Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11277-S11283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take the floor at this time for several
reasons, one being that the Senate would be on the ISTEA bill if the
regular order were called for at this point. No other legislation is
before the Senate. Consequently, I feel it is appropriate to be talking
about the ISTEA bill.
Second, three of my colleagues, Senators Gramm of Texas, Baucus, and
Warner, and I have introduced an amendment to the ISTEA bill and we
have explained that amendment and discussed it upon more than one
occasion. As we have explained, our amendment provides that 90 percent
of the funding will be distributed on the same basis as in the ISTEA
bill before us, and that 10 percent would be allotted for discretionary
as is the case in the ISTEA bill before us. In the amendment, which I
have coauthored with the other three Senators, I have provided that in
the 10 percent discretionary portion, $2.2 billion would be allotted to
the Appalachian regional highways--$2.2 billion of the $3.1 billion in
discretionary funding. The overall amount of funds that would be
provided by our amendment would be $31 billion.
The basis of our amendment is that inasmuch as the 4.3-cent gas tax
has been ordered by the Senate to go into the trust fund as of October
1 this year, that money should be spent for transportation purposes.
The American people, being under that impression, and having every
right to be under that impression because of the legislation that was
passed recently stating that the 4.3-cent gas tax would go into the
highway trust fund, that would be broken down as follows: 3.45 cents
for highway funding and 0.85 percent would be for mass transit.
There is a considerable amount of confusion, some of which I think
has been deliberately spread, some of which may be accidental. There is
some misinformation that has been spread about the amendment that my
three colleagues and I have sponsored. So I believe at this time, there
should be some discussion so as to clarify our amendment, what it
really will do, what it will not do, and also it is my opinion that we
should understand what the Chafee-Domenici amendment will do and what
it will not do.
My colleagues who are coauthoring my amendment and I have taken the
floor on at least two occasions to describe our amendment. And most
recently, during the time of the last discussion of my amendment, Mr.
Chafee presented me with a copy of the Chafee-Domenici amendment.
However, I haven't heard any explanation of that amendment as yet. I
think we ought to have an explanation before we act on the bill, one
way or another, and certainly before sine die adjournment. I hope that
we will get a 6-year highway bill, but with each passing day, the
prospects of such are by that degree diminished.
But in any event, I would want Senators to have a better
understanding of my amendment and certainly the amendment by Senators
Chafee and Domenici before we go out or before we leave this subject
entirely.
I have called for Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici. I wasn't able to
contact Senator Domenici, but I was able to contact Senator Chafee. I
wanted to let them know that I hoped we could use this time, when no
other Senator is seeking recognition, to discuss this matter and
particularly to have some explanation of the Chafee-Domenici amendment.
Mr. Chafee was in the Intelligence Committee at the time and was busy
there, but he very kindly came to the floor and has indicated to me--he
is here on the floor now and he can speak for himself--that on
tomorrow, he will seek some time to discuss and explain the amendment
that he and Mr. Domenici have offered.
At this time then, Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the
Appalachian Regional Highway System, because that figures very
importantly in the amendment which I have offered for printing, and I
think that the Members of the Senate ought to have a better
understanding of the background of that particular subject matter. I
also want to direct some comments to today's edition of Congress Daily
to an item therein which bears the headline: ``DOT Study, Domenici-
Chafee Letter Hit Gramm-Byrd Plan.''
There are some inaccuracies in that article, and I hope to address
some of my remarks to those inaccuracies. I also would be pleased if
the other three cosponsors of our amendment could come to the floor
and, likewise, make some remarks.
All three offices have been alerted, and it is my understanding that
those Senators will come at such times as they can be free from other
appointments. I apologize for, in a way, for

[[Page S11278]]

taking the floor at this time. I know that the other cosponsors are
very busy, and I know also that Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici are busy,
but I shall proceed.
First of all, let me address my comments briefly to the Appalachian
Development Highway System.
Mr. President, when I was a member of the West Virginia House of
Delegates 51 years ago, West Virginia had only 4 miles of divided four-
lane highways--4 miles! Let me say that again. The entire State of West
Virginia had only 4 miles of divided four-lane highways in 1947, the
first year in which I served as a member of the West Virginia
Legislature.
I can remember an article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post
by a Mr. Roul Tunley, on February 6, 1960. I was a Member of the U.S.
Senate then. That was my second year in the U.S. Senate. In Mr.
Tunley's article, he said this: ``Its''--meaning West Virginia's--``Its
highway system is several decades behind that of its neighbors.'' I
haven't forgotten that quotation. I have been carrying it around up
here somewhere in my gray matter now for these 37 years.
I cannot forget it. It is etched into my memory. The Saturday Evening
Post, a national publication, said, in an article by Roul Tunley, with
reference to West Virginia's highway system: ``Its highway system is
several decades behind that of its neighbors.''
Now, Mr. President, those words have, as I say, been etched into my
memory. They have been burned into my memory, virtually seared into my
memory.
I was a Member of the other body when the Interstate System was
inaugurated. President Eisenhower was in his first term.
In any event, in 1956, which was during the 84th Congress, Congress
passed legislation to provide for a gas tax to be placed into the
highway trust fund. I was a Member of Congress at that time.
In 1965, 9 years later, Congress passed the Appalachian Regional
Development Act. It provided for an Appalachian regional highway
system. That was 1965. It was fiscal year 1966; in other words,
calendar year 1965, when Congress appropriated its first moneys toward
the Appalachian regional highway system--1965, fiscal year 1966. It has
been a long time ago.
So, over 30 years ago, Congress enacted legislation saying to the
people of Appalachia, the people of the 13 States in Appalachia, that
an Appalachian highway system was going to be established and funded.
West Virginia is the only one of the 13 States that is wholly within
Appalachia. But contrary to the understanding of a good many people, I
suppose, West Virginia is not the only State in Appalachia. During
these intervening 32 years, West Virginia's Appalachian system has
become 74 percent complete. For the entire Appalachian region, however,
the highway system is something like 78 or 79 percent complete.
Now, the Interstate System all over this country is 100 percent
complete--virtually 100 percent. That is something like 43,000 miles, I
believe.
But the Appalachian highway system remains, a good bit of it, yet to
be completed. West Virginia, as I say, is 74 percent complete. The
other States in the Appalachian region are about 78 or 79 percent
complete. So West Virginia is behind the region as a whole.
A great many people have criticized me over the years for acting in
my Appropriations Committee to get moneys for West Virginia's
Appalachian corridors. But as chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, I provided not only money for West Virginia's Appalachian
corridors but also funding for Appalachian corridors in all of the 13
States of Appalachia. Nothing was said about that by my critics. But
that is neither here nor there at the moment. I just mention it in
passing.
The point is that while the Interstate System has been completed all
over this country, the Appalachian highway system is yet to be
completed. The people in Appalachia have been promised for 31 years
that that system would be completed. It isn't completed yet. So they
have been living on a prayer and a promise, in considerable degree.
About one-fourth of the system--one-fifth to one-fourth of the system--
is not yet complete. And I think it is about time we fulfilled our
promise that Congress made to the millions of people who live in
Appalachia that their system at some point would be completed, too.
Now, Mr. President, I see on the floor my friend, Senator Gramm. If
he would like to speak for a moment----
Mr. GRAMM. No. Go ahead.
Mr. BYRD. He indicates that I should go ahead.
So, with the passage of the Appalachian Regional Development Act by
Congress in 1965, the Appalachian Development Highway System got its
start by providing smaller regional centers in the Appalachian region
with four-lane expressway links to the Interstate Highway System. The
new corridors were devised to open areas with development potential
where commerce and communication had previously been inhibited by a
lack of access.
On June 17, 1965--32 years ago, and then some--the first Appalachian
corridor construction project in West Virginia was contracted for a
section of corridor D, U.S. 50 in Doddridge County that is between
Parkersburg, WV, and Clarksburg, WV.
The Appalachian corridor highway construction era really picked up
steam in West Virginia following the November 1968 approval by the
voters of a $350 million road bond, the proceeds of which were used to
provide the State's matching share for corridor construction.
During these years, for the most part, funding has been directed
toward all four uncompleted corridors, D, G, H and L. When the
Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, ISTEA of 1991,
came along, I asked that language be included authorizing the
completion of the Appalachian system. And that was done.
The Appalachian Development Highway System in West Virginia comprises
a total of 428.9 miles of roadway, completed or under construction, in
design or in corridor location study phase.
In the case of the Appalachian system, I think it would be
informative to point out that Appalachia's rugged terrain has made
roads very expensive to build. Early roads usually followed the
topography, that is, they followed streams, valleys and troughs between
mountains, and the resulting highways were characterized by very low
travel speeds, long distances due to winding road patterns, often very
unsafe road conditions, roads built to poor design standards, unsafe,
short-sight distances, and extremely high construction costs which
further discouraged commercial and industrial development.
Now, I should say that miles constructed, alone, do not really
measure the impact of a development highway system. Its success is
measured in how it allows the region to be opened up for development
and how it allows for the improvement of its inhabitants' condition.
A 1987 survey taken by the Appalachian Regional Commission showed
that between 1980 and 1986, 560,000 jobs were created in the
Appalachian counties with a major highway, compared with 134,000 jobs
created in those counties without a major highway. It is clear the
highways are the lifeline and the lifeblood of the Appalachian region.
The idea of a regional interconnected network of highways is as vital
today as it was in 1965. It has the same purpose as the Appalachian
corridor system which was created 32 years ago.
The National Highway System was designed to provide an interconnected
system of principal arterial routes which would serve major population
centers--water crossings, ports, airports, other intermodal facilities
and travel destinations--while meeting national defense requirements
and serving interstate and interregional travel.
A factor which is often overlooked in connection with Appalachian
regional highways is the factor of safety. It is important that States
in Appalachia have modern, safe roads. Current accident rates on the
highways in the area of corridor H --if I may take one example, in West
Virginia--are above the Statewide average. The accident rates along in
that area are above the Statewide average. The State of West Virginia
itself has accident rates which are above the national average. Because
much of the State's road system was built in the 1930s, the existing
roads reflect a happenstance response to topography rather than
strategic planning.

[[Page S11279]]

Shortly, I will yield to Senator Gramm, but while I am on this
aspect, namely, the Appalachian highways in the ISTEA amendment which
Senator Gramm, Senator Warner, Senator Baucus, and I have introduced,
the Appalachian regional highways, along with various trade corridors
and bridge repairs constitute 10 percent of the total--the total being
$31 billion; 10 percent being $3.1 billion--the 10 percent being
precisely the same breakdown as in the ISTEA bill that is before the
Senate. In that bill, 90 percent goes to formula funding and 10 percent
to discretionary to be determined by the Secretaries of Interior and
Transportation.
So, I simply wanted to say for the record that Congress and the
Federal Government promised to the people in the 13 States of
Appalachia 32 years ago a highway system that would be modern, that
would be safe, and that would contribute to the commerce and
communication, economy and upbuilding of that region and the well-being
of its people, and that promise has not been fulfilled yet. I think it
is about time we consider fulfilling the promise that Congress made to
the people of Appalachia. That is what I am attempting to do in this
amendment, to go a long way in halfway fulfilling the promise.
The promise--$2.2 billion, and $300 million in the bill itself--is
$2.5 billion, and it is estimated that the total cost of completing the
Appalachian regional system in the 13 States of Appalachia is something
like $6 billion to $7 billion, the Federal share, and the Federal share
is 80 percent.
So in this particular ISTEA bill, which would be for the next 6
years, of course, we would only take advantage of 5 years because the
first year of the 6 years is already underway. It started on October 1
of this year and the gas tax just began going into the trust fund as of
October 1 of this year. Consequently, we would not see that money until
next year, so it would be 5 years out of the 6-year life of this ISTEA
bill that we would provide something like $2.5 billion for the
Appalachian Regional Commission highways in 13 States--not just in West
Virginia, 13 States. Hopefully, the next ISTEA bill, 6 years down the
road, would make further provision and perhaps at some point in the
not-too-distant future the people of Appalachia could look up and see
their modern, safe, highway system completed, and the rest of the
country, including the Congress, could look the people of Appalachia in
the eye and say, ``We kept our promise.''
That is what I am fighting for here today. That is why I hope to
reach the ears and the hearts of my colleagues so that they have a
better understanding of why this money is being provided in our
amendment.
Mr. President, there may be an attitude around, and at times I have
sensed an attitude, to the effect that the people of Appalachia have no
right to expect appropriations for an Appalachian Regional Commission
system, and that moneys spent in one region of the country for highways
is to the disadvantage of the voters, the taxpayers, the people of
other regions of the country. There seems to be such an attitude in
editorials and columns and so forth over the years; that what the
people in Appalachia are getting by way of highway funding is pork and
that they were actually getting more than their share. A lot could be
said about that.
But this attitude that appropriations projects in one section of the
country benefit only that section, they don't benefit the whole
country, and, therefore, should not be made, and that it is unfair to
focus funds on a particular area, a particular State or a particular
region of a country, that that is an unwise, unfair and unjustified
expenditure of the taxpayers' money, I want to address that.
I want a Senator who is far better known than I am to address the
matter for me, and I will call on none other, therefore, than Daniel
Webster. I refer to his reply to Hayne. He took 2 days to reply to
Senator Hayne, namely on the 26th and 27th of January, 1830. Hayne had
spoken on Thursday and Friday of the previous week. Webster had taken
12 or 13 pages of notes, and over the weekend, he thought about his
speech, and then on the following Tuesday and Wednesday, the 26th and
27th, he made his speech.
He addressed Senator Hayne, as well as Senator Hayne's statements and
charges, namely that the people of the whole country should not have to
pay for internal improvements that occur in a particular State.
So Webster took the floor on that occasion and spoke as follows. I
have gone back and read Webster's speech, and I will quote from it
precisely. This is Daniel Webster:

I look upon a road over the Alleghanies, a canal round the
falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the Atlantic to
the Western waters, as being an object large and extensive
enough to be fairly said to be for the common benefit.

Let me say that again:

I look upon a road over the Alleghanies--

He is talking about my country when he talks about a road over the
Alleghenies, the Allegheny Mountains. That is a part of Appalachia.
Appalachia extends farther, a larger area than the Alleghenies. But
Webster said:

Meaning Mr. Hayne--

thinks otherwise, and this is the key to his construction of
the powers of the government. He may well ask what interest
has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio. On his system, it is
true, she has no interest. On that system, Ohio and Carolina
are different governments, and different countries; connected
here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of
union, but in all main respects separate and diverse. On that
system--

Mr. Hayne's system--

On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in
Ohio than in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore, only follows
out his own principles; he does no more than arrive at the
natural conclusions of his own doctrines; he only announces
the true results of that creed which he has adopted himself,
and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus declares
that South Carolina has no interest in a public work in Ohio.

May I interpolate. The same thing has been said about the Appalachian
Highway System, or at least implied. Why should people build highways
across those rugged mountains, those stream valleys that have been
there for millions of centuries? Why should the taxpayers of America
pay for highways to cut through those Allegheny Mountains? Why should
we have to do that?
Webster says, as he said to Hayne, ``the gentleman thinks
otherwise.''
And he said:

Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England--

Webster is referring to himself and others from that area--

Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason
thus. Our notion of things is entirely different. We look
upon the states, not as separated, but as united. We love to
dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it
has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has
so greatly contributed to acquire. In our contemplation,
Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states,
united under the same general government, having
interests, common, associated, intermingled.

``Having interests, common, associated, intermingled.''

In whatever is within the proper sphere of the
constitutional power of this government, we look upon the
states as one.

That's Webster. ``. . . we look upon the States as one.'' Now listen
to what he says to those who would criticize the expenditure of public
moneys for internal improvements. By the way, that was one of the main
planks in Henry Clay's ``American System,'' which advocated a national
tariff, internal improvements, and a national bank. Clay was
instrumental in getting funds for the old Cumberland Road, the old
national road. The next time that the distinguished Presiding Officer
drives from Washington over to Wheeling, WV, he will travel on the old
national road, the old Cumberland Road.
It was begun in the year 1811, and that was the gate to the Midwest
and the West. By 1838, Congress had appropriated a total of $3
million--think of it, $3 million--toward the construction of that old
national road, the old Cumberland Road. Begun in 1811, by 1838,
Congress had appropriated the enormous sum of $3 million of the
national taxpayers' money for construction on the old Cumberland
Road. And Henry Clay had a great deal to do with the appropriations of
those funds for that old Cumberland Road.

Well, now continuing with Webster.

[[Page S11280]]

I am sure that Henry Clay, if he were in the Senate, would make my
case for the Appalachian regional highway system.
Clay on one side--oh, I would like to have him here; that great
Senator from Kentucky would make my case--and Webster would also make
my case, those two great Senators, because they saw the beauty and the
wisdom and the justice and the fairness in committing the national
resources to the development of a section of the country, not just one
State. But even Webster would go so far as to say, if it were just in
one State he would not stand up here and ask why he should support it.
But let him speak for himself here.

We do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic
feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and
lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public
improvements do not benefit us. We who come here, as agents
and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of
New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard with an
equal eye the good of the whole, in whatever is within our
powers of legislation. Sir, [he addressed the Chair, ``Sir'']
if a railroad or canal, beginning in South Carolina and
ending in South Carolina, appeared to me to be of national
importance and national magnitude, believing, as I do that
the power of government extends to the encouragement of works
to that description, if I were to stand up here and ask, What
interest has Massachusetts in a railroad in South Carolina? I
should not be willing to face my constituents.

Oh, I wish he were here to defend our case. We have been promised for
32 years that this system would be completed. It is not completed yet.
And when we seek justice in relation to the completion of that system,
we bear the slings and arrows of fortune and the criticism of those who
would say, ``Well, why? You're getting less money than those people in
Appalachia. Those people in those 13 States of Appalachia are getting a
little more than you are.'' What kind of statesmanship is that? That is
a shortsighted statesmanship in the eyes of Daniel Webster.

I should not be willing to face my constituents. These same
narrow-minded men would tell me, that they have sent me to
act for the whole country, and that one who possessed too
little comprehension, either of intellect or feeling, one who
has not large enough, both in mind and in heart, to embrace
the whole, was not fit to be intrusted with the interest of
any part.

Webster--talking about internal improvements.

Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of the
government by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise any
not within a fair interpretation. But when it is believed
that a power does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be
exercised for the general benefit of the whole. So far as
respects the exercise of such a power, the States are one.

One; e pluribus unum!

It was the very object of the Constitution to create unity
of interests to the extent of the powers of the general
government. In war and peace we are one; in commerce, one;
because the authority of the general government reaches to
war and peace, and to the regulation of commerce. I have
never seen any more difficulty in erecting lighthouses on the
lakes, than on the ocean; in improving the harbors of inland
seas, than if they were within the ebb and flow of the tide;
or in removing obstructions in the vast streams of the West,
more than in any work to facilitate commerce on the Atlantic
coast. If there be any power for one, there is power also for
the other; and they are all and equally for the common good
of the country.
Now, Mr. President, I would like to yield, without losing my right to
the floor, to my colleague, Senator Gramm of Texas, for such comments
as he may wish to make on this subject matter, and I ask unanimous
consent to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me first thank our dear colleague, Senator Byrd. I
think he is giving us a lesson on the history of funding for highways
that is long overdue and is not generally understood. I want to thank
him for giving me an opportunity to sort of butt in the middle of his
speech and really focus on something that I think is important and that
really is part of what the Senator is saying, but I think sort of sets
it in perspective. I think maybe by explaining the big picture first
and then having the Senator explain the portion of it related to
Appalachia, I think people will have a clearer view of where we are.
Let me begin with Appalachia, then go to the debate about funding. I
then want to talk about an amendment that continues to be referred to
in these ``Dear Colleague'' letters that are being mailed. Senator
Byrd, I was shocked. The letter today shows that our amendment is
producing 43 States who are losers, and you can imagine my
consternation when I discovered that my own State was one of the
biggest losers. So perhaps we are not doing as good a job as we thought
if we could believe these numbers, but let me assure you, do not
believe these numbers.
Now, let me first talk about the highway bill and how it works. How
the highway bill works, as it was reported out of committee to the
Senate, 90 cents out of every $1 that is provided in the highway bill
goes to the States in a formula. The amendment that Senator Byrd and I
have written does not change that formula whatever. We took the
committee's judgment--we are not trying to become the highway
subcommittee through our amendment--we took their formula and allocated
the money by exactly the same formula, only we allocated $31 billion
more in budget authority, $21 billion more in outlay than they
allocated. I will explain where that came from in just a moment.
Under their bill, 10 percent goes to the overhead of the Department
of Transportation and it funds the Appalachian Regional Highway System,
it funds the emerging international trade corridors, it funds all of
the research projects that are part of the highway system, and it funds
the functioning of the Federal highway department and the
administrative expenses.
The amendment that I have offered with Senator Byrd does not change
the allocation of funds as far as 10 percent going to the Department
and 90 percent going to the States. So when we add an additional $31
billion in budget authority and $21 billion in outlays, not wanting our
amendment to substitute for the wisdom of the committee, we took
exactly the same allocation, 90-10, for this new money that they had
for the old money.
Now, if you listen to the critics of our amendment, they have zeroed
in on Senator Byrd and on the Appalachian region, and it's as if this
is a whole new area of funding. Well, this is where I think the
confusion comes from, and I think I can straighten it out pretty
easily.
First of all, President Clinton, when he submitted the highway bill,
proposed $2.3 billion for these 13 States to be funded by the Secretary
out of the 10 percent of the money set aside for the Secretary's use.
He proposed $2.3 billion, even though his bill authorized over $31
billion less than our amendment will provide. So remember this number.
The President proposed $2.3 billion for the 13 States of Appalachia to
complete their system, which is over 75 percent already complete, while
providing $31 billion less money than we are providing. Only our
amendment provides only $2.2 billion.
So if it is the purpose of the Senator from West Virginia to somehow
exploit his colleagues, I would have to say that he is doing a very
poor job of it, because the reality is that our amendment provides an
additional $2.2 billion for Appalachia, which is less money than the
President requested. He requested $2.3 billion when he was spending $31
billion overall less than we are spending. The reality is that our
amendment contains less money for Appalachia than the President
requested.
Second, the House, when they wrote a 3-year bill in committee,
provided $1.05 billion for Appalachia; but that's only for 3 years. In
fact, if you run it out to 6 years, they would have provided
approximately $2.5 billion for these 13 States and for this funding of
highways within those 13 States, which was in the President's budget
and which has been in every highway bill that we have funded in the
recent past.
So the reality is that, while people don't want to debate the real
issue here, which is spending the highway trust fund, we have added
less money to Appalachia, using the formula of the committee, than the
President requested when he was spending $31 billion less. We have
requested less money for these 13 States than the House provided in its
bill.
So I hope this puts that issue to bed. When the President requested
more, when the House provided more, when this has been an ongoing line
item in the highway bill for many years, and when it was a line item in
the original bill, and when we took the committee's

[[Page S11281]]

overall allocation of funds, the point I am making is that the
allocation of funds here is basically in line with what the President
requested and what the House has done. The Senator has explained to us
that the highway project in these 13 States is 75 percent complete.
Surely, no one believes they should be left uncompleted. But the
Senator is roughly asking for the same amount of money that was
provided by the President, that was provided by the House, even though
the President was providing $31 billion less overall.
Now, having, I hope, put that to bed, to anybody who wants to debate
the issue I would have to say--and I want to be sure that I am always
kind to our colleagues--that it is frustrating to me to try to debate
an issue when we are having so much trouble getting people to focus in
on that issue.
I want to give you an example. There was a ``Dear Colleague'' letter
sent today with this headline: ``Final Analysis Complete; 43 States
Lose Under Byrd-Gramm.'' As I said, unfortunately, my State is one of
the biggest losers in the country, losing $28 million. Now, what are we
losing relative to? Well, what we are losing relative to is the so-
called Domenici-Chafee amendment, which I have here, and what they are
saying is that if you provided $21 billion more in outlays, and if you
don't fund the overhead of the Department of Transportation, then you
would have additional funds to provide to States. But guess what? They
don't provide an additional penny. They put out all these tables about
what Domenici-Chafee would provide. But when you take their amendment
and turn to the section entitled ``additional funding,'' and you turn
to page 2, they have the amounts. The amounts referred to in paragraph
1 are as follows: ``(a) for fiscal year 1999, zero; for fiscal year
2000, zero; for fiscal year 2001, zero; for fiscal year 2002, zero; for
fiscal year 2003, zero.''

So their amendment provides no additional budget authority for
highways whatsoever. In fact, their amendment is convoluted. They go on
and say: ``In general, there shall be available from the highway trust
fund such sums as are provided in paragraph 2.'' But paragraph 2, as I
just read you, says zero for 1999, zero for 2000, zero for 2001, zero
for 2002, and zero for 2003. So they will provide such sums as in
paragraph 2, but there aren't any sums in paragraph 2.
If you read the fine print in their letter--you see, there is fine
print here that says--and, of course, Senator Byrd would have picked it
up because he picks up fine print. I am not sure how many of our
colleagues did. Here is what it says, in short: ``If the Appropriations
Committee funds highway programs at $29 billion or greater. . .''--it
also should say: ``and if we authorize such moneys to be spent in the
future.'' But it does not say that. Then if you should allocate it the
way they would, not as Senator Chafee allocated it in his own
committee, with the 90-10 split, you would have a different allocation.
But the point I want people to understand is that all these charts
are being sent out about how money would be spent. When you read their
amendment, they are not spending any money. They are not providing one
additional penny for highway construction; yet, they keep putting out
tables showing what would be provided if someone at a later time and a
later place decided to provide it.
What Senator Chafee and Senator Domenici are really saying is: Don't
authorize highway spending in the highway bill. Don't let the trust
fund, which is collected as a tax on gasoline, be authorized to be
spent on highways. Wait and let a budget be written in the future, and
then if at that time it is decided to spend the money for the purpose
that the tax was collected, then we will spend the money.
Senator Byrd and I disagree. We wrote a highway bill 6 years ago.
Have we ever changed the authorization in 6 years under that highway
bill? The answer is no. We have had to live with it every single day.
We are now trying to write a highway bill for the next 6 years, and
Senator Chafee and Senator Domenici say don't write a highway bill for
the next 6 years. Leave funding at the level that was set out in the
bill that would let the highway trust fund rise to $90 billion by the
end of the highway bill, and then in the future, if we decide that we
ought to quit misleading the American people in telling them that these
taxes that are paid at the pump go to build highways, then in the
future in some budget resolution we could provide that the money would
be spent.
But so that no one misunderstands, not one penny of additional
highway funds are provided in the so-called Chafee-Domenici amendment.
There is only one amendment that takes the highway trust fund that
people pay into when they go and fill up their car and fill up their
truck and they shell out their hard-earned money on gasoline taxes, and
we say to them, well, now, look, it's for your own good. We are
spending it on highways, so this is not a tax. It is a user fee.
Senator Chafee and Senator Domenici say, well, look, we don't want to
do that. We want to build it up in the trust fund so that it can be
spent on other things. In fact, as Senator Chafee said in a speech in
the Senate Chamber on October 9, he ``cannot support the proposition of
spending the 4.3-cent gasoline tax.''
That is a perfectly legitimate position. He cannot support it. But
Senator Byrd and I can support it, and we do support it. What our
amendment does is it starts telling the American people the truth. And
that truth is they are paying this gasoline tax. We claim it is going
into the trust fund to build roads, and yet we have before us a highway
bill that doesn't spend a penny of that 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on
gasoline so that it can go to other uses.
Senator Byrd and I say we collect the money on gasoline, on the tax
at the pump, and we put it into the trust fund. We have been telling
people that was for roads, and our amendment simply does what we say we
are going to do. That is, we are going to spend it on roads.
So if you believe that the highway trust fund ought to be spent on
other things, you should vote against our amendment. You ought to
support people who are opposing it. But if you believe that the highway
trust fund, which is funded with a gasoline tax, ought to be used to
build roads, which is what we claim we are doing, if you think it is
fundamentally wrong, some might say dishonest, to build up a surplus of
$90 billion in a highway account so the money can be spent for other
things, then there is only one amendment that is going to fix it. That
amendment is the amendment that I am offering with Senator Byrd.
So in regard to our amendment, there have been a handful of
criticisms, and I want to respond to one of them and try to do it
briefly so I can get out of the way and let Senator Byrd go back to
giving us a history lesson on highway construction and about the
fairness of the underlying permanent law related to highway
construction.
Let me outline what these criticisms are. First of all, I want to
remind my colleagues that 83 Members of the Senate voted on a
resolution I offered as part of the budget resolution that called on us
to put the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline, which had been going to
general revenues, in the highway trust fund and spend it for highways.
Mr. President, 83 Members of the Senate voted for that resolution.
Then, in the tax bill that was passed this year, we took the 4.3-cent-
a-gallon tax on gasoline and put it where every other permanent tax on
gasoline since we have had a trust fund has gone. We put it into the
highway trust fund to spend it on highways.
Then when the highway bill came out of committee, while we had put
4.3 cents per gallon into the trust fund, about $7.2 billion a year
when you count mass transit and highways, not one penny of it had been
spent on highways. Not one penny of it. Under the original bill, the
surplus would have built up to $90 billion, which means in our unified
budget all that money would have been spent on something else.

Now, Senator Byrd and I have tried to have a debate on the substance
of the issue, and the substance of the issue is we believe that the
trust fund made up of taxes on gasoline ought to go for the purpose
that we tell the American people it is going for, and that is to build
roads. We have offered an amendment to do that. Our amendment is as
straightforward as it can be. It allocates the money on the same
formula the committee allocates the money going to the States. It has
the same amount of money being allocated

[[Page S11282]]

by the Secretary. And it is straightforward in terms of what it funds.
Now, the two criticisms that have been leveled are, No. 1, that
somehow this is unfair because of funding for highways under a program
which has existed since--when was the Appalachian highway program
adopted?
Mr. BYRD. 1965.
Mr. GRAMM. 1965?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. GRAMM. That somehow because it provides funds for a program that
became law in 1965, it is unfair. Well, as I have mentioned before, our
amendment does provide $2.2 billion for that purpose. It also provides
money to seven donor States that, because of a quirk in the formula,
ended up actually getting less under the committee bill, and with the
support of the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member we
also fix that.
And finally, rather than just claiming we were doing something for
international trade corridors, we actually provided money for it. The
old bill claimed it spent $125 million per year for international trade
corridors, but Senator Byrd saw in the fine print that it did not
really provide any money. It just claimed to provide money.
Unfortunately, that is something that is done.
Our bill does not claim to provide money it does not provide. It is
interesting that this criticism would be made. But the point is in the
first attack on the 13 States of Appalachia, our amendment provides
$2.2 billion of funding. The President requested $2.3 billion. The
House passed a level of $2.5 billion. I find it very hard to justify it
is a criticism that we are providing roughly the money that was
requested by the President when his bill contained $31 billion less and
roughly the same amount of money provided by the House.
The final criticism is that the opponents of the bill keep putting
out tables about what their amendment is estimated to do in fiscal year
2000.
First of all, their amendment does not do anything in the year 2000,
nor does it do anything in any other year during the highway bill
because, as I noted earlier, on page 2 of their bill where, under the
title of additional funding, they say their additional funding is zero
for the year 2000, for 1999, 2001, 2002 and 2003. And why they picked
the year 2000 I don't know. The point is there is only one amendment
that provides more money for highway construction in the year 2000.
There is only one amendment that provides more for 1999, 2001, 2002,
and 2003, and that is the Byrd-Gramm amendment.
Now I just have to say that I get frustrated with everybody looking
at these tables and Senator Byrd and I having to spend our time
explaining to them where these numbers came from. These numbers are
basically made up, that's where they came from. There is nothing in
their amendment that provides any additional money. What these numbers
are based on is that, if we decided in the year 2000 to provide more
money, that you could make up a table and show how we might divide it.
I suggested to Senator Byrd that maybe we might want to make up a table
that said if you took the whole $1.6 trillion that the Government
spends and we decided to spend it on highways, we might show how much
in highway funding our Presiding Officer's State would get.
But would it make any difference? The point is, it would make
absolutely no difference, because we are not proposing to take all the
money spent by the Federal Government and spend it just on highways.
But it would be as legitimate as the table where you are making up
figures about what you may do in the future. Listen, when you are
talking about the future and you are not committing to it in the
present, you can make up any tables you want to make up.
But the point is, we are not making up numbers. We have written an
amendment that will require that we have a full authorization of the
4.3-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline, so that when people go in and fill
up their tanks and they look up there and they see this gasoline tax
they are paying, they will know that the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax has
been put into the trust fund and that we are going to spend it on roads
and that when they are paying that tax, they are allocating that money
to build roads, and that is what we told them we were going to do.
So, I don't know if we will have any more of these tables. This is
the second set of tables we have had. I don't quite know where the
numbers come from and why there are these differences from the last
table. But I can assure you that if I were going to do something, the
last thing I would do would be to cheat my State. I am not in the habit
of doing that, and I think if people look at this, they would find that
we are not in the habit of doing that as individual Members. So I think
it just doesn't make sense on the surface.
So, I thank Senator Byrd, and I hope my colleagues now will focus on
the fact that our funding for Appalachia is roughly what the House did
and what the President requested with less money; that we are providing
$31 billion more of budget authority by spending the gasoline tax on
roads--something we promised to do and have not done--we are spending
$31 billion more on roads in terms of authorizing the expenditures so
we can compete each year for that money.
There is no other amendment that provides a penny. So, if you want to
take a promise that someday in the future we might get around to
funding roads, if that is good enough, then you might not be for our
amendment. But if you really believe we ought to spend highway trust
funds on roads, there is only one amendment you are going to get a
chance to vote for that will spend a penny more on highways, and that
is the Byrd-Gramm amendment.
So, I thank my colleague. I am very proud to cosponsor this amendment
with him. I think, if anybody will look at the merits, that this is a
truth-in-government amendment and there is nothing fake about it. There
is no hidden agenda in it. It is simply an amendment that takes the
formula written by the committee for allocating funds for the States
and allocating funds between the discretionary fund of the Secretary
and the allocation of funds to the States. Those are formulas that we
didn't write; we simply took them from the committee.
Our amendment is very straightforward. I think if people will look at
it, what it is trying to do, and will debate it on its merits, it will
come down to an honorable choice between two legitimate positions. One
position says let's continue to take money out of the highway trust
fund and spend it on other things. That is one position. The other
position is let's spend the highway trust fund on highways. That is the
position Senator Byrd and I take. I believe it is the position that the
majority of Members take, and I would like to get the vote and the
debate focused around the choice. I think we want to do that, in all
fairness to our opponents, because we think we will win. If it's on
something else, we don't know what will happen. But I think, if it's
this clear choice, the people are going to be with us.

I thank Senator Byrd for yielding. I appreciate it very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have yielded
to the distinguished Senator, and I just as deeply appreciate his
statement. I hope the Senators will read it. It is needed, I think, to
disabuse Senators from what they are being told by Congress Daily and
by letters and tables that are being distributed. I don't accuse anyone
of acting in bad faith. I am in no position to do that. But certainly
misstatements should be corrected, and I hope will be, beyond what Mr.
Gramm has already said.
Mr. President, Senator Chafee earlier said--he told me that we would,
on tomorrow, get the floor and speak with reference to the Chafee-
Domenici amendment. I have been insisting to them that their amendment
be explained. The amendment which I offered on behalf of myself and my
three distinguished colleagues was explained, and we were criticized
because we had mentioned, on the 9th, I believe, of October, before the
recess, that we were going to offer such an amendment, but we didn't
actually have it ready by then so a considerable amount of discussion
went forth as to why we didn't have it, to the effect that Senators
couldn't comment on what they couldn't see.
But on that same day I believe Senator Domenici indicated that he was
going to offer an amendment, and, of course, we didn't get to see that
until

[[Page S11283]]

one day this week. So we haven't heard an explanation of it yet. I want
an explanation of it. Just as we attempted to do our best explaining to
our colleagues and to the American public what our amendment does, I
think the American people ought to have an explanation right here on
this floor as to what the Chafee-Domenici amendment does. That will
give us a chance, perhaps, to refute some of the misinformation that is
being bandied about.
As I say, I don't ascribe to anyone any intentions to go with
misinformation, but I think the public and our colleagues have a right
to expect us to clear up some of the confusion. So, for now I'll not
say any more along that line because, as I say, Mr. Chafee has
indicated we'll talk some tomorrow, and he indicated that he would
yield to me for some comments at that time. I hope that Mr. Baucus and
Mr. Warner will also have a chance to comment at that time,
particularly with reference to the statement by Congress Daily of
today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent to speak
for up to 45 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________