Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time was taken in the colloquy earlier about who should go first?

Mr. BYRD. I thank my distinguished friend. I thank him for the excellent contribution he has made in this debate. I thank him for his support and cooperation with respect to the amendment we prepared a few days ago, which was voted on favorably by the Senate. I thank him for his leadership on the committee and in the Senate on this subject over the years. We have stood together shoulder to shoulder on previous occasions on this very subject matter, and I am glad to have him standing shoulder to shoulder today.

Mr. BYRD. I yield that to Senator Baucus.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I also thank Mr. Voinovich for the fine statement he made. I thank him for his courage in taking the position he has today. It isn't easy for him, but I thank him for his solid support of the position I take today. I think he is right, as I think I am right. Mr. President, just 5 days ago, during consideration of this year's Budget Resolution, the Senate, by a vote of 65 yeas to 35 nays, expressed the Senate's opposition to either a temporary or permanent repeal of Federal gasoline taxes. In addition to myself, the original co-sponsors of the amendment were Senators Warner, Baucus, Voinovich, Lautenberg and Bond. Additional co-sponsors added during the debate were Senators Lincoln, Domenici, Bingaman and Robb. Later today, the Senate will be asked to vote again on essentially the same question, when the cloture vote is taken on S. 2285. That bill would implement a temporary repeal of a portion of the Federal tax on gasoline. To make up for the lost revenues to the Highway Trust Fund that this gas tax repeal would cause, the proponents of this bill advocate the use of revenues from the General Fund of the Treasury. The proponents do not identify a particular source of those revenues. One has to assume that the replenishment of the Highway Trust Fund will either come from the non-Social Security surplus, or from cuts in spending in other areas of the budget, such as education, or if it turns out that there is no non- Social Security surplus, then this bill could cause us to have to return to deficit spending. That would be true, particularly if the Republican tax cut package is enacted, and if the projections of the Congressional Budget Office turn out to be faulty. I, for one, cannot support any proposition such as this, which takes the ``trust'' out of the Highway Trust Fund and could mandate unidentified cuts in other Federal programs. We must not backfill the potholes this bill will leave in funding for adequate maintenance of roads and bridges with money from education, veterans programs or other vital needs. The proponents of S. 2285 have attempted to downplay the aforementioned vote that was taken on the Budget Resolution against any repeal of Federal gasoline taxes. That amendment to the Budget Resolution, which as I have said, was adopted by a vote of 65 yeas to 35 nays, contained the following language, ``Any effort to reduce the federal gasoline tax or de-link the relationship between highway user fees and highway spending, poses a great danger to the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund, and the ability of the states to invest adequately in our transportation infrastructure.'' Yet, Mr. President, S. 2285 would in fact de-link the relationship between highway user fees and highway spending. In that respect, S. 2285 poses a great danger to the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund, and thereby, threatens to undermine the ability of the States to invest adequately in our nation's transportation infrastructure. In I Corinthians 14:8, we are told, ``If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare to the battle?'' When it comes to our Federal investment in our Nation's highways, S. 2285 would give a most uncertain sound. This bill would cut revenues to the Highway Trust Fund by repealing a portion of Federal gasoline taxes. Yet, just two years ago, in landmark legislation, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, our State and local governments were told that we had put the ``trust'' back into the Highway Trust Fund, and that we had established an automatic mechanism to distribute all gasoline taxes to the states for their highway needs. In so doing, we committed ourselves to retaining the ``trust'' in the Highway Trust Fund forevermore. Now we come along and have a different sound coming from those who trumpet S. 2285. They want to cut Federal gasoline taxes and place in jeopardy the funding stream that we promised to the States in TEA-21. In return for these lost revenues, they would have us adopt a new promise, a promise that we will make up those lost gas tax revenues from the General Fund surpluses or from cutting funding for other vital national investments. The very reason that funding ``guarantees'' were included in TEA-21 was to eliminate the uncertainty surrounding our national highway program. We said that all highway user fees--the Federal gasoline taxes which the American people pay every time they go to the gas pump--would automatically go to the States so that our Governors, highway commissioners, and State and local officials would have a predictable funding stream to meet their critical highway funding needs. The goal of TEA-21 was to reverse decades of disinvestment in our national highway infrastructure. The use of our national highway system continues to grow dramatically. In the 15 years, from 1983 to 1998, according to the Federal Highway Administration, the number of vehicle miles traveled on our Nation's highways, has grown from 1.65 trillion miles per year to over 2.62 trillion miles per year. However, our Nation's investment in highways has not come close to keeping pace with this increased traffic. The percent of vehicle miles traveled has been dropping almost every year since we initiated the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower Administration. They dropped steadily until 1997--the most recent year for which data is available. What has this disinvestment done to the condition of our nation's roads? It has led to a national network of roadways with inadequate pavement conditions. Less then half the miles of roadway in rural America are considered to be in good or very good condition. Of the road miles in rural America, 56.5 percent are in fair to poor condition. Conditions are even worse in urban America, where 64.6 percent of road miles are considered to be in some level of disrepair, and only 35.4 percent of urban roadways are considered to be in good or very good condition. The situation is no better when we turn our attention to the nation's highway bridges. According to the most recent data from the Federal Highway Administration, 28.8 percent of our nation's bridges are either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. In urban America, 32.5 percent of the bridges are either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. We are talking about a basic issue of safety here. It is an issue that cannot be ignored in the name of short-term, feel-good tax cut proposals. Total highway spending by all levels of Government currently equals $41.8 billion annually. However, if we wanted to spend a sufficient sum to simply maintain the current inadequate condition of our national highways and bridges, we would need to spend $9 billion more per year, or $50.8 billion. In order to maintain the current average trip time between destinations, we would have to spend $26.1 billion more per year, or a total of $67.9 billion annually on our Nation's highways. Put another way, Mr. President, as a Nation, we would have to increase highway spending by more than 62 percent each year, simply to prevent traffic congestion from getting any worse. Yet, S. 2285 would place even the present levels of highway spending in jeopardy. Highway congestion is worsening each and every year in cities, as well as rural communities across America. In the last 15 years, use by motorists of our highways on a per lane basis increased by more than 46 percent. This increased use has led to record levels of congestion. That congestion and the time that motorists spend in traffic jams is a continual and ever-growing drag on our national economy. Whether it's commuters stuck in traffic jams going to or from their jobs, or trucks that are delayed in delivering their products to their destinations, the costs to the nation are tremendous, and growing. In 1982, it was estimated that congestion cost our economy $21.6 billion. Between 1982 and 1997, that figure increased over 234 percent to $72.2 billion per year. That is $72 billion in wasted fuel, wasted time, and lost prosperity, not to mention the untold pollution that is caused by daily traffic congestion, particularly in our Nation's largest cities. It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that I urge my colleagues to again reject this effort to temporarily repeal Federal gasoline taxes. Gasoline prices are too high, even though we have recently seen a decline in prices at the pump. However, there is no assurance whatsoever, that reduced Federal gasoline taxes, if enacted, would result in reduced gasoline prices at the gas pump. I find that proposition highly doubtful. In any case, I believe that the enactment of S. 2285 would cause grave danger both to the integrity to the Highway Trust Fund and to our ability to meet these huge and ever- growing highway needs. I urge my colleagues to keep the commitments we made in TEA-21 and vote against cloture on S. 2285. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I have not prepared remarks in that connection, but I will take a look at that and insert the matter in the Record, if I am able to make a contribution.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, why don't we go in accordance with the times the Senators came to the floor and sat down and expected to be recognized? When I first came, Mr. Voinovich had been waiting and the Senator from Alaska was speaking. I was the next on the floor. I will be happy to yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. What does the Senator from Texas have to say?

Mr. BYRD. That is correct.

Mr. BYRD. I always like to yield to the ladies. I was brought up the old-fashioned way. But the lady's proposal is going to automatically say she is going to be next after Mr. Voinovich. Is that the way she wants it done?

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object to that consent for a moment, Mr. Voinovich has been waiting here for quite some time. I believe he should be recognized next. Then, ordinarily, when we have controlled time like this, we might go to this side. If that is the case, I will yield for 8 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the inquiry from the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, I would like to pass on my views on the intent and impact of Section 1(f)(4) of S. 2285. This provision, as Senator Warner pointed out, is indeed unprecedented in the history of the law governing the Highway Trust Fund. As I read this provision, it is an attempt to make up for the losses in deposits that would occur to both the Highway and Airport and Airway Trust Funds as a result of a reduced fuel tax in this bill with transfers from the general fund of the Treasury. As has been pointed out by other Senators during debate on this bill, the legislation does not state with specificity how this diversion of general funds is to occur. It is not clear whether these general funds would be derived from the non-Social Security surplus or be required to be diverted from other areas of federal spending. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to recognize the excellent staff work of Ann Loomis of Senator Warner's staff, Ellen Stein of Senator Voinovich's staff, Tracy Henke of Senator Bond's staff, Mitch Warren of Senator Lautenberg's staff, Tom Sliter and Dawn Levy of Senator Baucus' staff, as well as Peter Rogoff, of my Appropriations Committee staff, on this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from a number of interest groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I must say I expect some of those who were proponents of the 17th amendment would probably be disappointed in the Senate if they could see it today.

Mr. BYRD. Every Senator has a right to vote.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, tomorrow, April 8, is the anniversary of the ratification by the State of Connecticut of the 17th amendment. But for that amendment, I would not be here and for that amendment, a good many of us would not be here. That amendment provides for the popular election of Senators. I just wanted to call that to our colleagues' attention. Tomorrow is quite an important day for most of us. Does anyone think the West Virginia Legislature would have selected me for the Senate? I did not have two nickels I could rub together. Nobody knew me. My dad was a coal miner. I expect a lot of us can say somewhat the same things. Just keep that in mind tomorrow, how thankful we should be for the 17th amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. BYRD. Well, yes.

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we are seeing bad, bad go to worse. There are many things that can be said about the way this Senate is operating with respect to budget resolutions. Vote- arama is bad enough, but now to ask the Senate to take all of these amendments in bloc is just asking too much. I do not say this critically of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. He has a tough assignment, and he does it well. He is trying to accommodate a lot of Senators here. I would personally be willing to take him at his word. But this is no way to legislate. I will not be a part of gang rape of the legislative process. That is what this has become. If we are going to do all these amendments--I did not count them; I do not know how many amendments there may be here-- but if we are going to do all of these just by voice vote, pig in a poke, just so we can get out--and I want to get out, too--then why shouldn't we have done it at the start of the process? Why have we gone through all this rigamarole voting on these matters? If we come to the end and we still have two-thirds of the amendments left undone, and we are just going to say: OK, let's go home; we will accept them all, sight unseen, and let them go to conference--I am not going to be a part of that, Mr. President. So I object.

Mr. BYRD. A lot of the Senators who were here when I came would likewise be chagrined, embarrassed, and disappointed.