[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:

       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. The 
     gentleman--

  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.

                          ____________________