In addition to the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works dealt with other important issues, one of which was transportation infrastructure. Every few years Congress reviews and reauthorizes the laws that control the raising and spending of hundreds of billions of dollars on our nation’s highways, bridges, and transit systems. The money comes from the federal tax on the refining and sale of gasoline. It is then redistributed to the states in accordance with a complex formula that is always the subject of much contention, as members of Congress battle to increase their state’s share. Each time the measure moved through Congress while I was in the Senate, it generated unforgettable displays of aggressive behavior, statesmanship, and good humor. Also on display were the unique talents of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bud Shuster.
Before entering the Senate from New York, “Pat,” as he was widely known, worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations. If there had been a title of resident intellectual in the Senate he would have been a top contender for it (along with Paul Sarbanes of Maryland). Widely read, Moynihan could (and did), at the merest hint of a question, expound on the foreign policies of the Russian czars of the eighteenth century or the domestic policies of the British Labour Party in the nineteenth century. As a member of the Committee, he regarded the periodic free-for-all over the funding formula as grubby but necessary business. I worked with him and others on the Committee to resolve the nasty fracas over the allocation formula in a process that at first seemed hopeless but always, somehow, got worked out. While competitive and political, the atmosphere was not as toxic as it is now; bipartisan cooperation was common then. Among my fond memories is working with Moynihan and the leaders of the counterpart House Committee to resolve differences between the two bodies on one of the transportation bills.
Bud Shuster was a senior Republican member of Congress representing a district in central Pennsylvania centered on the city of Altoona. In an arena in which political aggression was the norm, Shuster stood out as superaggressive in fighting for his district. Yet although he was at times blunt, even gruff, he understood the need for compromise in enacting legislation.
The process that later grew rapidly and earned infamy as “earmarks” was then still a relatively minor part of the bill when measured in dollars, although critically important for oiling the squeakiest wheels. No wheel squeaked louder or more often than Shuster. He was there to make sure that the people of central Pennsylvania got their fair share, which to him meant quite a bit more than anyone else’s definition of fair. But of course there is no objective definition; everyone decides what is fair through the prism of self-interest.
It took nearly two years and an override of a presidential veto to get the mammoth bill through the Senate, and then through a conference with the House, made necessary because the House and Senate bills were not identical. Through it all Moynihan maintained his composure and good humor as we reached agreement with one state after another. After the bill became law we went to the Senate press gallery to engage in the pleasant process of self-congratulation. We were feeling very good when someone asked Moynihan which state fared best in the battle over the funding formula. Without hesitation, and with only the sparkle in his eyes betraying humor, Moynihan answered, “The State of Altoona.” I have always regretted that I wasn’t present when Shuster was told of Moynihan’s comment; his laughter must have shaken the Capitol dome.