[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S303-S304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE HIGHWAY BILL

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as many of our colleagues are aware, there 
has been a problem in America since roughly 1990 in that we have 
collected taxes on gasoline. Those taxes, as anyone knows who has ever 
stood and read the gasoline pump as they are filling up their car or 
truck, are dedicated to building highways. But, yet, since 1990, over 
25 cents out of every dollar we have collected in gasoline taxes has 
not gone to building highways. It has instead gone to fund general 
government.
  This produces a real problem. If you read the sign on the gasoline 
pump, it basically gives you good news and bad news. The bad news is 
that about a third of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is taxes. The 
good news is that every penny you pay in gasoline taxes is supposed to 
go to build roads. The problem since roughly 1990 has been that the bad 
news is true and the good news is not true.
  Senator Byrd, I, and others set about last year to try to correct 
this problem to basically try to bring honesty to Government by having 
a program that in reality conforms to what we tell the American people. 
And that program is that if you collect money on gasoline taxes to 
spend on roads that you spend the money on roads and nothing else. We 
have done it in two parts. One part is complete.
  I offered an amendment to last year's tax bill which was adopted in 
the Senate, adopted in the House, and became law when the President 
signed the tax bill into law. It took the 4.3 cents a gallon tax on 
gasoline that in 1993 the President had dedicated permanently to 
general revenues--the first time in American history that such a 
designation had ever occurred--and it put that gasoline tax back into 
the highway trust fund. You can imagine how surprised we were when the 
President's budget came out and not one penny of that gasoline tax is 
proposed to be spent on highways.
  Senator Byrd, I, and others have put together an amendment which now 
has, I believe, 52 cosponsors. I want today to outline what the 
amendment does and what it does not do, what the result of adopting the 
amendment would do, and what it would not do. I also want to address 
two other issues that people have talked about as reasons of not being 
for the amendment.
  First of all, our amendment is on an authorization bill. It basically 
would change the highway bill to assure that the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax 
on gasoline would be authorized to be spent on highways. Our amendment 
does not, nor could it, change the spending caps in the budget. Nothing 
in our amendment would in any way change the total amount of funds that 
are currently available to be spent under the budget agreement which we 
adopted last year. In fact, our amendment specifically states that 
nothing in the amendment will bridge or break those caps. So we are not 
debating how much total money is going to be spent next year. That 
debate is going to occur in the budget and probably to some extent in 
the appropriations process and perhaps in the Finance Committee with 
taxes and user fees.
  My position is longstanding, and I don't intend to change it under 
any circumstances. And that position is that we should not raise the 
spending caps; that we made an agreement last year with the President. 
We took that agreement to the American people. We made a promise. I 
think we ought to live up to that promise.
  The Byrd-Gramm amendment simply allows highways to compete with every 
other use of money within the budget agreement. If we do not adopt the 
Byrd-Gramm amendment, it means that for the next 6 years we are going 
to be spending less than 75 cents out of every dollar collected in 
gasoline taxes on highways, and we are going to continue to perpetuate 
an untruth where people were told when they buy gasoline that the money 
is going to build highways when in reality over 25 cents out of every 
dollar is going to general government. If you believe that when we have 
a dedicated revenue source--a

[[Page S304]]

``user fee,'' as some call it--that we have an obligation, in fact, a 
moral obligation, to the American people to use the revenue for the 
purpose that it is collected for, then I believe that you should be for 
the Byrd-Gramm amendment.

  We have, I believe now, 52 cosponsors. I don't have any doubt about 
the fact that if we voted on the Byrd-Gramm amendment today as an 
amendment to the highway bill it would be adopted and it would probably 
get 75 or 80 votes.
  Here is the problem. Those who oppose the amendment would like to 
delay its consideration and consider it in the context of the budget. 
When we are considering the budget we are going to be considering many 
proposals to break the spending caps. And it is the hope of those who 
oppose the amendment to use that parliamentary position to try to 
convince people that rather than fulfilling the commitment we made to 
the American people about spending gasoline taxes on roads that we 
should not do that so we can raise spending in other areas.
  In fact, the strategy is to commingle this effort to allow highways 
to compete in an effort to break the budget entirely. I didn't think 
that is where we ought to consider this amendment. This is not a budget 
amendment. Our amendment does not break the spending caps. All we do is 
authorize highways at a level that would allow the spending of every 
penny collected in the gasoline tax, or at least that new portion, 4.3 
cents a gallon. It would then be up to the Appropriations Committee 
within their overall budget to decide how much to spend on highways.
  Let me make it clear. I believe that under those circumstances we 
would be successful, and that we would provide the full level of 
funding. But in doing so we would do it within the spending caps.
  A couple of additional points. Our highway bill will expire on May 
1st. It would be my intention--and I believe it is the intention of 
Senator Byrd--that if that highway extension expires, we would want an 
opportunity as part of rewriting it to offer our amendment. In fact, we 
are preserving our right to offer our amendment, as obviously anyone 
can at any time to any bill. We don't want to do that. We want to have 
the opportunity to have the highway bill in front of us.
  I hope my colleagues will join Senator Byrd and join me in urging our 
leadership on both sides of the aisle to come forward with the highway 
bill. I came over today because we are here at 3 o'clock with no 
business before the Senate. We could have already written the highway 
bill. It takes time to plan the building of roads and bridges. It takes 
time for States to set out their blueprint of what they are going to 
do. I am blessed in being with a Southern State that has a long 
construction cycle. But for people who live in States like North 
Dakota, they have a very short construction cycle in terms of highway 
construction. And if the highway bill should expire, if they lose May, 
June, and July, they will end up not having a highway construction 
period this year.
  So I believe that we need to get on with this bill. I think there is 
a solid consensus that says that within the spending caps we want to 
allow highways the right to compete for funds up to the amount of taxes 
that we collect on gasoline. If those of us who believe that the money 
should be spent on highways can't win that debate, then obviously we 
will not get the money.
  But since the money was collected on gasoline taxes, people were told 
it was going to be used for highway construction, I believe that if we 
do authorize its expenditure we will be successful.
  So I came over today to basically make two points. No. 1, nothing in 
the Byrd-Gramm amendment raises the spending caps. The amendment 
specifically states that the spending in the Byrd-Gramm amendment will 
be within the spending caps. We are going to debate spending caps and 
the total level of spending in the budget. The Byrd-Gramm amendment is 
authorization which authorizes the construction of highways at a 
funding level up to the expenditure of the gasoline taxes that we are 
now collecting. It will be up to each of us then within the spending 
limits that are set in the budget--and I hope they will be the spending 
limits that we agreed to last year and I intend to fight for, but 
within that we will have an opportunity to compete so that funds can be 
spent on highways and so that we can have truth in Government, so that 
when working Americans go to the filling station and stick the nozzle 
in their gas tank and they sit there while they are holding it reading 
on the gas pump that every penny of gasoline taxes goes to build roads, 
that will not be false advertising by the Government, that it will in 
fact be a reality.
  The final point I wanted to reemphasize is we are running out of 
time. The extension of the highway bill expires on May 1. We are not 
going to be able to get another clean extension. We obviously have time 
to deal with this bill since there is no action in the Chamber here at 
3 o'clock in the afternoon. It is early in the session. We were told 
when Congress adjourned for the Christmas recess the first item of 
business was going to be the highway bill. With a construction cycle 
beginning in May in the northern tier of the country, with the 
desperate need for highways and highway modernization, with the fact we 
told people the money they spend on gasoline taxes is a user fee to be 
used for highways and roads, I believe it is important that we move 
ahead. I urge our leadership, both on the Republican side of the aisle 
and on the Democratic side of the aisle, to move ahead with the highway 
bill. Let the Senate work its will and know that the amendment which 
will be offered by Senator Byrd and by me and by 52 Members of the 
Senate is an amendment that does not break the spending caps.
  Under no circumstance am I going to support breaking the spending 
caps. This is a debate about priorities. It is a debate about whether 
or not, when you tell people that their gasoline taxes go to build 
roads, it should go to build roads. This is competition for available 
money. It is not a debate about increasing the total level of spending. 
I know people get confused on this issue, and I wanted to be sure that 
we continue every day to reiterate that this is a debate about 
priorities. It is a debate about honesty in Government. But it is not a 
debate about the total level of spending. That decision will be made in 
the budget, and hopefully the decision will be made to live up to the 
commitment we made last year.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognition. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________