[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11169-S11170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the Senate will 
proceed to consideration of the highway bill. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1173) to authorize funds for construction of 
     highways, for highway safety programs, and for mass transit 
     programs, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Chafee/Warner amendment No. 1312, to provide for a 
     continuing designation of a metropolitan planning 
     organization.
       Chafee/Warner amendment No. 1313 (to language proposed to 
     be stricken by the committee amendment, as modified), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Chafee/Warner amendment No. 1314 (to Amendment No. 1313), 
     of a perfecting nature.
       Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works, with instructions.
       Lott amendment No. 1317 (to instructions of the motion to 
     recommit), to authorize funds for construction of highways, 
     for highway safety programs, and for mass transit programs.

[[Page S11170]]

       Lott amendment No. 1318 (to Amendment No. 1317), to strike 
     the limitation on obligations for administrative expenses.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with reference to the highway bill, on 
yesterday I, on behalf of Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner, 
introduced an amendment for printing only and also for the purpose of 
having that amendment appear in the Congressional Record. And I was not 
offering the amendment in the usual sense that I was calling it up, and 
so consent was granted.
  At that time I indicated that there were several Senators who wished 
to be added as cosponsors of that proposed amendment. And I wish to add 
these names today to those that I stated yesterday: Senators Brownback, 
Campbell, Conrad, Craig, Glenn, Helms, Levin, and Kempthorne. And I 
wish to remove the name of Mr. Coats. That name was included in error 
yesterday. And so I ask unanimous consent that the Record show that the 
name of Mr. Coats was removed and also to indicate the additional 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Yesterday I indicated that I would present for the Record 
the history of the Federal gasoline excise taxes since the inception of 
the highway trust fund. I ask unanimous consent that I may have printed 
for the Record such history.
  There being no objection, the history was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  History of Federal Gasoline Excise Taxes Since the Inception of The 
                           Highway Trust Fund

       The enactment of the Federal Aid Highway and Highway 
     Revenue Act of 1956 (PL 84-627), called for all Federal 
     gasoline excise taxes to be placed in the newly established 
     Highway Trust Fund. Between 1956 and 1990, the Congress, on 
     numerous occasions, voted to extend these gasoline excise 
     taxes with all of the revenue being devoted to the Highway 
     Trust Fund.
       The Omnibus Budget Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 (PL 
     101-508) increased the Federal gasoline tax by 5 cents, with 
     2.5 cents being dedicated to deficit reduction and 2.5 cents 
     being dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. Of the amounts 
     transferred to the Highway Trust Fund, 2 cents of the tax was 
     deposited in the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund 
     and 0.5 cents of the tax was deposited in the Mass Transit 
     Account.
       The 2.5 cents dedicated to deficit reduction under OBRA 
     1990 was scheduled to expire on September 30, 1995. Instead, 
     the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, (PL 103-66) 
     stipulated that this 2.5 cents gasoline tax be deposited into 
     the Highway Trust Fund, beginning on October 1, 1995, and 
     divided in the same manner as the 2.5 cents placed in the 
     Trust Fund in 1990.
       OBRA 1993 simultaneously levied a new, permanent gas tax of 
     4.3 cents dedicated solely to deficit reduction.
       The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (PL 105-34) stipulated that 
     the entire 4.3 cents gas tax would be deposited in the 
     Highway Trust Fund beginning on October 1, 1997, with 3.45 
     cents of the tax being dedicated to the Highway Account of 
     the Highway Trust Fund and 0.85 cents being dedicated to the 
     Mass Transit Account.
       Source: CRS Report for Congress: Federal Excise Taxes on 
     Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund, September 15, 1997.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was my intention to move at this time to 
waive all points of order pursuant to the budget act affecting the 
amendment that I had introduced on yesterday for printing on behalf of 
myself and Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner.
  Mr. President, having the floor, I have a perfect right to move at 
this time to waive such points of order; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I am not required to wait until such time as that amendment 
is pending before the Senate, nor am I required under the rules to wait 
until such time as the so-called tree, consisting of several 
amendments, has been dismantled, nor do I have to wait until such time 
as such a point of order is actually made against the amendment; am I 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  So I am perfectly within my rights at this point to move to waive 
such points of order. Such a motion would be debatable. And it would 
also be amendable, would it not, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, I had intended to ask unanimous consent 
that that motion not be amendable. But I thought I should let Mr. 
Chafee know that I intended to make such a request. He might want to 
object to it. I had a right to make the motion. He could not keep me 
from doing that. But I wanted to get consent that it not be amendable, 
and I thought he had the right to know about that. And I realize he 
could object to that, and he will. He has told me he will object to 
that.
  Now, my purpose in wanting to get such consent is simply this: 60 
votes are required for me to waive the points of order under the Budget 
Act. However, my motion would be amendable, it would be open to 
amendment, and such an amendment to my motion would require only a 
majority of votes, so that if all 100 Senators were present and voting, 
only 51 votes would be required to amend my motion, which, standing 
alone, would require 60 votes.
  If the motion to amend my motion to waive were to carry, then a 
simple majority could add the authors' motion to amend my motion. That 
would put me at a disadvantage in that it is my understanding that Mr. 
Domenici might make a motion, the purpose of which would be--and I 
don't know that he is going to do this --he would repeal the gas tax, 
the 4.3-cent tax. That may or may not be based on rumor. I haven't 
heard Senator Domenici say that, but I anticipate that such a motion or 
some other motion might be made. If that were the case, if that were to 
be adopted by a majority vote, I would be put at a great disadvantage 
in trying to get 60 votes for my motion, so I do not intend to make 
that motion at this time.
  But it may be that at some future time we can work out something 
whereby I could get a vote on a motion to waive points of order under 
the Budget Act against my amendment. That is a motion that is made 
quite frequently here. Sometimes it carries, sometimes it doesn't. So I 
intended to make that motion because I feel that the sponsors of our 
amendment have 60 or more votes in support of such motion and in 
support of such amendment.
  Several Senators have indicated to me and have indicated to my three 
cosponsors that while they will not cosponsor the amendment, they will 
support it, so that we feel we would have more than 60 votes. But I am 
not at this time going to make the motion for the reasons I have 
stated.

                          ____________________