Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I yield that remaining time to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts. I thank the Chair, I thank all Senators, and again thank the leader for making possible the time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas.

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. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may reserve that time.

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?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I may or may not need all of the 20 minutes, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gramm of Texas be recognized for not to exceed 10 minutes following my remarks.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I like it much better when we are together.

Mr. BYRD. He is my friend and I respect him highly, always have and will continue to do so.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator thinks he has me over a barrel. I voted against cloture. I make no bones about that. But why finger point at that bill? Finger pointing isn't going to resolve the problems that are going to confront our highway departments and our Governors and our mayors throughout this country. That is not going to do any good, Senator. Yes, I voted against cloture. I would like to see a campaign finance reform bill, but I would also like to see a highway bill. So forget what happened back there on cloture. Lot's wife looked back and she turned to salt. Let's don't look back. Let's keep our promise, the promise that was made to bring up this highway bill. I didn't make that promise. The leadership of the Senate made that promise. This is not a partisan matter, Mr. President. Republicans and Democrats buy gas at the gas station. Republicans and Democrats pay a gas tax. Republicans and Democrats use the highways of this country and the transit systems. Republicans and Democrats are injured and die when safety conditions get to the point where accidents occur. So this is not a partisan matter. I know that the Senator from Rhode Island is against that amendment. He has been all along. He was against it when the bill was up last fall. That is a given. There is no surprise in that. But, Mr. President, the promise was made to bring up the highway bill. Now, I have been around this Senate a long time, and this is the first time I have heard that the House controls the Senate calendar. I don't believe that, and I have reason to believe that if the Senate will act, the House might change its mind. Why should the House control the calendar here? The highway needs are out there. The Senator knows that. They exist in his own State. They exist in my State. They exist in every State in this country. The highway departments and the Governors and the mayors don't know how to plan their budgets for this year because they don't know what Federal resources they can count on and they can't do long-term planning. When we talk about highways, those plans have to be long term. I say to the Senator, why not have a bill up now? Let's debate it, but let's debate while we are on the bill. That is the promise that was made. I didn't make that promise. I'm not attacking any Senator personally. I am urging the Senate leadership to take up the bill. Why not have the bill before the Senate? Now, if we take up the bill, the House will surely move, I would think. The pressure will be on them. We can't base our actions on what the House might do. The House schedule doesn't change the May 1 deadline, Senator. The May 1 deadline is only 45 days away, and the House schedule won't change that. That is approaching. Every day that we waste here, sitting on our hands talking about other matters, some of which are important, some of which are not--I pointed out just the other day that we wasted over 3 hours in one day in recesses and in quorum calls. We could be debating this bill, my friend. I hope that the Senator will join us in urging the leadership to bring this bill up. I would like to hear the Senator on the floor every day. I would like to hear his voice rising, up sometimes, up and down. I hope he will join us because I would like to be here with him. I would like to be debating the highway bill. We have had a series of broken promises. Congress acted to shift the 4.3-cent gas tax to the highway trust funds. The people have been told, regardless of what the Senator says, the people have the understanding that that money is going to be spent on surface transportation programs. So we promised that, and then we promised to take up the highway bill. What about the highway needs? How can we ignore those needs when we have huge, unspent balances in the trust fund? Mr. President, I just called my highway department this morning, and according to the West Virginia State Highway Commissioner, if ISTEA is postponed beyond the May 1 date, 75 highway projects, including about 20 bridges in West Virginia, will have to be delayed. This story can be told all over this country. Senator, you will hear it. You will hear it. I say that with the utmost respect. The Senator from Rhode Island is going to hear it. Mr. President, do I have any time left?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is imperative that the Senate turn immediately to the consideration of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997. We now have less than 45 days remaining in which the Senate will be in session between today and May 1, 1998. On May 1 of this year, our State highway departments throughout the land and our transit providers across the Nation will be forbidden by law from obligating any new Federal highway or transit funds. That is the drop-dead date. That is the deadline. What will it mean to individual States when they no longer can move forward on a comprehensive highway construction program? What will it mean to your State? What will it mean to mine? What will it mean for our Nation's highway construction workers when they are thrown out of work, when that paycheck stops and when they have to struggle to put a meal on their family table? What will it mean for our urban transit systems when they must cease progress on projects, projects that are needed to minimize congestion and to move our constituents to work, to schools, to places of worship, to child care centers, and back home? It will mean disruption, deprivation, and, in cases where some construction projects need to go forward for the sake of safety, it will mean that accidents, injuries, and perhaps even death may be the result because of our delay--our inexcusable delay. There is no excuse for the delay. On Monday of this week, the President sent his formal budget request for fiscal year 1999 to the Congress. That budget calls for the overall obligation ceiling for our Federal aid highway programs to be frozen. Now hear that! This is the President's budget, calling for the Federal aid highway program to be frozen for each of the next 6 years at the level enacted for FY 1998, namely, $21.5 billion. The President ran for office the first time on a strong platform recommending more infrastructure in this country, more highways, safer bridges, but the President now is proposing an absolute freeze on highway spending for the next 5 years; never mind the tremendous unmet needs that exist across this Nation for bridge and highway construction, and for safety improvements; never mind a critical provision in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which is there by virtue of an amendment that was offered by my friend and colleague from Texas, Senator Phil Gramm; never mind that critical provision in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a bill that the President signed into law with much fanfare, and rightly so, last year. That bill included a provision transferring the 4.3 cent gas tax-- that had been used for deficit reduction since 1993--into the highway trust fund, so that it could not be used for other programs, instead of the highway program, but could be used to address these serious highway deficiencies. But even with this new source of revenue to the trust fund--roughly $7 billion per year--the President's budget now calls for the overall Federal obligation ceiling for highways to increase by how much? Not one copper cent! Not one penny; not one penny! Over the next 5 years, it is to be frozen. Under the President's budget, the uncommitted balance of the highway trust fund will grow and grow and grow, like topsy. Based on estimates that I have received from the Congressional Budget Office, under the committee-reported bill, the unspent balance of the highway trust fund will grow from $25.7 billion at the end of this fiscal year to more than $71.8 billion at the close of the authorization period covered by the next ISTEA legislation. At that time, therefore, there will be almost $72 billion that would just sit unspent in the highway trust fund; $72 billion paid by you out there, paid by you, the buyers of gasoline; $72 billion paid by our constituents--yours, I say to the distinguished Senator from California, and mine--paid by our constituents at the gas pump--money that will be deposited into the highway trust fund but not used. Not used. Under the President's budget, the trust fund balance would grow even larger, since his 5-year highway freeze is some $9.6 billion less than would even be authorized in the committee-reported bill which we debated on this Senate floor for about 21 days last fall. I do not believe that a majority of this body supports the notion that highway spending should be frozen for the next 5 years, while the unspent balance in the highway trust fund rises by roughly 300 percent over the next 6 years. I am confident that a majority of this body does not support that idea. I do believe, however, that it is incumbent for this Senate to take up the highway bill, to take it up immediately and to make it clear that we do not support the President's proposal for a 5-year freeze on highway spending. Let the President hear that message, loud and clear. We do not support a 5- year freeze on highway spending, nor do the American people support that. I am confident they don't. The financial needs of our national highway network vastly exceed our current levels of expenditure. If we freeze highway spending for the next 5 years, the gap between what will be needed just to maintain the present inadequate conditions of our Nation's highways, on the one hand, and what we will be able to spend, that gap is going to grow wider and wider and wider, and we will fall farther and farther behind. Yet, Mr. President, the Department of Transportation has stated that our Nation would be required to spend an extra $15 billion each year above current spending levels just to maintain the current conditions of our Nation's highways. We would have to boost spending on highways by more than $15 billion a year to make the least bit of improvement overall in the condition of our Nation's highways. Now, that is what the U.S. Department of Transportation is telling us. And what are the current conditions of our Nation's highways? At present, only 39 percent of our National Highway System is rated in good condition. That is not what Senator Byrd is saying, that is what Senator Byrd says that the U.S. Department of Transportation says. Fully 61 percent of our Nation's highways are rated in either fair or poor condition. For our 42,794 mile interstate system, the crown jewel of our National Highway System, one-half of the mileage is rated in fair or poor condition. These figures only worsen when one looks at our other major and Federal State highways. In our urban areas, 65 percent of our noninterstate highway mileage is rated in fair or poor condition. There are over a quarter of a billion miles of pavement in the United States that is in poor or mediocre condition. This is what the U.S. Department of Transportation tells us. There are almost 95,000 bridges in our country that have been classified as deficient, and within that total, roughly 44,000 bridges have been deemed to be structurally deficient, meaning that they need significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement. Many of these bridges require load posting, requiring heavier trucks to take longer alternate routes. That affects our efficiency, our productivity and our overall economy. And an additional 51,000 bridges have been deemed to be functionally deficient, meaning that they do not have the lane width, shoulder width or vertical clearances sufficient to serve the traffic demand. The condition of our highway system is fast becoming a national disgrace. As I said, Mr. President, to make any improvements at all in these conditions, to keep these conditions from worsening further, we would have to boost spending in our highways, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, by more than $15 billion annually. With that backdrop, it defies sanity that the administration wants to freeze highway spending over the next 5 years. Every driving American pays gas taxes. We have told them that that money would go toward increased highway investments. What will we tell them now? Mr. President, this Senate needs to take an immediate step to call up the highway bill and to tell the traveling public that we do not support freezing highway spending for the next 6 years. Why wait until May 1, when our States will be prohibited from obligating any Federal funds on highway or transit projects? We should call up the highway bill and make it clear to America that we meant what we said when we voted to transfer the 4.3 cents gas tax from deficit reduction to the highway trust fund. An overwhelming majority of the Senate supported that transfer. The administration may have frozen the transportation budget, but this Senate does not have to freeze in a stupor of suspended animation while we watch our States careen toward a certain brick wall. There are only 45 days left. Now is the time--now is the time--to take the next step by moving to the highway bill. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. Without it being charged as my time.

Mr. BYRD. Well, Mr. President, at last we have smoked him out. I have been speaking on this floor urging that the leadership bring up the highway bill. So we are having a good debate today. That is what we have been needing all along. The debate is just starting. I'm glad that my friend has come out of the bushes. Let's debate this matter, but let's debate it with the bill before the Senate.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may reserve that time.

Mr. BYRD. Tell me now.

Mr. BYRD. I didn't see the Senator looking for me.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I loved it.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator from Missouri yield?

Mr. BYRD. For a brief comment.

Mr. BYRD. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his patience in listening to this discussion that has been going on. He is going to manage a bill, but he has been very patient, and I think we imposed on him. I just wanted to apologize and thank him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator and I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator object to my asking consent that I be recognized, after the distinguished Senator from California speaks, for not to exceed 20 minutes?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I, again, thank the distinguished senior Senator from California for her usual characteristic courtesy.