[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10938-S10947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            HIGHWAY FUNDING

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, when the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia reaches the floor and is recognized, he will introduce an 
amendment that he and I are introducing with Senator Warner and Senator 
Baucus. It is a very important amendment. It is the culmination of a 
long debate about highway funding and about using trust funds for the 
purpose that the trust funds are cumulated. My colleagues have heard a 
great deal about this debate to this point. They are going to hear a 
lot more about it in the next few days. But I wanted to outline how we 
got to the point of offering this amendment. I think it is a very 
important vote. I think it is important that it be an informed vote. So 
let me go back to 1993. What I want to do is outline how we got to the 
point that we find ourselves today. I then want to talk about the 
amendment, and I will leave the great preponderance of the details up 
to Senator Byrd.
  In 1993, as part of the initial budget adopted with the new Clinton 
administration, the Congress adopted a 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on 
gasoline. For the first time in the history of the country since we had 
the Highway Trust Fund, this permanent gasoline tax did not go to build 
roads or to build mass transit. Unlike any other permanent gasoline tax 
that we had adopted since the establishment of the trust fund, it went 
to general revenues.
  When we had the debate, obviously much objection was raised to the 
fact that we were taxing gasoline and not funding roads. On the budget 
resolution this year, I offered an amendment that called on the Senate 
to do two things: One, to take the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline--
which is an annual revenue, by the way, of about $7.2 billion--to take 
that money out of general revenue and put it into the Highway Trust 
Fund, where historically permanent gasoline taxes have always gone. The 
second part of this amendment was to require that the money be spent 
for the purpose for which it had been collected as part of the Highway 
Trust Fund, and that is that the money be spent to build roads. That 
amendment was adopted with 83 votes in the Senate. Every Republican 
except two voted for the amendment; 31 Democrats voted for the 
amendment. It was a strong bipartisan declaration of the principle that 
when you collect money from gasoline taxes that that money ought to be 
used to build roads as part of the user fee concept which has always 
been the foundation on which we have had gasoline taxes.
  When we passed the tax bill this year, I offered an amendment in the 
Finance Committee to take the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline away 
from general revenue and to put it into the Highway Trust Fund. That 
amendment was adopted in the Finance Committee and that amendment was 
part of the tax bill both times it was voted on in the Senate. Those 
who opposed the amendment contemplated offering an amendment to strip 
away that provision and, after looking at the level of support in the 
Senate, decided not to offer it. As a result, in the new tax bill the 
transfer of the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline became the law of the 
land and it now is going into the Highway Trust Fund where historically 
our gasoline taxes have gone.

  Now, in this last month, the transportation bill, the highway bill, 
was reported out of committee, but that highway bill did not provide 
that any of the funds from the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline be 
spent for roads. What would occur if in fact the bill as written by 
committee were adopted is that we now have--if you will look at this 
chart--we have $23.7 billion of surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. What 
that really means is that over the years we have collected $23.7 
billion to build roads, but rather than building roads with those funds 
we have allowed that money to be spent for other purposes. And as a 
result, Americans have paid taxes on gasoline but that money has not 
been used for the purpose that they paid the taxes. Now, as a result of 
the adoption of the amendment that I offered on the Finance Committee 
bill, the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline is now going into the trust 
fund and, if we don't amend the transportation bill before us, by the 
year 2003 we could have a surplus in the Highway Trust Fund of $90 
billion.
  What does that surplus mean? It is simply an accounting entry to say 
that we have collected $90 billion that we told the American people 
would go to build roads, we have collected it by taxing gasoline, and 
yet every penny of that $90 billion will have been spent but not on 
roads. It will have been spent on many other things--some worthy, some 
not so worthy--but it will not have been spent for the purpose that the 
money was collected in the first place. And that purpose is to build 
roads.
  The amendment that Senator Byrd and I are offering will basically do 
this. It will take the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and it will 
allow it to accumulate for a year. And then, after the accumulation has 
occurred for 1 year, it will commit that revenue for the purpose that 
it was collected: To build roads. What it will mean is that over the 
period of our bill it will authorize about $31 billion of additional 
funds to build roads, and the actual expenditure will be about $21 
billion.
  If we don't pass this amendment, what will happen is this $90 billion 
will be collected, it will not be spent for roads, and every penny of 
it will be spent for something else. Senator Byrd the other day likened 
this procedure to the story of Ananias in the Bible, where, in the book 
of Acts, Ananias has sold his worldly goods to give the money to the 
new, fledgling church, only Ananias holds back part of the money. And 
God not only struck Ananias dead but struck his wife Saphira dead.
  In a very real sense, what we have been doing on the Highway Trust 
Fund is we have been engaged in an action which is basically deception. 
We have been telling people that they are paying taxes to build roads 
when they pay at the gasoline pump, and we have not been building 
roads. We have, in fact, been spending that money for other purposes. 
The amendment that Senator Byrd will offer for himself and for me, for 
Senator Warner, and Senator Baucus, will simply take the 4.3 cents of 
revenues and assure that they are, in turn, spent for the purpose that 
the tax is now collected, and that is building roads.
  I would note that even under our amendment, the unexpended balance of 
the trust fund will grow from $23.7 billion today, to at least $39 
billion by the year 2003.
  The issue here is, should money that is collected for the purpose of 
building roads be authorized for expenditure for that purpose? Or 
should we continue to allow it to be spent for other purposes?
  Let me address the issue of the budget. Nothing in our amendment 
busts the budget. Nothing in our amendment increases expenditures by 
one thin dime. Nothing in our amendment will allow the budget deficit 
to grow. All our amendment does is require that the funds that are 
collected on the gasoline tax to build roads be authorized to be 
expended on building roads. Obviously we cannot require, in the 
transportation bill, that the Appropriations Committee appropriate the 
money each and every year to fund the authorization. But I would remind 
my colleagues that 6 years ago we wrote a highway bill and we set out 
in that highway bill the authorization levels that would allow 
appropriations, and that highway bill, through 6 long years, was never 
changed.
  Some of our colleagues will argue, ``Well, let's not authorize the 
building of roads with taxes collected to build roads now, let's wait a 
couple of years and write another budget and make a decision.''
  Our decision today is about whether or not we are going to be honest 
with the American people and whether or not we are going to spend money 
collected to build roads for the purpose that they are collected.
  That basically is the issue. This is not an issue about total 
spending. Nothing in our amendment changes total spending. It is an 
issue about truth in taxing, and that is, when we tax people on a user 
fee to build roads, do we build roads with the money or do we allow it 
to be spent for other purposes?
  In our amendment, we say that we are not raising the total level of 
spending, but we make it clear we are serious about funding highways. 
We say that if savings occur in the future relative to the budget 
agreement and if Congress decides to spend any of those savings in the 
future, that those savings must be used to fully fund highways and meet 
the obligation that the

[[Page S10939]]

revenues collected in this gasoline tax be used for the purpose of 
building roads.
  So there will be many issues debated, but they really boil down to a 
very, very simple issue: When we are imposing a tax on gasoline, a tax 
that people are paying when they are filling up their car and truck, 
and we tell them that that money is being spent for roads so that they 
are beneficiaries of the tax they are paying, are we going to fulfill 
the commitment we make to them when we tell them that or are we going 
to allow, incredibly, $90 billion to be collected over the next 6 years 
where people are told the money is going to build roads but, in 
reality, the money goes to fund something else?
  There are many ways you can debate this issue, but it all comes down 
simply to priorities. What the Byrd-Gramm amendment will do is fulfill 
the commitment we have made by authorizing that funds collected in the 
gasoline tax be available to build highways. That is the issue. We do 
not change the formula in allocating the funds. We meet the same 
requirement the committee met, and that is, we guarantee that for the 
first time, every State, at a minimum, will get back 90 percent of 
their share of the gas taxes they send to Washington, DC. As a person 
who is from a donor State, which means we are currently getting 77 
cents for every dollar we send to Washington, that is a dramatic 
improvement.
  The amendment that Senator Byrd will be offering on behalf of some 40 
or 50 cosponsors is an amendment basically that will allow us to 
fulfill the commitment that we have made to the American people.
  So I am very proud to be an original cosponsor with Senator Byrd of 
this amendment. I think it is a very important amendment. I hope our 
colleagues will look at it. I hope they will decide that it is time to 
tell the American people the truth. It is time to stop collecting 
gasoline taxes and then using those gasoline taxes for purposes other 
than building roads.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from 
Louisiana is to be recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the President.
  Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
Senator from Texas. I think what he and Senator Byrd are doing is the 
correct thing to do. I am proud to be a cosponsor of their amendment 
and hope that the Senate recognizes that this makes a great deal of 
sense and is the right policy as well.
  (The remarks of Mr. Breaux pertaining to the introduction of S. 1308 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is now recognized for up to 30 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my distinguished friend, Mr. Gramm, who has spoken 
already on this subject. And I thank Mr. Warner and Mr. Baucus, both of 
whom will speak. I thank them for being chief cosponsors of the 
amendment along with me.
  I should state at this point that there are 40 Senators, in addition 
to myself, who will have their names on this amendment. I will not 
offer it today except to offer it to be printed. And at such time as I 
do offer it, I will then add additional names by unanimous consent.
  So in the meantime, if any Senators wish to cosponsor the amendment, 
if they will let either me or Mr. Warner or Mr. Baucus or Mr. Gramm 
know, we will act accordingly and have their names added at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. President, S. 1173, the reauthorization of the Intermodal----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Because this is such an important announcement you are 
making, and having had the opportunity to work with you and the others 
on this, there are 41 cosponsors, but we also know of others who made 
personal commitments to us over and above the 41 that intend to vote 
for the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. That is right. And I am glad the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, has pointed that out. I have had several Senators 
say, for one reason or another, they would not cosponsor the amendment 
but that they intended to vote for it when the time comes. I am glad 
the Senator has brought that to the attention of the Senate.
  The reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, or ISTEA II as it is often referred to, will set the 
authorization levels for the next 6 years for major portions of our 
national transportation system. And I congratulate the distinguished 
majority leader, Senator Lott, for his decision to take up this 6-year 
bill rather than the 6-month extension proposed by the other body.
  In the end, however, the committee did not report a bill that in my 
view provides sufficient highway funding authorizations for either the 
Appalachian Development Highway System or the entire National Highway 
System.
  The levels reported were constrained by the allocation of budget 
authority provided to the Committee on Environment and Public Works by 
the budget resolution. And that allocation does not allow anywhere near 
the levels of highway authorization that can be supported by the 
highway trust fund revenues over the coming 6 years, nor the levels 
that are seriously needed to prevent further deterioration in our 
National Highway System.
  Senators will recall that last year I, along with Senator Gramm and 
other Senators, urged the leadership to allow us an opportunity to vote 
on an amendment to a tax measure to transfer the 4.3 cents per gallon 
gas tax which was going toward deficit reduction into the highway trust 
fund where it could be used for increased highway and transit spending 
in the coming years. At the request of both the majority and minority 
leaders, I deferred offering such an amendment during last year's 
session.
  On May 22 of this year, I joined 82 other Senators in voting for an 
amendment by Senator Gramm in support of transferring the 4.3 cents gas 
tax--Mr. President, I think I left my cough drops in the office. I can 
assure all Senators, however, I do not have whooping cough nor do I 
have consumption, but I have had a severe cold. If I could proceed, I 
will do so by rereading the sentence that I stumbled on.
  Earlier this year, I joined 82 other Senators in voting for an 
amendment by Senator Gramm in support of transferring the 4.3 cents gas 
tax to the highway trust fund and spending it on our rapidly 
deteriorating transportation systems.
  And then on July 14, I joined with 82 other Senators and expressed in 
a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle, as well as to the chairman and 
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Roth and Moynihan, 
the view that additional funding for transportation is urgently needed.
  We 83 Senators urged that the conferees on the Reconciliation Act 
retain the Senate's transfer of this gas tax into the highway trust 
fund so that it could then be used for additional transportation 
spending in the future rather than being applied toward deficit 
reduction.
  Ultimately, the balanced budget agreement did include the transfer of 
the 4.3 cents gas tax into the highway trust fund, beginning October 1, 
1997. And as a result, the highway account of the highway trust fund 
will receive additional revenues totaling almost $31 billion over the 
next 5 fiscal years.
  One would think that the budget agreement would have taken this 
additional revenue into account in setting the allocations of budget 
authority for the pending 6-year highway bill. Instead, under the 
reported bill, the cash balances in the highway trust fund will grow 
massively over the next 6 years.
  The Congressional Budget Office tells us that under the committee 
reported bill the balance in the highway trust fund will be just over 
$25.7 billion at the end of fiscal year 1998. And according to CBO, 
that trust fund balance will grow each year thereafter, to an 
unprecedented level of almost $72 billion by the end of fiscal year 
2003. In other words, if we accept the levels of contract authority 
provided in the reported bill for the next 6 years, we will have 
accomplished nothing by placing the 4.3 cents gas tax into the highway 
trust fund other than to build up these huge surpluses which have the 
effect of masking the Federal deficit.

[[Page S10940]]

  I have called for increased levels of infrastructure investment for 
years. And yet, despite my pleas and despite the needs of our States 
and of our constituents, we in the Congress have allowed much of the 
Nation's physical infrastructure to fall further and further into 
disrepair.
  As the chart to my left shows, the Federal spending for 
infrastructure as a percentage of all Federal spending, 1980 through 
1996, has significantly declined since 1980. And it was more than 5 
percent at that time. And as of 1996, it is less than 3 percent.
  So in that year--in that year--Federal spending on highways, mass 
transit, railways, airports, and water supply and waste water treatment 
facilities amounted to just over 5 percent of total Federal spending. 
But as I have already pointed out, our 1996 Federal spending on these 
same infrastructure programs had dropped to less than 3 percent of 
total Federal spending--less than 3 percent of the total Federal 
spending.
  Nowhere is there infrastructure investment more inadequate than on 
our Nation's highways. Our National Highway System carries nearly 80 
percent of U.S. interstate commerce and nearly 80 percent of intercity 
passenger and tourist traffic. The construction of our national 
interstate system represents perhaps the greatest public works 
achievement of the modern era. But we have allowed segments of our 
National Highway System to fall into serious disrepair.

  The U.S. Department of Transportation, the DOT, has released its most 
recent report on the condition of the Nation's highways. Its findings 
are even more disturbing than earlier reports. The Department of 
Transportation currently classifies less than half of the mileage on 
our interstate system as being in good condition. And only 39 percent 
of our entire National Highway System is rated in good condition. Fully 
61 percent of our Nation's highways are rated in either fair or poor 
condition. Almost one in four of our Nation's bridges is now 
categorized as either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
  There are literally over a quarter of a billion miles of pavement in 
the United States that is in poor or mediocre condition. There are over 
185,000 deficient bridges across our country. If we allow the decay of 
our transportation systems to continue, we will vastly constrict the 
lifelines of our Nation and undermine our economic prosperity.
  According to the Department of Transportation, our investment in our 
Nation's highways is a full $15 billion short each year of what it 
would take just to maintain current inadequate conditions. 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.
  It is also critical to point out that while our highway 
infrastructure continues to deteriorate, highway use--highway use--is 
on the rise. Indeed, it is growing at a very rapid pace. The number of 
vehicle miles traveled has grown by more than one-third in just the 
last decade.
  On the chart to my left we see shown U.S. highway vehicle miles 
traveled. The source is the Federal Highway Administration, highway 
statistics, 1983 through 1997.
  As I say, the number of vehicle miles traveled has grown by more than 
one-third. And the chart represented here shows the miles traveled in 
billions, billions of miles. As a result, we are witnessing new highs 
in levels of highway congestion, causing delays in the movement of 
goods and people that costs our national economy more than $40 billion 
a year in lost productivity. And, Mr. President, it is clear that the 
requirements we place on our National Highway System are growing, while 
our investment continues to fall further and further behind.
  We are simply digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole. It is 
a proven fact that investments in highways result in significant 
improvements in productivity and increased profits for business as well 
as improvements to both our local and our national well-being. 
According to the Federal Highway Administration, every $1 billion 
invested in highways creates and sustains over 40,000 full-time jobs. 
Furthermore, the very same $1 billion investment also results in a $240 
million reduction in overall production costs for American 
manufacturers.
  And while we can easily see the economic impact of this 
disinvestment, we must not lose sight of the fact that deteriorating 
highways have a direct relationship to safety. Almost 42,000 people 
died on our Nation's highways in 1996. And that is the equivalent to 
having a midsized passenger aircraft crash every day killing everyone 
on board.
  Let me say that again: 42,000 people died on our Nation's highways in 
1996. That is the equivalent to having a midsized passenger aircraft 
crash every day killing everyone on board.
  Substandard road and bridge designs, outdated safety features, poor 
pavement quality and other bad road conditions are a factor in 30 
percent of all fatal highway accidents according to the Federal Highway 
Administration. The economic impact of these highway accidents costs 
our Nation $150 billion a year, and that figure is growing.
  Now, Mr. President, I am pleased today to bring before the Senate, 
together with the very able Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner, an 
amendment that will increase substantially the highway authorization 
levels contained in the underlying bill. In doing so, the amendment 
will authorize the use of the increased revenues that began flowing 
into the highway trust fund on October 1 of this year. As shown on this 
chart to my left, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 
the 5-year period 1999 through 2003, increased revenue to the highway 
account will equal $30.971 billion. This amendment will utilize these 
additional revenues in full to authorize additional highway spending 
over the 5-year period 1999-2003.

  Our amendment does not change the formulas of the underlying bill. 
Each State will receive its same formula percentage share of these 
additional authorizations as it did in the reported bill. For the donor 
States, the amendment still ensures 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 discretionary 
purposes. Increased discretionary amounts of contract authority will 
therefore be available for the multi-State trade corridors initiative, 
as well as the 13-State Appalachian Development Highway System.
  Adoption of this amendment will not change the scoring of the deficit 
by one dime. It has been a routine event in this Senate for us to adopt 
authorization bills that authorize spending levels that far exceed 
available appropriations. Within the education area, we have funding 
authorizations on the books that exceed actual appropriations by 
billions of dollars. The same is true in the area of health research, 
environmental programs, agricultural programs and the like. The actual 
obligation ceiling that will pertain to these highway programs will be 
set annually by the Appropriations Committees as has been the case for 
the past 6 years under ISTEA and for many of the highway authorization 
bills before that.
  The real question at this time is whether we will allow the 4.3-
cents-per-gallon gasoline tax that is now going into the highway trust 
fund to be authorized for use in the 6-year highway bill or not. 
Eighty-three Senators signed a letter this past July stating their 
support of the use of these funds for the purposes for which the tax is 
being collected; namely, for the construction and maintenance of our 
national system of highways and bridges.
  Much has been made by the opponents of this amendment about the 
possibility that the increased highway spending authorized by the 
amendment will cause drastic cuts over the next 5 years in other 
discretionary spending.
  Mr. President, I believe that this argument is unfounded. Enactment 
into law of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment does not cause any 
cut in any Federal program. Let me repeat again that the bill before us 
is an authorization bill. It is not an appropriations bill. Therefore, 
the Appropriations Committees in each of the next 5 years will have to 
determine what level of highway spending they can afford versus all of 
the other programs under the committee's jurisdiction. Each

[[Page S10941]]

year's transportation bill for fiscal years 1999 through 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 that particular year. The allocation of 
outlays to the Transportation Subcommittee hopefully will be sufficient 
to fully fund the entire contract authority provided in this amendment 
for each of the next 5 years. But, the Senate and House and the 
President will have the final say as to what is provided for highway 
spending and for all other areas of the discretionary portion of the 
budget. Put another way, if we do not adopt this amendment, we may have 
precluded for the next 5 years any additional highway spending.
  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 at a positive rate. 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 
when we voted for the balanced budget agreement this past spring.
  As the chart to my left shows, a comparison of the budget agreement 
and OMB's Mid-Session Review now projects revenues to be a total of 
$129.8 billion greater over the 5-year period 1998 through 2002 than 
was projected in the balanced budget agreement --$129.8 billion greater 
in revenues than was projected at the time of the balanced budget 
agreement. For outlays, 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 Mid-Session Review that total spending over the 
period 1998 to 2002 will be $71.6 billion less than was projected in 
that agreement.
  The pending Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment takes note of the new 
projections in the following way. The amendment provides that if--if--
savings in budgetary outlays for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 are 
still projected to exist in connection with the fiscal year 1999 budget 
resolution, and if that budget resolution calls for using any of the 
projected spending savings, an allocation of additional discretionary 
outlays for highways should be made sufficient to cover the costs of 
the pending amendment.
  So what we are saying in our amendment is this: If any of the $71.6 
billion in spending savings is to be used in the fiscal year 1999 
budget resolution, $21.6 billion should go toward increasing 
discretionary caps in order to cover the outlays that will result from 
the increased authorizations of contract authority for highways 
contained in the pending amendment.
  I am for increasing discretionary outlays sufficient to cover the 
costs of the additional highway construction that will occur under the 
pending amendment if the economy continues to perform favorably as 
projected. But, we are not here today to debate the budget resolution. 
The time for that debate is next spring when the budget resolution for 
1999 is before the Senate. We are here today to decide whether to 
authorize additional highway levels for the next 5 years or whether to 
let the 4.3-cents gas tax be used instead as a bookkeeping mechanism to 
build up huge surpluses to mask the Federal deficit. I urge all 
Senators to vote to waive points of order on this amendment so as to 
allow it to be voted on, and I urge all Senators to vote for its 
adoption. In so doing, Senators will be voting to restore public trust 
in the highway trust fund, and they will be voting to take the next 
step toward providing substantially increased highway investments for 
all States--not just one, not just 10, but all States--over the next 6 
years.
  Let us take a step forward in restoring confidence in Government 
policies by using gas tax revenues as we have told the people that they 
would be used. Taxes collected at the pump are intended to be used to 
construct and maintain safe and modern highways and also to provide 
needed transit systems.
  It is unconscionable that we should continue to hold back public 
moneys from our Nation's highways when they are slipping into such 
deplorable disrepair. Promise keepers we certainly are not when it 
comes to the highway trust fund. The money is there. It has been 
specifically collected and designated to be plowed back into highways 
for the benefit of the taxpayer, and yet we are stubbornly sitting on 
it. We are stubbornly sitting on that money.
  It is wrong. It is deceitful. It is bad public policy. It is 
deplorable in terms of its detrimental impact on our economy. It is 
contributing to the death and accident rates on our highways. It ought 
to be stopped. This amendment gives Senators a way to stop it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record certain tables, 
and I shall send the amendment to the desk not for the purpose of it 
being offered today but only for the purpose of it being printed and 
available for all Senators to see it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              PAVEMENT MILES IN POOR TO FAIR CONDITION \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Mileage
                     State                         poor &    Federal aid
                                                  mediocre      miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................        3,628       23,230
Alaska........................................        1,259        3,010
Arizona.......................................        1,705       11,869
Arkansas......................................        1,994       19,744
California....................................       14,985       48,165
Colorado......................................        5,571       15,965
Connecticut...................................        1,384        5,579
Delaware......................................          584        1,428
District of Columbia..........................          184          389
Florida.......................................        7,858       24,378
Georgia.......................................          224       29,777
Hawaii........................................          306        1,321
Idaho.........................................        4,719        8,594
Illinois......................................       10,681       33,207
Indiana.......................................        5,028       21,586
Iowa..........................................        4,545       23,395
Kansas........................................       10,987       22,274
Kentucky......................................        3,380       14,389
Louisiana.....................................        4,943       14,503
Maine.........................................        1,377        6,138
Maryland......................................        1,704        7,404
Massachusetts.................................        3,028        9,154
Michigan......................................       10,032       30,729
Minnesota.....................................       13,252       29,501
Mississippi...................................        6,853       20,257
Missouri......................................        8,191       30,178
Montana.......................................        5,336       12,058
Nebraska......................................        6,120       15,086
Nevada........................................          633        5,472
New Hampshire.................................          832        3,291
New Jersey....................................        2,318        9,382
New Mexico....................................        4,715        9,787
New York......................................        7,656       25,268
North Carolina................................        7,467       20,036
North Dakota..................................        5,226       13,294
Ohio..........................................        4,316       27,791
Oklahoma......................................        6,813       25,716
Oregon........................................        5,454       17,535
Pennsylvania..................................        4,864       27,105
Rhode Island..................................          852        1,589
South Carolina................................        4,598       17,274
South Dakota..................................        6,527       14,559
Tennessee.....................................        4,282       16,733
Texas.........................................       19,277       73,003
Utah..........................................          950        7,520
Vermont.......................................        1,869        3,760
Virginia......................................        5,198       20,352
Washington....................................        5,231       18,422
West Virginia.................................        2,223       10,114
Wisconsin.....................................        8,806       27,606
Wyoming.......................................        3,664        7,329
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      253,629     886,246
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes only pavement mileage eligible for federal highway funds.
 
 Sources: The Road Information Program (TRIP). Federal Highway
  Administration.


                         TOTAL DEFICIENT BRIDGES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Bridges >20     Total
                     State                           in       deficient
                                                 inventory     bridges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................       15,418        5,201
Alaska........................................          849          212
Arizona.......................................        6,147          613
Arkansas......................................       12,530        3,793
California....................................       22,563        6,216
Colorado......................................        7,688        1,688
Connecticut...................................        4,070        1,259
Delaware......................................          775          192
District of Columbia..........................          239          143
Florida.......................................       10,823        2,628
Georgia.......................................       14,306        4,001
Hawaii........................................        1,070          564
Idaho.........................................        4,002          790
Illinois......................................       24,915        6,154
Indiana.......................................       17,782        5,112
Iowa..........................................       24,844        7,437
Kansas........................................       25,460        7,973
Kentucky......................................       12,961        4,391
Louisiana.....................................       13,664        5,178
Maine.........................................        2,353          874
Maryland......................................        4,524        1,418
Massachusetts.................................        5,021        2,931
Michigan......................................       10,417        3,561
Minnesota.....................................       12,555        2,668
Mississippi...................................       16,725        6,801
Missouri......................................       22,940       10,533
Montana.......................................        4,808        1,145
Nebraska......................................       15,584        5,284
Nevada........................................        1,150          214
New Hampshire.................................        2,281          874
New Jersey....................................        6,209        2,855
New Mexico....................................        3,475          615
New York......................................       17,308       10,946
North Carolina................................       16,085        6,006
North Dakota..................................        4,617        1,436
Ohio..........................................       27,795        8,664
Oklahoma......................................       22,710        9,021
Oregon........................................        6,516        1,789
Pennsylvania..................................       22,327        9,771
Rhode Island..................................          734          356
South Carolina................................        8,999        1,884
South Dakota..................................        6,108        1,750
Tennessee.....................................       18,658        5,458
Texas.........................................       47,192       11,752
Utah..........................................        2,586          714
Vermont.......................................        2,653        1,112
Virginia......................................       12,679        3,602

[[Page S10942]]

 
Washington....................................        7,025        1,947
West Virginia.................................        6,477        3.023
Wisconsin.....................................       13,165        3,348
Wyoming.......................................        2,889          664
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      574,671      186,559
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               FY 1999-2003 TOTAL INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENT ACT II, BYRD/GRAMM AMENDMENT
                                                        [Preliminary data--dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            S. 1173 FY 1999-
                                                             2003 total as                           Byrd/Gramm
                          State                               reported by          Percent         amendment \1\          Total             Percent
                                                               committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................................          2,211,500             1.9970            556,579          2,768,080             1.9970
Alaska...................................................          1,373,201             1.2400            345,600          1,718,802             1.2400
Arizona..................................................          1,719,893             1.5531            432,854          2,152,748             1.5531
Arkansas.................................................          1,472,869             1.3300            370,684          1,843,553             1.3300
California...............................................         10,134,190             9.1512          2,550,537         12,684,727             9.1512
Colorado.................................................          1,412,391             1.2754            355,465          1,767,856             1.2754
Connecticut..............................................          1,895,552             1.7117            477,038          2,372,590             1.7117
Delaware.................................................            520,488             0.4700            130,994            651,481             0.4700
District of Columbia.....................................            500,536             0.4520            125,973            626,508             0.4520
Florida..................................................          5,099,176             4.6046          1,283,335          6,382,510             4.6046
Georgia..................................................          3,882,378             3.5058            977,098          4,859,476             3.5058
Hawaii...................................................            861,113             0.5970            166,380            827,492             0.5970
Idaho....................................................            908,085             0.8200            228,542          1,136,627             0.8200
Illinois.................................................          3,683,946             3.3266            927,157          4,611,103             3.3266
Indiana..................................................          2,693,608             2.4323            877,914          3,371,522             2.4323
Iowa.....................................................          1,461,433             1.3197            367,807          1,829,240             1.3197
Kanasa...................................................          1,450,185             1.3095            364,977          1,815,162             1.3095
Kentucky.................................................          1,921,071             1.7347            483,486          2,404,557             1.7347
Louisiana................................................          1,967,553             1.7767            495,201          2,462,754             1.7767
Maine....................................................            636,102             0.5744            160,097            796,199             0.5744
Maryland.................................................          1,668,720             1.5069            419,975          2,088,696             1.5069
Massachusetts............................................          1,968,441             1.7775            495,412          2,463,853             1.7775
Michigan.................................................          3,493,538             3.1547            879,236          4,372,775             3.1547
Minnesota................................................          1,655,828             1.4952            416,732          2,072,558             1.4952
Mississippi..............................................          1,396,953             1.2614            351,580          1,748,533             1.2614
Missouri.................................................          2,635,864             2.3802            663,387          3,299,251             2.3802
Montana..................................................          1,173,866             1.0600            295,433          1,469,296             1.0600
Nebraska.................................................            929,790             0.8396            234,004          1,163,794             0.8396
Nevada...................................................            808,417             0.7300            203,458          1,011,875             0.7300
New Hampshire............................................            575,859             0.5200            144,929            720,788             0.5200
New Jersey...............................................          2,668,883             2.1400            671,691          3,340,574             2.4100
New Mexico...............................................          1,162,791             1.0500            292,646          1,455,437             1.0500
New York.................................................          5,640,544             5.0934          1,419,503          7,060,046             5.0933
North Carolina...........................................          3,129,880             2.8263            787,713          3,917,593             2.8263
North Dakota.............................................            808,417             0.7300            203,458          1,011,875             0.7300
Ohio.....................................................          3,812,849             3.4430            959,599          4,772,448             3.4430
Oklahoma.................................................          1,745,495             1.5762            439,300          2,184,796             1.5762
Oregon...................................................          1,426,177             1.2878            358,934          1,785,111             1.2878
Pennsylvania.............................................          4,199,341             3.7920          1,056,906          5,256,247             3.7920
Rhode Island.............................................            642,304             0.5800            161,652            803,956             0.5800
South Carolina...........................................          1,759,595             1.5889            442,846          2,202,441             1.5889
South Dakota.............................................            863,788             0.7800            217,394          1,081,182             0.7800
Tennessee................................................          2,506,281             2.2632            630,768          3,137,049             2.2632
Texas....................................................          7,623,695             6.8842          1,918,693          9,542,388             6.8842
Utah.....................................................            955,428             0.8628            240,460          1,195,888             0.8628
Vermont..................................................            520,488             0.4700            130,994            651,481             0.4700
Virginia.................................................          2,834,290             2.5594            713,320          3,547,610             2.5594
Washington...............................................          2,035,955             1.8385            512,401          2,548,356             1.8385
West Virginia............................................          1,131,708             1.0219            284,833          1,416,541             1.0219
Wisconsin................................................          2,011,684             1.8165            506,291          2,517,975             1.8165
Wyoming..................................................            841,639             0.7600            211,820          1,053,459             0.7600
Puerto Rico..............................................            508,260             0.4590            127,917            636,176             0.4590
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................        110,742,037           100.0000         27,871,000        138,613,037           100.0000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source of additional contract authority: CBO.

  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I might just enter into a colloquy 
here with our distinguished former Senate leader and now the 
distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and 
reflect a little on the very important work which the Senator has led 
on this amendment, together with Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, and 
joined in by myself.
  I think it is important to share with our colleagues what this 
amendment does not do. It doesn't break the budget. We have reviewed 
that in the number of sessions that the four of us have had.
  I wonder if my colleague would recount some of the things to dispel, 
if I may say, some rumors that seem to be circulating at the moment.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have read and heard some things that are 
being said about the amendment that do not conform to the proper rules 
of exactitude. I don't say it is intentional. I think some of these 
things have been said, perhaps all, through a misunderstanding. I am 
willing to see it in that way.
  There is a great deal of misinformation that has been spread. I can 
understand why, to some extent. The amendment has not been available 
for Senators to read. Now it is available, and Senators and their 
staffs will be able to read for themselves.
  It does not bust the budget. It will not intrude upon other programs. 
It will not mean that other programs will be cut.
  I have read a letter or memo recently which indicated certain other 
programs--by the way, many of them are funded by my own Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior, and I have supported 
those programs for years and years and intend to continue to support 
them. I would not vote to cut them. It would not result in the cutting 
of any programs.
  I can think of those two things in particular. As we go along further 
in the debate, there will be other matters that I hope can be 
straightened out and the light of truth can be focused on them.
  If the Senator thinks of other things being said, I will be happy to 
respond.
  Mr. WARNER. If I might follow along, in drafting this bill we have 
made it very clear that any additional funds next year would be subject 
to a budget resolution, but they would flow and be distributed 
precisely as provided in the committee bill, which I hope will 
eventually become law.
  So there would be a law in place next spring by which those funds as 
designated in this amendment would flow immediately pursuant to the 
terms of the committee bill.
  Now, the key point, Madam President, is that it would not require the

[[Page S10943]]

Senate to have another bill, but alternative measures that I have heard 
about, Madam President and colleagues, that may be offered in the 
second degree to the amendment we are now discussing would require a 
new bill.
  Now, that, to me, is very important because we would take an existing 
law, move the funds through it under a formula, hopefully, that 
Senators will find equitable and not have to revisit in an election 
year. Madam President, those of us who have been here a while know--and 
I certainly defer to the experience and knowledge of the former 
majority leader of the U.S. Senate--in an election year, the chances of 
getting through a bill of this nature, allocating funds, is exceedingly 
difficult. I ask my colleague, does he not agree with that observation?
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with the distinguished Senator. He is preeminently 
correct. We should do it in this bill that is before the Senate now. It 
should not be a 6-month bill or a 1-year bill. We ought to do it in 
this year, in this bill. Then we will have notified the highway 
departments of the 50 States more accurately as to what they can depend 
upon over the next 5 years insofar as planning is concerned.
  Mr. WARNER. The distinguished Senator brings up a key point. I hope 
each Senator will consult with their respective Governors and highway 
officials on this matter, because particularly in the Northeast States 
and the Far West, Madam President, weather will close in. There is a 
shorter period within which to do the vital construction for surface 
transportation. And unless there is in place a piece of legislation 
that gives the certainty of 6 years, then they are put at a severe 
disadvantage. I think that is key to this bill.
  One last thing and I will yield the floor. Another situation that is 
being discussed, should we say, in the hallways, is a means to stop the 
amendment we are discussing by repealing altogether the 4.3-cent gas 
tax. Now, Madam President, if that measure is brought forward, that is 
a very significant step that I think we should give a great deal of 
consideration to before anybody takes that initiative.
  So, Madam President, I conclude by putting a question to the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee, the former chairman and former 
majority leader, what would be the consequences, in his judgment, if 
such a measure as repealing the 4.3-cent tax were to be brought before 
this body--with the extensive debate that we have and the unlikely 
nature of it being accepted--but in the event it were?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the 30 minutes of 
the Senator from West Virginia have expired, and under the previous 
order, the Senator from Montana was to be recognized, followed by the 
Senator from Virginia. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia such time as he 
needs.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to the 
Senator from Virginia be consumed by what we have just covered in this 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I would view that happening with some 
disappointment, if not sadness. I hope that no effort will be made to 
repeal the gas tax. If that happens, that would mean an increase in the 
deficit. And if the author of such an amendment happens to think that 
that would bar the amendment that has been offered by the distinguished 
Senator and two others of my colleagues, and myself, and has been 
cosponsored by 37 additional Senators--if the author of such an 
amendment thinks for a moment that that would bar the carrying into the 
effect of the amendment we have been discussing, that Senator would be 
sadly mistaken because there are moneys in the trust fund sufficient to 
carry out the purpose of the amendment that I am offering, or will be 
offering at the appropriate time, which I have sent to the desk for 
printing. So, No. 1, it would increase the deficit. No. 2, it would 
have no effect on the amendment that is being offered by the other 
Senators and I.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. BYRD. That would enable the funds in the trust fund to carry out 
their purposes.
  Mr. WARNER. We clearly looked at our amendment to make certain it 
would be operative irrespective of the Senate and, indeed, 
congressional action on such a proposal as to repeal the 4.3-cent gas 
tax.
  So, again, Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Byrd, Senator 
Gramm, and Senator Baucus, to increase the authorization levels in 
ISTEA II using funds generated by the 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax.
  Along with the support of many of my colleagues, we have waged strong 
efforts this year for higher funding levels for our nation's surface 
transportation programs.
  I initiated that effort and my amendments to spend additional 
revenues from the highway trust fund earlier this year failed by 1 
vote.
  Later, during the debate on the conference on the budget resolution, 
85 Senators urged--by letter--the conferees to raise the allocation to 
the highway program so that a portion of the 4.3 cents Federal gas tax 
could be spent. That effort received no response.
  Once again, with the amendment we offer today, we have another 
opportunity to ensure that additional funding is made available to 
modernize and expand our nations surface transportation system.
  I continue to believe that investments in our transportation system--
highways, rail and transit--are a wise and essential investment for the 
American taxpayer.
  Almost every economic effort by the U.S. private sector is met by 
competition worldwide. Mr. President, for every dollar invested in 
transportation, there is an economic return of $2.60. Transportation 
dollars are, in military terms, a strong force multiplier.
  The Department of Transportation also confirms that transportation 
spending is important for American workers. For every $1 billion spent 
on transportation, there are 50,000 new jobs.
  Only with such forces can we survive in this one market world. So, 
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the amendment 
we offer today.
  The Byrd-Gramm, Warner-Baucus, amendment is the most realistic chance 
for us to provide needed funds for transportation based on actions by 
this Congress in future budget resolutions.
  I have joined this amendment because it ensures that the underlying 
formula, for distribution of funds, of the Committee bill remains 
intact.

  For donor states, this is critically important because every state 
will continue to receive 90 percent of the funds distributed based on 
each state's contributions to the highway trust fund.
  Ninety percent of the additional funds, provided under this 
amendment, will likewise be apportioned to each state. Apportioned in 
the same manner as the formula provides under the committee bill.
  Simply stated, this means that no state's percentage share of the 
program will change with the additional funds provided in the Byrd-
Gramm amendment.
  Ensuring that every state gets a fair return of 90 percent of the 
funds sent to the states under the formula is a fundamental principle 
of ISTEA II.
  It is a principle that I will not abandon.
  I am satisfied that this amendment is compatible with the formula 
revisions established in the committee bill.
  For this reason, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of 
this amendment.
  My colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, may offer a different 
approach that makes it very difficult for more funds to be directed to 
our nation's highways.
  The amendment which may be offered by Senators Domenici and Chafee 
will provide an expedited process to pass another bill to allow for 
more transportation spending following action on next year's budget 
resolution.
  That expedited process, however, requires the Senate to pass a new 
bill. No additional funds that may be provided in a future budget 
resolution can be released unless we enact a new bill.
  Mr. President, the benefits of the Byrd amendment ensures that our 
states will not have to wait again for

[[Page S10944]]

the Congress to act. If any additional funds are provided in a budget 
resolution, they will go out through the normal process in an 
appropriations bill and then be allocated by the provisions, then in 
law hopefully, in this committee bill.
  As a result, America's transportation system will benefit. Americans 
will not be left stalled in gridlock waiting for the Congress to pass 
another bill in an election year.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I wonder if the distinguished senior 
Senator from West Virginia would yield for a couple of questions.
  Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to. I may have to ask my friends who are on 
the committee and are far more expert than I on the subject matter to 
answer, or to help answer.
  Mr. CHAFEE. First, I say to the Senator that I am very pleased that 
the amendment has now been submitted. It is submitted for printing--I 
guess not formally submitted. Anyway, this is the amendment that we are 
going to act upon, as I understand it.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator for that because, so far, we have not 
been sure what we were dealing with. But now we know.
  I say this to the Senator. I ask the Senator, I listened to the 
statements on the floor here from the Senator from Texas and others, 
and there has been a lot of talk about truth in taxes and how wicked it 
was that this 4.3 cents has not gone for highways, and that it was 
deceptive to the American motoring public that when this tax was 
levied, it was levied on the basis that it would be used for bridges, 
highways, and so forth. Yet, I ask the Senator, was it not true when 
that tax was enacted, the 4.3-cent additional gasoline tax, in 1993, it 
was crystal clear to everybody that that was a deficit reduction; am I 
correct in that?
  Mr. BYRD. Let's go back to 1990 just a bit. The distinguished Senator 
has specificated the 4.3 cents. Let's go back to 1956, when I was in 
the Congress. We passed the interstate highway bill during the 
Eisenhower administration and I voted for it. We passed legislation 
providing for a highway trust fund and for taxes on fuels that would be 
deposited into that highway trust fund. And it was clearly understood 
by the American public then that that money was going to come back to 
the public in meeting their highway and other transportation needs. So 
that thought was thoroughly ingrained into the minds and hearts and 
pocketbooks of the American people more than 40 years ago.
  Now, we come up to 1990, 34 years subsequent thereto, and we go to 
the meeting that was held over at Andrews Air Force base. I was part of 
that meeting. We passed the legislation as part of a package. President 
Bush entered into that agreement. I believe that former Speaker Foley 
was there and was part of it. Several us were there. A part of that 
package provided that 2.5 cents of the fuels taxes be for deficit 
reduction, temporarily, and that we would put it into a trust fund. 
That was in 1990. It was to go back into the trust fund in 1995.
  Tomorrow, I am going to lay a clearer outline in the Record. But I 
know that our friends--and they are our friends; I consider them 
friends--are going to argue that the American people did not understand 
this money to be used for transportation needs, that the American 
people, all along, have known otherwise. But that is not the case. I go 
back to 1956, and there are people who were infants at that time--I 
should even say babies, some who hadn't been born yet who, for the next 
34 or 36 years after that period were paying taxes on gasoline at the 
pump and who believe clearly and had good reason to believe because 
that is what they were told and that was a fact, that those gas taxes 
were going to be returned to the States by way of transportation 
infrastructure. So that's what the American people have been told. We 
know now, and it has been made clear in a recent study titled, ``What 
Americans Think About Federal Highway Investment Issues.'' This is 
presented by the Transportation Construction Coalition Commission' 
Opinion and Survey.

       It is not surprising then that fully 75 percent of 
     Americans say that the United States should use the gas tax 
     exclusively to pay for road and bridge improvements and not 
     on nontransportation programs. Fully 71 percent of Americans 
     want the $6 billion in gas tax revenues, now spent on 
     nontransportation programs, shifted to highways and bridge 
     safety improvements. Indeed, 69 percent of the majority say 
     the U.S. Government should place an even higher priority on 
     highway and bridge improvements of any type than it does now.

  So I thank the distinguished Senator for asking the question. I say, 
yes, there was a brief interlude in those years between 1956 and 1997 
when some of the gas taxes were to be used on reduction of the 
deficits. But that is not the case now, and it was not the case for 34 
years prior to the year 1990.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, Madam President, the point I am making here is 
that, in 1993--and we were all here at the time--the President of the 
United States came forward with a deficit reduction program. In that 
deficit reduction program--this was in 1993--there was a 4.3-cent added 
gasoline tax imposed. It was crystal clear to everybody who paid any 
bit of attention to it that that was for deficit reduction. That went 
into the general fund. It wasn't for gas, it wasn't for highways or 
bridges, it was for deficit reduction. I voted against it. Every single 
Republican voted against it, but that is neither here nor there. The 
fact is that it passed. In those days, there were a majority of 
Democratic Senators in this body, and those 1993 moneys were clearly 
for deficit reduction. So the reason I am stressing this is because we 
have heard some powerful discussion here on the floor about truth in 
taxes and how unfair it is to the American public that when our wives 
go and pump the gas into the car, they believe that every tax they pay 
on that is going into roads and bridges. That may be what they think, 
but that isn't what the facts are. In 1993, it was crystal clear. There 
was all kinds of debate here. I am not saying that was wrong. I voted 
against the entire package but, as I said, that is neither here nor 
there. It is clear that the money for gasoline taxes was to go for 
deficit reduction.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I don't even have the floor. I am here by sufferance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Montana is entitled to the floor at this point.
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I will give you all of my time that I don't have.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to the Senator, back in 1993, it was a very 
difficult time. The President and the Democratic majority of the 
Congress were trying to figure out a way to get us on the path toward 
deficit reduction.
  I might say to my good friend from Rhode Island that I think it 
worked. That package dramatically set us on a glidepath which has 
enabled us to begin to reduce our budget deficit. In fact, the budget 
resolution which was passed this year, which allows us to balance the 
budget was due in large part to that 1993 package.
  Having said that, I can remember when I cast that vote. At first, 
some were proposing a higher tax than 4.3-cents per gallon. I think it 
was up to a nine cents or so. I argued that I opposed using a gasoline 
tax for deficit reduction. And because of these arguments, the final 
number was 4.3 cents. So while I didn't like the idea of a gas tax for 
deficit reduction, I supported it for the greater good of getting the 
deficit reduced. And again, that package led get down the road to 
deficit reduction. But I knew at that time, that once the deficit was 
reduced, we would be working get this money back to the trust fund for 
transportation uses.
  Indeed, that is what this Congress has done. We have voted to 
transfer the 4.3 from deficit reduction to the trust fund. That vote 
passed by a very large margin with a majority of Republicans voted for 
it.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am not going to argue against the action that was taken 
at that time. I think the Senator may well be right, that those actions 
started a glidepath toward significantly reducing the deficit. All I am 
saying here is that nobody was under any illusions at the time. I am 
just trying to rebut the statements being made

[[Page S10945]]

here that what we need is truth in taxation, truth in gasoline 
taxation, and that this is a great deception to the American people. 
There was no deception. It was absolutely clear in 1993 when those 
votes were taken--I am not arguing with people who voted for or against 
it, but nobody in this Chamber was under any illusion that that money 
was going to build roads or bridges. It was going to go to deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator, if he 
is going to speak, not to speak in my time because I would like to 
finish my statement, and I see it slowly slipping away.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I think we better let the Senator get on with his 
statement. I have no time.
  Is the Senator the last speaker?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I have no idea.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Go to it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the good points made by my friend from Rhode 
Island, but they are really sort of obfuscation. They really don't get 
to the central point, the central point being should we or should we 
not pass the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment which will increase the 
contract authority or authorization of transportation programs.
  There have been a lot of statements from my colleagues about this 
amendment already. So I will be very brief. The most important point is 
one the Senator from West Virginia has so correctly made. We have 
tremendous transportation infrastructure needs, and that they are not 
being met. Indeed, the Department of Transportation has concluded under 
the current highway program we need about $15 billion a year in 
additional spending to meet our highway needs.
  And these investments help us compete globally. It is this 
competition that has helped us reach the economic growth we have today. 
But we have to invest more in the engine of the economy, our 
transportation network. Other nation's are investing more in 
infrastructure in order to catch up to us. If you look at what other 
countries spend on infrastructure, Japan is four times as a percentage 
of GDP and Europe twice as much as we do. Just look around the D.C. 
area. Anybody who drives around here, with all the pot holes and 
congestion, knows how much we need to improve the highways in this 
country.
  So how do we meet these transportation needs? We begin by increasing 
the authorizations for transportation spending. We have to do that with 
the Byrd-Gramm amendment because we are faced with a budget resolution 
which has limited the amount of money that the Environment and Public 
Works Committee can spend. And these limits are too low.

  So the amendment Senator Byrd is offering is a very creative way to 
meet the needs of our highway system. It is very simple. It says that 
if the savings, or a portion of the savings projected in OMB's 
midsession review are realized and if Congress decides to spend them, 
then transportation programs should be fully funded. Let me emphasize 
the key words here. If there are additional savings from the economy 
and if Congress decides to spend them, then transportation should be 
fully funded. So nothing is mandated. There is no automatic increased 
spending. All of that will be decided by Congress next year and in 
future years. We are only saying that we should authorize these 
additional funds so that if additional spending is available, the 
authorization process is complete. We do not mandate anything. We are 
not mandating the Budget Committee to take action. We are not mandating 
the Appropriations Committee to spend any additional money. We are just 
saying they should spend the additional savings if that savings is 
available.
  Now, the total savings available, if OMB's midsession review is 
accurate, will be about $200 billion. That is to say that we in the 
Congress will have $200 billion more than we thought we had when we 
passed the last budget resolution. That is, the economy has been doing 
so well that there will be about $71 billion less in spending--that is 
less in unemployment compensation insurance, for example--and about 
$130 billion in additional revenues because the economy is doing so 
well. This is over a 5-year period. It is these savings that we are 
targeting in this amendment.
  Let me also say what this amendment does not do. Some Senators have 
said, and I think it is true that it is based on incorrect 
information--it is not their fault; the amendment has not been 
available for them to read. Some Senators said, well, this amendment 
will cut other programs. It is going to cut Head Start. It is going to 
cut education programs.
  Let me be clear. This amendment in no way cuts funding for any 
program. Let me repeat that. The effect of this amendment is not to cut 
any program. That is because we are only authorizing additional 
spending with the anticipation that future economic savings will be 
available to fund these authorizations. If we do not do this, if we are 
locked into the lower numbers in the underlying bill, we will not be 
able to increase these numbers during the six year authorization. Not 
unless the Environment and Public Works Committee writes a new bill to 
do so. We do not want to have to write a new highway bill every year. 
That does not make sense. But the important point is that increasing 
the contract authority will not cut the spending for other programs.
  And this amendment does not bust the budget. Again, that is because 
it only increases the contract authority for transportation programs.
  Another point. If this amendment does not pass, the balances in the 
highway trust fund will be $71 billion by the year 2003. That is not 
right. Congress would continue to use this money to mask the true 
budget deficit. It is phony business. It is smoke and mirrors to let 
that happen. It just is not right to let these balances accumulate to 
such a large degree to mask the true budget deficit. That is wrong. And 
again that would happen if this amendment does not pass. It just 
happens automatically if it doesn't pass.
  I might also add, Madam President, that I hear some Senators who are 
unhappy with the formula in the underlying bill. They have asked for 
more money for their States. I have heard from many States. It is a 
rare State that doesn't make that plea.
  There is only one way to help States get more money and that is to 
vote for the Byrd amendment. Every State will receive more contract 
authority. If we do not have this extra contract authority, there is no 
way we can help States get more money. So if you need more money and if 
you feel you are not being dealt with fairly, this amendment will help 
bring that result. We will not be able to help any States or any 
programs without more money.
  Madam President, I have more points I want to make, but I think it is 
probably more appropriate to bring those points up when the amendment 
is actually before us. But I just wanted to summarize by saying that I 
ask Senators to read the amendment now that it is available and they 
will see it does not cause all these problems that some fear it will 
cause. And on the contrary, they will see that it does not bust the 
budget and will not cause a funding cut to other programs.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I want to call to the attention of my 
colleagues, both here on the floor and elsewhere, that there will be a 
Domenici-Chafee amendment which will provide a simple, fast-track 
method to increase highway spending without requiring an entire new 
ISTEA bill. So let's put to rest the suggestion that all kinds of 
complications are going to have to be gone through in order to increase 
highway spending under the bill that is before us, plus the amendment 
that Senator Domenici and I will submit.
  So, therefore, you say, what's the difference? What's the difference 
between the two bills? Domenici-Chafee provides a fast-track method to 
provide additional funding and the so-called Byrd bill, Byrd-Baucus-
Warner-Gramm bill says there will be increased funding for highway 
spending. But, let me just tell you the difference, Madam President. 
What the Byrd bill says, it says, now, what the contract authority will 
be, and since that is to be apportioned in just the present proportions 
that exist amongst the States, that applies a chart immediately that 
will go out, telling each State what it will get for each successive 
year.
  There is a hitch there, though. That's a promise, it appears. But the 
sponsors

[[Page S10946]]

are stressing that it is not a promise, that the appropriators do not 
have to provide that amount of money. Here is the problem under that 
approach. I just look here on page 2, ``Authorization Of Contract 
Authority: There shall be available from the Highway Trust Fund . . . 
to carry out this subsection [$5.x billion] for fiscal year 1999,'' 
$5.471 billion the next year, on and on it goes until it gets up to 
$5.781 billion.
  That is contract authority. And, absent something occurring, that is 
what the States will get. But the question is, is that what the 
appropriations are going to be? Here is the hitch. Every State 
department of transportation will look, as I say, at these amounts, 
everybody can figure out what their percentage is now and, since the 
promise is they are going to get the same percentage, we will figure 
let's see, what does Rhode Island get out of this? Let's see, in fiscal 
year 2001 things look pretty good. You just take $5.573 billion, which 
is on top of the amounts we have already, the $21 billion, you just add 
that in and figure this is what we are going to get in Rhode Island. 
But Rhode Island is not--or Maine, or Montana or West Virginia--is not 
necessarily going to get these amounts which appear to be promises 
because they are not promises because the appropriators have to act.
  So, it seems to me the proponents of the bill are riding two horses 
here. One, they are saying to every State, you are going to get 25 
percent more, isn't that wonderful? At the same time they are saying, 
oh, there are no commitments. Nothing is done. We are not breaking the 
budget. We are just going to leave it to the appropriators. Other 
programs can get what they want.
  The problem, it seems to me, is once you get these sums out there in 
contract authority, as is in the Byrd bill, that every department of 
transportation, every Governor will figure that is what is coming and 
there will be tremendous pressure on this body to come through on the 
promise, seeming promise. They will stress, rightfully, it is not a 
promise. But who knows what the requirements are going to be for the 
budget, on the budget in the year 2001? Or 2002? Or 2003? It may well 
be we want to spend more on education. We may want to spend more on 
health care. It may be we want to cut taxes. But here this is locking 
us in.
  I know they will deny it is locking us in. Why, contract authority, 
that is just there, you can change it. But I will guarantee by this 
time tomorrow every State will have a chart showing what they are going 
to get for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. And it will appear to be a 
promise. That, to me, I believe, is a definite flaw in this measure.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield, if I understand the Senator, 
he is saying under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment it is true 
that it is up to the discretion of the Budget Committee and 
appropriations committees to make these decisions, but that they will 
be under such pressure that they will not be able to decide responsibly 
what is right for the country? That is what I understand the Senator to 
be saying.

  Mr. CHAFEE. What I am saying is these amounts are listed here as 
contract authority. I mean that is the word. And that means that every 
single State will anticipate--they can work these percentages out. You 
don't have to be a Phi Beta Kappa to do that. And they will anticipate 
what they are getting.
  Indeed, proponents are already saying every State is going to get 25 
percent more. They don't know they are going to get 25 percent more. 
That is what I mean. They are riding one horse saying you are going to 
get 25 percent more because there it is, ``in contract authority.'' At 
the same time they are saying we leave it completely up to the 
appropriators, it is not necessarily 25 percent.
  Which is it?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I think it is very clear. The point of this is we 
transferred 4.3 cents to the highway trust fund. Those are dollars that 
Americans expect to be used for highways. And I think the Senator is 
correct in saying there is a very strong presumption that that contract 
authority will be spent someday. The Budget Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee along with the rest of Congress will decide if 
the contract authority will be spent. But that is only if economic 
savings are realized. But the beauty of the amendment is if for some 
reason it does not make sense next year to increase transportation 
spending, they still have that discretion. That is the beauty of it.
  So, in answer to the Senator, it is very clear. It could not be more 
clear. Yes, there is a very strong presumption because the amendment 
says it should be spent. But it does not say it must be spent. It does 
not mandate that. But I personally feel it should be spent. The 
cosponsors of this amendment very strongly believe that those dollars 
should be spent.
  But, still, we can't totally predict the future. I can't. I don't 
think anybody in this body can. So next year if for some reason the 
Budget Committee and Congress decides it wants to make some other 
decision, it can. And the Senator knows, under the terms of this 
amendment, the Budget Committee can. But the Senator also is correct in 
saying there is a strong presumption under this amendment that this 
money should be spent on highways if the savings are realized. Again, 
the amendment provides ``if the savings are realized.''
  I have one question for the Senator. When are we going to see the 
amendment of the Senator?
  Mr. CHAFEE. It will be available tomorrow.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Tomorrow. Good.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I might say I think the Senator is on weak ground to 
suggest I am slow. If I understand, the first discussion of the Byrd 
amendment was on October 9th. I know there is a gestation period here, 
but this has been unusually long. Whereas we have not been discussing 
our amendment publicly and talking about it, it is going to come. I 
think it was first going to come on the 10th; then it was going to come 
on Monday the 20th. Then we looked forward with bated breath for it on 
the 21st. Indeed, it has not even been submitted yet.
  You could perfectly well revise this. I don't know why you haven't 
filed it.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I call the attention of the Senator to a 
letter dated October 9th, signed by Mr. Chafee and by Mr. Domenici, to 
colleagues, in which the two Senators promise that there will be an 
amendment forthcoming. They even enclose an one-page summary of their 
amendment. And they say, ``We hope that we can have your support for 
this important matter.'' So on October 9th they had an amendment. That 
was before the recess occurred. They had an amendment, apparently, 
then, because they sent this to all their colleagues. I don't believe I 
received one. Maybe I did. I'm not sure.

  In any event, they had the amendment then. Why have they waited until 
this date? They had it on October 9th. Today is October the 22nd, and 
we still don't see the amendment. But that is not so important.
  May I say to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island that the 
States know that they may not get the full authorized level. They never 
did under ISTEA, under ISTEA I, in previous years. They didn't get the 
authorized level.
  May I also add I will be glad to join with the Senator and with Mr. 
Domenici in raising the caps. I will be happy to do that at the proper 
time, and I will urge that that be done. But there is time for that, 
yes.
  Yes, the pressure is going to increase. No doubt about it. The 
pressures will increase because the people are going to want to get 
what they have been promised. Say what you like, but on May 22, 83 
Senators voted that 4.3 cents should be returned to the trust fund and 
be spent on highway needs. That was 5 months ago. Only half of the task 
has been done, the transfer of the tax, but no spending of that revenue 
is currently authorized. So, I think when the people out in the various 
States, the hills and hollows, the seashores, read about this amendment 
they are, indeed, going to increase pressure to have us live up to the 
commitment that we know has been made and which was being urged by 83 
Senators on May 22nd.
  I thank my good-natured friend, Mr. Chafee. He is always very good 
natured, humorous, pleasing to get along

[[Page S10947]]

with. I enjoy serving with him. I thank him for yielding.
  If he will yield just one moment further, I ask unanimous consent, 
Madam President, that the amendment that I am offering today on behalf 
of myself, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Warner and 36 other Senators, be 
printed in the Record so that all Senators may read it tomorrow.
  (The text of the amendment No. 1397 is printed in today's Record 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BYRD. And, while I am on the floor on my feet, I shall read the 
names of the other cosponsors. And we are expecting additional 
cosponsors, as I indicated earlier today, with several Senators saying 
they won't cosponsor but they would vote with us.
  The following Senators have agreed up to this point to cosponsor the 
amendment: Senators Akaka, Ashcroft, Baucus, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, 
Burns, Byrd, Cleland, Coats, Coverdell, DeWine, Dorgan, Faircloth, 
Feinstein, Ford, Gramm of Texas, Grams of Minnesota, Harkin, Hollings, 
Hutchinson of Arkansas, Inhofe, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey of 
Nebraska, Kerry of Massachusetts, Landrieu, Leahy, Lieberman, McCain, 
McConnell, Mikulski, Reid of Nevada, Rockefeller, Santorum, Sessions, 
Shelby, Specter and Warner.
  I thank the Senator for allowing me the privilege of reading these 
names into the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________