[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S418-S419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NEED FOR THE HIGHWAY BILL NOW

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the State of Nevada is a large State, one of 
the largest in the Union, 74 million acres. Nevada is also the most 
mountainous State in the Union except for Alaska. We have 314 separate 
mountain ranges. We have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high. We also 
have vast extremes in weather. In the southern part of the State it is 
not unusual for places such as Laughlin, NV, in the southern tip of the 
State to reach temperatures of 120 degrees. In the northern part of the 
State we at times have the coldest place in the Nation, temperatures 
far below zero that remain for days at a time.
  The State of Nevada is also the fastest growing State in the Nation; 
we also have the fastest growing city and the fastest growing county: 
the city of Las Vegas city and Clark County. Every month, 7,800 new 
residents move into Clark County. So we have an unusual State.
  The reason I lay this on the Record today is that the State of Nevada 
desperately needs a highway bill. We desperately need a surface 
transportation bill brought before this body and debated and resolved. 
The ISTEA legislation, as we call it, was a good piece of legislation 
when it passed in 1991. I was fortunate to be on the subcommittee that 
drafted that legislation. I was fortunate to be able to work on that 
committee with the chairman of the committee, Senator Moynihan, and the 
ranking member, now the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee.
  We did some unique things with that ISTEA legislation. We allowed 
more spending but more of that spending power went to the individual 
States. That was the main goal of the ISTEA legislation that passed in 
1991: turning more spending power and authority over to the States and 
localities while maintaining a strong national transportation system. 
And during the 6 years this legislation has been in effect it has 
worked well.
  We have made progress in returning more authority to local 
jurisdictions. I believe, when we are able to take up the bill that 
came out of the committee, the bill which is now before this body, we 
will continue along the same lines.
  I rise today to say that I think we are breaking faith with the 
American people by not having this legislation in the Chamber today. I 
have outlined the problems we have in the State of Nevada. Because of 
the mountains we have around the State, because of the extremes we have 
in weather around the State of Nevada, we badly need these highway 
funds. All of this is compounded by the tremendous growth we are having 
in the State of Nevada.
  The President came to Lake Tahoe last summer with the Vice President 
and five Cabinet officers. A commitment was made by the States of 
California and Nevada to do something about Lake Tahoe because it is 
being degraded environmentally. Everyone agrees--Republicans, 
Democrats, conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, 
nonenvironmentalists--that the lake needs to be saved, and a commitment 
was made at that time to save that lake. Part of the salvation of the 
lake comes in the form of transportation improvements in the ISTEA bill 
that should be before this body.
  Mr. President, the money that we are talking about spending is not 
new tax dollars. We are not spending money that does not exist. Every 
time an individual goes to a service station to buy gas, they put gas 
in their car and automatically, because of legislation that has been 
passed here, the money that comes from that purchase goes into a trust 
fund. That money is set aside for highway construction and surface 
transportation. And so we are not here today demanding that we spend 
new taxes for these roads that are badly needed in Nevada and around 
the country. What we are saying is let's spend the money that is in the 
trust fund. That is all we are asking. Let's spend the money. There has 
been a commitment made that those moneys that have been collected 
should be spent on our surface transportation. The first step is to get 
the highway bill done (and the sooner the better).

  Mr. President, when I practiced law, we would set up trust funds for 
our clients, and it could be as a result of a contract that you were 
dealing with for your client, trying to resolve contractual 
differences; it could be for the sale of a piece of real estate; it 
could be for a personal injury case. This money was put into a trust 
fund for the client. If in fact we used those trust fund moneys for 
anything else, to pay rent, to purchase a car, or to do something that 
wasn't in keeping with our client's wishes, we could be disbarred and 
in fact criminally prosecuted.
  I cannot imagine that we are using these trust fund moneys for these 
highways for some other purpose. If we did that in the private sector, 
we would be subject, if we were a lawyer, to disbarment; if you were 
not a lawyer, maybe to criminal prosecution and, in fact, if you were a 
lawyer to criminal prosecution.
  So these highway trust fund moneys should be spent for the purpose 
for which they were collected and no other purpose. Not for offsetting 
the deficit, not for a fancy new spending program in some other place. 
This money should be used for surface transportation. I cannot 
understand why we are not bringing this bill before this body 
immediately.
  When Congress was unable last year to complete its work on the long-
term reauthorization program, I was a strong proponent of the notion 
that we needed to pass a short-term extension. The Presiding Officer at 
this moment serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee with 
this Senator. He, too, helped move the bill out of the

[[Page S419]]

committee, and we agreed that there should be a short-term extension to 
ensure continuity in State programs and to live up to our obligation to 
the American people to provide a world-class--in fact, the best--
transportation system.
  That is what these trust fund moneys are all about. I supported this 
short-term approach as a last resort. But I was under the assumption 
that leadership here would allow us to move the surface transportation 
bill to the floor so that we could begin working on it as soon as we 
returned from the recess. This has to happen. It was supposed to be one 
of the first things we brought up when we got back here.
  The surface transportation bill made the States partners with the 
Federal Government. With this highway bill, we had more of a 
partnership than we had ever had before. The partnership was to build a 
stronger transportation system and to maintain a stronger 
transportation system. We are leaving the departments of transportation 
in all States in the lurch by putting off work for months now. This is 
no way to treat a partner. If we are truly partners with the States, 
their departments of transportation, then certainly we should be moving 
this legislation.
  State transportation programs are continuing for the moment, but 
let's not kid ourselves. These programs are dying. They are on life 
support, but they are dying. We designed the short-term extension in a 
way that we would, in effect, force ourselves to work on this 
legislation after we came back after the first of the year. We are not 
following through on that. Our goal was to allow the States to spend 
unallocated balances for a couple of months to prevent a lapse in the 
programs. We didn't build an extra quarter or 6 months into that idle 
time.
  I congratulate and I applaud Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, who has been on this floor and steadfastly 
and continually and very effectively has brought to the attention of 
this body and the people of this country the need that we move to (and 
pass) the surface transportation bill. The closer we get to the 
election the harder it is going to be to do the right thing in regard 
to this legislation. If we wait until April, April is going to become 
July, and then July will become October. We should do this now. We 
should move this bill as quickly as possible.
  There are some States, including the State of Nevada, where we are 
limited in terms of the amount of funds we can allocate because of bid-
letting procedures. There are only certain times that we can let these 
contracts--sometimes because of weather in parts of the State of 
Nevada. As I have already described, because of the weather extremes, 
you cannot do work all year round in the State of Nevada. So we need to 
let these bids take place. As I have indicated, there are many parts of 
Nevada, in the high Sierras and other parts of the State of Nevada, 
where the construction season is extremely short. Delays in 
reauthorization are going to lead to delays in roadbuilding and 
maintenance soon. A delay of several months can easily lead to a delay 
of a year or more in the colder climates of our State.
  This applies all over the country. Nevada is currently the fastest 
growing State in the Nation. As I indicated, about 8,000 people moved 
to Clark County last month--that's the Las Vegas area. In order to 
address our long-term growth-related infrastructure needs, we need a 6-
year bill; not a 3-month bill, not a 6-month bill. Six-month bills do 
not allow us to adequately plan for the future. It is unfair of this 
body, this Congress, to arbitrarily wreck the planning processes of 50 
States and tens of thousands of highway construction workers and 
contractors whose livelihood depends on the timely and consistent flow 
of these highway funds. We must move forward. To not do so is simply 
unfair. It is unfair for the Congress of this country to hold up the 
gas taxes that the people pay every time they fill up their tanks at a 
service station while we continue collecting these huge sums of money 
every day to go into this trust fund. We are not being fair to the 
American public by not spending these trust funds.
  We spend a lot of time in this body talking about States rights. 
Let's demonstrate our commitment to States by passing this highway 
bill. It is important we do it. It is important we do it tomorrow, not 
next month or the month after that. Let's get to work on 
reauthorization today.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will.

                          ____________________