[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 28 (Monday, March 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1997-S1998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        REAUTHORIZATION OF ISTEA

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to 
discuss my vote against the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act, also known as ISTEA.
  As we all know, the ISTEA bill is vital to the transportation needs 
of each state in the nation. Not only does the bill affect highway 
construction, but it supports mass transit, highway safety, and many 
other important programs.
  The original ISTEA bill of 1991 was a landmark in transportation 
policy. In Wisconsin, it was a blighted landmark. That bill continued 
Wisconsin's historical standing as a state that contributed more in 
Federal gas taxes than it received in return. Unfortunately, this bill 
continues this sorry legacy.
  With this bill, certain states continue and make out like bandits 
when

[[Page S1998]]

we allocate transportation money. Other states continue to be denied a 
fair share. Wisconsin is one of the states getting an unfair shake.
  The senior Senator from Wisconsin and I worked hard to improve this 
bill and get Wisconsin a fair share of Federal transportation money. We 
were successful in getting almost $130 million per year more than we 
received last year. That is certainly a great win for Wisconsin, but we 
must do more.
  While greatly increasing the total dollars coming to Wisconsin, this 
bill actually decreases Wisconsin's share of Federal transportation 
money. We get a smaller piece of a bigger pie. That is unacceptable. As 
the House works on its bill, and the Senate and House work to reach a 
compromise, I will continue to work vigorously to get Wisconsin a fair 
shake.
  Mr. President, there are other objectionable provisions in this bill 
as well. This bill creates more Federal mandates. I want to speak 
briefly to the amendment offered, and passed, by Senators Lautenberg 
and DeWine.
  I commend their desire to reduce the incidence of drunk driving and 
the tragedies it breeds. I disagree, however, with their methods. 
Establishing national blood alcohol content standards and blackmailing 
states into complying is simply not the method by which the Federal 
government should work. Wisconsin and the other states can make those 
decisions for themselves.
  I agree that drunk driving must be eliminated and we must do 
everything in our power to increase highway safety. As a father of 
four, I shudder at the thought of any of my children being behind the 
wheel or a passenger in a car sharing the road with a drunk driver. I 
believe the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the state and 
local police should be given full authority to get these thoughtless 
people off the roads. Let me repeat, the state and local authorities 
should get these drivers off the road, not the Federal government.
  Mr. President, under the proposed sanctions in this amendment, 
Wisconsin would have to give up almost $14 million in the year 2001 if 
it does not pass this Federally mandated law. In later years, Wisconsin 
would lose $29 million.
  This blood alcohol content issue raises the fundamental question of 
the Federal government's appropriate role in policy areas traditionally 
reserved to the states. The relationship between the Federal government 
and the States has required a delicate balance since the founding of 
this nation. The practical and legal consequences of the Constitutional 
division of state and Federal powers continue to fuel debate. Having 
served in the state legislature for ten years, I know quite well the 
frustrations of state officials at the sometimes incomprehensible 
Federal bureaucracy. This much-debated relationship is frequently at 
issue in the discussion of Federal requirements on seatbelts, helmets, 
speed limits, and, now drunk driving.
  Mr. President, I have opposed certain legislation mandating Federal 
transportation standards for the States, such as requiring a uniform 
national speed limit or drinking age, or the mandatory use of seatbelts 
and motorcycle helmets. I feel most strongly about that principle when 
States are, in effect, ``blackmailed'' with the threat of losing 
Federal transportation dollars if they don't bow to the Federal will. I 
believe this sort of decision-making is generally best made at the 
state and local level and therefore, oppose Federal legislation 
mandating a national blood alcohol standard. It is unfortunate that 
this important bill continues to compromise our Federal system with the 
BAC amendment and the ban on open containers.
  Mr. President, there are numerous positive elements to the bill. The 
transit program is supported like never before. Safety programs are 
given the assistance they deserve. We take a small ax to some pork-
barrel projects, known as demonstration projects. These projects 
disadvantage many states, including Wisconsin, because the projects are 
funded not on merit, but on which state is represented at the 
bargaining table. As a donor state that has historically done poorly 
with demonstration projects, this is a much-needed boost.
  It is my hope that the House corrects many of the inequities and 
problems not addressed in our bill. I will continue to work for a fair 
national transportation policy that delivers back to Wisconsin 
taxpayers more than 90 cents on the dollar. I look forward to working 
with our state's delegation to get that fair shake and I hope to 
support the conference report that comes back to the Senate.

                          ____________________