[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21357-21359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 2084

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay 
before the Senate H.R. 2084, the House-passed fiscal year 2000 
Transportation appropriations bill, that all after the enacting clause 
be stricken, and the text of S. 1143, as modified by striking sections 
321 and 339, be inserted in lieu thereof, that the amendment be 
considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment, and 
that points of order against any provision added thereby be preserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I object temporarily. I believe strongly 
that this legislation impinges in the area of

[[Page 21358]]

jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we will 
be discussing that further on. I do thank Senator Shelby for the time 
he has given us in connection with this overlapping jurisdiction--I 
should not even say overlapping jurisdiction--we think is impinging 
upon the areas that belong within the jurisdiction of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee.
  However, despite the fact that we have had numerous meetings--our 
staffs with his staff, myself to some extent with Senator Shelby--we 
have not been able to resolve these issues. I believe the unanimous 
consent request that the Senator has just propounded will solve the 
problem as far as moving into the major difficulty in jurisdiction I 
will outline later.
  I know the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee is here, and he also has some difficulties with the 
jurisdiction that has been assumed by the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not, I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair and my colleagues for a 
very brief statement.
  Those of us who were here and those of us who were not here but 
certainly have an idea about it remember the effort that was put into 
passing TEA 21, the highway bill, a couple of years ago. Many Senators 
worked very long and hard.
  I see the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg; the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Shelby; Senator 
Byrd mightily helped put together a massive highway bill, otherwise 
known as TEA 21; Senator Warner of Virginia; and, of course, the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee. I assisted; Senator Moynihan 
helped a lot; the majority leader, Senator Lott. We had many meetings 
in Senator Lott's office trying to put together all the provisions of 
the highway bill.
  As one might guess, it is extremely complex. There were the Northeast 
States that had a certain point of view as to how the dollars should be 
allocated; the Western States thought they did not get a fair deal in 
the previous 6-year highway bill known as ISTEA; the Southern States. 
Then there were donee and donor States. There were groups that wanted 
more so-called CMAQ money. That is money that goes to areas to help 
them mitigate against pollution in their cities caused by automobiles 
and trucks. There were enhancement funds. Enhancement funds are for 
bikeways and other associated highway programs. There was research and 
development. There were intelligent highway systems. There were public 
lands. There were discretionary funds. There was park money. You name 
it. There were lots of competing interests that were put together a 
couple of years ago.
  We finally put together a highway bill, and it passed on a bipartisan 
basis, a large vote: 89 Senators voted for it after much gnashing of 
teeth about what we were going to do with the 4.3 cents that was 
otherwise set aside for debt reduction in a previous Congress. We 
finally decided that was going to go to the highway program.
  Our basic principle we agreed to was that all Federal gasoline taxes 
paid would go to the highway fund, and from the highway fund that money 
all goes back out to the States in the form of related highway 
programs, all funded with the gasoline tax. That was a major statement 
that TEA 21 made, the highway bill we passed a couple years ago.
  It has worked quite well. On average, States got about a 40-percent 
increase each year compared with the previous 6 years; some States a 
little more, some less; but in the whole scheme of things it worked out 
quite well: On average, a 40-percent increase each year compared to the 
prior year.
  This year we are considering the Transportation appropriations bill, 
the appropriations bill which basically says: OK, this money that is in 
the highway program, although there is contract authority that says the 
money has to be spent on highways, still, the Transportation 
Appropriations Committee basically just spends it. That is what it 
does.
  There is a provision in the highway bill, TEA 21, which says this: 
Any additional money that comes into the highway trust fund--
unanticipated additional money, presumably on account of a growing 
economy; and our economy has grown--will then be allocated, to the 
degree it is allocated, back to the States in the same way the highway 
bill itself was put together; that is, a certain percent under CMAQ, a 
certain percent under service transportation, a certain percent under 
minimum guarantees, a certain percent to public lands, et cetera; and 
in the same way.
  It turns out that because of the additional gasoline taxes in the 
last year as a consequence of a prosperous economy, there is an 
additional $1.5 billion that is to be allocated under the highway bill 
according to the way the highway bill was put together. So there are no 
changes.
  It turns out, with all due respect to the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, they have decided to change the highway 
bill, to rewrite it, and, rather than to have the money spent as 
provided for in the highway bill, to instead take all of that money--
instead of, say, 10 percent as provided for under the highway bill 
under certain discretionary programs and 90 percent under the core 
highway programs--they take it all and put it under the core highway 
programs. I think that is very dangerous. It is a very dangerous 
precedent.
  First of all, it is legislation on an appropriations bill. It is 
rewriting, adding legislation on an appropriations bill. Second, it is 
a precedent of the Appropriations Committee of, in effect, rewriting 
the program.
  I grant you, this is a small matter. As a consequence of the 
Appropriations Committee's action, instead of $1.4 billion going to the 
core programs, $1.5 billion is going to the core programs. The 
additional that is going to the core programs does not go to the 
various programs I mentioned.
  You might ask: Gee, what is the big deal? That is only about $120 
million. The big deal is this. First of all, it is not much money, $1.5 
billion versus $1.4 billion. Second, it is a big principle, because 
once we start down this slippery slope of the Transportation 
Appropriations Committee rewriting the highway bill and how dollars are 
allocated among States, then we are going to be tempted in following 
Congresses to take a bigger bite of the apple to redistribute even 
more.
  Why is that a problem? That is a problem because highway programs 
take time. State highway departments must plan ahead. It takes 2 or 3 
years, from conception to design, to bid letting, to construction, to 
build highways or to resurface. It is not a spigot you just turn on and 
off yearly. It takes time.
  Second, here is another real concern I have. If the Appropriations 
Committee is rewriting the highway bill, then it is going to become 
political; the majority party is going to be determining the provisions 
in the highway bill. There will not be a bipartisan allocation of 
highway dollars; it will be a majority party allocation of highway 
dollars.
  With all due respect, this is not an abstraction; this has happened 
in the concrete. In fact, the bill that was about to come to the floor 
did just what I feared would happen; namely--not the highway part but 
the mass transit part--the committee rewrote the bill, which took many 
dollars away from two States, California and New York. It does not take 
much imagination to figure out whether the Senators from those two 
States are in the majority party or the minority party.
  I am just very concerned we are going to set the precedent of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, A, rewriting the highway 
bill, which is bad because it takes a long time to plan these projects, 
and upsetting the apple cart which took a lot of effort to put 
together--I mentioned Senators Byrd, Warner, Chafee, Lott, and all of 
us--to try to

[[Page 21359]]

work to put all the pieces together, but also because the majority 
party is going to be sorely tempted to be political; that is, to give 
dollars to the States of the majority party but not dollars to the 
States of the minority party. That might change. It might be the 
Democrats who are in the majority. Then that precedent will be set. 
That is not a good precedent. We should instead just do what is right.
  I will sum up by saying it is true that every State will get a few 
more dollars under the rewrite by the Appropriations Committee. It 
averages about .35 percent. Gee, every State is getting a few more 
dollars--not many--so why not support it? My point is, it is only a few 
dollars. It is not going to really affect the States much at all. But 
it is the principle of going down the slippery slope of rewriting the 
highway bill without hearings, without any field hearings and hearings 
here in the Senate. The EPW Committee has not had hearings on this 
subject. The Appropriations Committee has not had hearings on this 
subject.
  Just basically, it is political. I will not object at this point, but 
at the appropriate time various Senators will be making this point. I 
very much hope that when the point is made at the proper time, the 
Senators will very deeply consider this in a thoughtful way, because 
sometimes what you do in the short term, for short-term gratification, 
comes back and is harmful in the long run. I do think in this case it 
is better to think a little bit more about the purpose of the bill.
  I thank the Senators for indulging me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Is there objection?
  Mr. SHELBY. I would like, first, to modify my unanimous consent 
request. I think it might be best that I restate it, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Go right ahead.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay 
before the Senate H.R. 2084, the House-passed fiscal year 2000 
Transportation appropriations bill, that all after the enacting clause 
be stricken and the text of S. 1143, as modified by striking section 
321, be inserted in lieu thereof--being amendment No. 1624--that the 
amendment be considered as original text for the purpose of further 
amendment, and that points of order against any provision added thereby 
are preserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAFEE. A question, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this is the 
language that has been worked out with our side.
  Mr. SHELBY. That is exactly right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of amendment No. 1624 is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')

                          ____________________