Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to respond to the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee. Yesterday afternoon, my colleague responded to my defense of the merits of the Finance Committee title in Chairman INHOFE's substitute.

Since Chairman GREGG's response came shortly before the session ended last night, I am responding this morning.

I respect Chairman GREGG's efforts in his initial year as chairman of the Budget Committee. I congratulate him now as I have in the past on his victory in achieving a budget resolution. I was proud to support him in committee, on the floor, and in conference on the resolution.

As a senior member of the Budget Committee, I take its role seriously. I respect the Budget Act and the importance of the tools of fiscal discipline that points of order and other enforcement devices bring to the legislative process. I also respect the key role of the Budget Committee chairman and his staff under the Budget Act.

A careful and fair review of my statement will show that it is consistent with these long-held views. My statement did not claim that there was no valid Budget Act point of order against the Finance title of the Inhofe substitute. My statement did not question the authority of the Budget Committee chairman in raising the point order.

My statement responded to several very specific assertions against the Finance Committee title. One assertion, made quite passionately by Chairman GREGG, was that the Finance Committee amendment was a product of accounting gimmicks. Another assertion was that the amendment was not offset. I responded to the two main assertions ad relied on the Congress' official tax policy scorekeepter, the Joint Committee on Taxation. Chairman GREGG is right that, under the Budget Act, it is the Chairman Budget Committee chairman that the Senate parliamentarian looks to determine whether a point of order is well-founded. The Joint Committee on Taxation, however, determines the scoring of revenue measures.

I will not go into the other points of disagreement in our statements because the statements speak for themselves.

In sum and substance, my statement defended the Finance Committee title on its scoring by the Joint Committee. My statement did not dispute that the amendment spending level was above those contemplated by the Budget Resolution or the spending level agreed to by the administration and congressional Republican leadership. Of course, Finance Committee jurisdiction extends only to the cash flow of the Highway Trust Fund. The Finance Committee title added additional cash inflow, trust fund receipts, and additional cash outflow, trust fund outlays. The Finance Committee title balances additional trust fund receipts and outlays. That was the job we were asked to do and we did it in a fiscally responsible manner.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, can I have the attention of the Senator from West Virginia, please. The Senator from West Virginia does not need to respond to this, but I just want to make sure. First, I rise because about 6 o'clock yesterday afternoon, I promised the Senator from West Virginia that I would get back with him and hopefully have Senator Baucus with me to discuss whether we could go along with his amendment.

I got the amendment over to my staff, as I promised I would, about that time, but it was 9:30 this morning before I was able to get the two staffs together. I never did get together with Senator Baucus so I could come over and visit with the Senator personally about it.

We have found a cost argument, not an argument against the Senator's point of view on the substance of his amendment, but it is my responsibility as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to find offset. Now, I do not say this to denigrate the Senator's efforts--the Senator does not have to worry about offsets; that is my job--but if I were going to go along with the amendment of the Senator, I would have the responsibility to find an offset.

So I apologize, first, for not getting back to the Senator as I promised I would last night. But based upon some of the arguments that Mr. Inhofe gave but more importantly related to the work of my committee--and I cannot speak for Senator Baucus, but I think there is an agreement among our staff, and I do not want to put a figure on it without having the Joint Tax Committee actually score something, but this is a tremendously expensive amendment, not that it is not justified.

I would have to come up with a fairly large figure that my staff tells me would be close to what we have already raised to bring more money into the transportation fund so that we can get more money for the Senator's State and my State, and more money even for the transit that is a basis for the Senator's argument because he does not have the mass transit--and we do not have the mass transit in Iowa as well, so Iowans would benefit from the Senator's amendment. But I just cannot find that money, and it would detract from all the money we previously had raised.

I do not know what the course of action is, but I would have to take the position of advising people not to vote for the Senator's amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect the very able Senator for the position he has taken. I can understand that position, and I appreciate it. I have discussed this with the Senator. I do not have a suggestion for an offset. I commend the Senator and Senator Baucus on what they have jointly done to advance this bill and what they have jointly done to increase the amounts of money available. I understand completely the Senator's position. I do not blame him for it. He states it correctly, but I will say that the amendment does not worsen projected deficits. The amendment fits within the congressional budget. That is why it is not subject to any budget points of order. Deficit projections within the congressional budget will not worsen if this amendment passes.

I do respect the Senator. I know we are both in sympathy with what the people in the mountains, the prairies, the plains, and valleys of this great country have to deal with. I am sorry that the amendment is not germane. I understand that. At least I do not think it is. Perhaps the Senator would like to have a ruling from the Chair. I would hope the Chair would say that the amendment would be germane.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am not going to raise any more issues. I have expressed why I cannot support the amendment, and I will reserve any other action at the time we vote. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for being understanding of why I did not get back to him.

http://thomas.loc.gov/