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.
“REAUTHORIZATION OF ISTEA” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S1997-S1998 on March 16, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
