[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 78 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6287-S6288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Moynihan, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1144. A bill to provide increased flexibility in use of highway 
funding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


                   Surface Transportation Act of 1999

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Surface Transportation Act of 1999 along with my colleagues, Chairman 
Chafee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators 
Moynihan, Jeffords, Reid, Warner, Hutchison, Reid, Lautenberg and 
Leahy. The purpose of this bill is to provide additional flexibility to 
the States and localities in implementing the Federal transportation 
program.
  Let me briefly describe the three most significant provisions of the 
bill.
  (1) State infrastructure banks--the bill authorizes all 50 states to 
participate in the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program. SIBs are 
revolving funds, capitalized with Federal and State contributions, 
which are empowered to make loans and provide other forms of non-grant 
assistance to transportation projects. Before TEA-21 was enacted, 
transferring Federal highway funding to a State Infrastructure Bank was 
an option available to all 50 states, with 39 states actively 
participating. Regrettably, TEA-21 limited the SIB program to just four 
states. This section would restore the program as it existed prior to 
TEA-21.
  The American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of State Treasurers, and 
numerous industry groups, including the American Road & Transportation 
Builders (ARTBA), strongly support legislation giving all states the 
opportunity to participate in the SIB program.
  The availability of SIB financial assistance has attracted additional 
investment. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, SIBs 
made 21 loans and signed agreements for another 33 loans as of November 
1, 1998. Together, these 54 projects are scheduled to receive SIB loan 
disbursements totaling $408 million to support project investments of 
more than $2.3 billion--resulting in a leverage ratio of about 5.6 to 1 
(total project investment to amount of SIB investment).
  (2) High priority project flexibility--the bill includes a provision 
that allows States the flexibility to advance a ``high priority'' 
project faster than is allowed by TEA-21, which provides the funding 
for high priority projects spread over the six-year life of TEA-21. 
This provision would allow States to accelerate the construction of 
their ``high priority'' projects by borrowing funds from other highway 
funding categories (e.g., NHS, STP, CMAQ). The flexibility is 
particularly important for states who are ready to construct some of 
the high priority projects in the first few years of TEA-21, and 
without this provision, may need to defer completion until the later 
years of TEA-21.
  (3) Funding flexibility for Intercity passenger rail--the bill also 
gives States the option to use their National Highway System, 
Congestion Mitigation

[[Page S6288]]

and Air Quality funds, and Surface Transportation Program funds to fund 
capital expenses associated with intercity passenger rail service, 
including high-speed rail service. The National Governors' Association, 
has passed a resolution requesting this additional flexibility for 
states to meet their transportation needs. In testimony before the 
committee, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Council of 
State Legislatures also requested this additional flexibility.
  In closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this 
bill, especially for members whose states who are supportive of the 
State Infrastructure Bank program, have high priority projects that are 
ready-to-go, or would like the option of using available Federal 
transportation funding to support intercity passenger rail needs in 
their state.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. I 
ask that a section by section description of the bill be printed into 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Summary of the Surface Transportation Act of 1999

     Summary
       The purpose of this bill is to provide additional 
     flexibility to States and localities in implementing the 
     Federal transportation program. This bill does not affect the 
     funding formula agreed to in TEA 21 or modify the overall 
     level of funding for any program.


                           section by section

     Section 1--Short Title
     Section 2--State Infrastructure Banks
       This section authorizes all 50 states to participate in the 
     State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program. SIBs are revolving 
     funds, capitalized with Federal and State contributions, 
     which are empowered to make loans and provide other forms of 
     non-grant assistance to transportation projects. Before the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) was 
     enacted, transferring Federal highway funding to a State 
     Infrastructure Bank was an option available to all 50 states, 
     with 39 states actively participating. Regrettably, TEA 21 
     took the program backwards and limited the SIB program to 
     just four states. This section would restore the program as 
     it existed prior to TEA 21. The bill extends thru FY 2003 the 
     SIB program, which was authorized in the National Highway 
     System Designation Act.
       The American Association of State Highway and 
     Transportation Official (AASHTO), the National Association of 
     State Treasurers, and numerous industry groups, including the 
     American Road & Transportation Builders (ARTBA), strongly 
     support legislation giving all states the opportunity to 
     participate in the SIB program. At their annual meeting in 
     November 1998, AASHTO members adopted a resolution supporting 
     expansion of the SIB program.
       Availability of SIB financial assistance has attracted 
     additional investment. According to U.S. DOT, SIBs made 21 
     loans and signed agreements for another 33 loans as of 
     November 1, 1998. Together, these 54 projects are scheduled 
     to receive SIB loan disbursements totaling $408 million to 
     support project investments of more than $2.3 billion--
     resulting in a leverage ratio of about 5.6 to 1 (total 
     project investment to amount of SIB investment).
     Section 3--High Priority Project Flexibility
       Subsection (a) allows States the flexibility to advance a 
     ``high priority'' project faster than is allowed by TEA 21, 
     which provides the funding for high priority projects spread 
     over the six-year life of TEA 21. This provision would allow 
     States to accelerate the construction of their ``high 
     priority'' projects by borrowing funds from other highway 
     funding categories (e.g., NHS, STP, CMAQ). This flexibility 
     is particularly important for states who are ready to 
     construct some of the high priority projects in the first few 
     years of TEA 21, and without this provision may need to defer 
     completion until the later years of TEA 21.
     Section 4--Funding Flexibility and High Speed Rail Corridors
       Subsection (a) gives States the option to use their 
     National Highway System, Congestion Mitigation and Air 
     Quality funds, and Surface Transportation Program funds to 
     fund capital expenses associated with intercity passenger 
     rail service, including high-speed rail service. The National 
     Governors' Association, has passed a resolution requesting 
     this additional flexibility for states to meet their 
     transportation needs. In testimony before the committee, the 
     U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Council of State 
     Legislatures also requested this additional flexibility.
       Subsection (b) specifies how funds transferred for 
     intercity passenger rail services are to be administered.
     Section 5--Historic Bridges
       This section eliminates a restriction that caps the amount 
     of Federal-aid highway funds that can be spent on a historic 
     bridge to an amount equal to the cost of demolition. The 
     restriction unnecessarily limits States' flexibility to 
     preserve historic bridges, and limits spending on these 
     historic bridges for the enhancements program for alternative 
     transportation uses. A similar provision was included in the 
     Senate-passed version of the reauthorization, but was not 
     considered by the conferees due to time constraints.
     Section 6--Accounting Simplification
       This section makes a minor change to the distribution of 
     the Federal-aid obligation limitation that simplifies 
     accounting for states. Currently, a very small amount of the 
     obligation authority directed to the minimum guarantee 
     program is made available for one-year even though the 
     overwhelming majority is made available for several years. 
     This section would make all obligation authority for this 
     program available as multi-year funding. Therefore, this 
     section eliminates the need to account for the States to plan 
     for the small amount of funding separately.
                                 ______