[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6855-S6856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Levin, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Bayh,
Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Lott, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Nelson
of Florida, Mr. Alexander, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Cochran,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Breaux, and Mr.
Bunning):
S. 1090. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to increase
the minimum allocation provided to States for use in carrying out
certain highway programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway
Funding Equity Act of 2003. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by
Senators Levin, Stabenow, Bayh, Lugar, Hutchison, Cornyn, Warner,
Chambliss, Lott, Lindsey Graham, Bill Nelson, Alexander, DeWine, Dole,
Cochran, Landrieu, Miller, Hollings, Breaux, and Bunning.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA-21,
authorized more than $218 billion for transportation programs and will
expire in September 2003. TEA-21 requires certain States, known as
Donor states, to transfer to other States a percentage of the revenue
from Federal highway user fees. Several of these donor States transfer
more than 10 percent of every Federal highway user fee dollar to other
States. As a result, donor States receive a significantly lower rate-
of-return on their transportation tax dollar being sent to Washington,
Currently, over 25 States, including my State of Ohio, contribute more
money to the Highway Trust Fund than they receive back.
My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the
5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway
network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio
is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of 50 percent of
the population of North America. The interstate highways throughout
Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to suppliers,
manufacturers, distributors, and consumers.
Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a
robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of Federal highway dollars
has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became
governor 12 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79
percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as Chairman of the
National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the
minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding
Equity Act of 2003 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return
to 95 percent.
The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003 has two components. First, the
bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21
from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway
Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes
all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National
Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails,
and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.
Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of
Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50
people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95
percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This
provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the
quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic
prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision
would benefit 15 states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,
Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more
than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The
interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and
traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally
obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over
capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical
roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future
traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70 percent in the next 20
years. Like all the donor States, we need these funds in Ohio.
States can no longer afford to support others that are already self-
sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total
available funding, especially in light of the so-called ``mega
projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence
Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into
Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost
of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the
total project could cost close to $1 billion.
The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on
donor states' dollars to guarantee that federal highway program funding
is more equitable for all states. Donor States seek only their fair
share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve
highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation
reauthorization process.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1090
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Funding Equity Act
of 2003''.
SEC. 2. MINIMUM GUARANTEE.
Section 105 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and subsections (c) through
(f);
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (e);
(3) by inserting after the section heading the following:
``(a) Guarantee.--
``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2004 through
2009, the Secretary shall allocate among the States amounts
sufficient to ensure that the percentage for each State of
the total apportionments for the fiscal year for the National
Highway System under section 103(b), the high priority
projects program under section 117, the Interstate
maintenance program under section 119, the surface
transportation program under section
[[Page S6856]]
133, metropolitan planning under section 134, the highway
bridge replacement and rehabilitation program under section
144, the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program under section 149, the recreational trails program
under section 206, the Appalachian development highway system
under subtitle IV of title 40, and the minimum guarantee
under this paragraph, equals or exceeds the percentage
determined for the State under paragraph (2).
``(2) State percentages.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the percentage for each State referred to in paragraph (1) is
the percentage that is equal to 95 percent of the ratio
that--
``(i) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway
users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year
for which data are available; bears to
``(ii) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway
users in all States paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year
for which data are available.
``(B) Exception.--In the case of a State having a
population density of less than 50 individuals per square
mile according to the 2000 decennial census, the percentage
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the greater of--
``(i) the percentage determined under subparagraph (A); or
``(ii) the percentage specified in subsection (e).
``(b) Treatment of Funds.--
``(1) Programmatic distribution.--The Secretary shall
apportion the amounts made available under this section that
exceed $2,800,000,000 so that the amount apportioned to each
State under this paragraph for each program referred to in
subsection (a)(1) (other than the high priority projects
program, metropolitan planning, the recreational trails
program, the Appalachian development highway system, and the
minimum guarantee under subsection (a)) is equal to the
product obtained by multiplying--
``(A) the amount to be apportioned under this paragraph;
and
``(B) the ratio that--
``(i) the amount of funds apportioned to the State for each
program referred to in subsection (a)(1) (other than the high
priority projects program, metropolitan planning, the
recreational trails program, the Appalachian development
highway system, and the minimum guarantee under subsection
(a)) for a fiscal year; bears to
``(ii) the total amount of funds apportioned to the State
for that program for the fiscal year.
``(2) Remaining distribution.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall apportion the remainder of funds made
available under this section to the States, and administer
those funds, in accordance with section 104(b)(3).
``(B) Inapplicable requirements.--Paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) of section 133(d) shall not apply to amounts apportioned
in accordance with this paragraph.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as are
necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2009.
``(d) Guarantee of 95 Percent Return.--
``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2004 through
2009, before making any apportionment under this title, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) determine whether the sum of the percentages
determined under subsection (a)(2) for the fiscal year
exceeds 100 percent; and
``(B) if the sum of the percentages exceeds 100 percent,
proportionately adjust the percentages specified in the table
contained in subsection (e) to ensure that the sum of the
percentages determined under subsection (a)(1)(B) for the
fiscal year equals 100 percent.
``(2) Eligibility threshold for adjustment.--The Secretary
may make an adjustment under paragraph (1) for a State for a
fiscal year only if the percentage for the State in the table
contained in subsection (e) is equal to or exceeds 95 percent
of the ratio determined for the State under subsection
(a)(1)(B)(i) for the fiscal year.
``(3) Limitation on adjustments.--Adjustments of the
percentages in the table contained in subsection (e) in
accordance with this subsection shall not result in a total
of the percentages determined under subsection (a)(2) that
exceeds 100 percent.''; and
(4) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsections
(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (d)''.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in
introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003.
Our bill will allow States to get back more of what they contribute
in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by increasing the
Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways from the current
90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions made to the Federal
Highway Trust Fund in gas tax payments to 95 percent.
Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one
step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal
highway funds to States.
Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor''
States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in
Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure
spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have
received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway
Trust Fund.
This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large
Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute
Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining
States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit
from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously
defended it.
At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low-
population predominately Western States getting more funds than they
contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate
highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to
those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that.
However, there is no justification for any state getting more than its
fair share.
Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have
traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have
fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long
struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some
progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting
around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to
approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5
cent minimum return for each State.
We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and
other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At
stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to
pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan and the
jobs that go with it. According to Federal Highway Administration
calculations, Michigan would have received an additional $42 million in
FY 02 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill.
That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The
same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions
more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States.
There is no logical reason for some States to continue to send that
money to other States to subsidize their road and bridge projects and
to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair.
With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to
determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are
antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or
contributions are.
The Voinovich-Levin bill is consensus bill developed with the help of
donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their coalition
working group. This legislation would increase the minimum guarantee
from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. A companion bill is
being introduced in the House today by majority leader Tom DeLay and
Representative Barron Hill. With this legislation, we intend to send a
strong message to the authorizing committees that they should address
the equity issue in the Senate and House highway reauthorization bills.
We are determined to make progress in this bill to redistribute the
highway funds in a more equitable manner so that every State gets its
fair share.
This is an issue of equity and we will not be satisfied until we
achieve it.
______