[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S461-S462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in conclusion, before I take the Senate out 
following the statement of Senator Kennedy, I want to briefly comment 
on some statements that have been made today and yesterday here and in 
other arenas and forums. There are those saying we should immediately 
bring up the ISTEA highway bill.

[[Page S462]]

  First, I want to remind the Senate that I urged the House and the 
Senate and interested parties to do this bill last year when it should 
have been done, because it expired last year. That is No. 1. No. 2, 
because it was not an election year and I knew, if we waited until this 
year, we would have less time and more pressure as we try to decide how 
$175 billion or more is fairly distributed across the country.
  I remind the Senators of that, and they know now and they knew then 
that I was right. I stood right here and filed not one, not two, not 
three, but four cloture motions to try to bring to a conclusion 
unrelated debate and delays based on pure politics, if I may suggest, 
but for an unrelated issue. I kept saying we need to deal with this 
bill, and others kept saying, ``Until you agree to what we want on an 
unrelated issue, we are not going to let you bring up ISTEA.''
  That was a mistake. The Senate made a mistake. Now some of the same 
people not voting to bring it up last year are saying, ``Where is it? 
Please bring it up,'' demanding that it be brought up right away.
  Well, the world is different now. A lot has happened. For one thing, 
we find that we may actually have a little more money than we 
anticipated last year. There are very few Senators that have a longer 
history of having voted to spend the highway trust fund for the purpose 
it was intended--highways. There are very few places where I think the 
Government should be involved in spending money. Defense is one and 
budding infrastructure is the other. This is a place where people can't 
do it by themselves. The Government has to do its part.
  So I want this. I want more money. But I also have a responsibility 
as majority leader to look at this from the standpoint of how does it 
relate to the overall budget? How is it going to affect all these other 
programs? And what we did last year--we stood out here in the rotunda 
and said that we had reached an agreement with the President of the 
United States on a balanced budget, on how to control taxes and how to 
control spending. We entered into an agreement. We entered into an 
agreement in every category across the board. We said we will spend 
this much on transportation, this much on education, this much on 
housing, interior, energy, right across the board.
  Now, if we open the year up by raising spending, without looking at 
how it will affect everything else, we could break the dam and have 
another avalanche of spending. I am not saying it will happen. I am not 
saying how it should happen. I am just saying we should take our time 
and see what's going to happen before we charge forward. Why does the 
Senate need to do this when the House is not going to act? They are not 
going to act this month and not until at least the end of next month. I 
tried to get the Senate to show leadership and to lead and go first. 
The Senate would not do it. Now, let's act in concert.
  Let's work with the House. Let's do this together. Nobody wants to 
bring this up more than I do. But my responsibility as majority leader 
is to make sure that we have thought it through and know what the 
impact will be on a budget agreement that we gave our word to the 
American people on. I intend for us to keep it, and I will do 
everything I can to get that result.

                          ____________________