[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 125 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10124-S10127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE BUDGETING PROCESS

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come this afternoon to the floor for two 
reasons. The first is to express my general dismay at the status of the 
budgeting process for this year. Second is to give a specific example 
of how this process has resulted in a program--which was clearly 
outlined and approved by Congress and signed into law by the President 
as the Equity Transportation Act for the 21st Century, generally 
referred to as TEA-21--has been convoluted.
  Let me first talk about the general budgeting process for this year. 
We are now 10 days into the new fiscal year, and substantial parts of 
our budget have yet to be enacted and sent to the President for his 
consideration. Even more dismaying than that is what is in the budgets 
that we have passed and sent to the President. I use, as example, No. 
1, the most recent budget this Senate has acted upon when, last Friday, 
we passed the Transportation appropriations conference committee 
report.
  First, the process. I was very interested in this bill, as will 
become apparent as I move to point No. 2 of my remarks. Yet it was not 
available until Friday morning, the same morning that we were called to 
vote upon this very complex bill which will allocate some $58 billion 
of our National Treasury. Even today, specific details are yet to be 
discerned. So we are operating as alleged pilots of the national fiscal 
trust through dark clouds and fog and driving rain, unaware of where we 
are or where we have gone.
  I am also very concerned about the specific numbers in this 
legislation. I know this has been an issue of great concern to our 
Presiding Officer, who has, in his period in the Senate, distinguished 
himself as one who is very concerned about our fiscal discipline.
  For the fiscal year 2000, which ended September 30, we had a 
Transportation appropriations amount of $50.7 billion. That is what we 
spent over the preceding 12 months. We have been operating under a 
budget resolution which, because of its own complexities, is difficult 
to align precisely with one of the specific appropriations bills, but 
we have had a general philosophy that the appropriations for fiscal 
year 2001 should not grow at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. 
According to the Consumer Price Index for the period July 1999 to July 
2000, the rate of inflation for the United States was 3.5 percent.
  If you add 3.5 percent to last year's Transportation appropriations, 
you would add, in rounded numbers, $1.775 billion for a total of 
$52.475 billion. That would have been the goal, the destination, the 
ceiling for spending under this Transportation account using the 
principle that the budget should be restrained to the rate of 
inflation.
  The administration submitted a budget for this account that was $54.6 
billion. The Senate passed a Transportation bill which was $54.8 
billion.
  But when the bill came back from the conference committee with the 
House, the total amount of the bill that we voted on favorably last 
Friday was $58 billion, a 14-percent growth over the expenditure on the 
same account for the previous fiscal year. That is a staggering 
increase, and it is an increase which puts at risk many of the things 
upon which the political campaigns of the fall of 2000 have focused 
their attention: How are we going to spend the non-Social Security 
surplus? How will we utilize the $2.2 trillion that is projected to 
come into the National Treasury over the next 10 years? I underscore 
that the $2.2 trillion is on the assumption that we will hold spending 
for this 10-year period to the rate of inflation. That rate was 3\1/2\ 
percent. Yet in this one budget we have spent 14 percent.
  If this budget were to be the standard by which we operated--this 
budget represents about 8 percent of the total discretionary spending 
of the United States. If we exceed every budget by the same amount that 
we have done with this one budget of Transportation, we will diminish 
that non-Social Security surplus in the range of 35 to 40 percent. This 
is serious business because we are making representations to the 
American people that we are going to protect that surplus; that we are 
going to use it either for targeted tax cuts, to

[[Page S10125]]

use it to build up our Social Security and Medicare program, and 
finance a prescription drug benefit or for large-scale tax cuts.
  We are about to make all of those options unattainable if we do not 
exercise a greater degree of discipline over our spending this year and 
set the standard for what the spending will be over the next 9 years of 
this decade.
  I first raise the alarm as to the process and the consequences of the 
budgets with which we are dealing as we conclude this session of 
Congress and lay out the fiscal plan for the Federal Government for the 
year 2001.
  The second reason for my being here this afternoon is to bring to the 
attention of the Senate and the American people what we have done to 
one of the most innovative aspects of the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century, TEA-21.
  In March of 1998, Congress overwhelmingly approved this 
groundbreaking transportation legislation to revamp the distribution of 
Federal highway funds. That legislation established, among other 
things, the intelligent transportation system, or ITS program, which 
sets aside money for research, development, and deployment of the 
components of an intelligent transportation system. The goal: to 
establish a sound policy for dealing with traffic congestion in the new 
millennium. The ITS program will work to solve congestion and safety, 
improve operating efficiencies in transit and commercial vehicles, and 
reduce the environmental impact of the growing travel demand.
  The intelligent transportation systems use things such as modern 
computers, management techniques, and information technologies to 
improve the flow of traffic. ITS applications range from electronic 
highway signs that direct drivers away from accidents or other sources 
of congestion on the highways, to advanced radio advisories, to more 
efficient public transit.
  Congress has sought to reward States that develop an intelligent 
transportation system. Demand for roads is increasing, particularly in 
the most populous and fastest growing areas of our country. Business 
commutes are getting longer, leisure travel options are becoming wider. 
States were encouraged to make use of advanced communications 
technology to ease gridlock.
  This plan, developed by the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
where our Presiding Officer serves as chair of the subcommittee that 
has responsibility for this very legislation, was thoughtful and the 
plan had a specific purpose in mind: to foster the growth of 
intelligent transportation systems and, in a scientific manner, to 
gather results from the new ITS programs so that we could make wise 
decisions about the future direction of ITS when the next 
transportation bill is authorized in approximately 2003.
  I am sad to report that this plan has come undone through the 
appropriations process. Allow me to explain how this has happened.
  The Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University, in 
conjunction with many State departments of transportation, conducts a 
periodic study of the traffic conditions in our Nation. The latest 
annual mobility report produced in 1999 ranked the 70 most congested 
urban areas, cities, and small towns in America. It would seem 
reasonable, it would make common sense that those cities with the worst 
traffic congestion would receive Federal funds to implement, improve, 
or expand their intelligent transportation system. Indeed, the creators 
of the intelligent transportation system program in TEA-21 meant it to 
work that way. The law says that ITS projects must be selected through 
competitive solicitation and meet certain detailed criteria for program 
funding dollars.

  I will read a few excerpts from that law. The authors set out the 
gathering of effective data as a goal in TEA-21:

       To assure that Federal, State, and local transportation 
     officials have adequate knowledge of intelligent 
     transportation systems for full consideration in the 
     transportation planning process.

  To me, that means we need to be able to offer to Federal, State, and 
local transportation officials accurate and scientific data on ITS. The 
authors of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century spelled 
it out more precisely when they said:

       The Secretary shall select for funding through competitive 
     solicitations projects that will serve as models to improve 
     transportation efficiency, promote safety. . . .

  And for other reasons listed in the statute.
  Unfortunately, the intent of the legislation has not followed. It was 
not followed first in the fiscal year 2000. Of the total $221 million 
made available in the fiscal year 2000, the year that ended September 
30 of this year, all but about 10 percent of that $211 million was 
earmarked. For those who are not familiar with the jargon of the 
Congress, ``earmarked'' means there was a total amount of money 
available for a particular objective, in this case to fund the 
intelligent transportation systems, which, according to statute, was to 
be allocated based on competition. Of that $211 million, 90 percent of 
it had a specific designation to a particular State or community within 
the United States.
  According to the Texas report, the 15 most congested cities in the 
United States as of 1999 were: Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, 
Washington, DC, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, San Diego, 
Houston, New York City, Portland, and San Jose.
  Mr. President, would you be surprised, would you be stunned and 
appalled, if I were to tell you that in the fiscal year 2000, none of 
those 15 cities received any of the intelligent transportation system 
money? The 15 most congested cities in America, according to the 
national survey upon which we rely, were allocated a penny for ITS 
money.
  Of the other most congested cities highlighted in the Texas 
transportation study, only five received funds, while a sixth city 
probably will receive funds from an overall earmark to the State in 
which it was located. Those funds, for the five cities and the one 
State, totaled only $7 million or 3 percent of the total ITS 
appropriation of $211 million.
  We have 75 of the most congested cities in America, cities in urban 
areas and smaller communities getting 3 percent of the money to assist 
them, through intelligent transportation systems technologies, in 
improving their traffic congestion. I was so offended by that that I, 
on September 15 of this year, wrote a letter to the Transportation 
appropriations conferees urging them, for the year 2001, which began 
October 1 of this year, not to repeat the mistake made in the previous 
year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I quote the concluding paragraph of the 
letter, which states:

       I encourage you to adhere to the design created by TEA-21. 
     The Congress has the opportunity, through ITS and other 
     programs, to strengthen our national transportation 
     infrastructure in a cost-effective, efficient manner. We 
     undermine those efforts if we don't follow the criteria 
     established and passed by Congress in TEA-21.

  So in that context, it was with dismay that last Friday morning, when 
I finally had an opportunity to look at the Transportation conference 
report, I realized that again we were committing the same mistake. For 
the second year in a row, none of the top 15 traffic-choked cities got 
funding for intelligent transportation system technology to assist them 
in alleviating their gridlock.
  Taking the list even further, none of the top 20 most congested 
cities received intelligent transportation system funding. Those 
additional five cities included Denver, Phoenix, San Bernardino, 
Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Tacoma, WA. Those five cities are added to 
the 15 that I have previously read in the category of cities that are 
the most 20 congested cities in America, none of whom received any of 
the intelligent transportation system money. This suggests to me a 
total disconnect between the problem that led to the creation of ITS in 
the first place and the allocation of dollars by the appropriators.
  In addition to that fundamental disconnect, I am also concerned that 
the amounts of money that have been earmarked appear to be 
nonscientific. If you look at the conference report, you will see round 
figures, such as $200,000, $500,000, $1 million, $2 million, and so

[[Page S10126]]

forth. Such figures are unlikely to be to the real dollar amount needed 
to fund well-designed, specific projects.
  Investment in intelligent transportation technology pays huge 
dividends, but it is expensive. As an example, on February 17 of this 
year, I did one of my monthly workdays with the evolving ITS technology 
in and around Orlando, FL. Orlando has the most advanced intelligent 
transportation system program in my State. The first phase of the 
Orlando system cost nearly $8 million. When complete, the Orlando ITS 
system will cost about $14 million. In these earmarks, I wonder whether 
such small sums, such round numbers, are actually calculated to reach 
the critical mass needed to get a project underway and completed. Small 
sums, distributed widely across the Nation, are not the most effective, 
efficient way to use these precious dollars to alleviate priority 
congestion concerns.
  Lastly and possibly most crucially, we are missing a critical 
opportunity: the opportunity to gather data in a scientific, meaningful 
way about an evolving technology, a technology which has the potential 
to mitigate traffic congestion and make our highways safer.
  Gathering this information is important because TEA-21 was the first 
surface transportation bill to focus to such an extent on intelligent 
transportation systems. The authors of TEA-21 wanted to push the 
envelope and emphasize the use of technology as a strategy to ease 
traffic gridlock.
  In 2 or 3 years from now, when we are reauthorizing the next surface 
transportation bill, we will need to ask: Did these ITS programs work? 
If so, what are the key elements in their successes? Should we expand 
ITS as a strategy to reduce traffic congestion? If we do not use the 
resources that we have devoted to ITS in a prudent, rational, 
scientific way, will we have the experience and information necessary 
to answer those questions in an informed way?

  The short answer to that is, no.
  The 2-year history of ITS causes concern for other Senate action. We 
have just finished debate on the Interior appropriations bill, a 
thoughtful piece of legislation. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, 
CARA, was sidetracked by that Interior appropriations bill and replaced 
with language which assures that the appropriators will control 
specific allocations. The CARA bill had a vision, a vision to provide 
the American people with a permanent, dedicated source of funding to 
invest in our children's futures by preserving and protecting our 
natural resources--the very cause for which our departed friend, 
Congressman Bruce Vento, spent so much of his life and his 
congressional career.
  This bill would have bolstered the Federal Government's relationship 
with our State governments by maintaining the Federal side of a 
respectful partnership, with the States to develop and support natural 
treasures, from urban parks and historic sites to the preservation of 
our coastal resources.
  But instead of this carefully constructed program, which enjoyed 
widespread support, we were left with the following by the 
appropriations conference report. Quoting from that conference report 
for the Department of the Interior:

       This program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual 
     appropriations.

  Continuing to quote:

       The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have 
     discretion in the amounts to be appropriated each year, 
     subject to certain maximum amounts as described herein.

  With that language, we have declared failure. We have failed to take 
advantage of our opportunity to enact landmark conservation 
legislation. We would be wildly optimistic to expect that the goals of 
the CARA legislation will be met.
  With what we now see has happened to ITS, to intelligent 
transportation systems, what confidence can Americans have that the 
goal of protecting our natural resources will be met? What reason do we 
have to expect a different outcome, with the dream of sustained 
investment in protecting our natural resources, than the shredded 
results of reduced traffic congestion through intelligent 
transportation systems? The short answer is, none.
  Returning to the Transportation appropriations bill, earmarks, in my 
view, are more acceptable in mature transportation programs than where 
we are attempting to learn about new technologies and policy 
approaches. We can and should address the needs of specific 
communities. ITS, however, is an evolving resource in transportation, 
and we should adhere to the intent of the law in seeking a competitive, 
scientific process to distribute these ITS funds.
  This appropriations process, with respect to ITS, has foreclosed the 
valuable information which a rational distribution of funds would have 
given us.
  In conclusion, I am concerned about the broad path upon which we are 
traveling as we conclude the consideration of the appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2001. We are dramatically overspending the standard we 
set for ourselves just a few months ago. By that overspending, we are 
putting at risk the opportunity to use a significant Federal surplus 
for a variety of very beneficial purposes which will aid our people not 
only this year but for decades to come. And, within our appropriations, 
we are losing the opportunity to intelligently allocate funds against 
the targeted goals, such as the reduction of traffic congestion or the 
protection of our natural resources. Rather, we are succumbing to the 
temptation to earmark, to specify, based on considerations other than 
what is in a rational, long-term plan of prioritization of our Nation's 
needs.
  We have but a few days left in this session, I hope. It would be my 
fondest expectation--or at least my optimistic dream--that we would use 
these few remaining days in a more constructive manner than has been 
demonstrated in the past few days, that we would use these to exercise 
principles of fiscal discipline and vision and the willingness to put 
aside our personal and parochial interests for what is in the broader 
national interest.

  That is our challenge. That is what the American people expect of 
their elected representatives. It is a goal on which we have faltered 
in recent days. Let us use the remaining days to regain our solid 
fiscal footing.

                               Exhibit 1


                                         United States Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 2000.
       Dear Conferee: I have been concerned about the distribution 
     of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) money in the 
     Transportation Appropriation process.
       The Environment and Public Works Committee designed TEA-21 
     so that ITS projects would be selected through competitive 
     solicitation and meet certain detailed criteria. There was an 
     overall plan: a portion of the money would specifically go to 
     rural areas, and no state could receive more than $35 million 
     per fiscal year. Other than that, the competitive process 
     would be used to ensure the most efficient, effective use of 
     the dollars. Essentially, the ITS theory is to make our 
     highways, especially in high congestion areas, as efficient 
     as possible, recognizing the tremendous costs of building 
     additional lanes or other high capacity improvements. The 
     intent is to make our existing highways serve to maximum 
     capacity.
       There are two major concerns about the current manner of 
     distribution of ITS funds. First, the current earmarks appear 
     to be allocated on a non-scientific, non-competitive basis. 
     The Texas Transportation Institute in the Texas A&M 
     University System is the organization that the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation and the Congress look to for a 
     professional assessment of highway congestion in our nation. 
     Comparing recent appropriations bills with the institute's 
     annual traffic congestion study show how far apart reality is 
     from what is needed. For example, the ten most congested 
     cities in the United States are: Los Angeles, Washington, DC, 
     Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Detroit, Atlanta, San 
     Diego and San Bernardino. Looking at the ITS FY01 earmarks, 
     none of these most congested cities got funding for ITS 
     technology to alleviate gridlock. Of the other 60 most-
     congested-cities featured in the study, only 5 receive funds, 
     while a sixth city probably receives funds from an overall 
     state earmark. These six funds total only $7,000,000 or 3% 
     out of a total ITS appropriation of $211,200,000.
       Second, the amount of money that has been earmarked appears 
     to be non-scientific. They are round figures of $200,000, 
     $500,000, $1,000,000, $2,000,000 and the like. Investment in 
     intelligent transportation technology pays huge dividends, 
     but it is expensive. We wonder whether such small sums, while 
     helpful, actually reach the critical mass needed to get a 
     project underway. Small sums, distributed widely across the 
     nation, are not the most effective, efficient way to use 
     these funds in alleviating priority congestion concerns.
       This is important because TEA-21 was the first surface 
     transportation bill to focus to such an extent on ITS. We 
     wanted to push the envelope and emphasize the use of 
     technology to ease traffic gridlock. In two to three years 
     from now when we reauthorize

[[Page S10127]]

     the next surface transportation bill, we will need to ask: 
     did these programs work? If we do not use the resources that 
     we have devoted to ITS in a prudent, rational, scientific 
     way, we will not have the experience and information 
     necessary to answer that question in an informed way. 
     Earmarks, in my view, are more acceptable in mature 
     transportation programs. We can and should address the needs 
     of specific communities. ITS, however, is an evolving 
     resource in transportation, and we should adhere to the 
     intent of the law in seeking a competitive, more scientific 
     process to distribute ITS funds.
       I encourage you to adhere to the design created by TEA-21. 
     The Congress has the opportunity, through ITS and other 
     programs, to strengthen our national transportation 
     infrastructure in a cost-effective, efficient manner. We 
     undermine those efforts if we don't follow the criteria 
     established and passed by the Congress in TEA-21.
       With kind regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bob Graham,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. GRAHAM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________