[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.
____________________