Datasets:

Eugleo

/

us-congressional-speeches

like 0

Mr. President. I would like again to make a parliamentary inquiry.

S

Mr. EAST

Unknown

EAST

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I yield to the Senator for that purpose without losing my right to the floor.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Is there objection? Without objection. it is so ordered.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I am making a parliamentary inquiry in that. in view of the nature of the comments by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I think any fair or equitable rule of supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the world would allow the two Senators from North Carolina. if they so chose. to respond in some reasonable timeframe to his remarks. I ask the cooperation of my colleagues that that be accorded me in some way or other. Simply trying to run out the clock after the attack was madethe comments were madeI think there arose this obligation on the part of this Chamber to give us some reasonable timeframe in which to respond. I am asking for that. The Senator from Kansas now has the floor.

S

Mr. EAST

Unknown

EAST

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Chair responds to the Senators parliamentary inquiry: A Senator is not required to yield on a question of personal privilege raised by another Senator. The Senator from Kansas has the floor.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I am willing to yield the floor. I share the view expressed by the distinguished junior Senator from North Carolina. I am not trying to prevent the Senator from regaining the floor. but I do not want everybody to get mad here and vote against the bill. I do not mind a little combat. but I would rather do it after we vote.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Will the chairman of the committee yield for a further parliamentary Inquiry?

S

Mr. SARBANES

Unknown

SARBANES

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

No. Mr. President. I want to say further to the Senator from Kentucky that we are all part of the farm coalition. I hope I have been supportive of the tobacco program. It is a hotly contested program. but it is a good program. The Senator from Kansas intends to support it in the future. That is one vote. and we do not raise tobacco in our State. It seems to me we do not gain a great deal. even though there is a lot of frustration. and has been for several days about this bill. I did not realize this bill was so controversial. The 5cent gas tax. in the view of this Senator. is a good bill. With regard to the revenue title. the House and Senate conferees on the revenue title have arrived at a reasonable compromise level of taxes on heavy trucks. The various levels of heavy truck use tax that have been proposed are: Administration2.700 per year immediately. House-$2.000 per year beginning Senate Finance-$1.600 per year phased in from January 1. 1984. to Senate1.200 per year phased in from January 1. 1984. to January 1. Conference-$1.600 per year for 2 years. beginning July 1. 1984. increasing to $1.900 per year by $100 increments from July 1. 1986. to July 1. At the highest level. which is not reached until 1989. the tax is still $100 short to the House levelwhich is imposed in 1984and $800 short of the administration levelwhich would have been imposed immediately. There will be no heavy use tax increase until July 1984. For the following 5 years. the total amounts paid on the heaviest trucknote: this is cumulativeunder the various proposals would be: Administration. $13.500. House. $10.000. Senate Finance. $6.600. Senate. $4.280. conference compromise. $7.770. On that basis. the compromise is only 40 percent of the difference between the Senate position and the administration proposal. It is close to splitting the difference between the House and Senate. Additionally. the conference committee compromise eliminates all taxes on truck parts. lubricating oil. inner tubes. and tread rubber. The Senate had retained all of those taxes on heavy trucks. Now some additional points on the SenateHouse compromise userfee structure. the effect on heavy trucks: Firsttimeuse tax increase starts is July 1. 1984later than both the Senate or House provisions which started increases on January 1. 1984. Vehicles destroyed or stolen can get refunds for the remainder of the year on the use tax. Owners of five or less trucks are allowed 1 year further on the phasein. Vehicles with less than 5.000 annual miles are exempt from the tax. Heavy trucks: Relieved of all the taxes on tread rubber5 cents per pound. Relieved of all their taxes on inner tubes10 cents per pound. Relieved of all their taxes on lubricating oil6 cents per pound. Relieved of all the current taxes on truck and trailer parts8 percent of sales price. Phasein: The phasein provisions. including the 1year delay in beginning the tax will allow time for the economy to improve and the size and weight productivity benefits to take hold. The trucking industry is a leading indicator of the economy and always performs well in a resurging economy. We have dealt fairly with the trucking companies. They have been loading up on that side. The administration bill would have cost some of the heavier trucks over the 5year period $13.500. The House bill was about $10.000. The Finance Committee went down to $4.400. The Senate bill itself went down to $4.200. the conference report was $7.700. That may seem extremely high. but this rate has not been adjusted for 20 years. In addition to that. I say to my friend about the impact it might have that none of these takes effect until July 1. 1984. There is a great deal of time there. If. in fact. we determine there has been too severe an impact on any one industry. we can make that correction. If it is an independent owneroperator with five or fewer trucks. the phasein will not begin until January 1. 1985. It seems to me we have set the stage for a sound program. and I hope we can focus on the bill. We did our best in the conference. I know Senator STAFFORD and those in his conference and Senator GARN and others did their best. Some would indicate that we did not do well enough. I really hope we can just focus for whatever time we have before the vote on the bill itself. We all have time constraints and this Senator is not going to occupy the floor any longer.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Will the Senator yield for a question?

S

Mr. EXON

Unknown

EXON

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I am happy to yield.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

In the interest of fairness. would it not be a good idea. with a halfhour remaining. to get agreement if we could that the time be equally divided between majority and minority. so that we may have some equality of time in the halfhour left?

S

Mr. EXON

Unknown

EXON

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I do not quarrel with anything. I do not divide the time. or give back the time. I do not know how the time has been divided in the past hourandahalf.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I would like to ask the Senator from Kansas if we can explore the possibilityI understand the desire of the Senator from North Carolina to respond. Certainly. he should be given time to do that. But with the problem of some people trying to catch airplanes to get back to their States. if we could possibly advance the time. with the understanding that those who care to speak further will be able to do sois there objection to advancing the time?

S

Mr. BENTSEN

Unknown

BENTSEN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator from Kansas is now prepared to yield the floor.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator from Kansas still has the floor.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I understand the time has been about equally divided and if it would expedite matters. if it is satisfactory to everyone. we could divide the time. Does anybody object to dividing the time 15 minutes on a side? The minority leader is here.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

There is no objection on this side.

S

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD

ROBERT C.

BYRD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Any objection?

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Without objection. the time will be equally divided between both sides.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

In the control of the minority and majority leaders or their designee.

S

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD

ROBERT C.

BYRD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

In that case I designate Senator BENTSEN.

S

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD

ROBERT C.

BYRD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

And I designate Senator DoL.

S

Mr. BAKER

Unknown

BAKER

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator has the floor.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

I would appreciate 5 minutes. and if I could have order in the Chamber. Mr. President. I would appreciate it.

S

Mr. EAST

Unknown

EAST

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senate is not in order. Senators are asked to take their seats. The Senator from North Carolina may proceed.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. we have seen here this morning from the distinguished Senator from Kentucky some comments upon the tobacco program and that issue as it relates generally to this gas tax bill issue. I should like to note that the Senator from Kentucky. for whom I have the greatest affection. is. of course. chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. and I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues he is saying exactly the same thing that the Democratic Party of North Carolina was saying yesterday in Raleigh. So if you wonder whether there may be some communication between the two. the answer to that would be. yes. in the affirmative. Now. you might say. "Well. Senator. fine. What is your position on it as the Senator from North Carolina?" I have always in North Carolinaand I do here in the U.S. Senatemake this issue of the wellbeing of tobacco as an industry a nonpartisan issue. I have never in my State and I have never here on the Senate floor attacked any person in a partisan way on this issue. and I never will. because those who represent tobacco States know that the wellbeing of the tobacco industry transcends any partisan differences. We know that Democrats and Republicans in office. in North Carolina or here in the Nations capital. are always united in their desire to see that the best interests of tobacco are served. and that is where I stand on the matter and will continue always to honor my own rule on that point. Here would be the problem. you see. following another line of reasoning with the comment of the distinguished Senator. If you allowed yourself to be held hostage by threats of intimidation that you did not take positions on totally extraneous issues in conformity with someone elses wishes or they would retaliate on the tobacco program or some other area. that would be an untenable position to take. And knowing the character and integrity of the Members of this body. I know they would not do that. You would be totally impotent as a Senator if the word were out that you can be manipulated every minute by simply threatening something that is important to you. Fortunately. this body does not work that way. They respect that very diverse issues come before us and they must be dealt with on their own merit. That is what I am doing on the gas tax bill. and it has absolutely nothing to do with the tobacco program in North Carolina or here. Now. the distinguished Senator from Nebraska has pointed out in a very wellreasoned speech this morning the very adverse effect this gas tax bill will have on farms in the United States. I have an obligation coming from a great farming State. including tobacco. to resist the gas tax. So I must do that. just to represent my constituents. But they have nothing to do with each other. I think it is very unfortunate that the distinguished Senator. for whom I yield to no one in my admiration and respect as an individual and as a very effective legislator for his State and for tobacco interests. should have allowed the issue of partisanship to arise.

S

Mr. EAST

Unknown

EAST

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senators 5 minutes have expired.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

So I do appreciate the opportunity to have responded to that charge.

S

Mr. EAST

Unknown

EAST

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Who yields time?

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

I ask unanimous consent for another 30 seconds.

S

Mr. EAST

Unknown

EAST

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator yields 1 minute.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

I have appreciated the indulgence of my colleagues to allow me to respond to that. These are two separate issues and to be effective as a Senator and to maintain my personal integrity. I have to have the right to evaluate each and every issue on its own merit. and I think every Member of this body would understand and respect that right. The implications of intimidation are totally inappropriate. and I regret they were made. I wish to say. finally. I am a great admirer of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky because the tobacco program has no greater defender than he in this Chamber.

S

Mr. EAST

Unknown

EAST

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator from Kansas.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Will the majority leader yield 1 minute?

S

Mr. SARBANES

Unknown

SARBANES

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator from Texas is delighted to delegate a minute to the Senator from Maryland.

S

Mr. BENTSEN

Unknown

BENTSEN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator from Maryland is recognized.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I think in order to set the record straight it is important to quote a little parliamentary history. When the Senator from Kentucky was speaking earlier. the junior Senator from North Carolina called on him to yield and asserted that he should do so. He later addressed a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair suggesting that it was necessary for him to do so but the Chair made it clear that it was not necessary under the rules. In light of that inquiry. I simply want to quote what occurred on the floor of this Senate not all that many hours ago. It reflects. in my judgment. the breakdown in civility and procedures in this body and shows an unwillingness by some to recognize that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The quote as set out in the morning paper is as follows: Mr. (Paul) Tsongas: Will the Senator yield? Mr. (John P.) East: No. Mr. Tsongas: The senator used my name previously. and I would like to respond. Mr. East: I understand that. A parliamentary inquiry. The fact that I used a name does not obligate me under the rules of the Senate to yield. will it? Of course. the response which the Chair made earlier corresponded to the one it just made. I simply note that the very point that the junior Senator from North Carolina was asserting against the Senator from Kentucky only a few minutes ago--

S

Mr. SARBANES

Unknown

SARBANES

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senators time has expired.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

He himself invoked not long ago in the course of this debate.

S

Mr. SARBANES

Unknown

SARBANES

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.

S

Mr. BENTSEN

Unknown

BENTSEN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

One minute would be fine. I have a question for the Senator from Kansas. As the Senator from Kansas knows. I along with Senator SPECTER offered an amendment which would extend unemployment compensation benefits from 2 to 6 weeks. depending on the State. for unemployed Americans to this gas tax bill. And along with the help of the Senator from Kansas and Senator DOMENICI and others we were able to finally affix this amendment extending unemployment benefits to the gas tax bill as it went through the Senate. Without this amendment two million Americans are going to exhaust their unemployed benefits by March. My question to the Senator from Kansas is this: Was this amendment retained intact by the conference? Is it on this bill?

S

Mr. LEVIN

Unknown

LEVIN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Yes. the modified LevinDoleDomeniciSpecter amendment was maintained intact. And I commend the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his inititative. In my view. it should have been done. it was done. and would not have been done without his efforts and we appreciate it. I might say that had we been able to bring the CBI bill to the floor--

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The time of the Senator from Michigan has expired.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

I yield myself 1 minutewe were prepared to even add additional benefits but that may come later.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I thank the Senator.

S

Mr. LEVIN

Unknown

LEVIN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. passage of this legislation brings us closer to a goal of regional equity in transportation policy. Ever since a..- inspired civil engineer named Bertram Tallamy designed the New York State Thruway some 5 years before the inauguration of the Interstate Highway System. the State of New York has prided itself upon its advanced highway system. Yet we have too often been shortchanged by the Federal Government when it comes to allocating money from the highway trust fund. Indeed until enactment of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978. New York was. year in and year out. paying more money into the highway trust fund than it was receiving. We took a step toward correcting this Inequity in 1978. and now. with the passage of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. we have at last righted the imbalance. The bridge cap. an altogether arbitrary and unreasonable highway limit on the amount of money New York can receive under the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program. has been lifted from 8 to 10 percentNew York is entitled to 15.7 percent of bridge funds under the most recent Federal Highway Administration inventory. A new apportionment formula for primary roads. which more accurately reflects a States funding needs. will increase New Yorks share from 5 to 5.7 percent. We have more than doubled the authorization for the Interstate 4R program. which provides for the reconstruction and repair of our older Interstate highways. a good number of which are in New York. Finally. for the first time. 1 cent per gallon of the increased gas tax will be dedicated to mass transit capital projects. Although allocation of the $1.1 billion thus raised will be discretionary. experience leads us to believe that New York will receive as much as $200 million of this sum. This legislation is not perfect. Inequities still existthe bridge cap. for instance. should be lifted entirely. But as one of the Senate conferees on this measure. I am proud to support it and I strongly urge my colleagues to do likewise. Under this measure. New York State will receive $2.5 billion in highway funds over the next 4 yearsfiscal year 1983 to fiscal year 1986and should our recent proportion be maintained. some $800 million in mass transit funds. This makes for a total of $3.3 billion. There has of course been a tax increase. However under the bill now passed. highway users in New York State will pay $2.1 billion in highway use taxes over the next 4 years. while the State and its various subdivisions will receive back some $3.3 billion. It is a rare day when New York obtains any advantage from the working of Federal funding formulas. It is a special day indeed when we obtain a margin of this magnitude. I would point out. however. that this scarcely makes up for a quarter century of being short changed.

S

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Unknown

MOYNIHAN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I support the passage of the Surface Transportation Act. because immediate action is needed to create jobs and because of the need to repair our highways and bridges. This legislation promises jobs for 320.000 workers. 170.000 of these workers will be in the construction trades. wherein the jobless rate is 22 percent. Some critics have argued that the measure is an antijobs bill. because the number of jobs it creates is negligible. My response is that 320.000 jobs is not negligible. True. the number of unemployed is great compared with the number of jobs promised by this legislation. But we must start at some point. Especially with the deletion of the jobs program from the continuing appropriations resolution. the highway jobs program is the only significant public works program that can be enacted this year. The bills critics also argue that the legislation will take away consumer money and consumerrelated jobs. They argue that the purchasing power of consumers will be curbed as their money is taxed away by the proposed 5centsagallon excise tax increase on motor fuels. This Senator questions the validity of this assertion. Gasoline prices have fallen. but consumers are not spending this savings. Just as taxpayers are not spending their tax cut. they are not spending their price savings. Consumers are saving all the money they can get from their tax cut and from price cuts. Consumers are so apprehensive of the future. that they are reducing their spending and they are saving all that they possibly can. And when consumers are not spending. there is no reason for businesses to invest in new. expanded plants and equipment. Something must be done to help consumers regain confidence in our economy. If individuals and businesses are not spending and are not making capital investments. the economy will come to a halt. We are already forced with a bankruptcy rate which is the worst. since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Federal Government must install confidence in our economic future. It must maintain and even initiate economic activity when the future looks as dark as it does now. and inspire and motivate individuals and businesses to join in the upward movement. None of the legislations critics have questioned the need to repair our highway system. The infrastructure that keeps commerce going. is falling apart. Member after Member during the debate cited instances of bridge and road disrepair hampering commercial transportation as well as individual travel. However. the critics argue that the tax is regressive. it taxes the poor and the rich equally. I believe the incometax structure should be progressive. But there are areas where a uniform tax rate is appropriate. This is the case with the financing of the highway system. Rich and poor. businesses and individuals. use the Nations bridges and highways. All users ought to pay for their construction and maintenance. and they ought to pay in proportion to their use of the roads. H.R. 6211 attempts to do this. The Surface Transportation Act is needed and its financing mechanism is appropriate. I support its passage and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

S

Mr. MATSUNAGA

Unknown

MATSUNAGA

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I want to reiterate my gratitude to the distinguished ranking minority member of the Banking Committee

S

Mr. CRANSTON

Unknown

CRANSTON

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. after much very careful deliberation. I have decided to support the conference report on H.R. 6211. the Surface Transportation Act of 1982. Mr. President. this measure is not perfect by any means. I believe. however. that we must take action now to begin rebuilding the surface transportation infrastructure of our Nation. Clearly. our Nations roads and bridges are sorely in need of repair. and the prospects are for a worsening of this situation unless we promptly commit a larger share of our Nations resources to the improvement of our surface transportation system. Through passage of this bill. we are demonstrating the willingness to make that commitment. Moreover. Mr. President. at a time when so many Americans are out of work. this legislation offers the hope of new jobspossibly as many as 320.000 new employment opportunities. This is not primarily a jobs bill. but it certainly should help to relieve the staggering high rate of unemployment and bankruptcy in the heavy construction industry. Mr. President. while I have concluded that on balance this bill should pass. I remain deeply concerned about the potential impact of this legislation on several key industries. Specifically. I do not wish to see an undue burden placed on the trucking industry. which renders such great service and is so vital to our national economy. The sharp increase in the heavy vehicle highway use tax proposed by this bill could be too much to bear for many independent truckers and transport firms. unless we have a strong economic recovery. I am confident. however. that the economy is beginning to revive. With the phase in of the increased roaduse tax provided in the conference report. and with the aid of a vibrant. growing economy. I am hopeful that the trucking industry will be able to absorb higher taxes. Additionally. I am concerned about the new manufacturers excise tax on tires contained in this legislation. Under the conference report. tire weight less than 40 pounds would carry no tax. tire weight between 40 and 70 pounds would carry a tax of 15 cents a pound. tire weight between 70 and 90 pounds would carry a tax of 30 cents a pound. and tire weight over 90 pounds would be taxed at the rate of 50 cents a pound. Mr. President. this formula appears to impose a higher tax burden on steelbelted radial tires than on conventional biasply tires of the same size and load rating. despite the fact that the steelbelted radial tire is less damaging to the highway. more fuel efficient and a more technologically advanced product. If this new excise tax structure has the effect of creating a competitive disadvantage for manufacturers of radial tires. as these manufacturers fear. that would be most unfortunate. Clearly. it would not be in the national interest to discourage the purchase and use of a productthe steelbelted radial tirewhich is inherently superior and more in keeping with our established goals of energy conservation. safety. and others. Mr. President. I have discussed both the concerns of the trucking industry and those of the tire manufacturers with key administration officials in the Department of Transportation and the Treasury Department. I have secured commitments from the administration. the Secretary of Transportation. and the Senate majority leader that they would cooperate in rectifying any undue burden imposed under this bill or any unreasonable tax contained in it. Certainly. for my part. I shall remain sensitive to the effects of this legislation on trucking firms operating on our highways and on radial tire manufacturers.

S

Mr. THURMOND

Unknown

THURMOND

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I rise to discuss the tax provisions of the Surface Transportation Act of 1982. The conferees labored today to resolve the differences between the two bills. which were great in many instances. A primary area of controversy was the user fee imposed on the heaviest trucks. The administration proposed a $2.700 fee. the Senate adopted a $1.200 fee. and the Conference Committee settled upon a steeply escalating fee structure. In my opinion. this rapidly escalating fee schedule is too harsh. I would encourage Senator DOLE and other members of the Committee on Finance to reexamine the dramatic increases before it becomes effective on July 1. 1984. when the fee jumps from $240 to $1.600. As the elected representative of many individuals who are concerned with the efficiency of our national transportation system. I feel it is imperative we review this issue to be sure the industry can afford to pay the increased fees when they become effective. Another disagreement I have with the work product of the conferees is their elimination of the 9cent exemption for gasohol. The conference agreement contains a 5cent exemption from the Federal excise tax for this important alternative fuel. Gasohol is currently 40 percent of the fuel consumed in my home State of Iowa. It is a clean. efficient fuel which is manufactured in the United States. For national security and conservation reasons. I strongly believe it is in the Nations best interest to retain the full Federal excise tax exemption for this important fuel. The conferees did make some headway in removing many of the smaller excise taxes which create paperwork problems for businessmen and the Federal Government. The conferees removed the tax on tread rubber and truck parts. Additionally. the conferees retained an amendment which I authored which delayed the effective date of the userfee provisions for 1 year for independent owner operators. Under Senator DOLEs able leadership. the class of independent owner operators eligible for the exemption was expanded from those truckers who own three tractorspower unitsto those truckers who own five or fewer power units. This is an important modification for many of my constituents. which I approve. No compromise is perfect. Working under tremendous time pressure. the Senate conferees endeavored to reach an agreement which would be acceptable to this body. There are many parts of this agreement. such as the increased userfee structure and the elimination of the gasohol exemption. which I do not endorse. Nevertheless. the public works aspects of this legislation have some very tangible benefits for my State. As I stated earlier. 68 percent of the pavement on Iowas main road system is deficient. This represents nearly 18.000 miles of Iowas road system which carries over 87 percent of our States total traffic volume. Well over 13.000 bridges in Iowa have been identified as deficient. These bridges fall into two categoriesstructurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Four hundred of these bridges need immediate repair. Based upon present needs alone. it would take an average of $625.6 million annually to meet the growing backlog of road and bridge renewal needs. Notwithstanding this enromous need. it is estimated that Iowa will have only $342 million for road and bridge revitalization. Clearly. major action must be taken quickly to assure that our roads do not fall into disrepair. Under the present level of Federal support. Iowa receives $94.7 million. With the passage of the conference report to H.R. 6211. Iowa will receive $143.5 million for fiscal year 1983. For fiscal year 1984. we will receive $152.5 million. plus another $63.4 million for interstate highway transfer projects. During the next year. $166 million. plus $63.4 million will be directed to Iowas highways and bridges. In fiscal year 1987. $177.5 million plus $63.4 million will be available. Even with the increased gas and user taxes. our needs will not be completely met. But any additional road funds will help in order to keep our roads safe and well maintained. Since there is no question that more money is needed. the real issues becomes how much should each user pay. An extensive Department of Transportation study. supported by the Congressional Budget Office. the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. engineer and design professionals. and actual practitioners found great inequities in the sharing of highway costs associated with damage caused by various vehicles. This study found that by 1985. the current system of user fees will require automobiles to shoulder 100 percent of their cost responsibilities. 110 percent from pickup trucks and vans. 200 percent from single unit trucks. and 125 percent from single and doubletrailer trucks of less than 70.000 pounds. Trucks over 70.000 pounds. however. will only pay 65 percent of their cost responsibility. Consequently. the DOT recommended changes in the excise tax system to shift the burden from other drivers to that of the heavy trucks in order to strike a more equitable balance. The focus of our debate has seemed to center around the cost to heavy trucks. and this cost burden has been a great concern of mine. But in view of the fact that my State of Iowa has a wide range of trucks. I was interested in a breakdown of the distribution of trucks registered in Iowa. The Iowa Department of Transportation provided me with the following analysis. Six percent of trucks registered in Iowa are heavy trucks based in Iowa and would be required to pay the maximum fee under this new legislation. Another 8.5 percent are registered over 55.000 pounds. 33.5 percent are registered under 55.000 pounds. and 32 percent are registered over 26.000 pounds. The remaining 21 percent of trucks registered in Iowa fall under the international registration plan. These statistics indicate most trucks in Iowa will pay only a portion of the new fee increases. Another very important point about this new legislation is that it contains significant benefits for truckers in terms of increased productivity. By 1985. truckers will enjoy nearly $5 billion annually in increased productivity from the changes in weight. length. and width limitations. By eliminating the barrier States of Missouri. Illinois. and Arkansas. truckers will gain $830 million yearly. By allowing doubles to travel in the East. $1.8 billion will be gained. $1.27 billion will be gained by allowing increased trailer lengths and $540 million in increased productivity will result from wider allowances. These gains are very important. A great number of Iowa truckers now have to avoid the barrier States by driving hundreds of miles out of their way or they must haul loads far below their potential payload. . nese barrier States represent more than an inconvenience. they represent heavy profit losses. For the unfortunate truck operator caught overweight in these States. it means expensive fines. Just the other day. a trucker called my office to express his deep concerns about the increased costs of the proposed fees. Once the benefits were described. however. he felt very good about the bill. He had just been fined over $800 for an overweight load while traveling through Illinois. The elimination of these costly fines with the permission now to haul full loads provided this trucker with benefits far outweighing the cost of the additional fees. He stated that if more truckers were aware of these benefits. there would be much more support for the bill. The lack of information about the benefits and actual costs of this new package. unfortunately. has caused a great deal of concern among the trucking industry. One must conclude that once the whole story is told. the merits of this legislation will become far clearer for all highway users. For these reasons. I have decided to support this final package. As I stated. I would have preferred the Senate version. but this compromise package still holds considerable benefits for all highway users in our Nation.

S

Mr. GRASSLEY

Unknown

GRASSLEY

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6211. legislation to increase the Federal tax on gasoline by 5 cents a gallon. and to substantially increase user fees on a variety of products vital to the highway transportation industry. In deciding to cast my vote against H.R. 6211. I sought answers to four questionsquestions which I believe speak to the heart of the issue before the Congress here today. One. is another tax increase on the American people necessary. and if so. when is the appropriate time to raise taxes? Mr. President. I am not sure there is ever an appropriate time to raise taxes short of war or some other overwhelming national need. But I am sure that the appropriate time to raise taxes on the American people is not now. It is not right nor justifiable on economic grounds to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. When the overwhelming national need at the moment is economic recovery and growth. it makes no sense whatsoever to impede that growth with yet another tax increase. Especially a tax increase that falls the hardest in working people and small businesses. the very sector we should be encouraging. There is another aspect to this issue of timing. For the first time in many years. gasoline prices at the pump have actually gone down. The result has been lower production costs for related businesses. lower costs of living for working people. and a lower rate of inflation. In the midst of this positive economic development. does it not make sense to reverse course and head in the wrong direction? I think not. So the answer to the first question is negative. Two. will this legislation. this tax increase. create jobs? At best. Mr. President. the jobcreating effect of this bill will be a wash. In other words. as many jobs will be lost in those industries directly affected by these tax increases as will be created by the Federal Government transferring the new revenue into other jobs. At worst. there will be a substantial job loss and a further blow to economic recovery. So the answer to the second question is negative. Three. are added provisions of this tax increase bill. such as expanding DavisBacon provisions. justified by the overall intended effect of the legislation. which is to repair and rebuild the Nations highways and bridges while at the same time putting people to work? Again. Mr. President. the answer is negative. The expanded DavisBacon provisions alone will add unwarranted costs of from $300 to $400 million to the price of repairing the Nations roads and bridges. while resulting in the loss of 40.000 jobs. according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expanded DavisBacon provisions alone are enough to warrant opposition to the bill. Four. if a highway bill is that important. if the repair of our Nations roads and bridges is so urgent that it cannot wait even 6 months. or until economy is headed out of recession and toward recovery. why then cannot $5 billion be found in some other area of the Federal budget to transfer into a highway program? Mr. President. the answer to this last question is positive. The money can be found in this bloated Federal budget. The money can be transferred from some other less urgent program into a highway program. The Amerian people would support such a move. So why a tax increase in the middle of a recession? This bill does not make good economic sense. It does not make good political sense. It does not make good commonsense. It is the wrong move. at the wrong time. for the wrong reasons. Therefore. Mr. President. I will vote against H.R. 6211.

S

Mr. MATTINGLY

Unknown

MATTINGLY

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. the measure before us gives me mixed feelings. I fully realize the serious problems we face as a nation with our highway system. There is a need to complete certain parts of the systemthe Interstateand there is a need to repair a large part of that system. And I recognize that this falls within the realm of the Federal Government to complete these necessary and vital tasks. However. I am concerned with the way we are going about raising the revenue to do the job. The question we must ask ourselves is: Is what we are doing and the method we are using to do it the right way? Truckers. motorists. State departments of transportation. Government officials. environmentalists. and average citizensall have expressed serious concerns both for and against this measure. Some of the questions are easily answered. Others can only be guessed at. From the material presented. I know how much tax will be paid by an 80.000pound truck. But we have no idea how many truckers will go out of business because of what we are about to do here today. Will this legislation create jobs? We do not know. and we all have our doubts. It must be remembered that this legislation contains more than highway funds. On the surface. if you look at the highway trust fund figures. Iowa does well. The amount of highway trust fund moneys coming into my State under the Conference formulawhile not as good as those that would have been provided under the Senate formulaare apparently satisfactory for our current needs. In the socalled outyears. we will once again be looking for a new authorization. It is hard to overlook this financial benefit for Iowa. Especially when one considers that there are 25.000 bridges in the State. Of those. 14.000 have some type of deficiency. and 400 are in immediate repair. They are now embargoed or soon will be. A total of 600 bridges will need some type of repair work in the next 5 years. And of the 4.500 bridges on the primary road system. 1.100 are more than 50 years old and are designed for 15ton trucks. not 40ton trucks. It is hard to overlook the fact that Iowa has more than 3.000 miles of pavement which is over 50 years old. And one must keep in mind that design life expectancy is only 20 years. Also. there is 3.600 miles of substandard narrow road in a State road system which is 8.800 miles long. This road is narrower than 24 feet and in some places. as narrow as 13 feet. One also should remember that there are two major bridges which must be replaced across the Mississippi River at Keokuk and Burlington. There is a new bridge under discussion in Davenport. and bridges must be replaced over the Missouri River on Highways 2 and 30. This scenario can be repeated across the Nation. and underlines the need for this legislation.

S

Mr. JEPSEN

Unknown

JEPSEN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I must vote against the "Surface Transportation Act of 1982" for several reasons. First. last year. the Florida State legislature overwhelmingly rejected a 5cent increase in the gas tax. The people of Florida clearly reject the notion of an increase in the gas tax. Second. this gas tax is a regressive tax which hits the working people the hardest. Regardless of income. everyone must pay the same amount. Five cents a gallon might not sound like much. but this means $1 more every time you fill a 20gallon tank. For the average driver. this means about $40 to $50 more a year. Third. raising taxes during a recession is counterproductive. Increasing Federal revenues by $5.5 billion means that much less spending power in the hands of consumers. We should focus on strengthening our economy. If we stimulate the economy. we will have the money to spend on capital improvements without a new tax. A 1percent drop in unemployment improves the Governments revenues by $17.2 billion. Fourth. increasing the Federal gas tax to repair roads and bridges is not a job for the Federal Government. President Reagans New Federalism would dictate that if States want to repair their roads. they should raise their own gas taxes. Revenues raised at the State level would buy more since Federal contracts generally cost more than State contracts because Federal contractors must comply with Federal rules and regulations. DavisBacon for one. The revenues from this tax increase would not be used to repair or improve city. county. or State roads. Instead. the revenues will be used to improve the Federal interstate highways. The average highway mileage on the noninterstate part of the highways greatly surpasses the mileage on the interstate roads. This Federal program will simply redistribute incomesome States will be winners and others will be substantial losers. Instead of contributing $1 to a Federal program and getting back 85 cents. does it not make more sense to have a State program and get back exactly what you put in? Finally. Mr. President. this bill has been rushed through Congress too rapidly. The conference committee concluded their work Wednesday. December 22. and produced a partially handwritten document nearly 2 inches thick. The next morning. the Senate was expected to vote on this legislation. This timeframe did not permit a thoughtful analysis on this bill. For these reasons. Mr. President. I cannot support the "Surface Transportation Act of 1982."

S

Mrs. HAWKINS

Unknown

HAWKINS

Unknown

F

12231982.txt

Mr. President. two days ago the full Senate considered the Surface Transportation Act of 1982. As I said at the time. I wanted to deliver a message to the conferees that the Senate bill did not deliver enough Federal dollars to New Jersey. I wanted to make clear that anything short of a fair deal for New Jersey would be unacceptable to this Senator. I am pleased to say that the message got through and with the help of Congressman JIM HOWARD of New Jersey the measure before us is a substantial improvement over the original Senate version. The bill before us boosts New Jerseys overall Federal aid for mass transit. highways. bridges. and roads by $106 million. a 34 percent increase over what we now receive under current law and $50 million more than the Senate bill I rejected 2 days ago. First. the 4R program which provides funds for the reconstruction. resurfacing. restoration. and rehabilitation of our interstate highways is kept as in current law. rejecting a Senate proposal to change the program. The Senate proposal would have changed current law by distributing funds to a greater extent on how many vehicles actually travel on the highways. Since vehicle traffic is. of course. responsible for most highway deterioration. it would have made no sense to change current law so as to provide less repair funds for States such as New Jersey with heavy vehicle traffic. The change by the HouseSenate conferees means that New Jersey will get over $7.5 million each year for interstate repair which we would not have received under the Senate version. The conferees also wisely rejected the proposal in the Senate bill which would have changed the bridge repair formula. The Senate bill would have ignored the different costs incurred by States in bridge repair and replacement. but the bridge program approved by the conferees is sensitive to the different costs and needs in different States and allocates the funds accordingly. This provision will mean an extra $10 million per year which New Jersey would not have received under the Senate version of the bill. In the mass transit portion. the conference report clearly rejects the attempts of this administration to wipe out operating subsidies for New Jerseys hardpressed mass transit systems. While I am distressed that there is any reduction in mass transit. we have protected 80 percent of our mass transit operating aid for the next 3 years. For the first time. mass transit operating subsidies have become a form of entitlement. No matter what pressures the White House brings to cut operating subsidies. States are assured that 80 percent of 1982 operating subsidies will come off the top of any transportation assistance. Thus mass transit will remain available to families of moderate means and States will be able to know what they will get from the Federal Government and to allocate their resources accordingly. The conferees also fortunately rejected a Senate amendment which would have limited the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide mass transportation aid for capital investments. By rejecting this amendment. it is estimated that New Jersey will receive about $15 million more per year in mass transit investment aid than it would have otherwise received. In addition. for the first time the discretionary fund of the Secretary will be allocated by a formula that takes population into consideration and therefore means more for New Jersey. It is true this legislation could have been better if we had adopted my amendment to exempt. from the tax. working families earning under $10.000. or if we had adopted the Democratic alternative which had a more generous jobs component and replaced the excise taxes with a revenueraising plan to defer the July tax cut for incomes over $65.000. Notwithstanding these reservations. I believe that on balance the bill before us is responsive to New Jerseys interests. It offers the prospect of substantial Federal funding to ease the burden of unemployment in my State and to improve the backbone of our economy. our transportation system. The additional $106 million for New Jersey over current lawwhich is $50 million more for New Jersey than in the Senatepassed bill and which brings New Jerseys total Federal transportation assistance to $477 millionis expected to cost the State an additional $14 million that currently is not budgeted. But the work can be accomplished under this legislation is work that must be done for the health of our States economy. Therefore I am hopeful that despite New Jerseys current budget crisis. the State government will see its way clear to take advantage of this important opportunity to repair our roads and bridges. to refurbish our mass transit system. and to put thousands of New Jerseyites back to work.

S

Mr. BRADLEY

Unknown

BRADLEY

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I am pleased to see a final version of the Surface Transportation Act of 1982 finally before the Senate. There were times during the tortured legislative process this bill has been through that I thought it would never make it this far. The bill has made it this far because it is good legislation. good for the country and good for Illinois. It is not without flaws. I do not support all of its provisions. However. it is vitally important legislation. We have. for too long. let our basic transportation systems deteriorate. This legislation is an essential step in the process of reconstructing our highways and mass transit systems. Without it. roads would continue to crumble and transit systems continue to run down. The legislation will provide more than $27 billion in new money. financed by a 5cent increase in Federal motor fuel taxes. for expansion of Federal highway and transit programs. Increased Federal revenues for highway and transit programs will mean greatly increased Federal support for transportation projects in Illinois. Illinois will benefit from increases in overall funding and changes in apportionment formulas that work to provide more funds to areas with the greatest need. There are a number of provisions of particular importance to Illinois. First. the bill caps the interstate transfer program construction cost adjustment mechanism based on costs of construction as of June 30. 1980. rather than the September 30. 1983. date contained in the bill when it was first taken up by the Senate. The current severe recession has artificially reduced construction costs. I was pleased to offer the amendment changing the date to one that more accurately reflects true longterm construction costs. I am glad to see that my amendment is included in the final version of the bill before us today. The bill also includes my amendment to clarify the interstate transfer program. It insures that project approval deadlines are not interpreted in a way that will unduly restrict States in making use of interstate transfer funds over the next 6 years or more. Further. the bill makes two Illinois bridgesa bridge section of the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago. and the Clark Bridge over the Mississippi River at Alton. Ill.-priority candidates for funding under the discretionary bridge program. The Dan Ryan Bridge currently carries over 225.000 vehicles per day. It is in desperate need of upgrading. and the bill will provide the $60 to $70 million required. The Clark Bridge was built in 1928. is functionally obsolete. and the bill will provide the $80 million needed for its replacement. The bill also makes the new bridge across the Illinois River at LaSallePeru eligible for discretionary bridge program funding. This amendment was offered in the Senate by my distinguished senior colleague from Illinois. Senator PERCY. and myself. The project is an essential part of the reconstruction of U.S. 51. one of Illinois highest transportation priorities. The bill. although it phases out the priority primary program. one of the chief funding sources for U.S. 51. demonstrates an awareness of the importance of the project by including a demonstration program that would provide additional funds for it. U.S. 51 is one of the key transportation arteries in Illinois. and greatly needs upgrading and expansion. so the funds the bill will provide is particularly useful. The transit title of the bill also contains a provision of particular interest to Illinois. although. as I stated earlier. the general restructuring and expansion of the transit program will greatly benefit urban areas. both large and small. around the State. The bill includes a provision I authored that will assist the regional transportation authority in the Chicago metropolitan area to purchase the commuter rail lines operated by the bankrupt Rock Island and Milwaukee Road Railroads. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to give priority to applications for discretionary capital funds needed to purchase such lines. This section will help insure that commuter rail service on the two bankrupt lines will continue without interruption. insuring that tens of thousands of area commuters will be able to continue to reach their jobs. Mr. President. I have attempted to highlight some provisions in the transportation package of particular interest to my State. I want to thank the managers of the Senate and House versions of the bill for their consideration of Illinois transportation needs. I also want to thank my senior colleague from Illinois. Senator PERCY. for his hard work and diligence. He and I have worked very closely together in seeing that issues of concern to Illinois in the transportation area are dealt with. Finally. I want to thank my colleagues. the Members of the Illinois delegation in the House of Representatives. Without their great efforts. the bill would not address Illinois needs as well as it does.

S

Mr. DIXON

Unknown

DIXON

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. the automobile has been important to our Nations development. but like many other technological advances. this tool can be dangerousfatally dangerouswhen misused. Over 50.000 Americans die each year on this Nations highways. Many of these deaths are due to driver error. yet we do not have adequate driver education programs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has done much to improve the safety of vehicles. but little to improve the safety consciousness of those who drive them. Mr. Fraydun Manocherian. who operates the New York Health and Racquet Club in New York City. is one citizen who has tried for many years to do something about this problem. Last Monday. for example. he placed a full page advertisement in the New York Times asking that 2 percent of the money that we intend to raise under this billonetenth of 1 cent per gallon of gasbe set aside for such safety education as dramatizing the importance of good driver judgment. teaching safe driving techniques. making certain that all drivers are aware of traffic safety laws. making the public aware of the major causes of accidents. and demonstrating the horrible results of accidents that each week kill over 1.000 persons and maim or injure another 7.000. I regret that the tightness of our current budget and the speed with which this legislation has had to be considered have made it impossible to enact Mr. Manocherians proposal this year. I think that it is a good idea and one that should receive full consideration by the Environment and Public Works Committee in the new Congress. I commend Mr. Manocherian for his public spirit and encourage him to continue his efforts. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Manocherians proposal appear at this point in the RECORD:

S

Mr. HEINZ

Unknown

HEINZ

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I am going to vote against this legislation. I have no higher legislative priority than helping to find jobs for the more than 11 million Americans. many of them Ohioans. who are out of work. I have spent countless hours in recent months working to ease the suffering of the unemployed. So I yield to no one in my desire to create jobs. But the fact is. this is not a jobs bill. It is a tax bill. masquerading as a jobs bill. It is not only a tax bill. it is a bad tax bill. The gasoline tax is unquestionably a regressive tax which falls most heavily on those least able to pay it. This administration and this Congress have already done enough to add to the tax burden of these people. Just a few months ago. we passed a bill doubling the cigarette tax and reducing the medical deduction. And 1 year ago we passed a tax bill whose benefits flowed mainly to the wealthy. The tax might be defensible if it would. in fact. create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But that clearly will not be the result. Indeed. there is persuasive evidence that the tax will actually lead to a net reduction in employment. According to Martin Feldstein. Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. the tax may actually increase unemployment during the first year or two. I believe Mr. Feldstein is correct. I also believe that my State of Ohio will be among the biggest losers if this program is enacted. In 1984. the first full year that the new tax would be collected. Ohioans would pay $510 million into the highway trust fund. Under the 85percent guarantee contained in the bill. Ohio would receive $433 million in return. yielding a net loss under the highway portion of the bill of $76.5 million. I might point out that Ohio receives back 89 cents on each dollar donated to the fund. That is hardly ideal. but it is certainly better than provided under this legislation. I see no reason why my State should receive a smaller share of the trust fund revenues than it currently gets. Ohioans would contribute $51 million to the transit trust fund and could expect to receive $80 million in return. a net gain of $29 million. In sum. the State would lose $47.5 million if this program is enacted. How on Earth can I go back to the people of my State and explain to them that I not only voted to raise their taxes. but to make sure that they would not receive their fair share of those taxes? What we have is a bill under which Ohioans would subsidize the creation of jobs in other States. chiefly in the Sun Belt. many of which have far lower unemployment rates than Ohio does. I invite the sponsors of the bill to explain that to unemployed steelworkers and other jobless Ohioans. It would make far more sense for Ohio to simply impose its own 5centsagallon gas tax. knowing that all the revenue raised would benefit the citizens of our State. In the final analysis. this legislation imposes a new. regressive tax. it will not return a fair share of that tax to Ohio and. indeed. will very likely lead to a net loss of jobs in the State while accelerating the flow of Federal aidand jobsto the less needy States in the Sun Belt. To vote for this and then tell Ohioans that I voted for jobs would be a cruel sham. This legislation ought to be killed. Let us stop wasting our time with gimmicky programs that insult the jobless and let us get on with serious efforts to reduce unemployment.

S

Mr. METZENBAUM

Unknown

METZENBAUM

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. the conference agreement adopted an equitable approach toward the allocation of Federal aid primary funds that balances the needs of both rural and urban States. The Senate bill allocated primary funds based on the historic formula of postal routemiles. State area and population. The House bill abandoned the traditional formula and proposed a formula based entirely on population that was biased toward urbanized States. The conferees were able to agree on an approach to the primary formula distribution which is based on general revenue sharing. I proposed this approach to the conferees after seeing that we were confronted with a problem similiar to one that occurred when general revenue sharing legislation was considered years ago. In order to resolve the differences between two formulas based on totally different criteria. the conference agreement adopted the following approach: The higher amount that each State would have received under either the House or Senate bill is first calculated. The total of these higher amounts will inevitably exceed the desired authorization level by a certain percentage. The total of the higher amounts is then reduced by that percentage in order to insure that each States allocation is adjusted by the same amount. Finally. each State is guaranteed a minimum of onehalf of 1 percent of all primary funds. and no State will receive an amount lower than it would have received under either the House or Senate bills. I am satisfied that the primary funds distribution coupled with the mass transit funds guaranteed from 1 cent per gallon of the gasoline tax represent a balanced approach to this legislation. I can assure my colleagues that rural and urban interests are fairly and equitably represented.

S

Mr. DOMENICI

Unknown

DOMENICI

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. what is wrong with the gas tax? Plenty. Before we engage in any spending program or raise any tax should not the Senate have the case made clearly and in detail? Has it been made in this case? Emphatically no. Oh sure. people have complained about a street or a bridge in bad shape. And all of us who drive can cite instances where roads need repair and in some cases need that repair badly. But the Congress has had no thorough. systematic documentation of precisely why we we need to add to the $8 billion already in the Federal highway trust fund. No one has shown just where and how and why roads have deteriorated to a point where we must more than double the highway tax to meet the problem. Do we need to spend more than the $8 billion now in the trust fund on our highways in a rush job right now? Maybe we do. But before we saddle that kind of mammoth additional burden on the American people why should we not know for sure that it is necessary. Second. will this gas tax and this Federal spending program really help the roads and streets and bridges that need help the most? Answer: almost certainly not. This gas tax will not go primarily to improve city streets. or county highways or city or county bridges. That is the job that local gas taxes have to pay for. And what effect will a 5cent increase in the Federal tax have on the ability of State and local governments to impose their gas taxes? You know the answer to that. It will make it more difficult in many cases much more difficult. So this tax not only has no basis in full. adequate hearings of the kind that any legislative body should absolutely require before it imposes such a burden. We run the real danger of making the condition of our streets and local highways worsenot better. worseby imposing this tax because it will discourage local and State governments from imposing the tax they must pass to do the job on the local. county. and State highways where the job is needed far more urgently. Third. to put the icing on the cake: When will this hurry up. rush tax take effect? This tax will not even go into effect until next April. Next April. So what is the hurry? The Congress comes back into session next month. in January. That would give us ample time to make this decisionwith much more complete informationwithout the pressure of this hellweek of a "lameduck" session and the proximity of Christmas 2 short days away. Mr. President. I do not think that most Senators realized that this big rush job would impose a tax that will not take effect until April. more than 2 months after we reconvene. And fourth. this conference report makes the sad mistake of seriously worsening safety on our highways. It permits trucking firms to widen and lengthen truck size. making passing that much more dangerous on our highways. This may only marginally increase the danger on the Interstate highways. but there is a far more dangerous fall out here. This bill makes it far more likely that trucks built to comply with the new national standard contained in this bill will also drive on State and county highwaysnot built for this increased sizeand the result is certain to be an increase in accidents and undoubtedly more fatalitiesno way we can avoid that and any thoughtful observer would have to concede that. Certainly this change made by the conferees deserves a chance for the Senate to examine it more carefully in February and March. particularly since this legislation does not take effect until April of next year. Fifth. what is the prime reason why this has caught the fancy of Members of the Congress. in spite of the fact that it would increase gasoline taxes? Remember. it failed overwhelmingly before. Why does it have this kind of steam now? Answer: Easy. we now have the worst unemployment in 40 years. and this is supposed to be a jobs bill. Some deny that they think of this bill as such. but there is no way we could expect to increasein fact doublethe Federal tax without that broad national impression that this will increase the number of jobs. The fact is that virtually no one in the economics profession will tell you that this will create any new jobs. net. I repeatnet. Even the administrations own economists concede that for every new highway job this bill would provide. the $5 billion extracted from the public to pay for it will reduce public demand for other products and reduce jobs in other areas. Ths bill should not pass.

S

Mr. PROXMIRE

Unknown

PROXMIRE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the committee for recognizing the Federal responsibility by providing in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 for a Federal lands highway program with authorizations for those roads on or serving Federal lands. The new Federal lands highway program. with its multiyear funding. will provide an essential longrange program to begin addressing the real needs of these neglected Federal facilities. I understand a portion of the park highway and parkway authorizations will be used for repair. restoration. and reconstruction of existing roads. and a portion will be used for new construction. There are four major Federal parkways and park highways which Congress has previously approved and on which work has been started. These are the Foothills Parkway. the Cumberland Gap Highway relocation. the Blue Ridge Parkway. and the Natchez Trace Parkway. It is my understanding that it is the intent that. with the new authorizations provided in the parkway and park highway program. that priorities be established with respect to these four parkway and highway projects. such that they will be quickly undertaken and completed prior to the initiation of other new projects which may be eligible for funding under this important program.

S

Mr. HUDDLESTON

Unknown

HUDDLESTON

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

That is correct. It is the intent that the authorizations will provide for the early completion of these uncompleted facilities.

S

Mr. STAFFORD

Unknown

STAFFORD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I also commend the committee for its work on this program. While it is not necessarily sufficient to take care of all the needs. it does acknowledge the Federal responsibility and will help protect the initial investments to bring the current Federal highways to safe and maintainable standards and allow for the completion of these urgently needed facilities.

S

Mr. BAKER

Unknown

BAKER

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I would like to engage the floor manager in a colloquy regarding the section relating to the temporary matching fund waiver.

S

Mr. HAYAKAWA

Unknown

HAYAKAWA

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

This is the provision permitting the States to defer payment of their share of the costs of Federal highway projects until September 30. 1984. To qualify. the Governor must certify his State is unable to match the additional funds available through passage of the 5cent gas tax increase.

S

Mr. STAFFORD

Unknown

STAFFORD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Is it the intent of Congress that States with balances in their highway accounts which are encumbered or committed to an existing program be judged to have insufficient match and therefore eligible for the temporary matching fund waiver?

S

Mr. HAYAKAWA

Unknown

HAYAKAWA

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Yes. that is correct. States with highway account balances already encumbered or committed would be eligible for a temporary waiver of their matching funds under this provision.

S

Mr. STAFFORD

Unknown

STAFFORD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Thank you very much for this clarification.

S

Mr. HAYAKAWA

Unknown

HAYAKAWA

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. the compromise agreement between the House and the Senate provides that in the rehabilitation. repair or resurfacing of nonInterstate highways that the project should preserve and extend the life of the highway while enhancing highway safety. It is the view of the Senate conference that the phrase "enhancing highway safety" does not necessarily require as a part of project approval full design standards for this rehabilitation work. While the goal is to enhance highway safety. we must do so in a manner that will maximize the number of miles which can be resurfaced and repaired. while improving highway safety. Full design standards. the committee believes. could be too onerous a burden to place on such 3R work. The Senate conferees fully supports the enhancement of highway safety but believes that 3R work can be done with safety enhancement without the necessity of full design standards.

S

Mr. RANDOLPH

Unknown

RANDOLPH

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I concur with the views expressed by the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee Senator RANDOLPH.

S

Mr. STAFFORD

Unknown

STAFFORD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. the provision on limitation of obligations would require the Secretary of Transportation to distribute the obligation limitations among the States with the exception of administrative expenses and forest highways. Is it my understanding that the term "forest highways" as used in the section would mean all programs under the Federal lands highways program.

S

Mr. RANDOLPH

Unknown

RANDOLPH

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

That is correct.

S

Mr. STAFFORD

Unknown

STAFFORD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

With regard to enforcement and the effective date of this section relating to vehicle weight limitations on the Interstate System. it is my understanding that a States interstate apportionment will be withheld from any State not found to be in compliance with this section within an administratively determined period. This period should be established to give States time to bring their laws into compliance.

S

Mr. RANDOLPH

Unknown

RANDOLPH

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Yes. that is correct.

S

Mr. STAFFORD

Unknown

STAFFORD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator to clarify one provision of the bill dealing with the trailer lengths on combination vehicles. Do I understand correctly. Senator. that the reason for regulating truck lengths on the basis of trailer rather than overall vehicle length is driver safety?

S

Mr. DANFORTH

Unknown

DANFORTH

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator is correct. During our deliberations on truck length earlier this year. it became apparent to the committee that some State overalllength restrictions would either prevent the use of longer. more efficient trailers or force truckers to use shorter tractors providing less cab space.

S

Mr. PACKWOOD

Unknown

PACKWOOD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Thank you. Senator. I agree completely that safety is the most important consideration in looking at truck size. Nevertheless. I am concerned that the bill as presently written could be interpreted as completely repealing State laws regulating overall length. Would not this mean. Senator. that until the States enact new trailerlength laws. any size combination truck could operate on the highways?

S

Mr. DANFORTH

Unknown

DANFORTH

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

No. Senator. that is not our intent. The wording of the bill is meant to prohibit the enforcement of overalllength limits only to the extent that such laws preclude the operation of 48foot trailers in tractor/ semitrailer combinations and 28foot trailers in tractor/double trailer combinations. In other words. in States which just regulate overall truck lengthand that is most Statestheir law would continue to apply to prohibit single trailers over 48 feet or combinations over 28 feet until they choose to enact new laws.

S

Mr. PACKWOOD

Unknown

PACKWOOD

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I intend to support the conference report on the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. I say that. Mr. President. recognizing that it is not a perfect document. No report ever is. No bill ever is. But. on balance. I believe that this bill merits my support. It addresses problems that have long needed to be dealt with. I think it is important not to characterize this legislation improperly. While it will result in increased employment in certain industries. it is not primarily a jobs bill. Rather. it is legislation to begin the process of improving our Nations highway and mass transit systems and. in a larger sense. the process of improving our national infrastructure. There has been a crying need to develop this legislation long before we began this lameduck session. The Committee on Environment and Public Works through its Subcommittee on Transportation has heard testimony over the past decade on the need to increase funding of highway programs. We have acted to increase program levels. but because of the combined effects of substantial inflation in highway construction costs and lower revenues to the highway trust fund due to fuelefficient vehicles. we cannot meet the needs with current levels. As we all know. Federal highway funding is supplied by the user taxes of the highway trust fund. I would not stand before the Senate and seek this increase in highway spending without increasing the taxes to the highway trust fund. It would be fiscally irresponsible to do so. Mr. President. the bill we have before us takes those necessary steps. Further. it resolves a serious problem with the highway program that has existed for over 25 years by providing a guaranteed minimum allocation to each State of 85 percent of its contribution to the highway trust fund. I recognize that many Members are troubled by the tax structureparticularly with respect to the taxes on heavy trucks. I would say to those Senators that this issue troubles me and it should certainly be addressed further. The conferees wisely delayed the imposition of this tax during the current economic problems facing the trucking industry as it is being deregulated. In addition to the study provided for in the bill. it would be appropriate for hearings to be conducted on the validity of the recently completed cost allocation and the economic implications of this legislation before the tax is imposed at its higher level. However. I do not believe that this important bill should be held back based on these uncertainties. Let me also say that I am pleased that the conference bill provides the flexibility for new rail starts in the mass transit title. It is imperative that justifiable projects be constructed. In my State. the Houston area is developing a rail project and it deserves the opportunity to be constructed. Finally. Mr. President. I would like to commend several people who have diligently worked to bring this legislation to this point. While all of the conferees worked hard to hammer out a fair compromise Tuesday. I want to especially acknowledge those with whom I worked on title I. Senator STAFFORD. the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. and Senator SYMMs. chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee. were diligent and dedicated in their efforts to fairly but strongly hold the Senate position on key issues. Senator DoMENIcI crafted a critical compromise on the allocation formula for the primary program that was essential for many Senators. He and I were in close agreement on the approach to that issue. and I was pleased to work with him on the issue. But. I cannot imagine the development of highway legislation without the leadership of the senior Senator from West Virginia. Senator RANDOLPH. Next year. when the 98th Congress is underway. we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of his first service in the Congress. Throughout those years he has fought for the development of sound highway legislation time and again. Before others could appreciate the concept. he was advocating a national highway systema concept that grew to the Interstate System that is now so critical to this Nations commerce. In this conference he was equally insistent on finding the compromise to get a bill. Let me close by expressing my appreciation to both Secretary of Transportation Drew Lewis and Federal Highway Administrator Ray Barnhart. They have spent many long hours shepherding this legislation for the administration and were most helpful to me and responsive to my concerns. They deserve to see their labors and ours produce a result that means a tangible benefit to this country.

S

Mr. BENTSEN

Unknown

BENTSEN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. the power to tax is the power to destroy. That can be applied to the part of this bill that increases a series of taxes affecting truckers. Increasing the Federal taxes for fuel. tires. new trucks and repair parts are all taxes that relate to the use of the truck. all of which I would expect to relate to the miles of highway business affecting the owneroperator truckers and the trucking companies. The increase in the Federal highway use tax is another matter. A trucker who operates 10.000 miles per year or 100.000 miles per year pays the same amount. The tax now is $240 and will. under this bill. increase to $1.900eight times greater. it is too much. For those truckers affected by the recession and just hanging on. this series of increases jeopardizes their continuation in business. and for those truckers this onerous part would be due even though their highway revenue miles are down 30 to 70 percent. No miles. no money. but this tax goes way up. Montana depends on transportation for our economic existence. Cattle. grain. lumber. and other products are truckedmost of it by owneroperators or small trucking firms. The costs are generally charged to the producer. And these producers are just hanging on too. Montana depends on trucks for the competition that they can provide Burlington Northern. The Burlington Northern has a virtual monopoly on rail freight in Montana. Trucking deregulation has worked a staggering blow to small trucking companies and they are going broke. This 800percent increase in the Federal highway use tax will force more to discontinue or fold into bigger companies. thus eliminating more competition. The increase in length. width. and weight are already available to truckers in Montana by State law or special use permits. The additional revenue the bill raises is of great importance to Montana and will greatly help for safer. more efficient highways. I have been supportive of the bill. but this last version after the conference committee with the House now is just too high. They have upped the ante as if it were a poker game. I would fold. I now vote "no." The power we exercise in Congress to set taxes is an awesome power that has to be used prudently. We need the owneroperator truckers and the independent small lines and this series of tax increases threaten their continuation in business.

S

Mr. MELCHER

Unknown

MELCHER

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. will the acting minority leader yield 2 minutes.

S

Mr. MITCHELL

Unknown

MITCHELL

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The acting manager of the bill on this side will be delighted to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

S

Mr. BENTSEN

Unknown

BENTSEN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I think that the discussion this morning is a fitting end to the session of this Congress that should not have occurred and once started should not have gone on as long as it did.

S

Mr. MITCHELL

Unknown

MITCHELL

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Vote.

S

Mr. MATHIAS

Unknown

MATHIAS

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I think we should bring it to a swift and merciful end. Although the circumstances are very much different I think there are words spoken in the past which are very appropriate here. In 1653 Oliver Cromwell addressed the English Parliament in an effort to bring to a close a session that there went on too long. and he used these words. and I think they apply very well here. Cromwell said to that Parliament: You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart I say and let us have done with you.

S

Mr. MITCHELL

Unknown

MITCHELL

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Hear. hear.

S

Mr. MATHIAS

Unknown

MATHIAS

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

"In the name of God. go."

S

Mr. MITCHELL

Unknown

MITCHELL

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Vote.

S

Mr. MATHIAS

Unknown

MATHIAS

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I say in the name of God. let us vote and go.

S

Mr. MITCHELL

Unknown

MITCHELL

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The Senator from Kansas.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. Before doing that. I would like to state that we have checked with the Journal Clerk and debate on the floor amendments to H.R. 6211 was equally consumed by Republican and Democratic amendments. So I would not want anyone to go home for Christmas saying the Republicans dominated this debate. I yield back the remainder of my time.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I say that the Senator from Texas is prepared to leave and participate in the giveaway program back at home with members of his family. as I am sure the remainder of the Senate will with their families. also. Is there anyone who wishes time on this side of the aisle? The Senator sees none. and we are prepared to yield back the remainder of our time assuming the other side is.

S

Mr. BENTSEN

Unknown

BENTSEN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I have yielded back my time.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

I yield back my time.

S

Mr. BENTSEN

Unknown

BENTSEN

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

All time is yielded back.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

The clerk will call the roll.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

S

Mr. DOLE

Unknown

DOLE

Unknown

M

12231982.txt

Without objection. it is so ordered.

S

The VICE PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

12231982.txt

Mr. President. I ask for the yeas and nays.

S

Mr. HELMS

Unknown

HELMS

Unknown

M

12231982.txt