[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ANALYSIS OF DOMENICI-CHAFEE ``DEAR COLLEAGUE'' LETTER REGARDING ISTEA 
                            REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier this week, Senators received a 
``Dear Colleague'' letter and accompanying material from my friends and 
colleagues, Senators Chafee and Domenici. This letter included several 
representations regarding the substance and effect of the Byrd-Gramm-
Baucus-Warner amendment in comparison to that of the Chafee-Domenici 
amendment to S. 1173, the ISTEA reauthorization bill.
  I have already addressed a number of these issues on the floor over 
the last two days. However, I thought it would be valuable for Senators 
to review a memorandum that evaluates in detail the representations 
made by Senators Chafee and Domenici in their ``Dear Colleague'' 
letter. This analysis was prepared by Dr. William Buechner, Director of 
Economics and Research at the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association.
  I therefore ask unanimous consent that Dr. Buechner's analysis be 
printed in the Record at this point, and I hope all Members will 
carefully review this material and become cosponsors of the Byrd-Gramm-
Baucus-Warner amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Memorandum

     To: Senate Transportation & Budget LA's
     From: Dr. William Buechner, Director of Economics & Research 
         American Road & Transportation Builders Association
     Date: October 29, 1997
     Re: Dear Colleague by Senators Domenici and Chafee on Byrd-
         Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment to S. 1173 (ISTERA II)
       Yesterday, you received a dear colleague letter from 
     Senators Domenici and Chafee claiming that forty-three states 
     would lose highway money under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner 
     Amendment to S. 1173. This claim was made on the basis of 
     tables and charts prepared by the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation under instructions from the Environment and 
     Public Works Committee. A front page article on this 
     memorandum appeared in the October 28 edition of Congress 
     Daily A.M., which gives the Domenici-Chafee analysis the 
     illusion of accuracy and authority.


                            don't be misled

       The purpose of the Domenici-Chafee dear colleague letter is 
     to obscure the fact that the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner 
     amendment will provide $28 billion more for highways during 
     the next five years than ISTEA II as reported, while the 
     proposed Domenici-Chafee amendment will not. Nonetheless, the 
     letter suggests that it is appropriate to compare the two 
     proposals as though both provide the same amount of funding. 
     This creates the impression that some states would receive 
     less under Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner than under Domenici-
     Chafee. Here are the facts:
       The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment authorizes an 
     increase in formula funding for highway programs of about $28 
     billion over the five-year period FY 1999-2003, to be 
     distributed among the states based on the precise 
     distribution formula in the committee bill. Since the program 
     authorization levels in ISTEA II will put an upper limit on 
     the amount Congress can spend on highway during the next six 
     years, the only way to increase highway spending is to 
     increase the amounts authorized in ISTEA II, which is 
     precisely what the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment does. 
     The implication of the Domenici-Chafee dear colleague letter 
     that the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment provides no more 
     funding than ISTEA II as reported is simply wrong and 
     completely misrepresents the intent of the amendment.
       The Domenici-Chafee approach would lock the highway program 
     into the inadequate authorization levels currently specified 
     in ISTEA II in exchange for a procedure by which Congress 
     could add more money at some future time if it so wishes. 
     This pig-in-a-poke asks the American people to give up the 
     higher authorizations for highways provided in Byrd-Gramm-
     Baucus-Warner for the hope that Congress might deliver the 
     equivalent at some future date. Of course, Congress will 
     still have to pass higher obligation limitations and 
     appropriations under either approach, but the Byrd-Gramm-
     Baucus-Warner amendment lets us lock in the necessary 
     authorization level today.
       The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment also authorizes 
     additional spending for the Appalachian Highway Development 
     System and changes most of the funding for the Border 
     Corridor program from a general fund authorization into 
     contract authority. The Environment and Public Works 
     Committee-directed table assumes that funds for these 
     initiatives would be paid ``off the top'' and implies that 
     states would have to give up money from other highway 
     programs no matter what level is appropriated for the highway 
     program. In fact, the authorization for these programs in the 
     Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment are fully subject to any 
     annual obligation limitation as are other highway programs. 
     Moreover, these programs would be funded in the same 
     proportion as other programs in the bill.
       In truth, the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment provides 
     an increase in authorization for all of the highway programs 
     in ISTEA II in the same proportion as provided for in the 
     underlying bill. As the annual level of appropriations rise, 
     the funds available for all states will rise with it. You 
     cannot compare the state-by-state allocations under Byrd-
     Gramm-Baucus-Warner versus Domenici-Chafee at the same level 
     of spending, as the dear colleague letter attempts, because 
     the two do not provide the same level of spending. Instead, 
     the appropriate comparison would pit the fully-funded Byrd-
     Gramm-Baucus-Warner against the anemic level of funding under 
     Domenici-Chafee, in which case every state wins and wins big 
     under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment. The Byrd-Gramm-
     Baucus-Warner amendment will make it possible to use the 
     revenues from the recent transfer of the 4.3 cents per gallon 
     of the Federal gasoline tax previously used for deficit 
     reduction into the Highway Trust Fund to provide 
     authorization for more than $5 billion per year in new funds 
     to allocate among all the states for highway investment.
       In truth, every state stands to receive substantially more 
     under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment than under ISTEA 
     II as reported. These additional funds are critical to meet 
     our nation's transportation needs.
       I would be happy to discuss this with you if you have 
     questions. I can be reached at 202-289-4434.




                          ____________________