[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 134 (Friday, September 26, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12095-S12099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2003
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3087, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3087) to provide an extension of highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other
programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will approve a 5-month
extension of the highway programs authorized by the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, based on an agreement between
the Senate and House leadership. Only reluctantly, and because of the
need to complete action on the extension immediately to ensure the many
TEA-21 programs do not come to a halt, do I accept the terms of the
extension as approved by the House for the safety programs administered
by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA.
The House-passed short-term extension authorizes $56 million less, on
an annualized basis, for motor carrier safety than the program's fiscal
year 2003 appropriated level. I am very concerned that the level of
funding in the extension is insufficient to make progress toward the
national goal of reducing the rate of truck-related crashes by 30
percent by 2008. The extension does not provide sufficient funding for
FMCSA to fully implement existing, authorized programs in the short
term, including the ``new entrants'' program, hazmat permitting,
additional carrier compliance reviews, and completion of long overdue
rulemaking proceedings. Further, the bill provides no funds to continue
construction of inspection facilities at the border. The funding level
is significantly below the President's funding request for fiscal year
2004; the Senate Commerce Committee's TEA-21 reauthorization
legislation; and the funding levels approved by the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees. And, it is entirely inconsistent with the
significant funding increases provided over the short-term for highway
construction and maintenance.
FMCSA was created after TEA-21 became law to address the increasing
number of truck-related accidents on our nation's roads and highways.
The duties assigned to the agency through the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Act, MCSIA, and other legislation have resulted in funding
levels significantly above the administrative takedown authorized by
TEA-21. The extension, however, fails to recognize this and, on the
grounds that the bill must comply with the budget resolution, funding
for motor carrier safety is being curtailed, while highway construction
and transit funding is being increased.
I want to put my colleagues on notice that either when the full
Senate moves its 6-year reauthorization bill, or is faced with a
further extension of TEA-21 next February, I will insist that the motor
carrier safety programs are authorized at an appropriate level of
funding. I believe my views are shared by Senator Hollings, who joined
me in sponsoring legislation, S. 1646, that would have funded the
safety programs for 5 months at a level consistent with the Commerce
Committee's reauthorization proposal.
I take pride in the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee completed
work last June on its 6-year reauthorization of the TEA-21 safety
programs under its jurisdiction. Our bipartisan bill is designed to
meet the level of commitment to safety needed to achieve aggressive
goals for reducing accidents and fatalities on the nation's
[[Page S12096]]
roadways. Safety deserves at least the same attention and priority as
highway construction and again, I will object to any future related
measure that does not ensure the motor carrier safety programs are
fully funded for the full 2004 fiscal year.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in supporting
the pending legislation. This 5-month extension of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, preserves the basic structure
of our Federal surface transportation programs, which have proven to be
extremely beneficial for our citizens' mobility and our national
economy over the last 6 years.
I want to focus for a moment on the Federal transit program, in which
I have a particular interest as the ranking member of the Senate
Banking Committee. The Banking Committee and its Housing and
Transportation Subcommittee, both last Congress and this Congress, have
held a series of hearings on the contributions of the transit program
to reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and
improving our quality of life. The clear message of these hearings is
that TEA-21 works. The guaranteed funding, the program structure, and
the balanced approach to transportation planning encompassed within
TEA-21 have contributed to a renaissance for transit in this country;
in fact, transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership
growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing over 28
percent between 1993 and 2001. For this reason, I am pleased that this
legislation preserves the structure and programs of TEA-21 for the next
5 months.
While we are talking today about a short-term extension, I think we
must take a moment to look toward the future. The transportation needs
of this Nation are significant, as more and more communities find
themselves confronting the problems of traffic congestion and delay.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in the year 2000,
Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic,
with an estimated cost to the Nation of $67.5 billion in lost time and
wasted fuel. As these figures show, congestion has a real economic cost
to this Nation, in addition to the psychological and social costs of
spending hours each day sitting in traffic.
It is clear to me that we will have to greatly increase Federal
support for transportation to help local communities make the
investments in infrastructure and system preservation that will keep
America moving forward in the 21st century. The Department of
Transportation's Conditions and Performance Report estimates that an
average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to
maintain and improve the condition of our highways, bridges, and
transit systems. Other estimates show an even greater need. I believe
that failure to make the needed investment will result in the continued
deterioration of our existing infrastructure.
Moreover, investment in our transportation infrastructure has
economic benefits as well. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates
47,500 jobs. At a time when our economy is struggling, investing in
transportation is one of the smartest actions that Government can take.
Increased investment creates jobs today and leads to economic growth
tomorrow.
For this reason, I am disappointed that the administration has not
yet come forward with the resources we will need to develop a full, 6
year reauthorization bill. The administration's reauthorization
proposal, known as SAFETEA, provides only a minimal increase for the
Federal highway program, and in fact would cut that program in fiscal
year 2004 from its fiscal year 2003 level. For transit, SAFETEA not
only fails to grow the program at the pace of inflation, it cuts
guaranteed funding over the 6 year period, so that the guaranteed level
in fiscal year 2009 is actually less than the program level today.
Without a serious commitment from the administration to make the kind
of investment needed, and strong bipartisan bicameral leadership in the
Congress, it will be very difficult for us to reauthorize the surface
transportation programs even when this short-term extension expires.
Until that commitment is made, however, it is essential that our
States and local communities be able to continue to operate and
maintain our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. I encourage
the Department of Transportation to use the authority granted by this
legislation to provide the needed assistance as expeditiously as
possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as the Senate considers this temporary
extension of our transportation programs, I would like to note for my
colleagues the budgetary implications of this legislation.
This bill is subject to a point of order pursuant to section 302(f)
of the Budget Act because the total level of contract authority for
transportation programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation--on an annualized basis--exceeds
the allocation provided to that committee in the FY 2004 budget
resolution. Because the amount is not significant, and the bill is only
a short-term extension, I have chosen not to pursue the point of order
at this time.
In addition, section 10 of the bill contains a number of provisions
that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, thus
subjecting the bill to another 60-vote point of order pursuant to
section 306 of the Budget Act. Subsections (a), (b) and (c) amend
sections 250 and 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and purport to extend the life of the
transportation categories. Subsection (d) deems certain spending
adjustments to be ``zero'' for FY 2004. Finally subsection (e)
expresses a ``sense of Congress'' with respect to the adjustments for
revenue aligned budget authority (aka RABA).
While some may argue that these ``budgetary provisions'' are of
little consequence given the expiration of the statutory spending caps
which had been set out in section 251, I feel it is still important to
comment upon them. I am concerned that their inclusion in this bill may
signal to some that we have prejudged the important fiscal policy
debate that must take place when the long-term reauthorization comes
before the Senate. Let me assure my colleagues, that in agreeing to
this necessary stop-gap measure today, I am in no way conceding the
future budgetary treatment of transportation spending.
These issues have a long history.
In 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
was enacted and from a budgetary perspective introduced two new
concepts: two transportation categories (for highways and transit)
within the discretionary spending limits and an annual automatic
adjustment to those limits, aka RABA. Both concepts were enshrined in
section 251 as well as in the transportation laws. In general, section
251 set out the statutory discretionary spending limits through FY
2002. These limits were enforced through sequestration. In other words,
back in 1998 special (one might even say privileged) consideration was
afforded transportation spending within the context of an overall goal
to limit spending and balance the budget by 2002. While TEA-21
purported to establish special budgetary treatment through FY 2003, the
mechanisms were placed within section 251 which expired on September
30, 2002 (pursuant to section 275(b)). Consequently this special
budgetary treatment of transportation spending ceased to have any
substantive meaning nearly 2 years ago--after enactment of the FY 2002
appropriations bills.
I must also remind my colleagues that this RABA mechanism was to have
been a two-way street. If gas tax revenues exceeded previous estimates,
spending for transportation would go up. Similarly if gas tax revenues
decreased, spending levels were to have gone down--thus not altering
the ``path to a balanced budget.'' This mechanism worked well through
the boom time of the late 1990's as actual gas tax revenues
consistently exceeded previous estimates and Congress and the President
happily spent this windfall. However, when actual gas receipts cam in
below predicted levels and the President reflected the lower levels
dictated by TEA-21 in his FY 2003 budget, few in Washington were
willing to acknowledge this reality and spend less.
I mention this today because I am concerned by the language in this
bill
[[Page S12097]]
that expresses the ``Sense of Congress'' on RABA. While the language is
not binding and merely suggests that any future provisions should seek
to minimize fluctuations in spending--which sounds like a good thing--
its very presence in H.R. 3087 might lead some to believe that the
concept of separate transportation categories and the RABA adjustment's
inclusion in a long-term extension is a done deal.
The Senate should remember that when TEA-21 was enacted it was done
so in the context of 5-year discretionary spending limits--which I
remind my colleagues were designed to manage the growth of
discretionary spending in order to reach a balanced budget by 2002.
Since then, balanced budgets, surpluses and the days of 5-year caps
have come and gone. And while I sincerely hope we can exercise fiscal
constraint in the coming years, I do not know when or if we will again
put 5-year discretionary caps into law. Our recent experiences have
shown us that, at best, caps might be useful for 2 years. Consequently,
I believe that as we work towards a long-term reauthorization of our
Federal transportation programs, we must take a fresh look at any
associated budgetary mechanisms.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important
issues in the future.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am reluctant to enact a short-term
extension of the highway funding bill without improving equity for
donor States. At issue is the historic mistreatment of about 20 States,
including Michigan, known as ``donor'' States, who, year after year,
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 Senators from a number of small and
large States banded together to develop a formula to distribute Federal
highway dollars that advantaged their States at the expense of 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, but 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 our States and the jobs that go
with it. Unfortunately, this short-term extension bill does not make
any improvements on the rate of return for donor States, even on the
new funds that are included in this bill that are above last year's
funding levels.
My colleagues have argued that this short-term bill is a straight
``clean'' extension of Federal highway and transit programs. They have
argued that we cannot accommodate any policy changes in an extension
bill such as improving the rate of return for donor States. But this
bill does include one policy change. It includes an increase in funding
over last year. In fairness to donor States and to bring us closer to
narrowing the funding gap between donor and donee States, the
additional money contained in this bill should have been distributed to
donor States at a higher rate.
Unfortunately, this bill does not do this. It contains more money
than last year yet fails to address the longstanding inequity. Every
time we extend these programs without addressing equity, donor States
lose out on getting back their fair share of gas tax dollars currently
being spent in 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.
I plan to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee to obtain a commitment to
achieve a 95 percent rate of return for a donor State's share of its
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund in the long-term transportation
reauthorization bill, up from 90.5 percent under the current bill.
This is an issue of simple fairness and we should not be satisfied
until we achieve it.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3087,
the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003, which extends the
expiring Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for an
additional 5 months.
As my colleagues are aware, we are just days from the expiration of
TEA-21. We continue to make progress in our negotiations on a
comprehensive 6-year bill, but we need more time. Earlier this year, 79
Senators voted for the Bond-Reid amendment to the fiscal year 2004
budget resolution which stated clearly that the Senate wanted the
funding for a 6-year highway bill at $255 billion.
I believe $255 billion is a reasonable and responsible level given
the pressing transportation infrastructure needs that are out there.
Now the challenge is to get to that level. My colleagues on the
Committee on Environment and Public Works and I have been working
closely with Senators Grassley and Baucus to find the money. In the
meantime, we have to address the imminent expiration of TEA-21.
H.R. 3087 provides 5 months worth of the $35.5 billion allowed under
the budget resolution of $14.8 billion and a corresponding amount of
obligation limitation. This is a significant, 7 percent increase in
highway funding over 2003. This additional $2.2 billion in highway
funding will translate into over 100,000 new jobs.
Of course, the best thing we can do to create economic opportunity is
enact a comprehensive, 6-year reauthorization. As we all know, highway
bills are job bills. A highway bill drafted at $255 billion over 6
years will create about 2 million new American jobs. This combined with
the tax cuts signed by President Bush is the best stimulus the economy
can receive.
Let me be very clear that my preference is that we would be
considering a 6-year comprehensive bill today, not a 5-month extension,
but reality is that the funding needed to do a comprehensive 6-year
bill at $255 billion has not yet been identified. Because of that, I
believe the best outcome for the long-term is to do a 5-year month
extension and continue to work on a comprehensive 6-year bill.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3087.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President. I rise in support of H.R. 3087, a bill
to extend the Nation's surface transportation program, TEA-21, for a
five-month period. Absent enactment of H.R. 3087, the program will shut
down on September 30, 2003. I urge my colleagues to join me in support
of this bill.
I regret the need for a short term extension to TEA-21. A short term
extension brings uncertainty to our State transportation departments.
This leads to postponed projects and job loss. But we have yet to find
sufficient revenues to bring a full, 6-year reauthorization bill to the
floor.
I have worked for the last 2 years on reauthorization of the
transportation program, first as chairman of the committee on
Environment and Public Works, and now as ranking member. This work has
been bipartisan. I thank and commend Chairman Inhofe and our
subcommittee chairman and ranking member, Senators Bond and Reid for
their approach to this task.
We have made great progress. We concluded early on that the Nation's
infrastructure needs far exceed current resources. We shared our
findings with our Senate colleagues. They in turn gave overwhelming
support to the Bond-Reid amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution, to
increase spending on the transportation program by roughly 40 percent
to $311 billion. This has guided our work.
[[Page S12098]]
Our hearings revealed strong support for the existing TEA-21 program
structure. In our work to date, we have retained the program structure
largely intact. My goal is to maintain the current patterns in
resources allocation among program categories, as well. On funding
formulas, we have committed to benefitting all States as the program
grows. And the program growth levels approved by our Senate budget
resolution will enable such an outcome.
I will continue to work with Chairman Inhofe to bring a full, 6-year
bill to the Senate floor within the next 5 months.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3087, a bill
to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier
safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust
Fund until February 29, 2004 pending enactment of a law reauthorizing
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. However, I
am disappointed that Congress has been unable to enact a 6-year
reauthorization of TEA-21 prior to September 30, 2003.
According to the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association, ARTBA, employment in the transportation construction
industry was down in July 2003 compared to July 2002. Specifically,
there were 12,100 fewer workers on project sites over the last year, a
decrease of 3.7 percent. In Ohio, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, heavy construction jobs are up slightly from last year;
however, there are still 3,800 fewer jobs than in August 2000 when they
were at their peak. Moreover, last year had the lowest number of
employees in heavy construction since 1995.
Our economy needs a public works program to create jobs. Investment
in our Nation's transportation infrastructure through a 6-year
reauthorization bill would create thousands of jobs and jumpstart our
sluggish economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation,
for every $1 billion invested in highway construction, 47,500 jobs are
created. It is also estimated that every dollar invested in the
Nation's highway system generates $5.70 in economic benefits, including
reduced delays, improved safety, and reduced vehicle operations costs.
This is a six-to-one return on investment.
Although a 5-month extension extension will continue the flow of
Federal funding to States' highway programs, it will not deal with the
Nation's pressing, long-term transportation infrastructure needs.
According to the Federal Highway Administration's, FHWA, 2002
Conditions and Performance Report, the average annual investment level
needed to make improvements to highways and bridges is projected to be
$106.9 billion through 2020. This amount is 65.3 percent higher than
the $64.6 billion of total capital investments spent by all levels of
government in 2000.
The average annual investment level necessary to maintain the current
condition and performance of highways and bridges is projected to be
$75.9 billion through 2020. This amount if 17.5 percent higher than
capital spending in 2000.
If we continue to ignore the upkeep, and allow the deterioration of
our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced
protection for public safety, health, and the environment. In my view,
it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that funding levels are
adequate and efficiently allocated to the Nation's priority needs. In
1998, Congress recognized the importance of the Nation's transportation
system through the enactment of TEA-21, a 6-year bill which increased
by nearly 40 percent Federal investment in highways and transit. Under
TEA-21, Ohio received a 23 percent increase in transportation funding.
As chairman of the National Governors Association, I was involved in
negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress to ensure that all Highway
Trust Fund revenues were spent on transportation. I also fought to even
out highway funding fluctuations and assure a predictable flow of
funding to the States. TEA-21 achieved this goal with record,
guaranteed levels of funding. While TEA-21 has enabled States and
localities to improve the condition of deteriorating and unsafe
highways and to increase capacity and performance, the system is still
aging, and in need of additional investment.
TEA-21 also dedicated nearly all highway gas taxes to transportation
funding and guarantees that States will receive at least 90.5 percent
of their share of their contribution to the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund. One of my top priorities for TEA-21 reauthorization
is to increase the minimum share for donor states to at least 95
percent. This increase in the rate of return would generate an
additional $60 million or more in Federal highway funding for the State
of Ohio.
In May 2003, Senator Carl Levin and I, along with House majority
leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Baron Hill introduced legislation--the
Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003--to increase donor States' minimum
rate-of-return to 95 percent. Currently, there are 143 cosponsors of
the House bill and 22 cosponsors of the Senate bill.
The legislation we are considering today does not improve donor State
equity; rather, it continues current law with respect to the minimum
guarantee program. For donor States, this is another reason why a 6-
year reauthorization is so important and critical to our States. I am
strongly committed to improving donor state equity in the longer term
reauthorization, and look forward to working with my colleagues on the
Environment and Public Works Committee to ensure that states receive
their fair share of Highway Trust Fund dollars.
I am disappointed that the legislation we are considering does not
contain language which would have ensured that States that consume
ethanol-blended fuel are no longer penalized. The Finance Committee
reported legislation I have cosponsored that would transfer 2.5 cents
of the Federal tax on ethanol-blended fuel from the General Fund of the
Treasury to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund and replace
the 5.2 cents per gallon reduced tax rate for ethanol-blended fuel with
a tax credit. As a result, the same Federal tax will be collected and
deposited into the Highway Trust Fund regardless of whether a gallon of
fuel contains ethanol. The Ohio Department of Transportation, ODOT,
estimates that Ohio would restore up to $170 million annually as a
result of the Finance Committee's legislation. I am hopeful this
legislation will be passed soon.
Ohio has the Nation's tenth largest highway network, the fifth
highest volume of traffic, the fourth largest interstate highway
network, and the second largest inventory of bridges in the country.
Ohio's transportation challenge is to expand its 1960s transportation
system to meet 21st century needs. Recently, Ohio approved a State
motor fuel tax increase that will ensure an annual $250 million new
construction program for the next 10 years while maintaining bridge and
highway conditions. With additional Federal funds, ODOT has set a goal
of having a $5 billion, 10-year Ohio construction program dedicated to
addressing Ohio's most pressing congestion, safety, and rural access
needs. The plan is predicated on Congress enacting legislation to
correct the ``ethanol penalty'' which reduces Ohio's transportation
revenue, increase donor states' minimum rate-of-return to 95 percent,
and provide an increased level of investment in the nation's highways
and bridges.
This is why a 6-year reauthorization is important to my State. I am
hopeful that Congress can reach a consensus on how to fund a longer-
term reauthorization. As far as this Senator is concerned, I support
the principle that the highway program is a fully user-fee based system
that pays its own way, and I am reluctant to borrow more money for
highways.
Furthermore, as chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, I look forward to working with
my colleagues to include provisions in the 6-year reauthorization that
will streamline the project delivery process while protecting the
environment and historic resources, reform the conformity process, and
reauthorize and improve the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
program.
I urge my colleagues to work together to produce a six-year
reauthorization of TEA-21 before the extension bill expires at the end
of next February. Reauthorization of TEA-21 will be one of the most
important actions this Congress will take to get people back to work.
[[Page S12099]]
inequity of donor states
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am concerned that the 5-month highway
bill extension being considered by the Senate today does not address
the inequity faced by the donor States for so many years. The donor
State inequity issue is the historic problem of about 20 States,
including Michigan, Ohio and Oklahoma, known as ``donor'' States, who
have sent more gas tax dollars year after year 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. For a long time there has been no legitimacy to retaining
such antiquated and unfair formulas that require taxpayers in 20 of our
States to subsidize highway projects in 30 other States. We should not
consider a highway bill without addressing this important issue.
It is a high priority to see that this historic inequity be
corrected. 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. My colleague from Ohio and I
have authored legislation that would bring donor States to a 95 percent
rate of return on their contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. This
would be up from the current minimum rate of return of 90.5 percent
under the current TEA-21 bill. I am reluctant to see even a short term
extension of the highway bill go through without increasing the minimum
rate of return for donor States to address the inequity. I would at the
very least like to get a commitment from the chairman that achieving
donor State equity in a 6-year reauthorization bill in his intention
and an urgent priority. I know he is as determined as we are to achieve
equity for donor States.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more with my colleague
from Michigan. There is no logical reason why donor States should be
contributing more dollars to the Highway Trust Fund than are returned
to them for highway, bridge, and other surface transportation projects.
Donor States like Ohio, Michigan, and Oklahoma have as many
transportation infrastructure needs as other States. With so many
projects needing funding in our own States, why should the citizens in
our States continue to pay for transportation improvements in other
States?
I, too, would like an assurance that the donor State equity issue
will be addressed in the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century and that this long-term reauthorization will
be presented to the Senate as soon as possible.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want my colleagues from Michigan, Ohio,
and the many other donor States to know that I am committed to
improving the return to donor States. It is my intention that any
comprehensive 6-year reauthorization bill considered by the Senate
include a provision that guarantees all donor States get to a 95
percent minimum rate of return at the end of the life of the bill
without harming the opportunity for all States to grow. However,
Members need to understand that this is only possible if we are able to
fund the bill at $255 billion which means we must identify additional
revenue.
I also want to further assure my donor State colleagues that the next
highway bill I plan to mark up is a 6-year bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am reassured to hear such a strong
commitment from my colleague from Oklahoma to achieve a 95-percent
minimum rate of return for all States in the long-term highway
reauthorization bill. I look forward to continuing to work closely with
the chairman to achieve this goal and in the fight for true donor State
equity.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am also reassured to hear the strong
conviction of my colleague from Oklahoma that donor States should
receive a minimum rate of return of 95 percent on the share of their
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. I too look forward to working
with the chairman and my colleague from Michigan to improve donor State
equity.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3087) was read the third time and passed.
____________________