Mr. BYRD. That is right. And I am glad the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, has pointed that out. I have had several Senators say, for one reason or another, they would not cosponsor the amendment but that they intended to vote for it when the time comes. I am glad the Senator has brought that to the attention of the Senate.
The reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA II as it is often referred to, will set the authorization levels for the next 6 years for major portions of our national transportation system. And I congratulate the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, for his decision to take up this 6-year bill rather than the 6-month extension proposed by the other body.
In the end, however, the committee did not report a bill that in my view provides sufficient highway funding authorizations for either the Appalachian Development Highway System or the entire National Highway System.
The levels reported were constrained by the allocation of budget authority provided to the Committee on Environment and Public Works by the budget resolution. And that allocation does not allow anywhere near the levels of highway authorization that can be supported by the highway trust fund revenues over the coming 6 years, nor the levels that are seriously needed to prevent further deterioration in our National Highway System.
Senators will recall that last year I, along with Senator Gramm and other Senators, urged the leadership to allow us an opportunity to vote on an amendment to a tax measure to transfer the 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax which was going toward deficit reduction into the highway trust fund where it could be used for increased highway and transit spending in the coming years. At the request of both the majority and minority leaders, I deferred offering such an amendment during last year's session.
On May 22 of this year, I joined 82 other Senators in voting for an amendment by Senator Gramm in support of transferring the 4.3 cents gas tax--Mr. President, I think I left my cough drops in the office. I can assure all Senators, however, I do not have whooping cough nor do I have consumption, but I have had a severe cold. If I could proceed, I will do so by rereading the sentence that I stumbled on.
Earlier this year, I joined 82 other Senators in voting for an amendment by Senator Gramm in support of transferring the 4.3 cents gas tax to the highway trust fund and spending it on our rapidly deteriorating transportation systems.
And then on July 14, I joined with 82 other Senators and expressed in a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle, as well as to the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Roth and Moynihan, the view that additional funding for transportation is urgently needed.
We 83 Senators urged that the conferees on the Reconciliation Act retain the Senate's transfer of this gas tax into the highway trust fund so that it could then be used for additional transportation spending in the future rather than being applied toward deficit reduction.
Ultimately, the balanced budget agreement did include the transfer of the 4.3 cents gas tax into the highway trust fund, beginning October 1, 1997. And as a result, the highway account of the highway trust fund will receive additional revenues totaling almost $31 billion over the next 5 fiscal years.
One would think that the budget agreement would have taken this additional revenue into account in setting the allocations of budget authority for the pending 6-year highway bill. Instead, under the reported bill, the cash balances in the highway trust fund will grow massively over the next 6 years.
The Congressional Budget Office tells us that under the committee reported bill the balance in the highway trust fund will be just over $25.7 billion at the end of fiscal year 1998. And according to CBO, that trust fund balance will grow each year thereafter, to an unprecedented level of almost $72 billion by the end of fiscal year 2003. In other words, if we accept the levels of contract authority provided in the reported bill for the next 6 years, we will have accomplished nothing by placing the 4.3 cents gas tax into the highway trust fund other than to build up these huge surpluses which have the effect of masking the Federal deficit.
I have called for increased levels of infrastructure investment for years. And yet, despite my pleas and despite the needs of our States and of our constituents, we in the Congress have allowed much of the Nation's physical infrastructure to fall further and further into disrepair.
As the chart to my left shows, the Federal spending for infrastructure as a percentage of all Federal spending, 1980 through 1996, has significantly declined since 1980. And it was more than 5 percent at that time. And as of 1996, it is less than 3 percent.
So in that year--in that year--Federal spending on highways, mass transit, railways, airports, and water supply and waste water treatment facilities amounted to just over 5 percent of total Federal spending. But as I have already pointed out, our 1996 Federal spending on these same infrastructure programs had dropped to less than 3 percent of total Federal spending--less than 3 percent of the total Federal spending.
Nowhere is there infrastructure investment more inadequate than on our Nation's highways. Our National Highway System carries nearly 80 percent of U.S. interstate commerce and nearly 80 percent of intercity passenger and tourist traffic. The
construction of our national interstate system represents perhaps the greatest public works achievement of the modern era. But we have allowed segments of our National Highway System to fall into serious disrepair.
The U.S. Department of Transportation, the DOT, has released its most recent report on the condition of the Nation's highways. Its findings are even more disturbing than earlier reports. The Department of Transportation currently classifies less than half of the mileage on our interstate system as being in good condition. And only 39 percent of our entire National Highway System is rated in good condition. Fully 61 percent of our Nation's highways are rated in either fair or poor condition. Almost one in four of our Nation's bridges is now categorized as either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
There are literally over a quarter of a billion miles of pavement in the United States that is in poor or mediocre condition. There are over 185,000 deficient bridges across our country. If we allow the decay of our transportation systems to continue, we will vastly constrict the lifelines of our Nation and undermine our economic prosperity.
According to the Department of Transportation, our investment in our Nation's highways is a full $15 billion short each year of what it would take just to maintain current inadequate conditions. Put another way, we would have to increase our national highway investment by more than $15 billion a year to make the least bit of improvement in the status of our national highway network.
It is also critical to point out that while our highway infrastructure continues to deteriorate, highway use--highway use--is on the rise. Indeed, it is growing at a very rapid pace. The number of vehicle miles traveled has grown by more than one-third in just the last decade.
On the chart to my left we see shown U.S. highway vehicle miles traveled. The source is the Federal Highway Administration, highway statistics, 1983 through 1997.
As I say, the number of vehicle miles traveled has grown by more than one-third. And the chart represented here shows the miles traveled in billions, billions of miles. As a result, we are witnessing new highs in levels of highway congestion, causing delays in the movement of goods and people that costs our national economy more than $40 billion a year in lost productivity. And, Mr. President, it is clear that the requirements we place on our National Highway System are growing, while our investment continues to fall further and further behind.
We are simply digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole. It is a proven fact that investments in highways result in significant improvements in productivity and increased profits for business as well as improvements to both our local and our national well-being. According to the Federal Highway Administration, every $1 billion invested in highways creates and sustains over 40,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, the very same $1 billion investment also results in a $240 million reduction in overall production costs for American manufacturers.
And while we can easily see the economic impact of this disinvestment, we must not lose sight of the fact that deteriorating highways have a direct relationship to safety. Almost 42,000 people died on our Nation's highways in 1996. And that is the equivalent to having a midsized passenger aircraft crash every day killing everyone on board.
Let me say that again: 42,000 people died on our Nation's highways in 1996. That is the equivalent to having a midsized passenger aircraft crash every day killing everyone on board.
Substandard road and bridge designs, outdated safety features, poor pavement quality and other bad road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents according to the Federal Highway Administration. The economic impact of these highway accidents costs our Nation $150 billion a year, and that figure is growing.
Now, Mr. President, I am pleased today to bring before the Senate, together with the very able Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner, an amendment that will increase substantially the highway authorization levels contained in the underlying bill.
In doing so, the amendment will authorize the use of the increased revenues that began flowing into the highway trust fund on October 1 of this year. As shown on this chart to my left, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the 5-year period 1999 through 2003, increased revenue to the highway account will equal $30.971 billion. This amendment will utilize these additional revenues in full to authorize additional highway spending over the 5-year period 1999-2003.
Our amendment does not change the formulas of the underlying bill. Each State will receive its same formula percentage share of these additional authorizations as it did in the reported bill. For the donor States, the amendment still ensures they will receive a minimum of 90 percent return on their percentage contribution to the highway trust fund. Moreover, our amendment, like the committee-reported bill, utilizes 10 percent of the total available resources for discretionary purposes. Increased discretionary amounts of contract authority will therefore be available for the multi-State trade corridors initiative, as well as the 13-State Appalachian Development Highway System.
Adoption of this amendment will not change the scoring of the deficit by one dime. It has been a routine event in this Senate for us to adopt authorization bills that authorize spending levels that far exceed available appropriations. Within the education area, we have funding authorizations on the books that exceed actual appropriations by billions of dollars. The same is true in the area of health research, environmental programs, agricultural programs and the like. The actual obligation ceiling that will pertain to these highway programs will be set annually by the Appropriations Committees as has been the case for the past 6 years under ISTEA and for many of the highway authorization bills before that.
The real question at this time is whether we will allow the 4.3-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax that is now going into the highway trust fund to be authorized for use in the 6-year highway bill or not. Eighty-three Senators signed a letter this past July stating their support of the use of these funds for the purposes for which the tax is being collected; namely, for the construction and maintenance of our national system of highways and bridges.
Much has been made by the opponents of this amendment about the possibility that the increased highway spending authorized by the amendment will cause drastic cuts over the next 5 years in other discretionary spending.
Mr. President, I believe that this argument is unfounded. Enactment into law of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment does not cause any cut in any Federal program. Let me repeat again that the bill before us is an authorization bill. It is not an appropriations bill. Therefore, the Appropriations Committees in each of the next 5 years will have to determine what level of highway spending they can afford versus all of the other programs under the committee's jurisdiction. Each year's transportation bill for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 will contain an obligation limit for total highway spending. That limitation will be set each year in light of the circumstances being faced by the Appropriations Committees in that particular year. The allocation of outlays to the Transportation Subcommittee hopefully will be sufficient to fully fund the entire contract authority provided in this amendment for each of the next 5 years. But, the Senate and House and the President will have the final say as to what is provided for highway spending and for all other areas of the discretionary portion of the budget. Put another way, if we do not adopt this amendment, we may have precluded for the next 5 years any additional highway spending.
Regarding the question of outlay caps on discretionary spending, I fully support and will strongly urge the Budget Committee chairman and the Senate to include in the budget resolution for fiscal year 1999 the necessary provisions to increase discretionary caps for the following 5 years if the economy continues to perform at a positive rate. As Senators are aware, since the adoption of the balanced budget agreement earlier this year, the projections of revenues have dramatically increased and the projections for spending have been dramatically cut. The result is a far better forecast than was thought to be the case when we voted for the balanced budget agreement this past spring.
As the chart to my left shows, a comparison of the budget agreement and OMB's Mid-Session Review now projects revenues to be a total of $129.8 billion greater over the 5-year period 1998 through 2002 than was projected in the balanced budget agreement --$129.8 billion greater in revenues than was projected at the time of the balanced budget agreement. For outlays, the forecast is also much brighter than it was a few short months ago. Compared to the balanced budget agreement, OMB now projects in its Mid-Session Review that total spending over the period 1998 to 2002 will be $71.6 billion less than was projected in that agreement.
The pending Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment takes note of the new projections in the following way. The amendment provides that if--if--savings in budgetary outlays for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 are still projected to exist in connection with the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution, and if that budget resolution calls for using any of the projected spending savings, an allocation of additional discretionary outlays for highways should be made sufficient to cover the costs of the pending amendment.
So what we are saying in our amendment is this: If any of the $71.6 billion in spending savings is to be used in the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution, $21.6 billion should go toward increasing discretionary caps in order to cover the outlays that will result from the increased authorizations of contract authority for highways contained in the pending amendment.
I am for increasing discretionary outlays sufficient to cover the costs of the additional highway construction that will occur under the pending amendment if the economy continues to perform favorably as projected. But, we are not here today to debate the budget resolution. The time for that debate is next spring when the budget resolution for 1999 is before the Senate. We are here today to decide whether to authorize additional highway levels for the next 5 years or whether to let the 4.3-cents gas tax be used instead as a bookkeeping mechanism to build up huge surpluses to mask the Federal deficit. I urge all Senators to vote to waive points of order on this amendment so as to allow it to be voted on, and I urge all Senators to vote for its adoption. In so doing, Senators will be voting to restore public trust in the highway trust fund, and they will be voting to take the next step toward providing substantially increased highway investments for all States--not just one, not just 10, but all States--over the next 6 years.
Let us take a step forward in restoring confidence in Government policies by using gas tax revenues as we have told the people that they would be used. Taxes collected at the pump are intended to be used to construct and maintain safe and modern highways and also to provide needed transit systems.
It is unconscionable that we should continue to hold back public moneys from our Nation's highways when they are slipping into such deplorable disrepair. Promise keepers we certainly are not when it comes to the highway trust fund. The money is there. It has been specifically collected and designated to be plowed back into highways for the benefit of the taxpayer, and yet we are stubbornly sitting on it. We are stubbornly sitting on that money.
It is wrong. It is deceitful. It is bad public policy. It is deplorable in terms of its detrimental impact on our economy. It is contributing to the death and accident rates on our highways. It ought to be stopped. This amendment gives Senators a way to stop it.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record certain tables, and I shall send the amendment to the desk not for the purpose of it being offered today but only for the purpose of it being printed and available for all Senators to see it.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
[Page: S10941] PAVEMENT MILES IN POOR TO FAIR CONDITION 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- State Mileage poor & mediocre Federal aid miles --------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama 3,628 23,230 Alaska 1,259 3,010 Arizona 1,705 11,869 Arkansas 1,994 19,744 California 14,985 48,165 Colorado 5,571 15,965 Connecticut 1,384 5,579 Delaware 584 1,428 District of Columbia 184 389 Florida 7,858 24,378 Georgia 224 29,777 Hawaii 306 1,321 Idaho 4,719 8,594 Illinois 10,681 33,207 Indiana 5,028 21,586 Iowa 4,545 23,395 Kansas 10,987 22,274 Kentucky 3,380 14,389 Louisiana 4,943 14,503 Maine 1,377 6,138 Maryland 1,704 7,404 Massachusetts 3,028 9,154 Michigan 10,032 30,729 Minnesota 13,252 29,501 Mississippi 6,853 20,257 Missouri 8,191 30,178 Montana 5,336 12,058 Nebraska 6,120 15,086 Nevada 633 5,472 New Hampshire 832 3,291 New Jersey 2,318 9,382 New Mexico 4,715 9,787 New York 7,656 25,268 North Carolina 7,467 20,036 North Dakota 5,226 13,294 Ohio 4,316 27,791 Oklahoma 6,813 25,716 Oregon 5,454 17,535 Pennsylvania 4,864 27,105 Rhode Island 852 1,589 South Carolina 4,598 17,274 South Dakota 6,527 14,559 Tennessee 4,282 16,733 Texas 19,277 73,003 Utah 950 7,520 Vermont 1,869 3,760 Virginia 5,198 20,352 Washington 5,231 18,422 West Virginia 2,223 10,114 Wisconsin 8,806 27,606 Wyoming 3,664 7,329 Total 253,629 886,246 [Footnote] 1 Includes only pavement mileage eligible for federal highway funds. [Footnote] Sources: The Road Information Program (TRIP). Federal Highway Administration. --------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL DEFICIENT BRIDGES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- State Bridges >20 in inventory Total deficient bridges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama 15,418 5,201 Alaska 849 212 Arizona 6,147 613 Arkansas 12,530 3,793 California 22,563 6,216 Colorado 7,688 1,688 Connecticut 4,070 1,259 Delaware 775 192 District of Columbia 239 143 Florida 10,823 2,628 Georgia 14,306 4,001 Hawaii 1,070 564 Idaho 4,002 790 Illinois 24,915 6,154 Indiana 17,782 5,112 Iowa 24,844 7,437 Kansas 25,460 7,973 Kentucky 12,961 4,391 Louisiana 13,664 5,178 Maine 2,353 874 Maryland 4,524 1,418 Massachusetts 5,021 2,931 Michigan 10,417 3,561 Minnesota 12,555 2,668 Mississippi 16,725 6,801 Missouri 22,940 10,533 Montana 4,808 1,145 Nebraska 15,584 5,284 Nevada 1,150 214 New Hampshire 2,281 874 New Jersey 6,209 2,855 New Mexico 3,475 615 New York 17,308 10,946 North Carolina 16,085 6,006 North Dakota 4,617 1,436 Ohio 27,795 8,664 Oklahoma 22,710 9,021 Oregon 6,516 1,789 Pennsylvania 22,327 9,771 Rhode Island 734 356 South Carolina 8,999 1,884 South Dakota 6,108 1,750 Tennessee 18,658 5,458 Texas 47,192 11,752 Utah 2,586 714 Vermont 2,653 1,112 Virginia 12,679 3,602 Washington 7,025 1,947 West Virginia 6,477 3.023 Wisconsin 13,165 3,348 Wyoming 2,889 664 Total 574,671 186,559 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 1999-2003 TOTAL INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENT ACT II, BYRD/GRAMM AMENDMENT [Preliminary data--dollars in thousands] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State S. 1173 FY 1999-2003 total as reported by committee Percent Byrd/Gramm amendment 1 Total Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama 2,211,500 1.9970 556,579 2,768,080 1.9970 Alaska 1,373,201 1.2400 345,600 1,718,802 1.2400 Arizona 1,719,893 1.5531 432,854 2,152,748 1.5531 Arkansas 1,472,869 1.3300 370,684 1,843,553 1.3300 California 10,134,190 9.1512 2,550,537 12,684,727 9.1512 Colorado 1,412,391 1.2754 355,465 1,767,856 1.2754 Connecticut 1,895,552 1.7117 477,038 2,372,590 1.7117 Delaware 520,488 0.4700 130,994 651,481 0.4700 District of Columbia 500,536 0.4520 125,973 626,508 0.4520 Florida 5,099,176 4.6046 1,283,335 6,382,510 4.6046 Georgia 3,882,378 3.5058 977,098 4,859,476 3.5058 Hawaii 861,113 0.5970 166,380 827,492 0.5970 Idaho 908,085 0.8200 228,542 1,136,627 0.8200 Illinois 3,683,946 3.3266 927,157 4,611,103 3.3266 Indiana 2,693,608 2.4323 877,914 3,371,522 2.4323 Iowa 1,461,433 1.3197 367,807 1,829,240 1.3197 Kanasa 1,450,185 1.3095 364,977 1,815,162 1.3095 Kentucky 1,921,071 1.7347 483,486 2,404,557 1.7347 Louisiana 1,967,553 1.7767 495,201 2,462,754 1.7767 Maine 636,102 0.5744 160,097 796,199 0.5744 Maryland 1,668,720 1.5069 419,975 2,088,696 1.5069 Massachusetts 1,968,441 1.7775 495,412 2,463,853 1.7775 Michigan 3,493,538 3.1547 879,236 4,372,775 3.1547 Minnesota 1,655,828 1.4952 416,732 2,072,558 1.4952 Mississippi 1,396,953 1.2614 351,580 1,748,533 1.2614 Missouri 2,635,864 2.3802 663,387 3,299,251 2.3802 Montana 1,173,866 1.0600 295,433 1,469,296 1.0600 Nebraska 929,790 0.8396 234,004 1,163,794 0.8396 Nevada 808,417 0.7300 203,458 1,011,875 0.7300 New Hampshire 575,859 0.5200 144,929 720,788 0.5200 New Jersey 2,668,883 2.1400 671,691 3,340,574 2.4100 New Mexico 1,162,791 1.0500 292,646 1,455,437 1.0500 New York 5,640,544 5.0934 1,419,503 7,060,046 5.0933 North Carolina 3,129,880 2.8263 787,713 3,917,593 2.8263 North Dakota 808,417 0.7300 203,458 1,011,875 0.7300 Ohio 3,812,849 3.4430 959,599 4,772,448 3.4430 Oklahoma 1,745,495 1.5762 439,300 2,184,796 1.5762 Oregon 1,426,177 1.2878 358,934 1,785,111 1.2878 Pennsylvania 4,199,341 3.7920 1,056,906 5,256,247 3.7920 Rhode Island 642,304 0.5800 161,652 803,956 0.5800 South Carolina 1,759,595 1.5889 442,846 2,202,441 1.5889 South Dakota 863,788 0.7800 217,394 1,081,182 0.7800 Tennessee 2,506,281 2.2632 630,768 3,137,049 2.2632 Texas 7,623,695 6.8842 1,918,693 9,542,388 6.8842 Utah 955,428 0.8628 240,460 1,195,888 0.8628 Vermont 520,488 0.4700 130,994 651,481 0.4700 Virginia 2,834,290 2.5594 713,320 3,547,610 2.5594 Washington 2,035,955 1.8385 512,401 2,548,356 1.8385 West Virginia 1,131,708 1.0219 284,833 1,416,541 1.0219 Wisconsin 2,011,684 1.8165 506,291 2,517,975 1.8165 Wyoming 841,639 0.7600 211,820 1,053,459 0.7600 Puerto Rico 508,260 0.4590 127,917 636,176 0.4590 Total 110,742,037 100.0000 27,871,000 138,613,037 100.0000 [Footnote] 1 Source of additional contract authority: CBO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
