
no diversion of highway trust fund moneys. It was voted up or down in 
the General Treasury to reduce the deficit. We can bring that down here 
and talk about it. It was not a gasoline tax for highway use. It was a 
gasoline tax to reduce the deficit.
  I submit, since we think we have balanced the budget, Mr. President, 
maybe the time is to give the 4.3 cents back to the States. That might 
be a good idea. Its original purpose was to help balance the budget. 
Let's say to the American people, ``We're giving it back to you because 
we don't need it to balance the budget.''
  I say to Senator Byrd, I know you want me to yield, but you have been 
down here a long time. You used the word ``propaganda'' about what I 
sent around. I want to make sure this attack on propaganda is equal, so 
I can attack propaganda about how great this amendment is and what it 
isn't going to do.
  Frankly, we are going to have a lot longer discussion about this, but 
it is wonderful to just visualize and think for a minute how far we 
have come.
  June the 5th--anybody waiting around for me to say what year--this 
year, June the 5th, 1997, we overwhelmingly adopted a balanced budget 
resolution. And everybody was praising us. And John Warner, a wonderful 
Senator from Virginia, you are hugging Domenici saying, ``You finally 
got it done''--June 5th.
  Just a little while later, July 31st, this year--not 10 years ago--we 
adopted two bills, one by a vote of 85-15. Now, I imagine in this 
debate some can stand and say I did not vote for it. Maybe Phil Gramm 
can say that. I was not one of the 15. He did not vote for the budget 
resolution, anyway.
  Anyway, 85 Senators voted for the bill to implement that balanced 
budget. And lo and behold, on the same day, 92 Senators voted on a new 
tax bill for the United States of America--all part of a big plan to 
balance the budget.
  What actually has happened, Mr. President, and fellow Senators, is 
that along comes a highway bill, after all that is done, and by an 
accident of time it comes after the Budget Act and on to the floor 
comes Senators saying, ``Let's spend $31 billion more on highways than 
we expected just on June 5th, 1997.''
  Now, is Senator Domenici saying you are breaking the budget? Well, I 
don't know. I am just telling you that on June the 5th you voted in a 
budget resolution that sets obligation authority for highways, and now 
before the year ends you are saying, without another budget, without 
another debate, without any decision about where the money is going to 
come from--I will talk about that in a minute--we all decide we are 
going to add $31 billion to the highway program.
  Anybody that thinks Senator Pete Domenici is not for highways has 
Senator Pete Domenici wrong. In fact, about my own State, I have to say 
that we are not spending enough on highways. And it is going to be very 
detrimental to the future of our State. Most of it is because we do not 
want to spend any of our own money. And in our urban areas we put in 
about $80 million every 2 or 3 years in a bond election. We ought to 
put $250 million, in my opinion.
  The point is, I am for spending more money on highways. And I will 
present an amendment that does justice to the votes of these Senators 
on June 5th and July 31st. For my amendment will say: Early next year 
when we do a new budget resolution and we thoroughly debate--what?--
prospects for a surplus--I am hearing people running around saying 
there is going to be a big surplus. We are going to debate that.
  I hope there is a great national debate because, to tell you the 
truth, the deficits are going to be down in the year 1998, 1999, and 
the next year dramatically from what we predicted. And I believe, 
absent some catastrophe, in the short term we will balance the budget 
and have a lot of money left over in the year 2002.
  But before we get too excited, during that debate we will have a 
presentation, if not by others, by me, telling you what is going to 
happen in about 12 years or 14 when the baby boomers hit this. Just 
like one of these giant pythons when they swallow some big monster 
animal, they can hardly digest; it gets about that big. That is the way 
the budget is going to go--huge.
  Frankly, I want to tell you what I think this amendment does. I 
believe there is a disagreement in philosophy between the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and his cosponsor, Senator 
Gramm of Texas. Senator Gramm has said--and he put it in a circular 
that has gone to everybody around to muster up support--and the fourth 
point he makes in his circular is that we will not spend any more money 
as a result of spending $31 billion more on highways than we expected, 
we will not spend any more money.
  That does not sound possible, does it? Of course, it does. Senator 
Gramm says we will take it out of the rest of Government. So what we 
had planned to spend in Government, which incidentally for those who 
think we were going to spend a lot of money, get ready. The 
appropriated accounts on the domestic side are expected to increase 
five-tenths of 1 percent in each of the next 4 years, I say to my 
friend from West Virginia. That is the number built in the law.
  Now, think with me. Senator Gramm says, $31 billion more spent on 
highways than contemplated, but we are not going to spend any more. 
Where is it going to come from? Now, the version of the Senator from 
Texas is to take it out of the rest of Government, except defense, I 
assume. Wait a minute--you shake your head--it is not right.
  It is impossible that you can spend $31 billion and not break the 
caps that are currently established or reduce the level of spending in 
the appropriated accounts other than transportation. It is 
arithmetically impossible. That is not philosophy; that is just plain 
old numbers.
  Now, Senator Byrd is saying, if I hear him right, ``Now wait a 
minute.''
  Mr. BYRD: Be careful now. Be careful.
  Mr. DOMENICI. ``I want to spend this 4.2-cent gasoline tax. I want to 
spend it

[[Page S10775]]

on highways. On the other hand, I'm willing, when the time comes, to 
increase the domestic caps so we don't have to cut appropriations.''

  Now, is this amendment a budget buster or is it not? I guess one 
could say we are not breaking the budget because somehow the money is 
going to come down from Heaven and come into this trust fund, or some 
will say we are just going to go to the NIH and we are not going to get 
rid of it like Senator Domenici suggested, we are just going to cut it 
5 percent. And we are not going to get rid of all those items that 
somebody read off my letter, we are just going cut them off 5, 6 
percent. Well, everybody ought to know what we are going to cut to 
spend $31 billion. And the problem with this process: They will not 
know until we have already put on the new map $31.6 billion in highway 
funds.
  That is the truth of it. Why do I think we should do it another way? 
And I urge you all to do it another way. I urge that we not spend the 
money, the 4.3 cents, the $31.6 billion, that we not obligate it now 
but, rather, we say the following in an amendment--and if Senator Byrd 
wants to know what my amendment is, I am explaining it right now--that 
we adopt an amendment that says, when the budget process is finished, 
and the debate has concluded on what we should do with our money next 
year, including surpluses, and the following years, when we have 
decided, if Congress decides to spend more money on highways then, put 
it right in the budget resolution, an automatic supplemental 
appropriation. An amendment to the Highway Act will occur so that you 
have accomplished it and everybody has had their chance to debate where 
the $31 billion comes from.
  And I surmise that some of you might say, including my wonderful 
debating friend, Senator Gramm, you might say, ``Domenici, you know, 
they're going to put it in highways anyway.'' Well, that works both 
ways. If you know they are going to vote to put it in highways, why 
don't you wait and do it when everybody can vote on the difference 
between spending it here and not spending it in education or spending a 
surplus to build highways?
  That is a fair proposal on our part. I will draw the language for 
you. I will let you help me. Then I will tell you, if you prevail in 
this debate that you want some surplus going in here, that you want to 
cut other programs to put more here, I will be on the floor supporting 
you to the best of my ability right on through.
  Frankly, I do not think--you know, I used to be, in all honesty--I 
will not tell you when it stopped happening, I say to Senator Byrd--but 
I used to really fret when I thought I had to come down here and argue 
with you. Because I figured I did not know enough. And by the time you 
got through with the process down here, you taught me a lesson. You 
taught me it early. The rules are made for you. If you do not use them, 
it is your fault. And if I use them, it is because I have a right to.
  I did not feel up to it back yonder. But I welcome this debate. And 
if you all win, you know, I am not going to lose any sleep. But I think 
I will make the point that this is not the way to run the Government of 
the United States 4 months after you pass a balanced budget and you put 
caps on what you can spend for each of the next 5 years, literally 
dollar numbers written in the law for all the domestic accounts, 
including highways. They are all in that cap. You cannot raise the cap 
without 60 votes saying, ``Raise the cap.''
  And along comes the appropriations process, which is the other 
vehicle you can use, and you cannot--you cannot--mysteriously find $31 
billion to spend. You put new commitments in with the same amount of 
money to spend for everything--not one penny less or one penny more. It 
does not change. There is no inflation built into those caps. They are 
not tied to the economy of the United States. They are flat literal 
numbers.
  And why are they numbers? Because we found the only thing that worked 
to control spending on the appropriated side was to say if you exceed 
the caps, the Executive must put in an automatic sequester so it is the 
only thing that works. And it works because twice the White House--not 
this one--sent us a little signal. We were $40 million-some over the 
cap once, and Dick Darman said, just so you will all know that it 
works, he sequestered every account in Government to the tune of a 
total of $43 million, which I think was one-tenth of one-hundredth of 
one-thousandth of a percent, but to prove it works.
  It was sort of a bit of the leftover of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. 
Probably the one notion of real consequence was the notion of a 
sequester, which most people never heard the word before. In fact, I 
had not until you introduced the bill--or until we helped you rewrite 
the bill or whatever. I worked on it for a long time, I say to the 
Senator.
  I am going to quit for now because if I am going to bore the Senate 
with my entire speech tonight they will not listen to me the next time. 
And I want to make sure that they all hear this and that they all hear 
my version of this. And then they can vote as they please because that 
is what we were elected for.

  I want to close by saying to all that big lobby group, believe you 
me, when you say ``lobby groups,'' don't think that the highway people 
are not lobbying. Man, oh, man, you would think that the only ones 
lobbying are the manufacturers of America. They are all out there now 
that you have spoken tonight. When these Senators go home on this 
recess, they will claw at them. They will already know how much more is 
going to be spent on their highway projects. It will not be the 
citizens. It will be the highway builders. Nothing wrong with that. 
There is not one Senator that said they should not, but, boy, they are 
going to tell you every penny is needed. And they aren't going to know 
one diddly about the process going on up here or what they are 
competing with. It is just: Build the roads.
  Someday we are going to build more roads. Maybe I will be voting for 
building more roads. But I tell you for now, you have not come close to 
convincing me that this is the way to do it. I urge that you go back 
and find a way to draft a contingent bill, draft a bill contingent upon 
the Congress of the United States in the budget process increasing the 
obligational authority that you think we ought to have.
  I am willing to help you draft that and say if Congress votes that in 
as it sets its new priorities--and, yes, I would even say decides 
whether it wants to spend more money--then I will be right there with 
you when the time comes seeing that you get it. But I just believe 
that, you know--I cannot yet tonight tell you, but I will be able to in 
a week, how this changes the system that was working.
  I do not mean by that, spending the trust fund reserves. There can be 
a big argument about the unified budget and taking it off budget. I 
just mean, to come in at this date just because a highway bill is due 
and add $31 billion this way without having to face up to any competing 
needs, and leaving that competition to another day, or as one would 
say, ``Don't worry about the competition. We'll just increase the caps 
and spend more,'' I think that ought to be done not in the context of a 
highway bill that gives everybody some goodies that they are all prone 
to vote for, I think it should be done in a framework of the U.S. 
Senate at its best, determining what the overall expenditures of 
Government ought to be, and maybe I will even say tonight how much of 
the surplus we want to spend and how much you want to leave, how much 
you want to put in the Social Security trust fund, and all kinds of 
nice things.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will be very brief because we have other 
business that is going to come before the Senate.
  Before the Senator from New Mexico leaves, the Senator talks in terms 
of waiting, waiting until we can consider other competing needs. We are 
saying, ``Let's keep faith with the American people.'' If there are 
savings, let's spend the money in the trust fund for that which the 
American people think it is to be spent for, not other competing needs. 
That is just what we are saying it is being spent now for--for other 
competing needs. We are saying, stop it, keep faith with the American 
people. Spend it for highways if it is going to be spent.
  Other competing needs--like what? Cutting taxes? Is that what it is? 
The

[[Page S10776]]

distinguished Senator mentioned how the budget is going to bulge when 
the baby boomers get on the scene. I voted against a tax cut, Senator. 
I said let's put it against the deficit, let's take what you would 
spend on a tax cut and apply it on the budget. Let's balance the budget 
with it. I said I'm against a tax cut that the Republicans proposed and 
I'm against the cuts that the President proposed.
  Now, we are simply saying, let's spend it for highways if it is going 
to be spent and if the savings are there. Of course, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee and the members of the Budget Committee are going 
to make that decision. But the people need to know something now. Why 
do we do it now? Because, we have a highway bill before the Senate, 
that is why. Now is the time. Don't wait until the opportunity has 
passed and say, ``Well, we should have done it when the highway bill 
was before the Senate.'' Let's do it now.
  The distinguished Senator says he will welcome the debate.
  I, too, welcome the debate, and we won't be running for the mountains 
crying for the rocks to fall on us. When the debate comes, we will be 
ready.
  As I say, we just wanted to put to rest some misunderstandings that 
were being spread. I don't blame anybody for that. They were jumping to 
unmerited conclusions. We wanted to set that straight. When the time 
comes, the amendment will be offered, and I welcome any and all 
cosponsors, as do the other sponsors. I don't intend to convince my 
friend from New Mexico. I honor and respect him. He is one of the 
brightest minds I have ever seen come in this Senate, but let's keep 
faith with the American people.
  Ananias dropped dead, and so did Sapphira, his wife. They lied, they 
lied to God. I'm not saying anybody has lied, but I am saying we are 
not keeping faith with the American people. The American people were 
told by us in 1956, Senator--I was here; I was over in that other 
body--they were told that the money was going into that trust fund and 
would be coming back home to meet the transportation needs of the 
people.
  So, let's keep faith with the American people. And we will renew this 
debate on another day, I say with great respect to all my friends.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me say it is awfully tempting to get 
into a debate here, and I will try to avoid that as well. We will have 
an opportunity to do that the week after the recess when our amendment 
will be before us, the bill will be before us.
  In the words of Ronald Reagan, let me ask Senator Domenici to take a 
little walk with me down memory lane. When his budget was on the floor, 
I offered an amendment to take a position in the Senate that said that 
the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline should be put in the trust fund 
and should be spent for highways and for mass transit. By a vote of 83-
16 Members of the U.S. Senate said yes. When the tax bill was before 
the Finance Committee I offered an amendment to put the 4.3-cents-a-
gallon tax on gasoline into the trust fund. By a vote of 15-5 the 
Finance Committee said yes, and that amendment was never challenged on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate. So, whatever the Senator from New Mexico 
would like the world to be, 83 Members of the Senate said put the 
gasoline tax in the trust fund and spend it for the purpose that 
gasoline taxes have always been spent every time there has been a 
permanent gasoline tax in history before this gasoline tax, spend it 
for that purpose on highways and mass transit.

  Now, in terms of this debate about the budget, what Senator Domenici 
is saying is, ``Don't amend the highway bill; let me amend the budget. 
Don't do it today, decide it next year.''
  We have the highway bill before us. The last highway bill that we 
wrote lasted without a change in the amount of money being spent for 6 
long years. The reason we debate a highway bill is to write a highway 
bill. The point here is as simple as it can be. Do you believe that the 
gasoline tax which is in the highway trust fund should be spent for 
highways? If you do, then you are going to end up supporting the 
amendment that Senator Byrd and I are offering. If you don't believe 
that, you are going to end up opposing it.
  Finally, in terms of the whole debate about the budget, this 
amendment does not bust the budget. What this amendment does do is it 
raises the contract authority for highways so that we have an 
opportunity to compete for funds in appropriations to build highways. 
Our amendment is very clear on this point. I don't want to go much 
further because it is not fair to Senator Domenici, given that we don't 
have the amendment before us, but it simply says two things, and I 
think it is clear there are Members of the Senate who do not support 
these two things--but I do.
  It says, No. 1, that if you have savings by lower spending --it 
doesn't say anything about higher revenues from economic growing, any 
of that stuff. It just says if we spend less than we have in the budget 
and if you decide to spend that money somewhere else--two ifs; it 
doesn't say you will have the savings and it doesn't say you will spend 
it anywhere else--but it says if you do have the savings and you decide 
to spend it, you have to fund the highway trust fund first. You have to 
fund it first.
  Now, other people say, well, what is so important about it relative 
to all these other things we spend money on? What is important about it 
is we already have a surplus of $23.7 billion where we told the 
American people their money was going to build highways and we spent it 
on something else, as we are doing this very day. That surplus is going 
to grow to $90 billion. Senator Byrd believes, I believe, Senator 
Warner, and Senator Baucus believe that it is fundamentally dishonest 
for us to tell people the trust fund is for building roads and to be 
building up a surplus of $90 billion where that money is being spent on 
other things.
  So we are not making a decision here. We are not trying to write 
Senator Domenici's budget next year. We are trying to write the highway 
bill now. Senator Domenici says, ``Well, let's debate next year's 
budget.'' We are not debating next year's budget. There is no guarantee 
that all of us will be on the same side of that debate. What we are 
doing is debating highways. We are saying, we have said by overwhelming 
votes, including on Senator Domenici's budget this year, that we want 
gasoline taxes to go to the trust fund. We want those taxes to be spent 
on highways. All we are saying is that we want to have a highway bill 
that reflects the position that we have taken not once but twice. Once 
in the budget this year, once in the tax cut this year.
  This is not a new idea. This is something that we have approved over 
and over and over again. We think the time has come to make it clear in 
the highway bill--not in some future budget we may write, but in the 
highway bill--that when we tell people their gasoline tax is going to 
highways, we want it to go into highways.
  In terms of our language on the budget, we are just simply saying if 
you have outlay savings and if you spend them--two big ifs; if you have 
outlay savings and you spend them--you have to fund the highway trust 
fund first.
  I think the overwhelming majority of the American people are for it. 
I know there are other spending interests that would rather have the 
money. That is not the debate today. The debate today is about 
highways, and we are for them and we want to build them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at a later date I will enjoy entering 
into the discussion that has just been commenced. I assure the Senate 
it is not finished. I have great fondness for all participants, but I 
have two worries. One worry is the worry that the head of the Federal 
Reserve just announced we are coming into a period of inflation, and 
the second worry is whether the impact of the amendment as supported by 
the Senator from Texas would require a reduction in discretionary 
spending for other accounts in the years covered by the amendment of 
the Senator from West Virginia. That still has to be examined, in my 
opinion.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Byrd pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1292 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

[[Page S10777]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, first, I see the Democratic leader here. 
I will be very pleased to yield to my friend. We have a series of items 
and we have not yet introduced our bill, but we would be pleased to 
listen to the leader who has this time reserved.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I have a short tribute 
I would like to make.
  Mr. STEVENS. I shall wait.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the indulgence of the senior 
Senator from Alaska. I appreciate very much the opportunity to have 
heard my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, our former leader, 
who is, in spirit, still our leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

                          ____________________