Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. All right. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senators aforementioned, the distinguished Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] be recognized for whatever time she may consume.

Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend from Missouri.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank my distinguished friend, Mr. Gramm, who has spoken already on this subject. And I thank Mr. Warner and Mr. Baucus, both of whom will speak. I thank them for being chief cosponsors of the amendment along with me. I should state at this point that there are 40 Senators, in addition to myself, who will have their names on this amendment. I will not offer it today except to offer it to be printed. And at such time as I do offer it, I will then add additional names by unanimous consent. So in the meantime, if any Senators wish to cosponsor the amendment, if they will let either me or Mr. Warner or Mr. Baucus or Mr. Gramm know, we will act accordingly and have their names added at the appropriate time. Mr. President, S. 1173, the reauthorization of the Intermodal----

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

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.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have read and heard some things that are being said about the amendment that do not conform to the proper rules of exactitude. I don't say it is intentional. I think some of these things have been said, perhaps all, through a misunderstanding. I am willing to see it in that way. There is a great deal of misinformation that has been spread. I can understand why, to some extent. The amendment has not been available for Senators to read. Now it is available, and Senators and their staffs will be able to read for themselves. It does not bust the budget. It will not intrude upon other programs. It will not mean that other programs will be cut. I have read a letter or memo recently which indicated certain other programs--by the way, many of them are funded by my own Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior, and I have supported those programs for years and years and intend to continue to support them. I would not vote to cut them. It would not result in the cutting of any programs. I can think of those two things in particular. As we go along further in the debate, there will be other matters that I hope can be straightened out and the light of truth can be focused on them. If the Senator thinks of other things being said, I will be happy to respond.

Mr. BYRD. I agree with the distinguished Senator. He is preeminently correct. We should do it in this bill that is before the Senate now. It should not be a 6-month bill or a 1-year bill. We ought to do it in this year, in this bill. Then we will have notified the highway departments of the 50 States more accurately as to what they can depend upon over the next 5 years insofar as planning is concerned.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I would view that happening with some disappointment, if not sadness. I hope that no effort will be made to repeal the gas tax. If that happens, that would mean an increase in the deficit. And if the author of such an amendment happens to think that that would bar the amendment that has been offered by the distinguished Senator and two others of my colleagues, and myself, and has been cosponsored by 37 additional Senators--if the author of such an amendment thinks for a moment that that would bar the carrying into the effect of the amendment we have been discussing, that Senator would be sadly mistaken because there are moneys in the trust fund sufficient to carry out the purpose of the amendment that I am offering, or will be offering at the appropriate time, which I have sent to the desk for printing. So, No. 1, it would increase the deficit. No. 2, it would have no effect on the amendment that is being offered by the other Senators and I.

Mr. BYRD. That would enable the funds in the trust fund to carry out their purposes.

Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to. I may have to ask my friends who are on the committee and are far more expert than I on the subject matter to answer, or to help answer.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Let's go back to 1990 just a bit. The distinguished Senator has specificated the 4.3 cents. Let's go back to 1956, when I was in the Congress. We passed the interstate highway bill during the Eisenhower administration and I voted for it. We passed legislation providing for a highway trust fund and for taxes on fuels that would be deposited into that highway trust fund. And it was clearly understood by the American public then that that money was going to come back to the public in meeting their highway and other transportation needs. So that thought was thoroughly ingrained into the minds and hearts and pocketbooks of the American people more than 40 years ago. Now, we come up to 1990, 34 years subsequent thereto, and we go to the meeting that was held over at Andrews Air Force base. I was part of that meeting. We passed the legislation as part of a package. President Bush entered into that agreement. I believe that former Speaker Foley was there and was part of it. Several us were there. A part of that package provided that 2.5 cents of the fuels taxes be for deficit reduction, temporarily, and that we would put it into a trust fund. That was in 1990. It was to go back into the trust fund in 1995. Tomorrow, I am going to lay a clearer outline in the Record. But I know that our friends--and they are our friends; I consider them friends--are going to argue that the American people did not understand this money to be used for transportation needs, that the American people, all along, have known otherwise. But that is not the case. I go back to 1956, and there are people who were infants at that time--I should even say babies, some who hadn't been born yet who, for the next 34 or 36 years after that period were paying taxes on gasoline at the pump and who believe clearly and had good reason to believe because that is what they were told and that was a fact, that those gas taxes were going to be returned to the States by way of transportation infrastructure. So that's what the American people have been told. We know now, and it has been made clear in a recent study titled, ``What Americans Think About Federal Highway Investment Issues.'' This is presented by the Transportation Construction Coalition Commission' Opinion and Survey. It is not surprising then that fully 75 percent of Americans say that the United States should use the gas tax exclusively to pay for road and bridge improvements and not on nontransportation programs. Fully 71 percent of Americans want the $6 billion in gas tax revenues, now spent on nontransportation programs, shifted to highways and bridge safety improvements. Indeed, 69 percent of the majority say the U.S. Government should place an even higher priority on highway and bridge improvements of any type than it does now. So I thank the distinguished Senator for asking the question. I say, yes, there was a brief interlude in those years between 1956 and 1997 when some of the gas taxes were to be used on reduction of the deficits. But that is not the case now, and it was not the case for 34 years prior to the year 1990.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I call the attention of the Senator to a letter dated October 9th, signed by Mr. Chafee and by Mr. Domenici, to colleagues, in which the two Senators promise that there will be an amendment forthcoming. They even enclose an one-page summary of their amendment. And they say, ``We hope that we can have your support for this important matter.'' So on October 9th they had an amendment. That was before the recess occurred. They had an amendment, apparently, then, because they sent this to all their colleagues. I don't believe I received one. Maybe I did. I'm not sure. In any event, they had the amendment then. Why have they waited until this date? They had it on October 9th. Today is October the 22nd, and we still don't see the amendment. But that is not so important. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island that the States know that they may not get the full authorized level. They never did under ISTEA, under ISTEA I, in previous years. They didn't get the authorized level. May I also add I will be glad to join with the Senator and with Mr. Domenici in raising the caps. I will be happy to do that at the proper time, and I will urge that that be done. But there is time for that, yes. Yes, the pressure is going to increase. No doubt about it. The pressures will increase because the people are going to want to get what they have been promised. Say what you like, but on May 22, 83 Senators voted that 4.3 cents should be returned to the trust fund and be spent on highway needs. That was 5 months ago. Only half of the task has been done, the transfer of the tax, but no spending of that revenue is currently authorized. So, I think when the people out in the various States, the hills and hollows, the seashores, read about this amendment they are, indeed, going to increase pressure to have us live up to the commitment that we know has been made and which was being urged by 83 Senators on May 22nd. I thank my good-natured friend, Mr. Chafee. He is always very good natured, humorous, pleasing to get along with. I enjoy serving with him. I thank him for yielding. If he will yield just one moment further, I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, that the amendment that I am offering today on behalf of myself, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Warner and 36 other Senators, be printed in the Record so that all Senators may read it tomorrow. (The text of the amendment No. 1397 is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')

Mr. BYRD. And, while I am on the floor on my feet, I shall read the names of the other cosponsors. And we are expecting additional cosponsors, as I indicated earlier today, with several Senators saying they won't cosponsor but they would vote with us. The following Senators have agreed up to this point to cosponsor the amendment: Senators Akaka, Ashcroft, Baucus, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Burns, Byrd, Cleland, Coats, Coverdell, DeWine, Dorgan, Faircloth, Feinstein, Ford, Gramm of Texas, Grams of Minnesota, Harkin, Hollings, Hutchinson of Arkansas, Inhofe, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey of Nebraska, Kerry of Massachusetts, Landrieu, Leahy, Lieberman, McCain, McConnell, Mikulski, Reid of Nevada, Rockefeller, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Specter and Warner. I thank the Senator for allowing me the privilege of reading these names into the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Come one, come all. This rock will fly from its firm base as soon as I. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has made some comments questioning the fact that people in this country--I think it is a fact--the people in this country go to the gas pump and buy gasoline under the impression that their tax money goes into the highway trust fund and that it comes back to meet their transportation needs. Was the Senator here in 1956? I was here in 1956. I was here and I supported President Eisenhower's interstate system. I was here. My wife was buying gas at the pump then. In 1956, Congress created that highway trust fund. She was buying gas at the gas pump then, and the people were told that the gas tax was going into the trust fund tax, and that money was going to be used for highways. And so for over 40 years the American people have believed that their money that they were spending at the gas tank, that portion that was the Federal tax, was going into the highway trust fund. That is no Alice in Wonderland story. That is no make-believe story. That has been a fact. I voted for it 41 years ago. In 1990, it was diverted. That is when it was diverted, 1990. I was here. I voted for that. I went over to those long meetings that we had with Mr. Sununu and Mr. Darman and Mr. Domenici and I guess Mr. Warner was there, Mr. Hatfield was there. Anyhow, Senators on both sides of the aisle were there. And we came up with a package. Yes, we diverted it. We voted to do that. But recently the Senator from Texas offered an amendment, which said that the gasoline tax should again go into the highway trust fund. So let's not break faith with the American people. They have been told it is for highways, and that is what this amendment says it will be used for if the savings are there. I just wanted to make that point. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman has asked a pertinent question. I think I have already answered it. The amendment is still being drafted, but, in view of the fact that the Senate is about to go into recess--I understand there won't be a session here tomorrow--we, who are the chief cosponsors, felt that we ought to announce to Senators that there will be an amendment. We put tables in the Record, and at such time as the amendment is ready to be offered, all Senators will then have it made available to them. Senators are entitled to see it when it has been finished.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I encourage all Members to review carefully these tables. They will show that each and every State in the Nation will receive a sizable boost in funding under this amendment. Each and every State will receive increases under the same percentage distribution called for in the underlying bill. We have not put together a new formula in this amendment. For the donor States, the amendment still ensures that 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 be available for the Multi-State Trade Corridors initiative, as well as the 13-State Appalachian Highway Development System. Mr. President, we understand that a point of order will be raised against this amendment by its opponents. But I think it is important to remind Members that the bill before us is not an appropriations bill; it is an authorization bill. A point of order lies against this amendment because it causes the Environment and Public Works Committee to exceed the levels that they can authorize to be spent. Adoption of this amendment will not change the scoring of the deficit by one thin dime. Opponents of this amendment claim that the increased highway spending authorized by the amendment will cause drastic cuts over the next 5 years in other discretionary spending. Included on the possible list for elimination or drastic cuts--I am talking about a list that I understand has been circulated by opponents--are such things as Navy ship building, law enforcement, Section 8 housing, EPA, National Forest Service, Title I education, Head Start, NIH, and on and on. Mr. President, that argument is an obvious red herring. First of all, because highway construction requires a number of years to complete projects, the amount of outlays that would be necessary in the discretionary portion of the budget to pay for the pending amendment is not $30 billion. We are told instead by the experts at the CBO that the figure is $21.6 billion. Secondly, the enactment into law of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment will not cause any cut in any Federal program. Let me say that again. The enactment into law of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment will not cause any cut in any Federal program. In other words, each year's transportation appropriations bill from fiscal years 1999-2003 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 any particular year. Let me put it another way. If we do not adopt this amendment, we will have precluded, for the next 5 years, any consideration of additional highway spending. Third, 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, so that those savings will accrue. 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 even when we all voted for the balanced budget agreement this past spring. In fact, OMB's recent midsession review now projects revenues over the next 5 years to be $129.8 billion greater--greater--than those projected in the balanced budget agreement. On the spending side of the budget--and this is important-- 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 midsession review that total spending over the period 1998-2002 will be $71.6 billion less than was projected in that agreement. Our amendment will provide that if the savings and spending for fiscal 1998-2002, which I have just identified, are still projected to exist in connection with the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution, and if that budget resolution calls for using any of those spending savings, then those spending savings must go toward fully funding the highway program. In conclusion--and I say ``in conclusion'' because I only intended to take 15 minutes of the hour, I am not here to debate this amendment this afternoon. There will be plenty of time for that. Nobody is going to run for the doors when that time comes. There will be plenty of time to debate it when my colleagues and I have fully fleshed out the amendment. But we wanted to put Senators and the country on notice that we have an amendment, and we wanted to do that before this upcoming recess begins. Let me point out again that our amendment would provide the authorization of an additional $31 billion of contract authority within a 5-year period, 1999-2003. It doesn't add to the deficit. It will call for a consideration, in the fiscal year 1999 budget process, of using additional spending savings to cover the outlays that will occur from the contract authority provided in this amendment. So I urge all colleagues to favorably consider this amendment during the next week, look at the tables, and understand that your State--I am talking to all 100 Senators, to each of them individually--your State will have its highway moneys increased under this amendment. Your State will benefit from this amendment. So I hope that you will examine the benefits that will accrue to your State in additional highway spending under this amendment. Mr. President, let me, in yielding the floor, thank my three colleagues who are the main cosponsors of the amendment. Let me also thank the two leaders for allowing us to impinge upon the time of the Senate at this point for a whole hour if it is needed. Let me say to all Senators who want to debate our amendments that there come a time to debate it. This is an important amendment. This is a major amendment, and its importance to the country cannot be exaggerated. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I will give----

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this request has been cleared with the distinguished Republican leader. I ask unanimous consent that I, Senator Gramm, Senator Warner, Senator Baucus, not necessarily in that order, may have as much as a total, if needed, of one hour among us to discuss an amendment which we are going to offer at a later date.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which was enacted as part of the balanced budget agreement, included a provision which ended the use of the 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax for deficit reduction and instead placed this tax into the Highway Trust Fund beginning on October 1, 1997. That was a very important first step in restoring integrity to the Highway Trust Fund. It ended the practice of using any Federal gasoline taxes for deficit reduction. This Senator was not alone in seeking to end the practice of using Federal gasoline taxes for deficit reduction. On July 14 of this year, I joined 82 other Senators in signing a letter addressed to the Senate majority and minority leaders, as well as the chairman and ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senators Roth and Moynihan, and that letter is fairly brief. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the important first step, as I say, which we 83 Senators sought in our letter has now been achieved; namely, the transfer of the 4.3 cents per gallon gasoline tax from deficit reduction into the Highway Trust Fund. I believe it was Senator Gramm who offered the amendment to do that. He offered that amendment in the Finance Committee and the Finance Committee adopted that amendment. So that was accomplished in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Unfortunately, the six-year ISTEA reauthorization bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee does not allow the use of one penny--not one copper penny--of this 4.3 cents gas tax for highway construction over the next six years. In effect, it allows these additional gas tax revenues to build up huge surpluses over the next six years. The time has come to put our money where our mouth is. We either mean it or we don't mean it when we write letters urging our leadership not only to place the 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax into the Highway Trust Fund, but also to take the next step and allow it to be used in the ISTEA bill before the Senate. Did we place the 4.3 cents gas tax into the trust fund simply so that the unspent balance of the trust fund could skyrocket to historic levels, while our bridges crumble, while our constituents sit in ever- worsening traffic jams, and while congestion chokes off the economic potential of our Nation? Is that what we meant? That was not my intention in championing the transfer of this tax, and I don't believe it was the intention of my colleagues, those who supported placing the revenue into the Highway Trust Fund. And so, today, three of my colleagues and I--Senators Gramm, Warner, and Baucus--are joining in saying to the Senate that we are preparing an amendment to the pending ISTEA bill to authorize the use of the full amount raised by the highway account share of the 4.3 cents gas tax for highway infrastructure and bridge programs over fiscal years 1990-2003. Over the life of this bill, this will mean that an additional $31 billion in contract authority will be made available for the National Highway System. Mr. President, we must do more to address the continuing and destructive trend of Federal disinvestment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. According to the Federal highway administration, our investment in our Nation's highways is a full $15 billion short each year, just to maintain the current inadequate conditions of our National Highway System. 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 each year. Now, as I say, joining me in offering this amendment as principal cosponsors are Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner. Although our amendment is still in the process of being drafted, we nevertheless have reached agreement as to the distribution of formula funds among the various States. I will now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table which sets forth the total amount of highway contract authority for each State in the bill, as reported by the committee, as well as the additional amount of contract authority that each State will receive under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment over a 5-year period.

Mr. BYRD. As the distinguished chairman knows, the department has had some difficulty in calculating the numbers even for the bill that is before the Senate. Now we have an amendment that only last night the four chief cosponsors finally agreed upon, and it takes some time for the department to run the tables, run the figures and get them ready. Senators know that. The Senator from Rhode Island and other Senators know that. We could have waited until we came back to announce that we have an amendment, but we felt it was the better part of wisdom, because it is being talked around here. This amendment, without its having yet been produced, is already being criticized, and things are being said about the amendment that are not true. So we felt that before we go into recess we ought to make that clear, that there are mistaken conceptions of what the amendment does. We ought to set that record straight. But the amendment will be made available in due time. And while I am on my feet, I would like to say we ought to have an ISTEA bill this year. We ought not settle for a 6-months extension. We ought not settle for a year's bill. Next year is an election year. If we can't reach an agreement this year, how easy is it going to be to reach an agreement next year, during an election? We ought to focus our energies and our attention and our talents on promoting action on the bill this year, a full 6-year bill. Now, that's the best I can give the Senator in answer.