The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ISTEA FUNDING” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S469-S473 on Feb. 9, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ISTEA FUNDING
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, only 45 session days remain through May 1, the deadline date, beyond which every State will be prohibited by law from obligating new Federal highway or transit funds. This past Thursday, we heard the argument that there is no reason for the Senate to rush to the highway bill, because, it was said, the House does not plan to act on the highway bill until next month or later.
Well, Mr. President, I have served in the Congress now going on 46 years. I was 6 years in the House, and this is my 40th year in the Senate. I have served both as majority leader and minority leader, as well as majority whip and secretary of the Democratic conference. I respectfully suggest that the Senate must never let itself be governed by the scheduling preferences of the other body, especially on legislation as important and as urgent as is the highway bill.
I have served in the other body, and so have several other Senators, including the distinguished Senator, Mr. Pat Roberts, who now presides over the Senate with a degree of efficiency and poise and dignity and skill, so rare as a day in June. But all other Senators know, as I do, that the House of Representatives is a very different place with very different rules.
When the House of Representatives takes up the highway bill, the House Rules Committee will report out a rule that will probably limit the number of amendments that will be allowed to be offered and mandate limitations under which those amendments can be debated. The House can well take up a highway bill and pass it within one day or two days or three days. But who here thinks that the Senate will be able to take up and pass the highway bill in two or three days?
When the Senate takes up the highway bill, Senators, as always, will have the right under the Senate rules, to offer amendments and to have those amendments debated. It will probably take 2 or 3 weeks for the Senate to pass an ISTEA bill. Given all of the competing and contentious amendments that the Senate will likely debate on ISTEA, we should recognize the fact that it will probably take two or three weeks for the Senate to pass an ISTEA bill. One does not have to look further back in history than the last time that the Congress authorized our surface transportation programs. Back in 1991, I believe it was, the Senate debated the ISTEA legislation for the better part of 3 weeks--
not 3 days, but 3 weeks. The other body, however, was able to call up and dispense with their version of the ISTEA legislation in two days! The Senate took almost 3 weeks; the House took 2 days. What reason do we have to think that, this time, things will be different?
I believe that we have an obligation to try to get a complete, comprehensive, six-year highway authorization bill to the President's desk by or before May 1. We owe that to our Governors, our mayors, our highway engineers, our highway departments throughout the country, and to our constituents who drive on the Nation's highways every day. If we have any hope of getting a highway bill to the President by or before May 1, the Senate needs to begin now.
In November of last year when we took up the short-term highway authorization bill, we were told that it was the intent for the Senate to take up ISTEA and address it early in this year in order to put pressure on the House and also so that when the House acted, we, in the Senate, would be ready for conference with the House. Now, however, it seems that the pressure is not on the House, but on the Senate. The wind has shifted, and we are now on a course that puts pressure on the Senate--pressure from the Governors of our States, pressure from our transportation departments throughout the country, pressure from our transit providers--all of whom will be forbidden by law from obligating any federal funds after May 1. We are also receiving pressure from our citizens who must endure hazardous driving conditions. Why are we waiting, Mr. President?
As I stated last week, the President's budget proposes an absolute freeze on highway spending for the next five years. The President, the first time he ran for the office, campaigned strongly on a platform of investing in the Nation's infrastructure. We don't hear that anymore. The President is proposing a freeze on spending while the balances in the highway trust fund skyrocket. Meanwhile, the 6-year highway bill, as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, will also allow unspent balances of the highway trust fund to pile up year after year after year, while the Nation's highway needs go wanting year after year after year. Where else, then, but on a highway authorization bill, can the Senate come forward to make an affirmative statement that the expectations for spending on highways over the next six years will go well beyond the freeze levels proposed by the President?
I recognize that there will be disagreements among Senators as to how increased authorization levels for highways can and should be financed. Senator Gramm, one of the principal cosponsors of my amendment, has stated that he is categorically opposed to moving the caps in order to boost spending for highways. We will have that debate through the regular budget and Appropriations process. Mr. President, one thing I am sure of, if we do not get a 6-year ISTEA bill to the floor, and make a statement by the full Senate that we do not expect to allow the unspent balances of highway trust fund to pile up year after year, as the President proposed and as the Environment and Public Works Committee in its reported bill proposes, highways will be nowhere in the upcoming budget debate. We will be debating direct Federal expenditures for child care and other social welfare programs that are being pushed by the administration, while the needs of our Nation's infrastructure will be left out, just as they were left out of the President's budget.
Well, let me make one thing preeminently clear. The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus should be called up so that those unspent highway balances, at least to the tune of $31 billion, can be authorized to be spent. We will not spend them in the amendment. We only authorize them to be spent. We will not be debating the budget bill. It is the highway bill I am talking about.
In last week's remarks on the floor about the highway bill, reference was made to the ``Highways First'' crowd. Well, Mr. President, I plead guilty as charged. I make no apologies for standing on this floor and saying we have been remiss in our national investment in surface transportation. At a time when the ISTEA authorization has expired, and it did expire on last September 30; at a time when the country is just limping along--limping along--on a stopgap highway authorization bill; at a time when the construction season is looming just--just--a few weeks away; at a time when Governors and mayors and highway departments throughout the country need to know just what Federal resources they can count on for this year's budget as well as for long-term highway construction plans; at a time when we should be discussing a long-term, 6-year highway authorization bill just as the commitment was made to the Senate and to the country that we would be discussing a long-term, 6-year ISTEA bill; yes, yes, I believe that first things should come first and that the 6-year highway bill is the first thing that the Senate should be debating, and last November we were told just that. So, yes, I am one of the ``Highways First'' crowd. Count me in. Count me in.
When 42,000 people are dying on the highways of this country every year, and when we are told by the U.S. Department of Transportation that 30 percent of those highway deaths are caused by outdated safety features, poor pavement quality, substandard road and bridge designs, and other bad road conditions, yes, I am one of the ``Highways First'' crowd. Count me in!
What could be more fundamental to our national prosperity, and to the quality of our daily lives, than adequate, safe highways? Major highways carry nearly 80 percent of U.S. interstate commercial traffic, and, roughly, 80 percent of intercity passenger and tourist traffic--80 percent. When it comes to the daily lives and the daily working conditions of our constituents, Americans take more than 90 percent of all their work trips in cars or trucks.
And we hear much from the administration as to how this Nation should better meet our child care needs, and that is quite appropriate. Therefore, I make no apology for taking the floor to point out how the family lives of millions of Americans would be improved if working parents could spend more time at home with their children rather than sit in ever-worsening traffic jams. We hear so much talk about protecting our children; and yet, getting them to school to be educated, and to hospitals and to clinics to receive healthcare can't be done with efficiency without safe, modern highways.
Everyone knows that. Twenty-two million people in Appalachia know it. Twenty-two million people in Appalachia know the difficulties in getting to work, in getting to school, in getting to hospitals, in getting to child care clinics, in getting to church, and in getting back home--22 million people in Appalachia.
Highways first? You bet, I believe in highways first as of now under the circumstances that I have outlined. I believe in highways first. Fixing potholes and pavement may not be glitzy and may not be sexy, but attending to our Nation's transportation system is a basic, fundamental need. It is job one, because so much of life in the United States absolutely depends on our ability to get people and goods from one place to another.
Francis Bacon, who went to the tower because he was found guilty--and he admitted it--of accepting bribes, said, ``There be three things that make a nation great and prosperous: A fertile soil, busy workshops, and easy conveyance of men and goods from place to place.''
Well, it was said on this floor last week that two of the few places where the Government should be involved in spending money were in the field of national defense and in the field of building infrastructure because people cannot do these things by themselves, it was said. How true. The Government had to do its part, it was said last week on the floor of this Senate. Well, the unfortunate fact is that the Government has not done its part. The record is replete with evidence that we have not done as good a job as we should have done in maintaining our highway infrastructure. We are letting our National Highway System fall more and more into disrepair. And, as a result, the cost of bringing our highways up to an adequate and safe condition grows by billions of dollars every year.
Mr. President, it was President Ronald Reagan, who, in January 1983, said, ``Common sense''--``common sense''--perhaps one of the most uncommon things that would be found in this city --``Common sense tells us that it will cost a lot less to keep the [national highway] system we have in good repair, than to let it disintegrate and have to start over from scratch. Clearly''--this is former President Reagan talking; I am quoting him--``Clearly, this program is an investment in tomorrow that we must make today.'' How true.
Ronald Reagan was right. We must make that investment today. The commitment that the highway bill would be brought up at the beginning of this session should be kept, a 6-year ISTEA bill should be made the pending business of the Senate, and it should be done right today or soon, very soon. The highway needs grow worse day by day; the time grows shorter day by day; and I hope that the Governors and mayors and highway departments throughout this country--and I am speaking to you out there--I hope that the Governors and mayors and highway departments throughout this country will join in urging the Senate leadership to keep its commitment, so that we can debate this highway bill--it is number one on the Nation's business list.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may reserve that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia. In fact, I want to say to him what a great honor it is for me to work with him on this amendment. He made a very strong case just a moment ago about building highways, but I believe the case is stronger yet because there is one factor that I want to make sure that everybody understands, that at least in the portion of Senator Byrd's statement that I heard he did not drive home, in my opinion. And that is, it is not just a debate about highways versus other things; it is a debate about basic honesty in Government because, you see, we collect taxes specifically for the purpose of building roads.
We do not collect taxes for the purpose of providing child care. We do not collect taxes specifically earmarked for welfare. We do not collect taxes that are dedicated by their source to the United Nations or to foreign aid. But we do collect taxes that are dedicated to highway construction, at least in terms of what Americans believe the policy of Government is and should be.
If you go to the filling station this afternoon, and you pull up in your car or truck and you get out and you are pumping gas, while you are standing there, let me urge people to read what it says on the gasoline pump. Basically, what it says on the gasoline pump is, there is good news and bad news. The bad news is that about a third of the cost of a gallon of gasoline in America today is taxes. The good news is, as it says right on the pump, those taxes are dedicated to building the very roads that you are going to burn up this gasoline riding around on. So it is a user fee. It is a fee you pay in buying gasoline to build the roads that you are going to use.
The only problem with that bad news-good news story is the good news is not true. The good news is not true because the Federal Government, beginning in about 1990, started diverting substantial quantities of funds collected on gasoline taxes to other uses. Some of it occurred by just letting surpluses build up in the highway trust fund, which under a unified budget in essence meant you could spend more money on other things in Government. Some of the problem resulted in 1993, when, for the first time in American history, we adopted a 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline that went to general revenue and not to the highway trust fund.
Senator Byrd, I, and others have solved that problem in the tax bill by dedicating that 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to the highway trust fund where it belongs. So let me turn to this chart and really explain how modest the Byrd-Gramm-Warner-Baucus amendment is, how modest it is in terms of what we are asking. In fact, the American people would never believe that we are doing enough.
But if you look at this chart, you see where we are. As of today, we have $23.7 billion of surpluses in the highway trust fund. This is money that we have collected on gasoline taxes that we put into the highway trust fund to spend on roads, but money that has not been spent on roads. In reality, that money, through our unified budget, in the total level of spending we could have by running this surplus in the trust fund, that let Government spend that money on thousands of other things.
We were successful, as I noted earlier--well, last year; that went into effect on January 1--of being sure that every cent of gasoline taxes, just as the gasoline pump says, goes into the highway trust fund.
Now, under the bill that will be before us when we get an opportunity to consider it, the surplus in the highway trust fund, if my amendment with Senator Byrd was not adopted, would grow from $23.7 billion to $90 billion. In other words, over the 6 years that highway bill would be in effect, we would be collecting, in total, looking at all we have already done plus what would occur during that period, $90 billion that we are telling the American people that we were spending on highways that in reality would not be spent on highways and in reality would be spent on something else.
Here is what Senator Byrd and I are saying: You have already spent this $23.7 billion, and we are not asking for it back; in fact, we are saying that we are going to let the surplus grow under our amendment from $23.7 billion that should have been spent on roads to $39 billion, and that that money will be available, therefore, for general budget uses.
What we are saying is that this 4.3-cent tax on gasoline, a total of
$51 billion in spending authority, we want it spent on roads. I have likened this--and I am sure some of my colleagues don't like the analogy, but I think it fits perfectly--I have likened our opponents to cattle rustlers. What they have been doing, as you can see from this chart, they have been rustling our cattle. They have been taking money that has been collected in taxes on gasoline, put into the highway trust fund to spend on roads, and they have been spending it on other things. In any other business except government you might actually go to jail for doing something like that.
In fact, Senator Byrd reminded one of our opponents of the story in the Bible of Ananias in the book of Acts. In the young church, Ananias makes a big deal about selling all his property and giving it to the church, but he cheats. The Lord thought so little of that activity that he struck him dead and struck his wife dead.
Obviously, we are not talking about striking anybody dead. All we are talking about is the following: We are saying, keep the $23.7 billion. In fact, we are going to let it build up to $39 billion. Just let us spend the 4.3-cent tax on gasoline on highways.
Their response is, ``Well, you know, we already got the $23.7 billion and we were expecting not only $39 billion but $90 billion, and if we don't get to spend that money on all these other programs, on everything other than highways, we are going to lose the ability to spend that money.''
Well, it reminds me of a cattle rustler who has been stealing Senator Byrd's cattle and my cattle. We call the sheriff out. We confront the guy, and we say, ``You stole these cattle, and we are letting you keep on stealing cattle, but you have to limit the number of stealing. You can't steal any cattle out of this pasture.'' Their response is not,
``Thank you for not hanging me, thank you for letting me continue to do what I have been doing''; their response is, ``Where are we going to get this extra beef?''
That is not our problem. That is their problem. They shouldn't have been spending this money out of the highway trust fund to begin with.
Now, let me turn to several points I want to make. First of all, if we don't pass this amendment, we are going to be locked into this highway bill for the next 6 years with mounting infrastructure needs all over the country and with tens of billions of dollars collected in gasoline taxes that will be spent on something else.
If the American people had a vote on our amendment of whether to require that gasoline taxes that are collected for the purpose of building roads be spent on roads and only on roads, I can't imagine that many people would oppose this provision. But we are only going to have one chance in the next 6 years to do something about it, and that is on the highway bill.
Now, those who oppose our amendment, those who want to spend that $90 billion on everything but roads say, ``Don't bring up the highway bill now, let us deal with the budget first.'' Now, they are trying to play on the confusion. Senator Byrd and I have spoken many times, and we will speak many more times until this is settled and until we have prevailed on this issue. But they are trying to play on the confusion. They are trying to act as if the proposal the President has made about expanding child care or the President has made about building schools or hiring teachers or any of the literally hundreds of programs he has proposed to increase spending, $130 billion worth of spending, they act as if somehow that is equivalent to what we are talking about. It is in no way equivalent to what we are talking about. The President is talking about increasing the total level of spending. We are talking about debating how to spend the money that is currently collected.
We have a gasoline tax that is dedicated to building highways, and all we are saying is this is not a budget issue. This is an issue of honesty in Government and highway construction. All we are asking is that the money collected in gasoline taxes be spent on highways. In terms of setting spending levels, that is something we ought to do in the budget and decide what the total level of spending next year is going to be. Then any individual Senator--and obviously the majority--
will make a determination as to what they want to do. But this is not a budget issue. This is a highway issue and it has to do with spending money for the purpose that money is collected. So, we don't want this to be commingled with the budget. There is no equivalent of what we are asking we do here, which is basically a truth-in-Government provision where you collect money on gasoline taxes, you tell people it is going to highways, but you don't do it. We want to fix that. There is no equivalent between that and a proposal to raise the total level of spending in the Federal budget. We don't believe the two should be commingled.
Let me turn very briefly to two other issues that a big deal has been made out of, and all of our colleagues will hear about it. I want to be sure people understand it. I want to start with the Appalachian program. That program started in 1965. It has been part of every highway bill since 1965. The President's highway bill, like ours, divides money into two parts, the 90 percent that goes directly to the States, the 10 percent that is spent by the Secretary. Under the President's budget, 1.6 percent of the highway bill is dedicated to the 13 States that make up Appalachia as part of a program that was authorized in 1965.
Now, those who oppose our amendment say their amendment provides funds for those 13 States under a program that is now over 30 years old. But what they don't tell you is the rest of the story, and that is we provide a lower percentage of the money going to those 13 States out of the Secretary's discretionary funds than does the President. The President provides 1.6 percent to those 13 States; we provide 1.4 percent to those 13 States.
Finally, on that issue, the President's bill, like the bill before the Senate, has this strange provision that says that if we don't have enough money in the trust fund and we have a shortage of money, that we cut the States first. Senator Byrd and I changed that in our amendment. We treat the Secretary's funds equivalent to the States' funds. So from the point of view of this issue, the issue of Appalachia, it is always easy, obviously, in these complicated bills to confuse people, but the two points every Member of the Senate should understand is that as a percentage of the highway bill, less money is going to the 13 States of Appalachia in the program, which dates back to 1965, under the President's amendment; and our amendment eliminates a terrible inequity, which says, if there is a shortfall of funds, what the Secretary has discretion over is funded first. We eliminate that.
A final point, and I will be finished, is that one of our critics has said that our bill funds interstate corridors of international trade and border infrastructure. This was called for under NAFTA. Interestingly enough, the bill that is before the Senate, the highway bill--or we wish was before the Senate --provides $750 million to fulfill the commitments made in NAFTA only by a sleight-of-hand. It provides no real authorization for the money to be spent. So they tell you they are providing $750 million. You can read it right in their bill. But elsewhere they have a provision which renders that nonexistent. We have provided $450 million which is real. So in reality they claim to be providing more than we are, but their complaint is we are basically doing it; whereas they were basically misleading people about what they were doing. So I want people to understand this issue.
We need to get on with the highway bill. We have work to do. We are running out of time. The highway bill is going to expire. Road construction is going to stop all over the country. We need to bring this highway bill up and we need to do it now. I want to ask our Governors, our mayors, the people who build highways, the people who use highways, we need to hear from you in this debate because your interests are at stake.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my reserved 2\1/2\ minutes be reduced to 30 seconds, and I wish the Senator would add to the list of cosponsors. I believe he has two additional Senators on this side.
Mr. GRAMM. We have gotten the commitment, I think, in writing from Senator Thomas; that brings us up to 51. We have one other Member who has said verbally they want to cosponsor, but I want to wait until we get that in writing.
The point in the 30 seconds is that this is the first legitimate bipartisan effort in this Congress. We have 51 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans, because this is a bipartisan issue. People say they want bipartisanship. This is an issue where we are getting it, and what we need is this bill on the floor of the Senate so that we can provide this bipartisan leadership to do what the country needs.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
____________________
