[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.
____________________