[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.
____________________