[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 27 (Friday, March 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S1960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Senate 
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
(ISTEA), the so-called ``ISTEA II'' bill that we've been debating for 
the past couple of weeks and that was approved yesterday. I thank the 
managers of the bill and their staff for the hard work and long hours 
they put in, as well as their attempts to face the very difficult task 
of balancing the transportation needs of the fifty states.
  First, let me say that we all agree that maintaining, developing and 
improving our roads, bridges and transit systems is vital to our 
economy and our way of life. Transportation development has and will 
play a crucial role in the growth of this country. And the Senate 
reaffirmed that importance by approving significantly increased funding 
levels. That part of the equation, I strongly support. From the 
beginning, I believed we needed to do more and the Senate bill does do 
more, including an increase of approximately $130 million for Wisconsin 
highways and significant increases for transit systems as well.
  That said, the other part of the equation, and the reason for which I 
ultimately opposed the legislation, is the issue of percentage share of 
total program dollars. My state of Wisconsin is one of the 20 or so 
donor states whose taxpayers pay more in gas tax revenues than they 
receive in Federal transportation funds. And one of the top issues that 
Wisconsinites from all across the state and from all walks of life 
stressed to me was the need to improve Wisconsin's share. That was 
certainly not the only issue, nonetheless, it is a very basic issue of 
fairness that we have faced every time we have sat down to write a 
highway bill.
  And this year, perhaps more than any other, we had an historic chance 
to correct the donor state problem since the bill includes significant 
new resources. However, while this bill improves many states' shares, 
it actually decreases Wisconsin's share. Under the original ISTEA, my 
state realized an average return of 92 percent on our gas tax 
contributions over the life of bill. Under the Senate bill, Wisconsin 
would only be guaranteed a 91 percent return. Because this bill is more 
generous overall, Wisconsin's overall funding will go up, but on the 
share side, we are worse off under this bill than when we started.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that additional transportation resources 
will be available to my state. I am also pleased that this bill 
maintains the principle of a strong Federal partnership, balances 
resources between the many different modes of transportation and 
continues important environmental programs. However, in the end, I felt 
that a vote in favor of this bill was a vote to continue an unfair 
system for another six years. The taxpayers of Wisconsin deserve 
better.

                          ____________________