[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 18 (Monday, March 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1197-S1198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, are we on ISTEA?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. THOMAS. I would like to speak for 10 minutes on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much.
  Madam President, I want to say--which has already been said a number 
of times--how pleased I am that we are moving forward on this important 
legislation. I am a member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, and we worked very hard last year to bring this to the 
Senate. Of course, as you know, we found some problems, particularly 
with the House version, and ended up with a temporary bill. That 
temporary bill expires the first of May, and all of us, I think, are 
aware of how important it is for us to get on into the permanent 
reauthorization of this bill so that our various State highway 
commissions can go forward with their plans.
  The current ISTEA law has certainly, over the years, made some 
important changes in our whole transportation program, our 
transportation policies. It has changed things a great deal. We have 
come up with a national system of Federal highways. We have found a way 
to protect this system and to cause it to be effective. But as we move 
into the 21st century, we need, of course, to update this law as it was 
passed to make it more flexible, to make it such that the States can 
deal with the unique issues that they have.
  I am from Wyoming where we have probably more miles and fewer people, 
more miles per person than, I suspect, most any other State in the 
Union. So our needs are quite different than they are in California, 
than they are in New York or Rhode Island. And this ISTEA bill tends to 
recognize that with more flexibility and more efficiency by reducing 
some of the regulations that go with it, by putting programs together 
and helping us to meet the challenges that are before us. It is not 
perfect, of course.
  I believe ISTEA II achieves this goal of efficiency and flexibility, 
and creates ``new rules of the road'' that serve the national interest 
and will help us to build the highways--I hate to be repetitive--and 
bridges of the 21st century. I heard that somewhere before.
  At any rate, my State, as is the case with all other States, has road 
needs. And our roads are in a condition such that they need a good deal 
of repair, a good deal of maintenance.
  Again, Wyoming is unique. Wyoming taxpayers contribute more to the 
highway trust fund per person than any other State in the country 
because we drive more--nearly $200 per person in Federal gas taxes. And 
yet we have a deteriorating bridge and road system. According to the 
best figures I get from our highway department, 44 percent of our roads 
and bridges are in a deteriorating condition, in a fair to poor 
condition. So we have a great deal to do.
  These shortfalls, of course, in the roads of Wyoming, as in other 
States' roads, are a detriment to all taxpayers. If we are to have a 
national system, then, of course, you have to cross all the States to 
get there.
  A set of efficient and well-maintained roads is important to the 
cities that export goods around the country, as they are to us in 
Wyoming. This bill, of course, and all of the activities and dollars 
that go with it are a very direct contribution to the Nation's economy. 
These dollars move out quickly. These dollars move to fill the needs of 
people throughout the country, provide jobs, and are very efficiently 
used in a very quick fashion. So ISTEA II will help the flow of goods 
and services in our country.
  We worked very hard. I want to salute the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Chafee, who worked so hard to find, along with others, a fair 
solution. This is a difficult issue. Through the years, as everyone 
knows now, we have taken in more money from Federal highway taxes than 
we have spent. We kept it in the trust fund, at least partially, to 
help balance the budget.
  We have a unified budget, so if you spend the money, even if it is in 
the trust fund, you spend the money in the highway fund, then you have 
to reduce the spending somewhere else in order to stay within the 
spending caps. That is not easy. So the first discussion we have had--
it has been a very difficult one--is how much of that money do you 
spend without impeding on the other spending?
  The second difficult one, of course, is that of the formula in which 
there is distribution. There is always great controversy about the 
formula. There are States that pay in more than they, frankly, get 
back. There are States that get more than they pay in. There are those 
who believe all the dollars should go to highways.
  There are others who believe part of the money--this is, after all, a 
surface transportation bill--some of the dollars ought to go for public 
transportation, some ought to go for Amtrak, some ought to go for 
bicycle trails, and those kinds of things. So I suspect, of all the 
bills that we deal with, No. 1, everyone wants to pass it, everyone 
knows that it needs to go forward. But there are so many different 
kinds of interests that are represented here--and legitimate, all 
legitimate.
  So finding a fair funding formula, based on the national interests, 
is most difficult. I admire very much what the leadership of this 
committee has done. And it is there to emphasize a National Highway 
System. I think that is key--a National Highway System.
  Let me talk just a minute about an issue that I guess I would have to 
admit is particularly important to me, but I think to others as well. I 
happen to be chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks. We find 
ourselves with national parks that are being loved to death. More and 
more people like to go to parks, but at the same time we find ourselves 
$5 billion to $8 billion in arrears in infrastructure. Nearly $2 
billion of that backlog is in highways.
  And, of course, parks only have one source of revenue, really, for 
the maintenance of their highways, and that is Federal taxes. Counties 
do not come in to Federal parks and build roads as they do in some 
other public lands. The State does not contribute to the highways 
inside of parks. So we have found that a high percentage of existing 
park roads and bridges are in poor condition. And therefore, we need to 
do something about it.

  In my State of Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park alone is $250 
million behind for the care of highways. It is very difficult. First of 
all, they are built in difficult places. Their season is rather short 
to reconstruct. So it is hard to keep highways moving.
  We are very pleased that in this particular bill we make a step 
forward--we make a step forward--and have moved up from about $70 
million a year, which has been traditional, to about $180 million. So 
it makes a great deal of difference. And then the Park Service will 
decide where those allocations are made.
  The same is true of other Federal lands. Wyoming is 50 percent 
Federal lands. Some States are much higher. Nevada, for example--86 
percent of that State is owned by the Federal Government. So you have 
BLM lands. You have forest lands. You have refuge lands. All of these 
are lands that we look forward to helping through this program. And 
they will receive a small, relatively small increase, relatively small 
in terms of the problem, but a sizable increase.
  Senators Chafee and Warner and Baucus have been working with us on 
this issue. I feel confident that these park needs will very much be 
accommodated. I thank the Senators for their willingness to do that.
  ISTEA II will streamline the program structure and give States and 
localities more flexibility. I believe that is very important. There is 
a consolidation of five programs into three, which

[[Page S1198]]

helps to make it more efficient, provides more flexibility and gives 
the States more of a chance to decide where their dollars ought to go. 
I think that is very important.
  Again, I thank Senators Warner, Chafee and Baucus. They have worked 
very hard through this time.
  Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and I introduced an ISTEA II 
reauthorization bill. We called it STARS 2000. It was a shining example 
of what we ought to do. That was earlier this year. I thank them and 
their staffs for putting it together. Then Senator Chafee used that as 
one of the alternatives, we came together with a bill that I think is 
top-notch and one that I think we should move forward with as soon as 
possible.
  There are some complications, of course. And they have been going on 
for years. One of them is the idea of using Federal funds to require 
that States behave in certain ways in order to get their money. We will 
be talking about that. I suppose in a number of areas--one of them will 
have to do with drunk driving, having to do with alcohol content. No 
one is for drunk driving. Everyone wants to do everything they can to 
put a cap on that, eliminate it, if possible. But I have to tell you, 
Madam President, that I find it very difficult to explain why the 
Federal Government has to tell the States how to do these various 
things.
  I happen to have been in the Wyoming legislature. Most of us here 
have been in our State legislatures. I think legislatures are perfectly 
capable of deciding what those kinds of things ought to be, whether it 
is motorcycle helmets or speed limits or drunk driving, alcohol 
content.
  It seems to me those are the kinds of things that States really ought 
to do. And I can tell you that folks resent very much the idea of using 
what they call ``blackmail'' in terms of Federal money to do that. So I 
hope we can avoid that. I hope we can be for all the things we ought to 
be for. But the idea of us deciding here seems to me to be 
inappropriate.
  So I really am pleased that we are moving, and I am glad the leader 
has brought this forward. Certainly, much of that is a result of the 
efforts made by the Senators from Texas and West Virginia as they 
pushed very hard to do this.
  ISTEA II maintains the integrity of the ISTEA law. It improves it by 
more equitable investment of user fees. It ensures that people can 
cross the country with goods and services. And ``bridge'' States are 
involved as well. It increases flexibility.
  Again, obviously, nothing is perfect. A bill of this kind is never 
totally suitable to everyone. But that is the way it is. That is what 
we are here for. That is why we have a system of deciding and voting--
so that we can come up, by a majority vote, to the thing that we think 
best serves this country and serves it on the intermodal surface 
transportation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming very much 
for his kind comments on the work we have done. The Senator from 
Wyoming is a very valuable member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. He has worked with us. As he pointed out, he had one of the 
major bills that went into the final amalgamation we had here--the STAR 
bill. And he had deep concerns, as he has outlined here, in certain 
particular areas. I am glad that we were able to take care of those 
areas.
  Indeed, when we meet tomorrow, I believe we will be, as I pointed out 
to the Senate a little earlier, able to do even better in some of those 
particular areas he is concerned with. So our committee will be meeting 
tomorrow at 9:30. And I look forward to working with the Senator from 
Wyoming as we proceed with an amendment incorporating some of the 
provisions that have come about as a result of the additional money 
that has come forward just in the last--well, just agreed to earlier 
this afternoon. So, again, I thank the Senator.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________