[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 8 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S469-S473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISTEA FUNDING
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, only 45 session days remain through May 1,
the deadline date, beyond which every State will be prohibited by law
from obligating new Federal highway or transit funds. This past
Thursday, we heard the argument that there is no reason for the Senate
to rush to the highway bill, because, it was said, the House does not
plan to act on the highway bill until next month or later.
[[Page S470]]
Well, Mr. President, I have served in the Congress now going on 46
years. I was 6 years in the House, and this is my 40th year in the
Senate. I have served both as majority leader and minority leader, as
well as majority whip and secretary of the Democratic conference. I
respectfully suggest that the Senate must never let itself be governed
by the scheduling preferences of the other body, especially on
legislation as important and as urgent as is the highway bill.
I have served in the other body, and so have several other Senators,
including the distinguished Senator, Mr. Pat Roberts, who now presides
over the Senate with a degree of efficiency and poise and dignity and
skill, so rare as a day in June. But all other Senators know, as I do,
that the House of Representatives is a very different place with very
different rules.
When the House of Representatives takes up the highway bill, the
House Rules Committee will report out a rule that will probably limit
the number of amendments that will be allowed to be offered and mandate
limitations under which those amendments can be debated. The House can
well take up a highway bill and pass it within one day or two days or
three days. But who here thinks that the Senate will be able to take up
and pass the highway bill in two or three days?
When the Senate takes up the highway bill, Senators, as always, will
have the right under the Senate rules, to offer amendments and to have
those amendments debated. It will probably take 2 or 3 weeks for the
Senate to pass an ISTEA bill. Given all of the competing and
contentious amendments that the Senate will likely debate on ISTEA, we
should recognize the fact that it will probably take two or three weeks
for the Senate to pass an ISTEA bill. One does not have to look further
back in history than the last time that the Congress authorized our
surface transportation programs. Back in 1991, I believe it was, the
Senate debated the ISTEA legislation for the better part of 3 weeks--
not 3 days, but 3 weeks. The other body, however, was able to call up
and dispense with their version of the ISTEA legislation in two days!
The Senate took almost 3 weeks; the House took 2 days. What reason do
we have to think that, this time, things will be different?
I believe that we have an obligation to try to get a complete,
comprehensive, six-year highway authorization bill to the President's
desk by or before May 1. We owe that to our Governors, our mayors, our
highway engineers, our highway departments throughout the country, and
to our constituents who drive on the Nation's highways every day. If we
have any hope of getting a highway bill to the President by or before
May 1, the Senate needs to begin now.
In November of last year when we took up the short-term highway
authorization bill, we were told that it was the intent for the Senate
to take up ISTEA and address it early in this year in order to put
pressure on the House and also so that when the House acted, we, in the
Senate, would be ready for conference with the House. Now, however, it
seems that the pressure is not on the House, but on the Senate. The
wind has shifted, and we are now on a course that puts pressure on the
Senate--pressure from the Governors of our States, pressure from our
transportation departments throughout the country, pressure from our
transit providers--all of whom will be forbidden by law from obligating
any federal funds after May 1. We are also receiving pressure from our
citizens who must endure hazardous driving conditions. Why are we
waiting, Mr. President?
As I stated last week, the President's budget proposes an absolute
freeze on highway spending for the next five years. The President, the
first time he ran for the office, campaigned strongly on a platform of
investing in the Nation's infrastructure. We don't hear that anymore.
The President is proposing a freeze on spending while the balances in
the highway trust fund skyrocket. Meanwhile, the 6-year highway bill,
as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, will also
allow unspent balances of the highway trust fund to pile up year after
year after year, while the Nation's highway needs go wanting year after
year after year. Where else, then, but on a highway authorization bill,
can the Senate come forward to make an affirmative statement that the
expectations for spending on highways over the next six years will go
well beyond the freeze levels proposed by the President?
I recognize that there will be disagreements among Senators as to how
increased authorization levels for highways can and should be financed.
Senator Gramm, one of the principal cosponsors of my amendment, has
stated that he is categorically opposed to moving the caps in order to
boost spending for highways. We will have that debate through the
regular budget and Appropriations process. Mr. President, one thing I
am sure of, if we do not get a 6-year ISTEA bill to the floor, and make
a statement by the full Senate that we do not expect to allow the
unspent balances of highway trust fund to pile up year after year, as
the President proposed and as the Environment and Public Works
Committee in its reported bill proposes, highways will be nowhere in
the upcoming budget debate. We will be debating direct Federal
expenditures for child care and other social welfare programs that are
being pushed by the administration, while the needs of our Nation's
infrastructure will be left out, just as they were left out of the
President's budget.
Well, let me make one thing preeminently clear. The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus
should be called up so that those unspent highway balances, at least to
the tune of $31 billion, can be authorized to be spent. We will not
spend them in the amendment. We only authorize them to be spent. We
will not be debating the budget bill. It is the highway bill I am
talking about.
In last week's remarks on the floor about the highway bill, reference
was made to the ``Highways First'' crowd. Well, Mr. President, I plead
guilty as charged. I make no apologies for standing on this floor and
saying we have been remiss in our national investment in surface
transportation. At a time when the ISTEA authorization has expired, and
it did expire on last September 30; at a time when the country is just
limping along--limping along--on a stopgap highway authorization bill;
at a time when the construction season is looming just--just--a few
weeks away; at a time when Governors and mayors and highway departments
throughout the country need to know just what Federal resources they
can count on for this year's budget as well as for long-term highway
construction plans; at a time when we should be discussing a long-term,
6-year highway authorization bill just as the commitment was made to
the Senate and to the country that we would be discussing a long-term,
6-year ISTEA bill; yes, yes, I believe that first things should come
first and that the 6-year highway bill is the first thing that the
Senate should be debating, and last November we were told just that.
So, yes, I am one of the ``Highways First'' crowd. Count me in. Count
me in.
When 42,000 people are dying on the highways of this country every
year, and when we are told by the U.S. Department of Transportation
that 30 percent of those highway deaths are caused by outdated safety
features, poor pavement quality, substandard road and bridge designs,
and other bad road conditions, yes, I am one of the ``Highways First''
crowd. Count me in!
What could be more fundamental to our national prosperity, and to the
quality of our daily lives, than adequate, safe highways? Major
highways carry nearly 80 percent of U.S. interstate commercial traffic,
and, roughly, 80 percent of intercity passenger and tourist traffic--80
percent. When it comes to the daily lives and the daily working
conditions of our constituents, Americans take more than 90 percent of
all their work trips in cars or trucks.
And we hear much from the administration as to how this Nation should
better meet our child care needs, and that is quite appropriate.
Therefore, I make no apology for taking the floor to point out how the
family lives of millions of Americans would be improved if working
parents could spend more time at home with their children rather than
sit in ever-worsening traffic jams. We hear so much talk about
protecting our children; and yet, getting them to school to be
educated, and to hospitals and to clinics to receive healthcare can't
be done with efficiency without safe, modern highways.
[[Page S471]]
Everyone knows that. Twenty-two million people in Appalachia know it.
Twenty-two million people in Appalachia know the difficulties in
getting to work, in getting to school, in getting to hospitals, in
getting to child care clinics, in getting to church, and in getting
back home--22 million people in Appalachia.
Highways first? You bet, I believe in highways first as of now under
the circumstances that I have outlined. I believe in highways first.
Fixing potholes and pavement may not be glitzy and may not be sexy, but
attending to our Nation's transportation system is a basic, fundamental
need. It is job one, because so much of life in the United States
absolutely depends on our ability to get people and goods from one
place to another.
Francis Bacon, who went to the tower because he was found guilty--and
he admitted it--of accepting bribes, said, ``There be three things that
make a nation great and prosperous: A fertile soil, busy workshops, and
easy conveyance of men and goods from place to place.''
Well, it was said on this floor last week that two of the few places
where the Government should be involved in spending money were in the
field of national defense and in the field of building infrastructure
because people cannot do these things by themselves, it was said. How
true. The Government had to do its part, it was said last week on the
floor of this Senate. Well, the unfortunate fact is that the Government
has not done its part. The record is replete with evidence that we have
not done as good a job as we should have done in maintaining our
highway infrastructure. We are letting our National Highway System fall
more and more into disrepair. And, as a result, the cost of bringing
our highways up to an adequate and safe condition grows by billions of
dollars every year.
Mr. President, it was President Ronald Reagan, who, in January 1983,
said, ``Common sense''--``common sense''--perhaps one of the most
uncommon things that would be found in this city --``Common sense tells
us that it will cost a lot less to keep the [national highway] system
we have in good repair, than to let it disintegrate and have to start
over from scratch. Clearly''--this is former President Reagan talking;
I am quoting him--``Clearly, this program is an investment in tomorrow
that we must make today.'' How true.
Ronald Reagan was right. We must make that investment today. The
commitment that the highway bill would be brought up at the beginning
of this session should be kept, a 6-year ISTEA bill should be made the
pending business of the Senate, and it should be done right today or
soon, very soon. The highway needs grow worse day by day; the time
grows shorter day by day; and I hope that the Governors and mayors and
highway departments throughout this country--and I am speaking to you
out there--I hope that the Governors and mayors and highway departments
throughout this country will join in urging the Senate leadership to
keep its commitment, so that we can debate this highway bill--it is
number one on the Nation's business list.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may reserve that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from West
Virginia. In fact, I want to say to him what a great honor it is for me
to work with him on this amendment. He made a very strong case just a
moment ago about building highways, but I believe the case is stronger
yet because there is one factor that I want to make sure that everybody
understands, that at least in the portion of Senator Byrd's statement
that I heard he did not drive home, in my opinion. And that is, it is
not just a debate about highways versus other things; it is a debate
about basic honesty in Government because, you see, we collect taxes
specifically for the purpose of building roads.
We do not collect taxes for the purpose of providing child care. We
do not collect taxes specifically earmarked for welfare. We do not
collect taxes that are dedicated by their source to the United Nations
or to foreign aid. But we do collect taxes that are dedicated to
highway construction, at least in terms of what Americans believe the
policy of Government is and should be.
If you go to the filling station this afternoon, and you pull up in
your car or truck and you get out and you are pumping gas, while you
are standing there, let me urge people to read what it says on the
gasoline pump. Basically, what it says on the gasoline pump is, there
is good news and bad news. The bad news is that about a third of the
cost of a gallon of gasoline in America today is taxes. The good news
is, as it says right on the pump, those taxes are dedicated to building
the very roads that you are going to burn up this gasoline riding
around on. So it is a user fee. It is a fee you pay in buying gasoline
to build the roads that you are going to use.
The only problem with that bad news-good news story is the good news
is not true. The good news is not true because the Federal Government,
beginning in about 1990, started diverting substantial quantities of
funds collected on gasoline taxes to other uses. Some of it occurred by
just letting surpluses build up in the highway trust fund, which under
a unified budget in essence meant you could spend more money on other
things in Government. Some of the problem resulted in 1993, when, for
the first time in American history, we adopted a 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax
on gasoline that went to general revenue and not to the highway trust
fund.
Senator Byrd, I, and others have solved that problem in the tax bill
by dedicating that 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to the highway
trust fund where it belongs. So let me turn to this chart and really
explain how modest the Byrd-Gramm-Warner-Baucus amendment is, how
modest it is in terms of what we are asking. In fact, the American
people would never believe that we are doing enough.
But if you look at this chart, you see where we are. As of today, we
have $23.7 billion of surpluses in the highway trust fund. This is
money that we have collected on gasoline taxes that we put into the
highway trust fund to spend on roads, but money that has not been spent
on roads. In reality, that money, through our unified budget, in the
total level of spending we could have by running this surplus in the
trust fund, that let Government spend that money on thousands of other
things.
We were successful, as I noted earlier--well, last year; that went
into effect on January 1--of being sure that every cent of gasoline
taxes, just as the gasoline pump says, goes into the highway trust
fund.
Now, under the bill that will be before us when we get an opportunity
to consider it, the surplus in the highway trust fund, if my amendment
with Senator Byrd was not adopted, would grow from $23.7 billion to $90
billion. In other words, over the 6 years that highway bill would be in
effect, we would be collecting, in total, looking at all we have
already done plus what would occur during that period, $90 billion that
we are telling the American people that we were spending on highways
that in reality would not be spent on highways and in reality would be
spent on something else.
Here is what Senator Byrd and I are saying: You have already spent
this $23.7 billion, and we are not asking for it back; in fact, we are
saying that we are going to let the surplus grow under our amendment
from $23.7 billion that should have been spent on roads to $39 billion,
and that that money will be available, therefore, for general budget
uses.
What we are saying is that this 4.3-cent tax on gasoline, a total of
$51 billion in spending authority, we want it spent on roads. I have
likened this--and I am sure some of my colleagues don't like the
analogy, but I think it fits perfectly--I have likened our opponents to
cattle rustlers. What they have been doing, as you can see from this
chart, they have been rustling our cattle. They have been taking money
that has been collected in taxes on gasoline, put into the highway
trust fund to spend on roads, and they have been spending it on other
things. In any
[[Page S472]]
other business except government you might actually go to jail for
doing something like that.
In fact, Senator Byrd reminded one of our opponents of the story in
the Bible of Ananias in the book of Acts. In the young church, Ananias
makes a big deal about selling all his property and giving it to the
church, but he cheats. The Lord thought so little of that activity that
he struck him dead and struck his wife dead.
Obviously, we are not talking about striking anybody dead. All we are
talking about is the following: We are saying, keep the $23.7 billion.
In fact, we are going to let it build up to $39 billion. Just let us
spend the 4.3-cent tax on gasoline on highways.
Their response is, ``Well, you know, we already got the $23.7 billion
and we were expecting not only $39 billion but $90 billion, and if we
don't get to spend that money on all these other programs, on
everything other than highways, we are going to lose the ability to
spend that money.''
Well, it reminds me of a cattle rustler who has been stealing Senator
Byrd's cattle and my cattle. We call the sheriff out. We confront the
guy, and we say, ``You stole these cattle, and we are letting you keep
on stealing cattle, but you have to limit the number of stealing. You
can't steal any cattle out of this pasture.'' Their response is not,
``Thank you for not hanging me, thank you for letting me continue to do
what I have been doing''; their response is, ``Where are we going to
get this extra beef?''
That is not our problem. That is their problem. They shouldn't have
been spending this money out of the highway trust fund to begin with.
Now, let me turn to several points I want to make. First of all, if
we don't pass this amendment, we are going to be locked into this
highway bill for the next 6 years with mounting infrastructure needs
all over the country and with tens of billions of dollars collected in
gasoline taxes that will be spent on something else.
If the American people had a vote on our amendment of whether to
require that gasoline taxes that are collected for the purpose of
building roads be spent on roads and only on roads, I can't imagine
that many people would oppose this provision. But we are only going to
have one chance in the next 6 years to do something about it, and that
is on the highway bill.
Now, those who oppose our amendment, those who want to spend that $90
billion on everything but roads say, ``Don't bring up the highway bill
now, let us deal with the budget first.'' Now, they are trying to play
on the confusion. Senator Byrd and I have spoken many times, and we
will speak many more times until this is settled and until we have
prevailed on this issue. But they are trying to play on the confusion.
They are trying to act as if the proposal the President has made about
expanding child care or the President has made about building schools
or hiring teachers or any of the literally hundreds of programs he has
proposed to increase spending, $130 billion worth of spending, they act
as if somehow that is equivalent to what we are talking about. It is in
no way equivalent to what we are talking about. The President is
talking about increasing the total level of spending. We are talking
about debating how to spend the money that is currently collected.
We have a gasoline tax that is dedicated to building highways, and
all we are saying is this is not a budget issue. This is an issue of
honesty in Government and highway construction. All we are asking is
that the money collected in gasoline taxes be spent on highways. In
terms of setting spending levels, that is something we ought to do in
the budget and decide what the total level of spending next year is
going to be. Then any individual Senator--and obviously the majority--
will make a determination as to what they want to do. But this is not a
budget issue. This is a highway issue and it has to do with spending
money for the purpose that money is collected. So, we don't want this
to be commingled with the budget. There is no equivalent of what we are
asking we do here, which is basically a truth-in-Government provision
where you collect money on gasoline taxes, you tell people it is going
to highways, but you don't do it. We want to fix that. There is no
equivalent between that and a proposal to raise the total level of
spending in the Federal budget. We don't believe the two should be
commingled.
Let me turn very briefly to two other issues that a big deal has been
made out of, and all of our colleagues will hear about it. I want to be
sure people understand it. I want to start with the Appalachian
program. That program started in 1965. It has been part of every
highway bill since 1965. The President's highway bill, like ours,
divides money into two parts, the 90 percent that goes directly to the
States, the 10 percent that is spent by the Secretary. Under the
President's budget, 1.6 percent of the highway bill is dedicated to the
13 States that make up Appalachia as part of a program that was
authorized in 1965.
Now, those who oppose our amendment say their amendment provides
funds for those 13 States under a program that is now over 30 years
old. But what they don't tell you is the rest of the story, and that is
we provide a lower percentage of the money going to those 13 States out
of the Secretary's discretionary funds than does the President. The
President provides 1.6 percent to those 13 States; we provide 1.4
percent to those 13 States.
Finally, on that issue, the President's bill, like the bill before
the Senate, has this strange provision that says that if we don't have
enough money in the trust fund and we have a shortage of money, that we
cut the States first. Senator Byrd and I changed that in our amendment.
We treat the Secretary's funds equivalent to the States' funds. So from
the point of view of this issue, the issue of Appalachia, it is always
easy, obviously, in these complicated bills to confuse people, but the
two points every Member of the Senate should understand is that as a
percentage of the highway bill, less money is going to the 13 States of
Appalachia in the program, which dates back to 1965, under the
President's amendment; and our amendment eliminates a terrible
inequity, which says, if there is a shortfall of funds, what the
Secretary has discretion over is funded first. We eliminate that.
A final point, and I will be finished, is that one of our critics has
said that our bill funds interstate corridors of international trade
and border infrastructure. This was called for under NAFTA.
Interestingly enough, the bill that is before the Senate, the highway
bill--or we wish was before the Senate --provides $750 million to
fulfill the commitments made in NAFTA only by a sleight-of-hand. It
provides no real authorization for the money to be spent. So they tell
you they are providing $750 million. You can read it right in their
bill. But elsewhere they have a provision which renders that
nonexistent. We have provided $450 million which is real. So in reality
they claim to be providing more than we are, but their complaint is we
are basically doing it; whereas they were basically misleading people
about what they were doing. So I want people to understand this issue.
We need to get on with the highway bill. We have work to do. We are
running out of time. The highway bill is going to expire. Road
construction is going to stop all over the country. We need to bring
this highway bill up and we need to do it now. I want to ask our
Governors, our mayors, the people who build highways, the people who
use highways, we need to hear from you in this debate because your
interests are at stake.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my reserved
2\1/2\ minutes be reduced to 30 seconds, and I wish the Senator would
add to the list of cosponsors. I believe he has two additional Senators
on this side.
Mr. GRAMM. We have gotten the commitment, I think, in writing from
Senator Thomas; that brings us up to 51. We have one other Member who
has said verbally they want to cosponsor, but I want to wait until we
get that in writing.
The point in the 30 seconds is that this is the first legitimate
bipartisan effort in this Congress. We have 51 cosponsors, Democrats
and Republicans, because this is a bipartisan issue. People say they
want bipartisanship. This is an issue where we are getting it, and what
we need is this bill on the floor of the Senate so that we can provide
this bipartisan leadership to do what the country needs.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas.
[[Page S473]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
____________________