Interest in the committee is being driven by one overarching reason: money. Almost everyone wants a say in the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The final shape of ISTEA will determine how the Federal government will spend $150 billion on the nation's highways, bridges and transit systems over the next five years.

"The number one issue of ISTEA is resources, period," said Jeff Nelligan, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Republican Communications Director.

So many members requested spots on the committee that Chairman Shuster plans on expanding the panel from 65 to 71 members, making it the largest committee in congressional history.

According to Thomas Mann, director of the Governmental Studies Program at the Brookings Institute, 1997 "is seemingly the greatest of times to be on the committee. It is the clearest opportunity to get federal money for projects in a member's district."

But ISTEA is more than just a spending bill. It is the blueprint for the nation's federal transportation policy. The bill, labeled "revolutionary" when passed in 1991, encouraged policy makers to look at highways, bridges and transit systems as an integrated whole, rather than separate parts. The law also contains regulations governing such things as trucking and ports.

"ISTEA has been, without question, the most successful initiative in the transportation field since the enactment of the Interstate system," Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), ranking Democrat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said.

When originally enacted, the bill shifted transportation planning to regional transit authorities and local governments. It also allowed communities to fund light rail systems and bicycle paths with $25 billion in annual gasoline tax revenue, funds previous earmarked for road building.

According to Nelligan, ISTEA's flexibility has been its greatest asset, but will be its greatest liability during re-authorization. Three coalitions are already working to change the law.

Some critics, including trucking companies and their allies, say the nation's highways and bridges have been shortchanged $20 billion annually and want a dedicated trust fund financed with a portion of the gas tax revenue for roadways.

Another group representing 21 states who sent more in gasoline taxes to Washington then they received back in transportation funds wants to change the formula used to allocate money. This group, dubbed Step 21, wants to cap the "donation" of those states to 5 percent (OF WHAT???).

A third group wants to dramatically restructure the federal transportation program even more. It supports a "devolution" plan along the lines of last year's welfare legislation that would substantially lower federal taxes and shift responsibility for transportation to the states.

Observers do not expect any of these plans to gain much headway. Both Chairman Shuster and Rep. Oberstar have state their opposition to fundamentally changing the fundamental policy of ISTEA and view any devolution plans as a threat to the national transportation system. But both want to make it easier for states to become eligible for transportation funds.

"I would expect that there would be some reform of [ISTEA]," Chairman Shuster said. "We want to streamline it somewhat, but I think the fundamental outline is in place."

"The challenge now and in the future is to take the best of ISTEA .. and build for the future," Rep. Oberstar, said.

GOING "OFF-BUDGET"

Another initiative inherently linked to ISTEA is an effort to take the Highway Trust Fund, the main pot of money for the federal transportation projects, "off-budget."

Taking the $30 billion trust funding "off budget" means the fund, which currently has a $19 billion surplus, would not be part of the general federal budget. In the past, Federal officials have used the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund to decrease the federal deficit. This prevents the surplus money from being spent on transportation projects.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are backing the plan.

"The thing is that its a fraud," Nelligan, the Republican communications director, said. "Why do motorists have more responsibility to bring down the deficit than a co-op in New York?"

Chairman Shuster tried during the last Congress to take the Highway Trust Fund "off-budget." The legislation passed the House, but ran into resistance in the Senate by those wanting to balance the budget. Committee members also want revenue from the 4.3 cent per gallon gasoline tax passed during President Clinton's first term for deficit reduction to go into the Highway Trust Fund.

"If they do not do anything with the 4.3 cents that's going into the general fund, then you only have a pot of money that's been the same for the last two years," said Billy Higgins, director of congressional relations for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. "You're going to have a major struggle if that takes place."

The Transportation committee will also deal with other pieces of legislation, including:

• Superfund and The Clean Water Act: The committee will also consider legislation re-authorizing Superfund and the Clean Water Act. Some Republicans on the committee view Superfund, the federal program that forces polluters to clean up toxic waste sites, as a burdensome regulation on business, but Democrats, will only look for minor changes to rules governing liability. The Clean Water Act, which has been waiting for re-authorization since 1991, will also be on the committee's plate.

• AMTRAK FUNDING: Both Democrats and Republicans want to make Amtrak, the nation's passenger rail system, more self-sufficient. They disagree, however, on how independent the program should be. Some members argue that the system needs a definite revenue stream from a portion of federal gasoline taxes to buy new equipment. Other members want to completely privatize the system.

  "I think it's been demonstrated that Amtrak takes people off the highways, especially in the congested areas of the Northwest," Rep. Oberstar said.

• AIR TICKET TAX: On December 31, 1996, a 10 percent excise tax on air line tickets expired. The same thing occurred at the end of 1995, and the tax was not reinstated until September 1996. During the time the ticket tax lapsed, the government lost $13 to $16 million a day. Larger airlines want the tax changed to a user fee that charges an airline for each takeoff and landing. Low cost airlines, though, want the excise tax re-instated because their lower fairs result in a smaller ticket tax for passengers.