Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 10 (Monday, February 2, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 10 (Monday, February 2, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S343-S360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SAFE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 2003--MOTION TO PROCEED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m.
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to
proceed to the consideration of S. 1072.
Madam President, we are about to begin discussion on the cloture
motion we will be voting on this afternoon. It could be considered by
many people as the most significant piece of legislation we will be
dealing with this year or maybe even in a 6-year period. The current
extension of TEA-21, passed in 1998, expires on February 29. We have to
act. We have no other option. Some might argue that we can do another
extension, but another extension without Senate action on a 6-year bill
sets us up for not doing a reauthorization bill this year at all. That
is just not acceptable.
The President has released his fiscal year 2005 budget, and I believe
it misses the mark with transportation funding. He proposes funding
$256 billion on highways and transit, approximately $55 billion under
the Bond-Reid amendment that we agreed to with a plurality of 79 votes.
Earlier today we heard from Senators who believe that S. 1072
proposes a level of spending that is too high, that we need to bring it
into line with the President's numbers. I disagree. I strongly support
the President on virtually everything he is doing, but in this case I
do not agree. We have a crisis in the country in terms of our
infrastructure and we must meet this crisis. We need to stick with the
Bond-Reid level and need to get the bill done now.
For those who want to wait to do a bill, we caution you that putting
this off only makes it harder. The current extension is spending down
the trust fund balance. If we do another extension, the balance will be
spent down even further, which means we will have little choice at that
point but to increase fuel taxes. In my mind, indexing fuel taxes was
probably a fiscally responsible position at one time because it does
preserve the purchasing power of our transportation dollars. But I also
understand the political realities. I know it is not a viable option at
this time.
This bill does not assume an increase in fuel taxes. Due to the good
work of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, both of whom I met
with this morning--and both have been real champions in working
diligently to make this happen--the deficit is neutral in this bill.
Don't fool yourselves into believing that delaying action on this
bill is saving money. The exact opposite is true. For instance, our
transportation infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. Thirty-two
percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Thirty-
nine percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete. As much as I hate to admit it, my State of Oklahoma ranks
last of all 50 States, which is not too complimentary to the idea that
I am the chairman of this committee. The cost to address these issues
only increases the longer we wait.
In addition, the economic consequences escalate because poor
infrastructure contributes to congestion, which means lost productivity
to the tune of $76 billion.
Additionally, another delay to enacting a 6-year comprehensive bill
will frustrate our State departments of transportation in their own
programs. They need the assurance and security of a stable Federal
program in order to make their individual programs work. As you well
know, they have worked on these programs now for not just months but
well over a year anticipating that we would have this reauthorization
underway.
Finally, we are missing an opportunity to create jobs. For every $1
billion invested in Federal highway transit spending, 47,500 jobs are
created. We estimate that S. 1072 will impact the overall job growth by
700,000 jobs. To the construction worker, our bill would generate over
2 million opportunities for employment. In other words, when one job
ends, there will be another opportunity available so the construction
worker can move from one job to another thereby avoiding unemployment.
I think that is a good thing and one each of us in this Chamber should
be willing to roll up our sleeves and work to get done. I anticipate
that is exactly what we are going to do.
In addition to a job creator, spending on transportation makes good
economic sense. For every $1 billion in transportation expenditures,
the gross domestic product increases by $1.75 billion. Furthermore,
transportation investments improve freight mobility which in a ``just
in time'' delivery business model is critical to growth.
I recognize for those who believe this bill should be stopped for
budgetary reasons that my arguments may not

[[Page S344]]

meet with a receptive ear, but I do want you to understand that voting
no on cloture means you are voting no on addressing the repair and
rehabilitation needs of our 50-year interstate system which is at the
heart of the economic engine of the Nation. Voting no on the cloture
motion would be voting no on the creation of over 2 million employment
opportunities and no to 700,000 new jobs. It would be voting no on
addressing congestion problems which cost the economy $76 billion
annually and voting no on increases to gross domestic product.
Finally, if we are able to proceed to S. 1072, I will be asked by
many of you to help you with individual needs in your States. I am
happy to do that. I want to do that. But before I can help you, you
need to help me.
I ask you to vote yes on the cloture motion so that when the need
comes up in your State and you have a need to meet a crisis, or you
have special project needs, we will be helping each other. I think we
all understand that.
Some people who have actually read the legislation we are going to be
considering are still saying that perhaps it is not meeting the
environmental goals or it is not meeting the public participation. I
think this is one of the major strong points of this legislation. We
have spent a lot of time--and I have to tell you that the ranking
member, Jim Jeffords, along with Kitt Bond, and of course Harry Reid,
the Senator from Nevada, have all been very cooperative--in working out
things. There are some things in this bill that I don't like, but
compromise has been the name of it.
For example, on the environmental issues, it requires metropolitan
planning organizations and State transportation planners to consult
during regional planning with agencies responsible for land use
management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation,
and historic preservation.

It expands the number and types of environmental and resource
agencies participating in the environmental review.
It provides a new opportunity for environmental and resource agencies
to participate in the development of the environmental review schedule.
It establishes a new obligation for the lead agency to consider the
needs of environmental and resource agencies when developing the review
schedule, including the responsibilities of resource agencies under
applicable laws, resources available to environmental and resource
agencies to conduct the review, and the sensitivity of the national and
historic resources that could be affected by the projects.
It provides a new opportunity for environmental and resource agencies
to participate in the development of a project's purpose and needs
statement.
It provides a new opportunity for environmental and resource agencies
to participate in development of the project alternatives to be
reviewed.
It provides new opportunities for transportation planners to consider
transportation land use and environmental plans when conducting the
environmental review.
It creates a new obligation by the lead agency to make available
promptly to environmental and resource agencies information useful to
an environmental review.
I was around back in 1991 serving in the other body when we put
together ISTEA. It is a very comprehensive bill. I was also involved on
this committee in 1998 when we were putting together TEA-21. But in
none of those efforts and in none of that legislation were the
environmental concerns met as well as we are meeting them here.
The same is true with public participation. Those of us who serve in
the Senate are constantly inundated at our townhall meetings by people
saying they do not have the opportunity to participate in these things.
We are correcting that. We think that people and other governmental
agencies should be a part of it.
There is a specific new section devoted to improving public
involvement in transportation planning and projects, directing State
and metropolitan transportation planners to hold public meetings at
convenient and acceptable locations and times, to employ visualization
techniques to describe plans, and to make public information available
electronically such as the World Wide Web.
There are new opportunities for public comment on specific
environmental factors considered by metropolitan planning organizations
and States during the transportation planning. We know this is true
when we go back to our States. They tell us that in their department of
transportation--I am sure in North Carolina, in Nevada, in Oklahoma--if
they have the chance to plan in advance to have this comprehensive bill
in front of them--not just another extension--they then can make their
long-term plans get much more from the construction dollars.
I reemphasize that there is nothing we are going to do in this
Chamber which is going to provide more jobs than will be provided by
this bill. That is why it is so important that we defeat cloture and
get on with this and get it done in the next 10 days or so.
I compliment the leaders on both the Democrat and Republican side,
and particularly Senator Reid, the assistant minority leader, for his
cooperation in helping us to make this a truly nonpartisan and
bipartisan effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is with a certain amount of sadness
that I worked on this matter this weekend and looked over all the past
history of the surface transportation legislation. The sadness comes
because Pat Moynihan is not here. When we started working this bill
last year, I asked Senator Moynihan to come visit with me and my staff.
He did. He came with that smile. I always had the feeling with Senator
Moynihan that no matter the subject he always knew more than I did. He
had a lot of humility. Even though he knew that he knew more than most
anyone he dealt with, he never flaunted that great mind that he had.
The legislation we have before us today is basically what Pat
Moynihan envisioned for our country. Serving with him on the
Environment and Public Works Committee--which I did for my tenure in
the Senate--was like going to school and not having to take the test.
Senator Moynihan was wonderful. He would talk about the great Robert
Moses of New York and the planning that he did.
I hope that all of us as we proceed through this bill will understand
the greatness of Pat Moynihan, and what he has done for our country.

Everywhere in the Nation's Capital there is evidence of Pat Moynihan.
I worked in Washington, DC, as a Capitol policeman, going to law
school. And when I worked here as a Capitol policeman, Pennsylvania
Avenue was a slum. During the Kennedy inauguration, Pat Moynihan
recognized that and said we should do something about it. He was just a
bureaucrat at the time. But he proceeded from that time to help develop
the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation. Now you can go up
Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House and it is one of the most
beautiful streets in the world because of Pat Moynihan.
I hope we proceed through this legislation recognizing what a
wonderful man Pat Moynihan was. One cannot stop but think of the things
he did, including the Ronald Reagan Building. For 50 years that was a
big hole in the ground. In the Nation's Capital we had this big
nothing. Pat Moynihan said: We cannot spend enough money on that; we
will build a building there. That is a building that Ronald Reagan, I
am sure, in his own way, is proud of. There is not a more beautiful
building in the Nation's Capital, with the exception of maybe the
Library of Congress, than the Ronald Reagan Building. That is Pat
Moynihan's. It is his.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that Patrick Moynihan was born and
raised in my city of Tulsa? He was the first one when I came here--not
to the Senate but to the other body--to whom I came over to talk. We
developed a very close relationship. Someone could wonder, how could
this be--you have one who is a dedicated liberal, one who is a
dedicated conservative, having that affection.
When I was elected to this body in 1994, his office was next door to
me. I confess right now before all these people, when the bells rang
for a vote, I would go and look down the hall and wait until Daniel
Patrick Moynihan

[[Page S345]]

was coming up so I could walk and talk with him on the way over. He was
just a remarkable person. There is a lot of dedication to him in what
we are doing today.
Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the Senator from Oklahoma
recognizing the goodness of this man. He is absolutely right. I am sure
the Senator learned a great deal in those walks from the Russell
Building over here.
I remember Senator Moynihan and I sat together on a bus going from
the airport to the funeral of the great John Chafee. During the entire
trip, he pointed out, as we traveled to Rhode Island--Providence, I
think is where the funeral was--all the architecture, the history of
the buildings, as we drove up to the beautiful church. And when we got
to the church, he told me all about that church.
I wish I had the recall of Pat Moynihan. I wish I had 20 percent of
the recall ability of Senator Moynihan. He had such an ability to
communicate. As Senator Bumpers said, upon the publication of Senator
Moynihan's 15th book--or whatever it was--you have written more books
than I have read.
He was a great man. I have my heart full. Part of it is gratitude for
knowing a man such as that, that there are great ones on this Earth.
Pat Moynihan was a great one.
About 50 years ago, one of the really fine Presidents we have had, a
Republican, President Dwight David Eisenhower, presided over the
creation of the Interstate Highway System. On that occasion, he said:

The Nation badly needs new highways. The good of our
people, of our economy and of our defense, require that
construction of these highways be undertaken at once.

President Eisenhower continued:

We have fallen far behind in this task. . . . Today there
is hardly a city of any size without almost hopeless
congestion within its boundaries and stalled traffic blocking
roads leading beyond these boundaries.

President Eisenhower said what we needed to do in this legislation:
If there was ever a time in the recent history of this body when we had
to do something on a bipartisan basis, it is this bill. People stuck in
traffic are Democrats and Republicans. It is equal opportunity, whether
you are stuck in traffic in Las Vegas, Phoenix, St. Louis. There are
people of both parties stuck in that traffic, losing valuable time. If
they were not stuck in that traffic, they would make our country more
productive.
Why did President Eisenhower feel so strongly about an interstate
highway system? He felt that way because, as a young major, he was
asked in the 1930s to bring a convoy of military vehicles across the
country. It was at that time he realized there was no easy way to do
it. The roads were hopeless. There was no way you could travel this
country, even for military purposes, easily. At that time he realized
something needed to be done, and when he became President, that was one
of the first things he pushed.
People who are complaining about the cost of this bill, Republicans
and Democrats, should understand that the highway bill President
Eisenhower originally sponsored was also criticized as being too
costly. This bill is not too costly. One of the compromises the Senator
from Oklahoma worked out with Senator Jeffords and me is that it is as
small as it is. If it were up to Senator Jeffords and this committee,
it would be bigger. It is because of the chairman of the committee that
it is as small as it is. I hope everyone who criticizes the Senator
from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, understands he did yeoman's work.
As we speak, the House is talking about a bill bigger than ours. They
criticized President Eisenhower for a bill being too big and they
criticize us for a bill being too big. In my opinion, the bill is too
small.
Part of the reason for President Eisenhower's bill, the Interstate
Highway System, has been completed. We have many more different
responsibilities now than we had then. In recent years, we have done
some very good work with highway transportation.
Going back to 1982 when I first came to Washington, we had the
Surface Transportation Assistance Act. This bill established the mass
transit account, the highway trust fund. The reason that became
important was, people came to the realization that for every vehicle we
keep off our highway system, it saves money. It was determined that it
would be good if we became partners with the mass transit folks and
worked together on legislation. That was what we did in 1982 and that
is what we are doing now. That is why it is such good news that the
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, that handles mass
transit, has agreed on a proposal.
Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and I met today with the chairman
of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance
Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, and they have agreed to that.
That is really important. That started back in 1982. At that time,
there was an 85 percent minimum return provision. That means for every
dollar put into the highway trust fund in a State such as North
Carolina, there was a guarantee they would get at least 85 percent of
the money they put in. Some States got more than that, but 1982 was the
first time there was a minimum return provision. One of the
controversies in that bill was an increase in the Federal gas tax from
4 to 9 cents per gallon. It was a good bill and passed.
In 1987, 5 years later, we had a bill called the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Reallocation Assistance Act. It was not a
very sexy name but it got the point across. It increased the speed
limit, which was so important for States such as Nevada, from 55 miles
per hour to a higher speed. It worked out well and we hope that
continues to be OK. In a State such as Nevada--800 miles from the top
to bottom, 500 miles across--you need to be able to travel in a safe
manner on an interstate highway system faster than 55 miles per hour.
It also included a provision requiring States to spend a specified
minimum amount for environmental purposes. That was the first time the
highway bill had really taken that into consideration. So that was
important.
Congress felt so strongly about this that President Reagan vetoed
this bill. It was overridden by the House and the Senate. That does not
happen very often, but the Presiding Officer, who was part of the
administration during that time, recalls that.
In 1991, we had the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act,
ISTEA. That is where the name comes from--ISTEA. This created the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, CMAQ, program, which has been a
program that the environmentalists love, and some who are not as
environmentally sensitive do not like it. But these programs were
established then and dealt with air quality.
With the interstate system largely complete, as I indicated earlier,
ISTEA shifted the Federal program from capital construction to focus on
people and the movement of goods. This is where Senator Moynihan was so
good. It also expanded the transportation decisionmaking process to
include local officials, stakeholders, and citizens. And that passed.
It seems as if it was just a short time ago when, in June of 1988, we
passed TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. This
continued the basic policy structure established in ISTEA. It
dramatically increased funding of the Federal Surface Transportation
Program and established important budgetary protections or firewalls to
guarantee highway and transportation spending. And, for the first time
since 1982, we increased the minimum return to 90.5 percent, which was
very important.
I also want to make sure the record is clear from this Senator's
perspective of the contributions to highways and transit, and basically
good government, that came from John Chafee. I have been so fortunate.
I worked through all these bills that I have talked about, and I have
had the very good fortune to work with Senator Stafford, as chairman of
the committee, the great Senator from Vermont; Senator Moynihan for a
short time; Senator Baucus; Senator Chafee; and these men set a high
level that we who are now trying to move this bill must meet.
But Senator Chafee was such a good friend to me personally. He did so
many things to help me in my political career. Even though he was a
member of the other party, he went out of his way to always try to make
me look good. I will always be indebted to him and his family, and that
includes Lincoln, for all the good things that Senator Chafee did for
me. Even though I

[[Page S346]]

was closer to Senator Moynihan than I was to Senator Chafee, I felt
such a kinship to Senator Chafee and cared a good deal about him, and
his imprint is also on this legislation. Senator Moynihan could not
have done much of what he did without Senator Chafee working with him.
This bill we have before the Senate is good legislation. It is
imperfect. This legislation that is before this body is imperfect
legislation, but it is the best we could do. For 50 States, having a
formula that you put into a computer and do your computer run which
comes out as good as this one says a lot for the great work of our
staffs.
As Senator Inhofe has said, I would like to do different things in
this bill. If I had been the person dictating what was in this bill, it
would be different than what we have in it. But, frankly, I am down the
totem pole. You have the chairman and ranking member and the
subcommittee chairman and then me, but I did have some input in this
measure. I think what we have come up with, as I indicated, is far from
being perfect, but I think it is good legislation. And that is what
legislation is all about.

Legislation is the art of compromise. I have been fortunate that a
number of measures I have introduced are now law in this great country.
I have never ever gotten everything I wanted. Everything that is now
law that I introduced had to be changed. Anyone who is of the mind that
they are going to get what they introduced is wrong because it just
does not happen. I have never known it to happen.
This legislation we have been given by the two leaders we have 2
weeks to finish. If we do not finish it in 2 weeks, I am sorry to say
what might happen. What might happen is this bill will be pulled, and
we will have to extend the highway program for a year. That does not
help any State. No State is helped with that program. Every State gets
hurt. So we have to move and move quickly on this bill.
At the birth of the interstate system, safety and the efficient
movement of people and goods framed the national transportation debate.
Fifty years later, as President Eisenhower indicated, that is still the
talk, the same speech. You could give the Eisenhower speech today on
the floor of the Senate, and if we did not tell you it was 50 years
old, you would think it was being given by someone who wrote it today.
Fifty years after President Eisenhower's interstate highway system,
safety and efficiency remain our foremost objectives.
This year, traffic congestion will cost Americans more than $67
billion in lost time and productivity--$67 billion in lost time and
productivity--and it will waste almost 6 billion gallons of fuel. I
cannot imagine 6 billion gallons of fuel. I do not know where you would
put all that, but that is how much is wasted, which only increases our
dependence on foreign oil.
As for safety, traffic accidents last year killed 42,000 people. We
can reduce the toll of traffic congestion. We can save lives by making
our highways safer. We have a responsibility to keep working on these
problems and to find meaningful solutions.
The bill currently before this body represents a major commitment to
maintain and improve our national transportation infrastructure. It
also creates jobs.
Again, there has been controversy over there not being enough jobs
created during the 3 years that President Bush has been President.
Those people who are trying to damage this bill should understand this
legislation will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, some say as many
as 2 million jobs.
The majority leader of the Senate was here today, and he said for
every $1 billion we spend in this highway bill, $2 billion will be
created by other things, the offshoot of this legislation. We know for
every $1 billion we spend on infrastructure development, 47,000 high-
paying jobs are created. We know that. And these are well paid, skilled
jobs for Americans.
This bill is also a referendum on improving our quality of life. No
other measure will we debate in this Congress that has the potential to
so dramatically impact every facet of our everyday lives.
I thank my colleagues, the entire committee, but especially Senator
Jeffords, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Bond for working to craft a
bipartisan package that continues the intermodal legacy of its
predecessors, ISTEA and TEA-21.
Our proposal does not make dramatic changes to the core program
structure because it does not need to. The groundwork has already been
laid. During a year's worth of reauthorization hearings, the committee
learned that the basic structure does work.
This package refines and improves the current program to ensure that
our investments have the maximum impact on improving our surface
transportation system.
Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Union and has been for
more than a decade. Clark County--that is where Las Vegas is located--
has experienced the bulk of that growth. This growth represents unique
challenges but also opportunities.
The bill before the Senate provides resources and programs that
encourage the effective management and operation of our Nation's
transportation system. The continued success of that system is
essential to fast growing metropolitan areas such as Clark County,
where traffic congestion and air quality are serious issues.
This legislation also places a renewed emphasis on safety by
consolidating the various safety initiatives spread through the Federal
highway program into new core safety programs. One of the aspects we
have worked on includes something called the Safe Routes to School
Initiative. It was felt that we wanted to do everything we could to
have kids walk to school, ride bicycles to school. Why do they have to
have a bus pick them up and drop them off at their door? One of the
things we are doing is creating safer routes for children. If they want
to use a bike or walk, we have bike paths and sidewalks.
This is important because, for example, in Clark County, we have
opened, in the last 2 years, 18 schools a year, a total of 36 schools.
By opening one new school a month we can't keep up with the growth in
Clark County. We have high schools that are approaching 5,000 kids. So
the safer routes to school program will help promote healthy living by
making it safer for children to walk or ride to school on bikes, not
cars and buses. I am pleased this package moves the Nation's surface
transportation program forward without jeopardizing our natural
environment.
One of the things we did in this bill, which was difficult, States
have complained about. Originally back before 1982, some States were
barely getting 80 percent of what they put into these trust funds. We
moved it to 85, 90.5. And now with this bill, the formula now before
the Senate, every State, by the end of this legislation, will get 95
percent of what they put in. That is very difficult. It goes without
saying that some of the States who were getting more than a dollar in
years past, a lot of them continue to get more than a dollar, but some
of them don't. The State of Nevada, under this formula, gets less than
a dollar. But in fairness, the formula is a formula. It wouldn't have
been right for the formula to be any different for me than it is for
others. So this is fair. We have made it so every State at the end of
this bill will get at least 95 percent.
In this legislation every State will get a percentage increase. This
legislation is not perfect, but it is about as fair as we could do. I
have worked with my staff the last 4 or 5 days to say, could you come
up with something. I had a few problems with the legislation. Come up
with something. I will talk to Senator Inhofe because we might have a
formula that may be better. We couldn't come up with one. I wish we
could have, but we couldn't. But what we have done here is the best we
could do. The vast majority of the States will do extremely well
compared to what they did in the past.
As with any compromise, this is not perfect. It is inevitable that
some States will not be completely satisfied with the results, but it
is important to note every State benefits from the growth in this
program.
We worked hard to create a funding mechanism that allows all 50
States plus the District of Columbia to benefit from program growth
while addressing several competing fundraising priorities: Donor versus
donee, old versus new, urban versus rural. These have all been put in
this formula, and we have

[[Page S347]]

come up with what is as fair as we think we can do. The bill before us
accomplishes that goal.
Once more, let me emphasize, every State benefits from the growth in
the program. So again, I extend my appreciation to my colleagues--the
chairman of the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and
Senator Jeffords, the ranking member--for the good work they have done.
We are all going to have to be vigilant. I hope those who want to
change the bill come here and offer amendments. I hope they do it as
soon as possible. We hope to get to this bill tomorrow. We are hopeful
and confident the motion to proceed should be overwhelmingly approved.
I can't imagine anyone voting against this.

I was told by the person who asked me to object on their behalf on
the motion to proceed that that Senator was concerned about the transit
portion of the bill. That has been taken care of. The chairmen of the
two committees have signed off on this. I hope we can move forward on
this very quickly.
Again, I am glad we are here. What we do on this legislation will set
a tone for the rest of this legislative year. I hope we can permit it.
I should be more confident, like the players in the Super Bowl and the
coaches: We are going to finish this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I reextend my appreciation to the Senator
from Nevada for all the help he has been. His expertise is well known
in this Chamber, and he has been on the opposite side of me probably
more than on my side. I like it this way better.
I would like to amplify a couple things Senator Reid talked about. I
think it is significant, when you talk about where we are now relative
to where we were in TEA-21, the last 6-year reauthorization. Our
average is 35.6 percent higher. The average State is higher than it was
in TEA-21.
In the comments he made about a computer run, I know this is kind of
complicated to explain to people because it is the only way I think you
can come up with something that is very fair. Prior to this, in
previous years under TEA-21, we had the 1104 table which was a minimum
guarantee. That was a percentage that each State had that was a
percentage of the total growth. It was purely politically driven.
I don't like the way some of these things come out of the computer.
But when this came out, I agreed with Senator Reid, there is not a
better way of doing it. I will give an example. I was talking to one of
the Senators from Pennsylvania who was complaining about perhaps not
getting the share they should have gotten. So I did a comparison.
My State of Oklahoma--I hope no one from Oklahoma is listening right
now--is 70,000 square miles. Pennsylvania is 46,000 square miles. My
State of Oklahoma has a population of 3.5 million. They have 12.2
million. The historic rate of return since we came in to the first
bill, through Senator Moynihan, has been .87 percent. Pennsylvania has
been 1.16 percent. This is the key: the total miles. Unfortunately, I
don't have this less toll roads, but I will explain the difference.

If you take the total amount of miles in my State of Oklahoma, it is
112,000 miles. The total number of miles in Pennsylvania is 119,500
miles, but that includes toll roads. We all know Pennsylvania has a lot
of toll roads. So when you take them out, I am quite sure the number of
miles we refer to in this legislation would be more than Pennsylvania.
And yet if you look back historically, in 1998, Oklahoma received $351
million; Pennsylvania $1.16 billion. In 1999, Oklahoma received $413
million; $1.3 billion for Pennsylvania. It goes on consistent with
that.
What I am saying is, even under the formula we are looking at right
now, Pennsylvania is getting back about three times the amount. Again,
there are other factors. I am sure we will be talking about those from
State to State. But it shows it is very difficult to come up with
something that is fair. There is not one State that will not be able to
go back to their people and say how well their State is doing under
this.
I don't sound like a conservative Republican when I am talking this
way, but this is one area where conservatives believe Government has a
function, a strong role, and that is to build infrastructure. We have
not been doing a good job of it. I know this because I spent 8 years in
the other body. During that time, I was on the committee called Public
Works and Transportation. It is strictly transportation, not like EPW,
which is environment, all the regulatory agencies, and transportation.
So it is just about half the jurisdiction. But during that time, we
watched what was going on, and I was right on top of it.
When I came over to this body in 1994, I became chairman of the Clean
Air Subcommittee. I kind of left the transportation part. When we came
back and I became chairman of the Transportation Infrastructure
Subcommittee, all of a sudden I realized what had happened in the 4
years I had been detached from transportation.
When you talk about the number of vehicles that are traveling, the
number of trucks, the number of congestive stops, where you have to sit
and idle your engine--we are handling all of these things in this bill.
I think during that 4-year period we did a bad job. We didn't do what
we should have done. Quite frankly, in 1998, I wasn't real happy that
we weren't really meeting the problem. A computer run is tough. You
have to consider that some States are fast growing States, such as
Nevada, big States such as California, Florida, Texas, and some of them
would be complaining that they are not doing too well. It is because
you have to have a ceiling, a growth ceiling. If you have a growth
ceiling and they are getting back an inordinate amount of money, it
bumps into that ceiling. At the same time, you have donor and donee
States. If you take Texas and Pennsylvania, both of which might argue
they are not treated fairly, if you make a change in one, it is making
an adverse change in the other. I think we have to say we have done a
good job when you look at this.
One thing I think is important to talk about is the public views. I
think the general feeling is that we spend too much money in
Washington, and I think we do. But when it comes to their views on
transportation investment, it is totally different. In January, last
month of this year, Zogby International conducted interviews of a
thousand likely voters chosen at random nationwide. That is a pretty
big sampling, as those of us know who read these polls. It is about
twice the size of the average poll.
Eighty-seven percent of those interviewed said the Nation's highway
and public transit network is very important to the Nation's economy;
83 percent agreed that President Bush and Congress should do more to
help create jobs for those Americans who want to work, even though the
latest Government statistics suggest that the U.S. economy is
rebounding; 69 percent favored boosting Federal spending on
transportation projects during 2004, and that is significant--69
percent of the Americans favor boosting the amount of money of Federal
spending on transportation projects during 2004 as part of the
transportation or jobs creation initiative, as well as part of the
transportation needs and infrastructure needs. I think that is very
significant. According to the same pollster, that is how nearly 70
percent of American voters responded.
In a survey they conducted a year before, they said they believe
America is facing a transportation capacity crisis. That is what I was
saying we were observing a year ago--that our Nation's roads, airports,
and mass transit systems are struggling to handle a growing population
economy. Fifty-six percent overall, and 79 percent of young women with
children, said traffic congestion is depriving them of more time with
their families or for leisure activities than it did just 5 years ago.
That is significant.
These are social problems that exist because we are not doing an
adequate job. These answers should not surprise anyone. It says that,
since 1982, the U.S. population has grown almost 19 percent, the number
of registered motor vehicles has increased by 36 percent, and vehicle
miles traveled has ballooned 72 percent. Surprise, over the past 20
years, we have added less than 5 percent to road capacity and even less
than that to public transit. So we added even 5 percent less to road
capacity in spite of the fact that the population has grown 19 percent
and the

[[Page S348]]

motor vehicles have increased by 36 percent.

Just take that as one statement, one statistic, and that justifies
everything we are doing in trying to beef this up. It proves that what
we are doing now is inadequate, but it is the best we can do under the
circumstances.
Forty-eight percent of those surveyed by Zogby described the
condition of the roads in their local communities as either fair or
poor. That was the assessment of 75 percent of Hispanic Americans.
The survey polled a random sample of a thousand likely voters
nationwide--the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percent--and
highways and public transit are consistently important to Americans.
They said in a commentary accompanying the survey that highway safety
and efficient public transit are also high priorities. Overcrowded
roads are not only a concern for commuters but also for Americans who
are nervous about another terrorist attack.
Other key findings: 80 percent think the Nation's highways and public
transit network is extremely important or very important to the U.S.
economy. The fact is, I commented in my opening remarks that this is by
far the biggest jobs bill that we can be considering at any time. That
is what 80 percent of Americans say.
Nearly 8 in 10 also agree that an investment in highways, bridges,
and public transit should be considered an important element in
homeland security and national defense. We know this administration is
very concerned about national security and homeland defense. I am glad
they are. We are overdue in addressing these issues. The people agree
with that, also.
Nearly 90 percent feel it is important that their representatives in
Congress fight to ensure sufficient Federal funding for transportation
improvement projects in their local areas. That is interesting because
this is at a time when people are complaining about the amount of money
we are spending.
Two-thirds of Americans say roads and public transit systems play a
highly important role in their everyday lives. We are concerned about
congestion. I am in my State of Oklahoma. I am sure it is the same
problem in North Carolina and virtually in every State.
One of the foremost authorities in putting together, consolidating
the concerns has been the Texas Transport International; that is the
Texas Aggies' group that put together something that they conduct
annually--not just in Texas but throughout the country--as to what we
are going to do about congestion. They said, less than a year ago, that
59 percent of the Nation's roadways today are experiencing significant
traffic congestion compared to only 34 percent in 1982.
Fully two-thirds of the major roads in the 75 U.S. urban areas are
congested during peak travel periods, compared to only one-third in
1982. That is double. Both figures will increase without additional
investment. The average number of hours per day with congestion that
might be encountered on urban roads has risen from 4.5 hours in 1982 to
about 7 hours in 2001.
The average annual delays per peak road traveled in 75 urban areas is
60 hours. That is significant because, when you have delays, you are
also talking about pollution and about leaving cars running and trucks
running, polluting the air, using up the fuel. We have an energy crisis
in this country to start with.
Traffic congestion is now responsible for 5.7 billion gallons of
wasted motor fuel. The total cost of traffic congestion to the U.S.
economy and lost productivity and wasted motor fuel in 2001 was almost
$69.5 billion, or putting it down so we understand it, that is $528 per
person. I think sometimes we throw around figures of billions and
trillions and it is difficult to understand, certainly, for people who
are not spending this much time studying these things in Washington.
That $69 billion equals $528 per person.
Shortly, I am going to talk about some of the other areas of the bill
specifically, section by section. At this point, I will yield the floor
because I understand the senior Senator from Texas has comments she
would like to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the chairman for allowing me
to speak on this legislation because let me say that I hope in the end
I will be able to support the bill.
At this point, I could not possibly do that because of the inequity
to Texas. Let me say that I know the chairman is working with other
Members to try to come up with solutions, and I hope I will be able to
support the bill in the end.
Most of the goods that drive our economy ride on our Nation's
highways in large part because over the past 50 years the Federal Aid
Highway Program has assisted the States in producing one of the world's
finest highway and mass transit networks.
The majority of that system was designed in the 1950s to meet the
needs of a rapidly growing nation to connect to new population centers
in the West. Today, there are other critical needs to be addressed
different from those in the 1950s, particularly the amount of trade
that is stemming from NAFTA and the increased burden on our
infrastructure that NAFTA produces.
Although strong trade partnerships with our neighbors--Mexico and
Canada--have provided substantial national benefits, the resultant
traffic is devastating to our Nation's infrastructure.
Back in the 1950s, our smaller States and Western States needed the
extra help at the expense of States such as Texas. But now, I think,
every State has more of an ability to contribute to its own
infrastructure. The ability to contribute is much more equal today than
it was in the fifties when there were huge inequities in the amount of
national infrastructure.
The State that has borne the greatest burden in the entire life of
the Federal Aid Highway Program has been my home State of Texas. We are
the single largest donor State. Since 1956, Texas has contributed over
$5 billion more to the program than the State has received in funds to
build its own highways. In fact, there has never been a year that Texas
received more in highway funding than it sent to Washington.
Texas has the most highway miles of any State in our Nation.
Therefore, the people of Texas, obviously, buy more gasoline and,
therefore, contribute more to the tax. Over the past 12 years, Texas
and other donor States have made good progress. In 1998, Texas received
only a 76-cent return on every dollar sent to Washington, a loss of
$1.7 billion. Current law guarantees us 90.5 cents on the dollar, but
this is still very inequitable.
Though we expected to equalize more this year, hoping to get up to 95
cents at least, that has not happened. I cannot possibly support the
highway funding formula in this bill. I am concerned that in an effort
to limit costs, the committee created a new class of superdonor States.
It appears that Texas, California, and Florida have been designated
to shoulder the burden of the Nation's transportation network at the
expense of their own. I have to object to this new superdonor category.
The bill before us distributes $227 billion in highway funds using a
formula that will hold six States--Texas, California, Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, and Maryland--at a 90.5 cent rate of return for 5
years. So for every dollar our constituents send to Washington, they
get 90.5 cents back. Only in the final year, the sixth year, does that
increase to the level of 95 cents. If Texas were to receive 95 cents
for all 6 years, the formula would provide Texas an additional $700
million over this period.
These superdonor States have one aspect in common: They are the
fastest growing States in America. Ironically, the formula in the bill
offers the least relief to States whose needs are most pronounced,
States whose cities and populations are developing most rapidly. Three
of these six also are on the Southwest border, so we have the added
burden of infrastructure needs from NAFTA in addition to being high
growth states.
The committee thinks we should like this legislation because while
the total spending grows 36 percent, Texas will see a 42 percent dollar
increase compared to 6 years ago. However, our increase has little to
do with the formula but is caused by Texas buying more gas and paying
more taxes into the highway trust fund.

[[Page S349]]

In 2002, Texas contributed 9.11 percent of the total dollars in the
trust fund, up from 8.27 percent 4 years earlier. Buying more gas
allows us to contribute more funds. We do grow in dollars returning to
the state, but we don't grow as much as we are putting in. We keep the
same rate of return, 90.5 cents on the dollar, until the sixth year.
Ever since the 1993 passage of NAFTA, it is these fast-growing
superdonor States that are the major trade gateways to the United
States. Eighty percent of NAFTA traffic travels through my home State
of Texas. But while the entire Nation benefits from that resulting
commerce, Texas bears the brunt of maintenance and upkeep on our
highways, and those costs are not insignificant.
To its credit, the committee did, for the first time, create a border
and a corridor fund that represents some of that added burden on the
States on our northern border with Canada and our southern border with
Mexico. I commend the chairman and thank him for adding those funds.
However, the $1 billion for each of those funds which, by the time
Texas gets its fair share, will still not bring us up anywhere close to
the $700 million we are losing by not being treated like other donor
States.
In 2002, over 4 million trucks hauling 18 billion pounds of cargo
entered from Mexico through 24 commercial border crossing facilities.
Over 3 million of those trucks, or 68 percent, entered through Texas.
In addition to commercial traffic, 90 million personal vehicles from
Mexico also traveled through the Southwest border States. So Texas now
with a bigger infrastructure burden is getting less percentage of what
it sends to Washington than almost all of the other States.
I am just hoping the chairman will work with us, not to create a new
superdonor State category. I hope we don't break precedent and create
this new sort of stepchild in donor States that will also be used for
other formulas for other kinds of State aid.
I understand small States have the ability to have more votes in the
Senate. I understand small States may believe they should have more of
a piece of the pie than the larger States. However, representing a
large State as I do, I just have to say I think we are all much more
equal in capacity now than States have ever been before, and the
concept that there should be donor and donee States should be going by
the wayside.
I am not saying we would want to do something that cuts people off
precipitously or hurts people immediately, but I think we ought to be
in a phasedown of the entire donor-donee State strategy or attitude
because I think every State should be able to decide, getting 100
percent of what it sends to Washington, what it wants the money spent
for. If we are going to have a Federal highway system, we all want it
to be a good system, and perhaps there should be some donor capacity.
But a 10-cent-on-the-dollar donation seems to me to be too high. I hope
the chairman will work with us to create all donor States equal, to
create everyone at least at a 95-percent rate of return. The House bill
treats all of the donor States the same. Donee States do vary all
across the board. But we have never made a new class of donor States,
and I hope we will not do it in this bill.
I hope the chairman will work with those of us who believe there
should be a much more equitable funding formula so that I can support
the good provisions in this bill.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. As we talked about before, there are always problems in
formulas. There are so many things to consider, as we outlined, such as
fast-growing States, large States, small States. I would have to say to
the senior Senator from Texas, we in Oklahoma are kind of in the same
situation as Texas. We have always been a donor State. We are just
delighted to look down the road and see that there is a light at the
end of the tunnel and that we are getting to the point where we will
all have a minimum of 95 percent. I can remember when that number was
at 77 percent and then 80 percent and then 90.5 percent and now up to
95 percent.
This is one of the difficulties. The Senator from Texas is from one
of the three largest States and it is a fast-growing State. In my
opening remarks, I mentioned that to come up with a formula, as the
Senator from Nevada has said, it is a very difficult thing, because
there are fast-growing States. There has to be a ceiling but there also
has to be a floor. There has to be consideration for donee and donor.
I thought it was kind of interesting, during the remarks of the
Senator from Texas, that the Senator from Nevada came over and said, I
wish we were doing as well as Texas on percentages.
Later on we are going to have full-size charts.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, could I offer to make that trade to
the Senator from Nevada on a percentage basis? I will trade him right
now.
Mr. INHOFE. Later on we are hoping we are going to have larger charts
to be able to show one for every State, but this one which I will hold
up--I hope everyone will be able to see it--if we take under TEA-21 the
average in the State of Texas was $2.1 billion. That is the average of
each year for a 6-year period. Starting in 2004, they would go up to
$2.6 billion; 2005, $2.8 billion; 2006, $2.9 billion; and going on up
at the end of 2009, it would be $3.6 billion, almost $3.7 billion,
which is a huge increase, of course, over previous years.
I recognize there will be a lot of States that are not going to be
happy with their formulas. It is those people who try to find a better
formula, after we put all of our resources together and spent a year
doing this, who have had a very difficult time coming up with something
that is going to be any better.
Quite frankly, I spent some time in Texas. I held a field hearing in
Texas. I talked to them and hopefully they are going to be very pleased
with the massive increases, the percentage increase. For the State of
Texas under this bill over TEA-21, the previous 6-year authorization
bill, is 42 percent. Now the average increase is 35.6 percent. So Texas
is way above the average increase and way above the average amount of
the average States.
I recognize there are problems with any formula, but those are some
facts we are dealing with and things we had to consider. It is always
difficult when representing 50 States, as we were in the committee. I
would like to have done a lot better for my State of Oklahoma. I know
Senator Santorum talked to me about some of the problems in his State.
When we look at the State of Texas and the State of Pennsylvania, where
there is a donee State that is dissatisfied, the only way that can be
improved would be to do something to lower the ceiling in the other
States. So it is a difficult thing to deal with.

I certainly will yield to the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I do understand the difficulty of
dealing with these formulas, and I am sure the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member tried in every way to please as many
people as they possibly could. It just seems wrong to create a new
level of super donor State. Yes, we have increased to 42 percent
instead of the average 36 percent, but that is because our people are
putting more in the highway fund because we are buying more gasoline.
Therefore, of course, our rate of increase would go up. We are still in
the same position of sending a dollar to Washington and getting 90.5
cents back until year 6. It is just hard to see that a donee State has
more infrastructure burden than a State like Texas which not only has
the most highway miles but has 80 percent of the traffic from NAFTA.
I would love to take the chairman of the committee to I-35 where it
is a parking lot from Austin to Dallas. It takes more time to drive
from Austin to Dallas than it does to fly from Austin to Washington. It
is just ridiculous. It is a parking lot, and that is because it comes
from Mexico through Texas and we do not have the capability to expand
at the rate the traffic is expanding on that NAFTA corridor.
As I said in my statement, the chairman did create a real border
corridor fund that will be helpful, but it still does not nearly make
up for the deficit we are sending in this new super donor

[[Page S350]]

State capacity to Washington. It is $700 million we could be spending
on our own infrastructure trying to meet these needs if we could get 95
cents on the dollar back so every donor State would be equal.
I know it was hard. I absolutely appreciate that. Unfortunately,
representing Texas for 10 years, I have been in a lot of the formula
fights, and small States tend to win. I know the Senator from Oklahoma
has been a donor State and knows how it feels, so he probably
understands how I feel right now. I just hope in the end we can see
that we will get to 95 cents either through the help of the border
corridors or in the formula in some way to acknowledge we should not be
a super donor State with all of the problems we have.
Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, there is a lot of truth to what the
Senator says. One thing that needs to be clarified, and we have asked
the staff to do it because it has not been done before, is to see--I
mean, we are in the same situation. The State of Texas today is getting
back 90.5 percent. We are getting back 90.5 percent. It is kind of an
interesting study that is being conducted right now to determine how
much of the money--when the Senator says Texans pay in so much and get
back so much, a lot of the fuel that is being purchased, subject to
excise tax, is not purchased by citizens of Texas, particularly talking
about a corridor going through. I know when I am down there, I purchase
a lot of fuel. That same I-35 goes through my State of Oklahoma. A lot
of the NAFTA traffic is traffic that is not Texas traffic, but they are
purchasing fuel there. It would be interesting to know whether or not
the citizens of my State of Oklahoma or the citizens of State of Texas
are actually getting back perhaps more than they are paying in in fuel
revenues.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. That would certainly be an interesting study to have.
I would also point out that part of the purpose of the gasoline tax is
to maintain highways for use, and even if it is someone like the
Senator or someone using the highway for NAFTA purposes, they are using
the highway and it is the wear and tear that must be maintained.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Texas.
I do not see others waiting to be heard. As we all know, tonight, in
about an hour and 25 minutes from now, we will be having a cloture
vote. Is that correct, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. Between now and then, we will have a chance to hear from
a lot of people, and as they come in I would be glad to have them heard
on this subject. In the meantime, I will make a statement that I would
otherwise be making after the cloture vote. I am hoping the cloture
vote will be successful and we can move right on to this very
significant vote. In the meantime, I am inclined to want to share a few
things that are in this bill, which I would be glad to do at this time,
and then yield to any Senator who comes in who may want to be heard.
I ask the Chair to go ahead and recognize the Senator from
Massachusetts now, if he wishes to be recognized. Mine is going to be a
rather long statement. We will go ahead and move to that when the
Senator from Massachusetts is through.

Congratulating the New England Patriots

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Madam President, the matters before us are of enormous importance to
this country, and certainly to my State. These issues dealing with road
transportation and mass transit are basic, fundamental to our Nation's
infrastructure and our economy. We are going to be focusing on this
over the next several days. We are very much looking forward to it.
There is an incredible need for attention to these important
investments.
But I welcome the opportunity to take just a moment or two at this
time to recognize the extraordinary success last evening, when the New
England Patriots played the Carolina Panthers. Some 80 million
Americans watched that extraordinary game.
I have a resolution which will give me a great deal of pleasure to
offer in behalf of myself and my colleague and friend, Senator Kerry,
who is not here physically but joins with his enthusiasm to urge
favorable consideration of this resolution which is meant to
congratulate the New England Patriots for their dramatic victory in
yesterday's Super Bowl. It could not have been more exciting.
With 7 seconds remaining in the game, the score tied, Adam Vinatieri
kicked a 41-yard field goal to clinch the Patriot's second Super Bowl
success in the past 3 years. Mr. Vinatieri is making a trademark of
kicking the winning field goals in Super Bowls. Two years ago, his 48-
yard field goal won the game as time expired.
I also congratulate Tom Brady, the youngest quarterback in National
Football League history to win two Super Bowls. He had another
outstanding day with 350 yards passing and had 3 touchdown passes. Mr.
Brady's performance gave him his second Super Bowl Most Valuable Player
trophy in 3 years.
The Patriots had a remarkable season. They tied the Miami Dolphins'
record in 1972, winning 15 straight games. Much of the credit goes to
the man named Coach of the Year, Bill Belichick, and his two
outstanding assistant coaches, Romeo Crennel, who produced the No. 1
defense in the National Football League, and Charlie Weiss, who
produced the team's outstanding offense.
Among the Patriots' heroes of last night's game, and for the entire
season as well, was the offensive line. They did an outstanding job of
protecting quarterback Tom Brady. In fact, they allowed no sacks of the
quarterback in the Super Bowl or in any of the other games in the post-
season playoffs. Truly a remarkable record.
I want the Senate to adopt the pending resolution commending the
Patriots on their dramatic victory in a game that will surely rank as
one of the most exciting Super Bowls ever.
I notice in the chair the wonderful Senator from North Carolina, Mrs.
Dole. I commend, certainly, her enthusiasm for her team. She has
reminded me of that enthusiasm and her very strong support. I commend
the Carolina team for showing extraordinary sportsmanship and
competitiveness and just a superb performance by that team.
If it is agreeable, I believe the resolution is at the desk. I
believe it has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We do not have the resolution at the desk.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will call for consideration of the
resolution at a later time. We will do that, under prior agreement, at
a time, as I understand it, that will be later in the afternoon.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on another subject, I want to address the
Senate for just a few moments on one of the important aspects of the
President's budget. The President's budget should be looked at, not
only for what it contains, but also for what is not included in the
budget.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield so I can make a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am very interested in hearing the
remarks of the senior Senator from Massachusetts. However, we are right
now debating the cloture motion. While I think it is perfectly
appropriate to talk about the game last night, I hate to get into
another subject when we only have an hour and 20 minutes to be talking
about our cloture motion.
I, first of all, ask the Senator if this is something that could be
postponed until after that motion.
Mr. KENNEDY. I know we just heard my good friend from Texas talk
about the Border Patrol and the commission that has been established.
Mr. INHOFE. Which is on this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. It is on this bill. I am conscious of that. I will not
take a great deal of time, but I am not familiar with restrictions. I
inquired of the Chair to be able to work out a suitable time to be able
to speak. I don't intend to take much time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate has to be relevant to the pending
measure.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I will make it to be.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S351]]

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call
be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Under the rules, it is my wish, as the chairman of the
committee, that we get to this very important bill. The Senator from
Massachusetts has agreed, if he could be recognized, he would keep it
down to 10 minutes. That would be acceptable to me, if it is
acceptable?
Mr. KENNEDY. That will be fine. I ask to be notified when I have 30
seconds left.

The Budget

Madam President, the President's budget that was submitted today,
which is really the declaration by the administration with regards to
defense and national security, but also is extraordinarily important in
terms of health policy and education. There is probably not a more
important document that is submitted by any President than the budget
item indicating a nation's priorities. So that is why I wanted to be
able to just take a few moments on one particular aspect of it, and
that is the state of our economy and how this budget addresses the
state of that economy or how it failed to do so.
I just wanted to share with the Senate the strong sense that we are
in a jobless recovery. This economy may be fine for Wall Street, but it
is bad for Main Street. I have certainly seen that in the last weeks or
months that I have had a chance to get around this country. I saw it up
in the State of New Hampshire, where every new job is paying 35 percent
less than the jobs that had disappeared. I saw that down in New Mexico,
where you still have 78,000 workers who are waiting for an increase in
the minimum wage and the new jobs are paying 23 percent less.
It is the same in Arizona, in Michigan, in South Carolina, and across
the country. South Carolina has lost tens of thousands of jobs. So I
was interested about what is in this budget, or what would fail to be
in this budget, with regard to American workers.
One of the principal concerns that I find from families while
traveling across this country is the failure of the Senate to respond
to the problems of those who are unemployed with the extension of the
unemployment insurance. There are 90,000 workers a week who are losing
their unemployment compensation. There is virtually nothing in this
legislation that deals with that. The unemployment compensation fund
has nearly $20 billion.
The proposal that has been offered by Senator Cantwell and others
would provide for some 13 weeks of unemployment compensation. It has
been rejected by the other side more than 12 different times.
Look at this chart. It shows the average number of out-of-work
Americans who are running out of unemployment benefits and not finding
jobs. The average monthly rate from 1973 to 2003 was 150,000. The
estimate for January 2004 is 375,000. And there is not one word in here
to recommend that we have a temporary extension of unemployment
compensation.
These are all hard-working Americans. They are not eligible for the
unemployment compensation fund unless they have paid into it. They have
paid into it. And we are finding objection from the other side to
providing some relief for these workers. I can't believe that.
Second, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New
York Times editorial from Friday that makes this very point I have just
made. I will quote part of it.

The pernicious joblessness bedeviling the nation is
spawning a new category of Americans dubbed ``exhaustees'';
the hundreds of thousands of hard-core unemployed who have
run through State and Federal unemployment aid. According to
the latest estimates, close to 2 million Americans, futilely
hunting for work while scrambling for economic sustenance,
will join the ranks of exhaustees in the next six months.
They represent a record flood of unemployed individuals with
expired benefits--the highest in 30 years--who are plainly
desperate for help.
The emergency program cries out for immediate renewal.

I ask unanimous consent that full editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 2004]

Exhausting Federal Compassion

The pernicious joblessness bedeviling the nation is
spawning a new category of Americans dubbed ``exhaustees'':
the hundreds of thousands of hard-core unemployed who have
run through state and federal unemployment aid. According to
the latest estimates, close to two million Americans,
futilely hunting for work while scrambling for economic
sustenance, will join the ranks of exhaustees in the next six
months. They represent a record flood of unemployed
individuals with expired benefits--the highest in 30 years--
who are plainly desperate for help.
President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress are
doing nothing to help these people. Washington showed no
qualms last month in allowing the expiration of the emergency
federal program that had offered an extra 13 weeks of help to
those who exhausted state benefits. Historically, such help
has been continued in periods of continuing job shortages.
A year ago, the aid was extended an extra year by
Republican leaders. But now, the G.O.P.'s election-year talk
is of a recovery rooted in the tax cuts weighted for affluent
America. Tending to the exhaustees clearly mars that message.
The emergency program cries out for immediate renewal. It
costs $1 billion a month, money that is available from the
federal unemployment fund.
In January alone, 375,000 unemployed people are running out
of state benefits with nothing to help them through to
spring, according to estimates of new federal data by the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a capital watchdog
group. Without action, the exhaustee toll will mount.
Many will slip into the limbo of the more than 1.5 million
Americans who have given up looking for work in the inert
employment market. These amount to the flatliners,
industrious people overlooked on the administration's screen
of spiking recovery indexes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I also want to mention one other item
that is included by reference. That is the item of the President
talking about his overtime provisions.
Again, he has indicated his support on the overtime provisions that
will effectively eliminate overtime coverage for 8 million Americans--
primarily firefighters, policemen, and nurses, who are the backbone for
homeland security.
I have said here a number of times that I was not only strongly
objecting to the administration's proposal but I particularly object to
the inclusion in the administration's proposal that talked about
training in the Armed Forces which can make a worker overtime
ineligible. That, I thought, was the cruelest part of the proposal.
We have American service men and women who are in Iraq, in combat, or
in the National Guard and Reserve. Many of them will be coming right
back and will return to the civilian job market. Yet if they are going
to have the training in the Armed Forces, they could be ineligible for
overtime. I have said that before on the floor of the Senate.
My good friend Secretary Chao--and I see the former Secretary of
Labor presiding over the Senate--wrote a letter to Speaker Dennis
Hastert. She pointed out we shouldn't worry about the fact of the
military.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Secretary of Labor,

Washington, DC, January 27, 2004.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I write to provide you with the facts to
correct the record following last week's Senate floor debate
on the Consolidated Appropriations Act with regard to the
Department of Labor's proposed revision of the Fair Labor
Standard Act's overtime exemption regulations. I also would
like to thank you for your support and leadership on the
important issue.
The recent allegations that military personnel and veterans
will lose overtime pay, because of proposed clarifications of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ``white-collar''
exemption regulations, are incorrect and harmful to the
morale of veterans and of American servicemen and women. I
want to assure you that military personnel and veterans are
not affected by these proposed rules by virtue of their
military duties or training.
First, the Part 541 ``white collar exemptions'' do not
apply to the military. They cover only the civilian
workforce.
Second, nothing in the current or proposed regulation makes
any mention of veteran status. Despite claims that military
training would make veterans ineligible for overtime pay,
members of Congress should be clear that the Department of
Labor's proposed rules will not strip any veteran of overtime
eligibility.
This has been one of many criticisms intended to confuse
and frighten workers

[[Page S352]]

about our proposal to revise the badly outdated regulations
under the FLSA ``white collar'' exemption regulations. It is
disheartening that the debate over modernizing these
regulations to meet the needs of the 21st Century workforce
has largely ignored the broad consensus that this rule needs
substantial revision to strengthen overtime protections.
The growing ambiguities caused by time and workplace
advancements have made both employers' compliance with this
rule and employees' understanding of their rights
increasingly difficult. More and more, employees must resort
to class action lawsuits to recover their overtime pay. These
workers must wait several years to have their cases
adjudicated in order to get the overtime they have already
earned. In fact, litigation over these rules drains nearly $2
billion a year from the economy, costing jobs and better pay.
I hope that this latest concern will be put to rest
immediately. Once again, I assure you that military duties
and training or veteran status have no bearing on overtime
eligibility. We hope that future debate on this important
provision is more constructive. If we can provide further
assistance in setting the record straight, we would be
pleased to do so. The Office of Management and Budget has
advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the
Administration's program to the presentation of this report.
Sincerely,
Elaine L. Chao.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, let me quote a couple of parts of it.
This is the letter to the Speaker by Secretary Chao stating ``that
military personnel and veterans are not affected by these proposed
rules by virtue of their military duties or training.''
That is what she says.
However:

Proposed section 541.301(d) states that ``training in the
armed forces'' can make a worker an overtime ineligible.

This is new language. It is not in the current regulations. The only
purpose is to take away overtime for veterans. Either it is in there or
it is not in there. It happens to be in the regulation.
She states:

First, Part 541 ``white collar exemptions'' do not apply to
the military. They cover only the civilian workforce.

No one is claiming that the rule affects the military force. The
issue is the veterans who leave the military to work in the civilian
workforce would lose overtime protections because they have had
training in the Armed Forces. Then it goes on:

Second, nothing in the current or proposed regulation makes
any mention of veterans status.

No. But the proposed regulation, for the first time, addresses
``training in the armed forces.'' Veterans who work in the civilian
workforce who typically have received such training.
It isn't the people who are in the military. We agree with that. It
is after they get out that they are going to be subject to this. If
they don't want it in, they ought to have another rule that eliminates
that.
I want to bring to the Senate's attention the understanding of the
National Association of Manufacturers.

Bush overtime proposal denies overtime to veterans.
The overtime proposal explicitly states that training in
the armed forces can disqualify workers from overtime
protection. Many employer groups encourage the Bush
administration to deny overtime protection to more categories
of work, such as veterans.

Look at these comments from the National Association of
Manufacturers.

NAM applauds the department for including this alternative
means of establishing that an employee has the knowledge
required for the exemption from overtime protection to apply.
For example, many people who come out of the military have
the significant knowledge based on work experience.

There it is. Veterans who go in and have that specialized training
which is so necessary not only for their security but the security of
their squad members or their company members, their platoon, or
whatever it might be, they get that. When they come back as a member of
the National Guard and return to the civilian workforce, bang, zippo,
their employer comes up and says, This is what the rule is. This is
what the regulation is, the letter from the Secretary notwithstanding.
We are going to make an effort to eliminate that whole overtime rule
because we do not believe the men and women who are the heart and soul
of homeland security, who are the firefighters, police, nurses, and
others ought to be carved out from overtime protections. There are many
problems with our economy today, but one of them is not that our
firefighters and policemen and nurses are getting paid too much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend. I will take time at another time to
go through the various provisions of the budget dealing with education
and health. I think it is important that the American people understand
exactly what those provisions do and don't do for the American people.
I thank the floor manager.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from
Massachusetts using the time. He has a concern about the extension of
unemployment benefits, and we are all concerned about that. A lot of
that would be alleviated with the passage of the transportation bill.
This is the largest jobs bill we will be considering this year, or
perhaps in a 6-year period. It is very significant.
Madam President, one of the goals for reauthorization of TEA-21 has
been to increase the rate of return to donor States. We have talked
about that. We have had several bills in the past in which we wanted to
achieve that. In this particular one, we achieved it to a smaller
degree in TEA-21. But in this reauthorization, we want to further
increase the return to donor States without negatively impacting the
growth of donee States. That is where we get into the problem with the
State of Texas and the State of Pennsylvania. If we do one, we will
negatively impact the other. Our goal has been to streamline the
project delivery process to create greater flexibility for States to
spend their highway safety dollars in the areas of greatest need.

Most Members agree that in Washington we do not have all the answers.
The Presiding Officer would admit readily that people in North Carolina
know about the needs in North Carolina greater than we do. That is one
good thing about this program; we do leave a lot of it to the States.
We do more than that in this reauthorization. I have talked to people
in a number of States, including people in the State of Texas, who are
very pleased with the idea that they are getting more flexibility. This
bill recognizes they have a better idea of the needs of their State. I
certainly know that to be true in the State of Oklahoma.
Finally, the goals were to focus attention on freight movement. This
has not been considered. Freight movement is the responsible party for
a lot of the congestion referred to by several speakers so far, causing
trucks to idle, cars to idle, time wasted when pollution carries on
where we are paying for additional gasoline but nothing is moving.
Although the proposed bill before the Senate addresses each of these
areas, it has not covered all the reforms I would like to cover.
However, it is a good start. We made a good start. It has been in the
spirit of cooperation. Historically, when we reauthorize a highway
bill, it is not partisan. As we worked together, Senator Jeffords,
Senator Reid, Senator Bond, and myself, in many hours of putting
together our best ideas, there were things I would have preferred to
have in here that are not here. This is a good start.
The Federal aid highway system is a key component to America's
continued economic growth. The free flow and movement of goods, safety
for travelers, advancement and use of technology, and security of our
borders and freight corridors are essential to our economic stability.
Our investment in this critical infrastructure is not only required for
people in goods movement but almost the foremost link in creation of
jobs and opportunities for all Americans and represents the largest
investing in discretionary programs.
I remember seeing that familiar square-shaped sign ``Men Working''
and someone very creatively inserted ``Not''--``Men Not Working.'' It
is clear, each day we fail to enact a comprehensive 6-year
reauthorization of the highway program, we continue to erode the
ability of our economy to grow.
Many colleagues share my strong desire to get this bill passed and
sent to the President by February 29. On February 29, the extension we
have on TEA-21 expires. No State benefits by

[[Page S353]]

prolonging the process through temporary extensions of the current
program. It disrupts planning; it disrupts the ability to plan ahead on
the availability of workers to get the very most out of it. It is very
important we do that. The proposal before the Senate provides the
framework for transportation investments needed to accomplish our
shared goal of creating new and better economic opportunities.
The centerpiece of our bill is the new Equity Bonus Program which
replaces the Minimum Guarantee Program. The Equity Bonus Program
increases the minimum rate of return for donor States while ensuring
fair treatment to donee States, about which we have been talking.

All donor States reach 95 percent return on highway trust funds by
2009. That is a huge increase. We remember when it used to be 77
percent and 80 percent. In addition to the fact that we are going to
get everyone up to 95 percent return in this bill, all States take home
more money than they did under TEA-21. Unlike the current Minimum
Guarantee Program, which is in place right now, where the table in
section 1104 governed what your State received each year in Federal
highway dollars, under the Equity Bonus Program the formulas are the
driving force, not the politics.
The 1104 section approach, or minimum guarantee, is an approach that
was purely politically driven. A lot of people were outraged about it.
But they sat down and said we will put some percentages here until we
reach 60 votes and we can pass a bill. But that is not fair. Certainly,
we correct that situation in this bill.
We allow the formulas to work. We recognized there would be some
inequities if we allowed the formulas to be the sole factor in
distributing dollars to the States. Therefore, we subjected States to
growth ceilings in each year; that is, there is a ceiling. So we get
the fast-growing States that will not have more than they would be
entitled to at the expense of those that are currently donee States.
This accomplishes the two goals and keeps the costs of the Equity Bonus
Program affordable and ensures that donee States are still able to
grow.
We also recognized that States with lower tax bases have an added
challenge to adequate funding of their transportation system. We define
these States as States with low population or low population densities
and low income. We guaranteed these States at least their TEA-21 rate
of return.
Finally, large donor States do not reach 95 percent until 2009. This
is a concern for some of the Senators from Florida, California, and
Texas. This is because the growth ceilings prevent them from growing
too fast at the expense of large donee States. This means they bump
into the ceiling. For instance, if we were to increase the growth
ceiling in any year to move the large donor States to 95 percent
sooner, the increased costs would be at the expense of the large donee
States such as New York and Pennsylvania.
Since releasing this plan on January 21, I have heard from both large
donor State members who are concerned their States do not reach 95
percent until 2009 and donee State Senators who believe their States do
not grow as much as they would like. Both sides raise valid concerns.
But the cold reality is, in order to get the bill through the Senate--
we are talking about S. 1072, on which there will be a cloture vote an
hour from now--it has to take care of both donor and donee States.
So there have to be compromises. We have made compromises. As the
Senator from Nevada said, there are a lot of things he believed he
cannot get for his State that he believed he should have, and the same
is true for my State of Oklahoma.
After working on this for over a year, Jim Jeffords, Kit Bond, Harry
Reid, and I decided the most fair, reasonable, and logical way to
balance donor and donee needs was by creating ceilings and floors. Both
benefit but both have to give up some growth in order to help others
grow.
In order to get this bill off the floor, we have to have 60 votes,
which means a balance between the donor and donee States. This proposal
achieves that.
Another new initiative is establishment of a new core funding
category for safety. With highway fatalities approaching an
unacceptable 43,000 a year, Congress has the responsibility to make the
roads safer. That is why we call this SAFETEA. The purpose of the new
highway safety improvement program is to increase the visibility and
effectiveness in funding for safety projects in such a way as to
produce a dramatic reduction of highway fatalities and injury.
SAFETEA also addresses the significant challenges involved in
intermodal connectivity by creating a set-aside from the National
Highway System Program for the completion of ``last mile'' connections.
One of the frustrating aspects of freight congestion is the need to
complete the last connection between port terminals and highways or the
connection between freight rail and highways. This has never been
addressed in the previous authorization bills. This proposal not only
identifies a funding source for intermodal connectors but also creates
room at the planning table for freight interests and concerns.
Additionally, this bill lowers the threshold level for assistance
under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act,
TIFIA, from $100 million to $50 million, which I think all four Members
thought was a dramatic improvement, to make some structural changes to
the program designed to make this financial tool more usable to States.
Freight congestion is not the only mobility issue. Personal mobility
is also a problem in both urban and rural areas. Reports indicate that
on a nationwide scale, road congestion costs the U.S. economy about $67
billion annually, including 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion
gallons of gasoline that is wasted. Here we are with a fuel crisis, an
energy crisis in this country, and we are wasting 5.7 billion gallons
of fuel.
The committee bill also proposes to give States and localities
increased ``tools'' to deal with this problem, by permitting and
encouraging the use of innovative techniques such as ``hot'' lanes for
single occupants who pay a toll to ride in high-occupancy lanes as well
as variable toll pricing, which uses varying peak-hour pricing to
control congestion during regular high-volume periods. We have tried to
do this in the past. We are just being more innovative in carrying this
further.
SAFETEA establishes the Intermodal Passenger Facilities Program,
which provides grants for making necessary connections between various
modes of transportation. Current surface transportation programs fail
to address the importance of intercity bus services. In my State of
Oklahoma, many people are using the intercity bus services to travel
between our two largest cities, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and our rural
areas.
In many cases, this type of service is the only link rural
communities have to larger urban areas where connections can then be
made to both national and international destinations. Specifically,
this provision would encourage the development of an integrated system
of public transportation facilities through intercity bus facility
grants.
I see that the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, Senator Jeffords, is in the Chamber. I am sure he has a few
remarks to make. If I could finish with this before I get into the
section-by-section analysis, would that be acceptable with the Senator.
Thank you. I will go ahead and do that at this time.
During the 107th Congress, we all experienced a cold dose of reality
when the revenue aligned budget authority--that is, RABA--was negative
for the first time. Hysteria hit. We were all concerned at that time.
The principle that dollars into the trust fund should equal dollars out
is fiscally sound and responsible and something I strongly support.
However, to maintain consistency in the program, we need to even out
the swings in revenue projections.
Last year, we learned that unless the mechanism to predict future
revenues is more realistic, the potential consequences can be
disastrous. Some will argue that we should not allow negative RABAs. I
disagree. As I stated earlier, I strongly support the principle of
``dollars in equals dollars out.'' If we continue to rely on the system
of revenue projections, we must accept the negatives along with the
positives. While the pay-as-you-go system of

[[Page S354]]

funding highways may be cumbersome, it is also an important fiscal
principle we should retain.
At the same time, we can and need to make improvements to RABA to
make it more reliable in the future. This bill does that by modifying
the RABA calculation so that annual funding level adjustments are less
dependent on future anticipated receipts and more dependent on the
levels of actual receipts to the highway trust fund.
We strengthen stewardship of highway trust fund dollars by requiring
project management plans and annual financial plans to be submitted for
all Federal aid projects above $1 billion or more and requiring annual
financial plans for all projects receiving $100 million or more in
Federal aid funding. Both of these items were raised in last year's
hearings on reauthorization as areas needing additional oversight. I
might add that even the States came in and were supportive of this
idea.

As our system ages and becomes functionally obsolete, extensive
reconstruction will need to occur. Typically, these projects are very
large in scope and I believe require careful oversight to ensure proper
management of funds and fewer opportunities for surprises in the
construction process. These changes are designed to give us the
information needed to accomplish critical oversight.
Colleagues, the bill in front of you represents the culmination of
Senate efforts for reauthorizing critical transportation infrastructure
needs across America. This bill aims at funding all States equitably
and generously, increasing the safety of drivers and pedestrians on our
roads, streamlining environmental review processes while protecting
critical natural resources, improving program effectiveness and
efficiency, and preparing for the transportation needs of the future.
I ask my colleagues to consider the significant level of effort put
into the preparation of this bill by the several committees involved,
the administration's recommendations, and stakeholder input. I believe
this bill does that.
I would like to make one comment. We do have a vote coming up in 50
minutes from now, and we have several people who want to be heard. I
would only say we have been talking a lot about formulas. As most of us
know--but sometimes it does not come out forcefully--there are other
funds that are going to be available. About 7 percent of the amount
that would be in formulas would be found in projects. Anyone who wants
this bill should consider voting for cloture so we can get on the bill.
We would expect them to certainly support this motion if they have an
interest in projects for their States.
At this time I will just repeat one thing I said earlier when the
Senator, Mr. Jeffords, was not in the Chamber. We have been talking
about how Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and, of course, Senator Reid
and I have been working very closely, together with our staffs, to get
to the point where we are now. So I publicly thank the Senator from
Vermont for all the hard work he has put into this bill and for the
cooperative method of how we have come to some compromises. Perhaps
neither one of us is really excited about it, but we know that is the
art of compromise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his very kind
words. I certainly reciprocate and acknowledge the amount of
cooperation we have had, especially that our staffs have had working
together, which has greatly stimulated all of us to recognize we have a
good bill and we are going to get it done.
I would also like to announce to the Senator that I just left the
Finance Committee, and we voted out--as was expected--favorably the
money to get it done. So we are ready now to proceed to it tonight, and
hopefully we will.
Chairman Inhofe and I are urging a ``yes'' vote, of course, to move
the transportation bill to the Senate floor where it can be fully
debated and amended. This bill will strengthen our Nation's
transportation system, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and
improve the safety of our transportation system.
Our Nation's roads and bridges and transit systems need immediate
attention. Passage of the bill will provide essential Federal funding
to the States so they have the resources needed to maintain and improve
our transportation infrastructure. We cannot afford to wait any longer
to make much-needed investments in our transportation infrastructure.
Fortunately, unlike many other bills, our transportation bill will be
fully offset and paid for. The Finance Committee did a tremendous job
working this out. As I said just a moment ago, they passed it.
Let us not forget that each time you go to the gas pump, you are
paying for this bill. Our transportation bill better spends the gas
taxes you are currently paying. We do not increase the Federal gas tax;
we better spend that tax to help States, counties, and cities address
their transportation needs.
A 6-year bill will allow us to better spend the gas taxes and fund
State efforts to reduce congestion, improve transit programs, repair
dangerous bridges, and improve freight mobility. A 6-year bill will
create over 2 million new, high-paying jobs. That is 2 million high-
paying jobs.
Chairman Inhofe is absolutely correct; since the bill is deficit
neutral, putting off our bill until next year will only make matters
worse. So let's do it now.
An extension simply means that urgent highway and bridge repair costs
will be more heavily borne by States and local governments than by the
Federal Government. A simple extension means commuters will spend more
time stuck in traffic. A simple extension means visits to the grocery
store or the doctor's office or the drugstore or the restaurant will
take longer.
Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre
condition. Almost 30 percent of our bridges are in bad shape. We have
to address these problems, and our transportation bill will help get
that job done.
We are asking for a ``yes'' vote to move this bill to the Senate
floor for a full debate on its merits, and we hope to do it soon. It
will be open for amendment, and the chairman and I will work with all
Senators in this effort. Do not forget, the EPW bill increases the
amount of funding for each and every State. And every State gets more
than they did last time. I think that is correct.
Chairman Inhofe has been a very forceful leader in this massive
undertaking to reauthorize our Nation's transportation laws. He has
thoughtfully devised an innovative plan that balances the interests of
the great majority of donor and donee States.
That is a tough one. Chairman Inhofe is to be commended for his
creativity and energy in crafting major aspects of the bill, which the
EPW Committee is putting before the Senate.
As head of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Bond has
worked closely with Senator Inhofe and led the charge to obtain a
strong level of funding for this effort.
Senator Harry Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and I
have worked together with Senators Inhofe and Bond throughout the
Committee process and stuck together at the Committee markup to protect
and enhance the passage of the bill.
History should also record that many fine staff worked long hours and
proposed some excellent approaches for our consideration. They have
done a tremendous job.
Before I conclude I would like to mention my old friend John Chafee.
Six years ago, Senator Chafee was the Chairman of the EPW Committee. He
moved this massive bill with the grace and the tenacity that was his
trade-mark.
John Chafee was a giant in this body, and he is missed very much
today by all those who had the wonderful opportunity to work with him
and shared his expertise.
I can only hope that we all draw on the lessons of bipartisanship, of
cooperation and of consensus that John taught us.
To sum up, we are asking for a yes vote to get this bill to the
Senate floor for a full debate on its merits.
Our Nation needs this bill and needs it now.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to take a few
moments to raise some questions about

[[Page S355]]

the wisdom of invoking cloture on this bill at this time. I am
concerned that this is a deficient bill in a very fundamental sense.
One, it is deficient because one of the key parts of this bill,
public transit, has not yet been voted out of the committee of
jurisdiction. So we are dealing with a bird which is missing its right
wing and a significant number of tail feathers. I believe we ought to
wait until we can see the full program before we vote cloture on
proceeding on this bill.
Second, the Finance Committee has just voted on the legislation
relative to how to finance this bill. I will have to say, I am very
concerned about the approach we are taking. Essentially the approach
is, by whatever words you wish to use to describe it, to take money
from the general revenue fund and use it to replace funds which
historically have come from the users of the transportation system.
At a time when we just received a budget from the President that is
over $500 billion in deficit--I repeat, $500 billion in deficit for
this next year--to be further adding to the deficit by stripping out
funds which would otherwise have gone to general revenue seems to me to
be more than reckless.
Even if you accepted the proposition that it was all right to use
general revenue to finance highway and transit purposes, the key
portions of these funds come from what I would call, charitably,
``funny money sources.'' As an example, we use the closure of certain
tax loopholes, which even have names such as the Enron tax loophole.
That is probably a very good thing to do. The problem is, we have
already done it twice before. We used the same set of tax closures of
loopholes to finance the jobs bill. That is the bill that relates to
international taxation and has been precipitated by the fact that the
European Union declared--supported by the World Trade Organization--a
portion of our taxation of international transactions to be illegal.
And if we don't provide an acceptable alternative, we face the prospect
of very significant retaliatory tariffs against our products. So there
is going to be a lot of impetus to get that bill passed.
The second bill which uses these same items is the CARE bill which is
the charitable giving legislation that I know has a significant amount
of support. Since we can't use the tax loophole closures more than
once, are we making the decision that we are going to do it for the
highway bill and, therefore, have it unavailable for the jobs bill and
the CARE bill?
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield, yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Has the Senator seen the size of this bill?
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Yes, I have observed it. And I might say, it
will be somewhat larger when the public transit section and the
financing section are added.
Mr. McCAIN. Has the Senator seen the first bill that we passed in
1956? This is the bill that was passed in 1956. This is the bill in
2004. How far we have come.
How far and disgraceful a path we have tread with this porkbarrel-
laden piece of overspending at a time when we have all-time deficits.

I urge my colleagues--in fact, I urge the managers of the bill--to
look at what they did in 1956 to fund the highways in the United States
and what they are trying to do now which is wasteful and disgraceful. I
wonder if my colleague would have a look at that.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I look forward to doing so.
Let me make my last point with which you might not agree. I think we
need to establish what are we trying to do with this legislation. We
are not just passing a piece of legislation in order to shove money out
the door. When we passed TEA-21 5 years ago, I made on this floor a
prediction which saddened me but has come to pass; that is, that as a
result of TEA-21, our highways, our bridges, and our public transit
systems are in worse shape with greater congestion than they were the
day we passed TEA-21.
Why is that? It is because we have either inadequately funded those
basic parts of our American infrastructure or, if we did adequately
fund them, the resources were not distributed to where the needs were
the greatest.
Let me cite a few examples. According to the U.S. Department of
Transportation's conditions and performance report, which is prepared
every other year to measure the needs of the Nation's highways and
transit system, let me quote from that report:

Capital investments by all levels of government between
1997 and 2000 remain below the ``cost to maintain'' level.
Consequently, overall performance of the system has declined.

That same report estimates that over the 6 years of TEA-21, the
quality of the highway system has degraded by 6 percent and that 29
percent of America's bridges are considered structurally deficient.
On the issue of congestion, there is a study which was done by the
Texas Transportation Institute, I believe, at Texas A&M University.
This was what they had to say about congestion:

In 2001, 5.7 billion gallons of fuel were wasted as a
result of congestion; 3.5 billion hours of lost productivity
resulting from traffic congestion.

Those hours and gallons lost cost the Nation $69.5 billion, a $4.5
billion increase from the year 2000. The estimate is that if we
appropriate the funds that are currently being suggested, that loss in
gallons of gasoline and productivity will rise to $90 billion by the
year 2009.
Mr. President, we have lots of deficits in this country. We are
talking today about the deficits in our budget. We talk regularly about
the deficits in our trade balance. But we have another deficit, and
that is the deficit in our basic infrastructure. While it is not as
graphic and we do not get a report on it as frequently as we do on the
trade deficit or the fiscal deficit, it is just as pernicious and maybe
even more so.
If you ask yourself the question, how is the United States of America
going to compete in a global economy which worships at the altar of
lowest unit cost of production and be able to maintain American living
standards, that will be a major challenge for the next generation of
the American public and their political representatives.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I will conclude first and then I will take a
question. I believe two of the fundamental parts of being able to
answer that question are that the United States needs to have the best
educated population on earth so that we can continue to generate the
innovative ideas and the efficiency in production that has hallmarked
our economy.
Second, the key responsibility of the public sector is to maintain an
infrastructure that will be as efficient as possible. Those are two of
the keys to American productivity which will allow us to compete in the
global economy and maintain an average income and standard of living
that is dramatic and above the rest of the world. In my judgment, this
legislation will not achieve that objective, while at the same time
adding to our national deficit.
For those reasons, I believe we should take more time with this
legislation, see what comes out of the Banking Committee for public
transit, be able to understand the implications of the financing
program that was just reported by the Finance Committee, and what is
going to be required in order to avoid another 6 years of degradation
of our basic public surface transportation system.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Yes.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the Senator from Florida is
concerned about, for example, the bridges. Of all the bridges we have
in America, about a third of them are in disrepair. The Senator is
aware that some of these bridges are in such bad condition that school
buses won't drive over them. They stop the bus and have the kids walk
across and the bus comes across and they load it up again. The Senator,
from the statements I have heard him make before the committee on which
we serve together, statements I have heard him making over the years,
and in his experience as the Governor of Florida, indicates to me that
he thinks we should do something about these bridges, as an example.
The Senator may be aware that prior to 9/11, I introduced legislation
called the American Marshall Plan. The resolution has been passed by
the National Council of Mayors and other organizations in the States
saying we need to

[[Page S356]]

do something with our infrastructure separate and apart from the
regular highway bill we do every 5 or 6 years.
Is the Senator in a position to say in addition to the work being
done on this highway bill, we need to look at other parts of the
infrastructure, including water, sewer, and bridges? Does the Senator
acknowledge that?

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Absolutely. I am privileged to serve on the
Environment and Public Works Committee with our distinguished colleague
from Nevada, and we both know the state of our water and sewer systems
are even worse than our transportation system, in terms of their
degradation and inadequacy, and with every year that passes, that
degree of decline further accelerates. So we have many needs in America
to reverse the decline of our infrastructure so that we cannot only
have a quality of life today--water systems that will serve our
people's needs, highways that are not excessively congested and are
safe to drive on but also are absolutely fundamental to our economic
well-being.
Mr. REID. I also ask this question to my friend. The Senator is aware
that my legislation--after 9/11, other things got in the way and
nothing happened with that. Is the Senator aware that the Banking
Committee, which does mass transit--they have agreed on a mass transit
bill. Is the Senator also aware that the Finance Committee has agreed--
in fact, they have probably done that by now because they were meeting
this afternoon--to make sure that bill is funded properly, as is our
highway bill? Is the Senator aware that that has taken place?
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. As a member of the Finance Committee, I can
say that the Finance Committee has just voted out a financing program
to support this legislation. We were not informed as to what the
Banking Committee's number would be for public transit. It was
estimated that it would be $36.6 billion over 6 years. I don't know if
that is the final number that the committee recommended.
Mr. REID. Let me ask a final question. The Senator is aware that the
State of Florida, for example, in this highway bill, will wind up
getting $3,138,589,000, which is a growth rate of some 40 percent, and
that the fiscal year 2003 number the people of Florida got for a return
on the dollar they put in was the minimum, 90.5 cents. At the end of
this bill, Florida will go to 95 percent; that is, they will get 95
cents back for every dollar. I think the Senator would acknowledge that
is an improvement over the last bill for the State of Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I don't deny that this legislation is better
than it has been. I make two points: One, it is not enough to keep pace
with the annual demands on the system, both for maintenance and to
avoid increasing congestion. Every survey I have seen, including those
I just cited, give statistical validation to that.
The second concern is that we are going to be adding to one of the
other deficits in this country, which is our fiscal deficit, by
diverting money which otherwise would have gone into general revenue in
order to pay the cost of both the highway and the public transit
system.
Finally, the specific elements of that transfer from general revenue
to the transportation fund are extremely questionable. I mentioned one
set of so-called tax loophole closers that we have already spent
before. How much confidence can we have that this bill is going to get
to the finish line before the jobs bill or the charitable giving bill,
so that this essential part of the financing package is still
available? I think it is a high risk. I say that to someone who knows
something about high risk. I think it is an unstable platform on which
to place our Nation's transportation funding.
Mr. REID. What I hear the Senator saying is that the Senator has no
question with the amount of money being spent in this bill, the Senator
has some question how it is being financed?
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. No. Even if we provide adequate financing to
assure that this level will be allocated, I think we are doing as we
did 6 years ago with TEA-21, assuring that whoever is here in 2009 is
going to be facing a transportation system that has been further
degraded.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do say this to my friend, and I ask that
he respond: We have programs that are funded in this bill that were the
property of Senator Pat Moynihan, principally, that I think are
certainly far from being perfect, but they are the best programs we
have had during the lifetime of this legislation.
I say to my friend, with the fact that we have 2 weeks to complete
this legislation--we bring it up now or the majority leader said we
wouldn't be able to do it--I would think doing this highway bill is so
much more important than not doing it, that it is easier to weigh that
on the scale of legislative necessity.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I think that self-imposed standard that we
have to do this in the next 2 weeks is unacceptable. This has to be
done, yes, but it ought to be done when we have had an opportunity to
view all the pieces and understand the implications of all the pieces.
By trying to do this between now and what happens to be President's Day
is arbitrary and does not serve the interests of our public and does
not serve our ability to represent our constituents.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, those of us who would love to
be heard on this----
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, we have a vote
scheduled at a quarter to 6. There are Senators who want to speak
before the vote. I apologize to everyone for having taken the time with
Senator Graham. We have 25 minutes remaining. I wonder if Senator Dodd
can indicate how much time he wants.
Mr. DODD. Ten minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest, we have 24 minutes and we have three people to
be heard, including the Senator from Connecticut. That is 8 minutes
apiece. Does the Senator object to speaking for 8 minutes?
Mr. DODD. No.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dodd,
Bond, and Thomas be recognized for 8 minutes in that order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend all of my colleagues who worked on
this legislation. This is a difficult bill. I have been around this
institution long enough to know that when you have highway bills and
formulas, it is always complicated. We are seeking perfection, and we
are never going to achieve it. I admire those who serve on these
committees and have to work on these issues to try to put these bills
together. I begin on that note.
I also thank my colleague from Florida who knows a lot about
transportation issues and has worked on these issues a long time. I
associate myself with his remarks.
I am concerned about this bill. I have talked with my colleagues
about it. I wish to say publicly that I am grateful to the
distinguished Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Nevada, and others
who spent some time talking with me about this bill and what happens to
my State.
Obviously, we all begin by looking at what happens to our States in a
bill such as this. Connecticut receives, under the present version of
this legislation, the smallest increase of all of the 50 States, a 10-
percent increase. I am deeply worried that we are no longer discussing
a bill that was once rooted primarily in the notion of need and are now
moving into a different consideration for how these dollars will be
spent.
My State is a donor State. It contributes more each year in tax
revenues to the United States than we receive back in funding.
As a small State, we do not contribute more than we get back in terms
of gasoline tax revenues. My State is 100 miles long. The average
vehicle can cross my State with about 3 gallons of gasoline.
Yet I think everyone is aware geographically where my State is
located. It is a thoroughfare. Millions of vehicles literally every
year pass on the Northeast corridor through my State.
So with the wear and tear on our highways, the tremendous congestion,
the huge volume of transportation that occurs, it is unfair to make
allocations solely based on gas tax revenues.
I particularly note, as I look at the managers' amendment, that there
is a

[[Page S357]]

provision that provides for a floor of a 35-percent increase for States
with a total population density of less than 20 persons per square
mile, a total population of less than 1 million people, as reported in
the decennial census conducted by the Federal Government 2000, or a
median household income of $35,000.
There are seven States that fall into that category. Where is the
need? Those States receive a 35-percent increase in funding, regardless
of whether there is any traffic, or whether there has been any
deterioration in road conditions at all. Here we are taking seven
States which have fewer than 20 people per square mile, a population of
less than 1 million people, or a median income of less than $35,000,
and yet they get a 35-percent increase. But a State such as mine that
has cars and trucks passing through all night long and all day long
believes that these highways are critically important to our economy
and well-being. I am troubled by how this formulation is being
considered.
It is worthy of note that when we first wrote the highway bill, to
which Senator McCain referred, back in the 1950s, it was called the
National Defense Interstate Highway System. Few people today would deny
the indispensable role that the Nation's highways, as well as mass
transit systems, play in homeland security.
I can say to my colleagues, I am sure they are aware of this, that on
September 11, 2001, one of the reasons my State was able to contribute
as much as it did to the devastation in New York is because of that
National Defense Highway System that Dwight Eisenhower authored back in
the 1950s. It allowed for our first responders to get into New York
City, as well as for people to flee that city, which is exactly what
Dwight Eisenhower had in mind when we created the National Defense
Highway System.
Today, as we talk about the needs of my State and others--by the way,
there are a variety of States throughout the Northeast and Midwest that
I don't think do as well as they should be doing under these
formulations. I know this is a work in progress, and I know we are not
done yet. I say that with the full knowledge of those who helped us
work on it.

I felt it necessary this evening, as we prepare to vote on cloture,
knowing these formulas can get locked in and once they are locked in,
it is awfully difficult to change them. Trying to add discretionary
funding here and there may be satisfactory to some, but we are looking
at a 6-year bill where economic development and congestion is so
incredible.
Tonight, one could go on Route 95 in my State and see that it is a
parking lot. It isn't just between peak hours; it is getting that way
all day long every day because of the tremendous congestion.
As the Senator from Florida pointed out, we need to know what the
mass transit piece of this legislation is going to be. I am pleased
things seem to be moving in the right direction, but it is going to be
awfully difficult to try to explain to people why certain States are
just so limited in their ability to get the resources necessary to see
to it that they can replace the older infrastructure to accommodate the
tremendous demand that is building up in our region of the country.
I hope we will take a look at some of these formulations. I say with
all due respect to the seven States that are going to automatically get
35 percent, show me your need. If you have a need, I will listen, but
if you are merely going to get a 35-percent increase because you have
less than 20 people per square mile, population of less than 1 million,
or median income of less than $35,000, how do you justify getting a 35-
percent increase when the need doesn't exist? When there are other
parts of the country that have tremendous need, how can you justify
that we are only getting a fraction of that increase over the next 6
years?
That is not how this ought to work. If we are going to start making
decisions in this country on these kinds of formulations, then those of
us who come from donor States, who contribute far more than we get
back, are going to have to start making that kind of calculation on
every issue that comes along.
It strikes me that in too many cases the States getting the most out
of this bill as presently crafted are the ones that contribute the
least when it comes to Federal dollars, and those that contribute the
most get back the least. We need to consider that as we move forward.
Again, I appreciate immensely the work my colleagues have done in
writing this legislation. It is not easy, I know that. I am grateful to
them for giving me an ear when I talk about these issues and share my
concerns that come from not only my State but a region of a country
that runs as a belt across the Midwest and Northeast.
I know my colleagues are cognizant of that. I am not telling them
something of which they are unaware.
Certainly, as we talk about a highway bill for the next 6 years, as
well as transit when it comes along, we need to have formulations that
are, as they historically have been, based on need, and not on a
formulation that is going to disregard it.
Whatever time I may have remaining, I yield it to my colleague from
Missouri who, if I have another minute or so, I will give him those
minutes to use as he sees fit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his
understanding. He and I have worked together on many issues, and it is
not easy. Certainly, this one is not easy. There is no question that we
are not seeking perfection. We understand the problems that all States
face. Over the 6 years, this bill actually winds up giving, as best I
can figure, the State of Connecticut 20 cents more on every dollar they
put in than the money we get back in the State of Missouri. So we have
given at the office, and we are attempting to achieve equity.
Nobody is going to be 100 percent happy, but this is one where there
has been tremendous cooperation, over better than a year, among
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, my colleague, the
subcommittee chairman, and Senator Reid, trying to listen and develop a
framework that is fair and that deals with the pressing needs that this
Nation faces.
I commend the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, Jim Inhofe, along with Senators Reid and Jeffords, for a job
well done.
The Finance Committee has been working hard. I gather they have done
a good job to come up to the level that was originally contained in the
Bond-Reid amendment in the Budget Act. We thought this was the minimum
we needed because there are such pressing needs for highways.
Obviously, everybody knows good highways lessen congestion. Everybody
knows that they are the guidelines to economic development. If we do
not have good highways, we cannot keep and grow good jobs. So it is
vitally important for the long-term future of the State.
In my State, it is really a safety issue. We are a very wide, broad,
and tall State with lots of traffic through it. In many of these areas,
the two-lane highways are carrying traffic that is designed for at
least four lanes nowadays. Safety in this authorization is for the
first time given a prominent position, being elevated to a core
program.
We have more than three deaths a day on Missouri's highways, and at
least one and maybe more than those are attributable to the conditions
of our highways. I know this happens in other States. That is why I am
delighted that the administration, in laying out the title SAFETEA, the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act,
has emphasized safety because good roads and highways are a matter of
safety.
I think this bill does mirror the administration's proposal
continuing our commitment to the motoring public's safety. This is
accomplished by providing much needed funding to reduce highway
injuries and fatalities, all without the use of mandates. Funding for
good highways and bridges is absolutely essential and a key component
of our bill will go a long way toward saving lives by providing funds
to States to address safety needs at hazardous locations, sections, and
elements. These include roadside obstacles and unmarked or poorly
marked roads that may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and other highway users.

[[Page S358]]

We know in Missouri that inadequate roads not only lead to
congestion, therefore more pollution, they delay, deny, and derail
economic development opportunities, but they also kill people. When you
have traffic--10,000, 15,000, 20,000 cars a day--on a narrow, two-lane
road, you are going to have people passing when they should not and
they run into other people head on.
We heard testimony from the administration that nearly 42,000 people
are killed on our roads and highways each year. We need to make an
investment to reduce that loss. I am glad that the bill reflects the
continued commitment to making not only investments in our
infrastructure but also to the general safety and welfare of our
constituents.
On the question of equity, our bill is the best we can come up with
in the real world to achieve equity among all of the States. Some of us
have been donor States for a very long time, getting back far less than
the dollar we put in. There are other States that have consistently
received more. As a result, this bill tries to achieve some equity by
getting all States to a 95-cent rate of return, at least by the end of
the authorization.
There are 24 States; Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. At
the same time, we wanted to make sure that every State got an increase.
So every State gets at least a 10-percent increase over the amount of
funds that they were getting in TEA-21, and we put a lid on so that
some States would not take an undue share. I think the top rate is
about a 42-percent increase. So in that framework, we have come up with
what we think is equity.
My home State of Missouri, as many of the donor States mentioned, has
some of the worst roads in the Nation. It has about the third worst
roads in the Nation, with 59 percent of its major roads in either poor
or mediocre condition, requiring immediate repair or reconstruction. We
also have the second worst bridges in the Nation.
I take my hat off to the chairman of the committee because I
understand his State may be the one State that ranks in worse shape
than Missouri does on both of these. As my colleagues will notice,
Missouri is very much in the middle ranks of those getting an increase.
During the reauthorization of TEA-21, donor States did not think it
was feasible to achieve the 95 percent rate of return. Under our
proposal, we are able to get them there. However, I am aware that some
of the donor States are concerned they hit our growth caps and do not
achieve a 95 percent return in 2004.
We were unable to bring donor States up as early as we might have
wished due to our budgetary constraints, and balancing the needs of the
donor States with the needs of the donee States. But as donor States
grow, the donee States see a gradual decline. To bring greater equity
between the States, I am proud to announce that all States will grow
not less than 10 percent over TEA-21.
This bill also addresses important environmental issues that were
part of a compromise, worked out with great input from all sides. To
ease the transition to new air quality standards, the conformity
process is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as
streamlining the project delivery process by providing the necessary
tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the
environmental review stage. We think that is very important.

We know there are lots of different ideas on this bill. We tried to
accommodate all of those ideas. We had ideas and requests coming in
over the transom, through the window. We met people on the floor. Our
staffs worked together to try to balance all of these needs. Clearly,
there are going to be a number of amendments. I hope our colleagues
will work with us because there is a real desire, on the part of the
chair and the ranking member of both the full committee and the
subcommittee, to give a hearing to these. If there are important issues
that need to be dealt with, we want to get the votes and move forward
so we can, we hope, get the bill signed before the current
authorization expires at the end of February.
Regarding a sufficient level of growth, the administration proposed,
in my view, an insufficient level of growth for our Nation's aging
infrastructure. The reason for offering the Bond-Reid amendment was
because the administration's SAFETEA proposal came in at a mere $200
billion for highways.
During last year's budget debate, I, along with Senator Reid, offered
an amendment to fund highways at $255 billion over 6 years, which was
supported by a vote of 79 to 21. I am pleased to report that the bill
we have before us follows the Bond-Reid amendment providing a 31-
percent increase in funding over TEA-21. While this is not as high as
some might have wanted, we are able to achieve this goal without
raising fuel taxes.
In this bill, I think all of us are concerned about jobs as well as
the benefits that good highways and bridges bring if we are to get
people to work this summer, which I think is very important because we
still do not have enough people working. We need to get the
authorization so it can get out to the highway departments so they can
make their contracts for the coming year.
I do not need to tell my colleagues, because I think everybody has
heard it too many times, that the Department of Transportation
estimates that for every billion dollars in new Federal investment,
there are 47,000 jobs created. We want to see those jobs created this
year. Accordingly, in 2009 our comprehensive 6-year bill at $255
billion will sustain over 2 million new jobs.
According to the Associated General Contractors, the same $1 billion
investment yields $500 million in new orders from manufacturing and
$500 million spread through other sectors of the economy. Construction
pay averages at $19 per hour, 23 percent higher than the private sector
average. Failure to enact a 6-year bill yields the loss of 90,000 jobs.
Another accomplishment of our package will ensure transportation
projects are built more quickly because environmental stakeholders will
be brought to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised
earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape
projects. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move
through a more structured environmental review process more efficiently
and with fewer delays.
The bill also ensures that transportation projects will not make air
worse in areas with poor air quality, while giving local transportation
planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air-quality
responsibilities. The bill will put transportation planning on a
regular 4-year cycle, require air quality checks for projects large
enough to be regionally significant and reduce current barriers local
officials face in adopting projects that improve air quality.
This comprehensive package is a good step forward to addressing our
Nation's needs in infrastructure development and improvement.
I thank my colleagues from the Finance Committee, and others. I urge
everybody to work with us. The managers of the bill will be doing their
best to expedite it. I appreciate the time. I urge my colleagues to
support the motion for cloture and to move to the bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is one of the most important
issues we have had before us. As we look to a year with relatively
short time to work on issues, with a large number of issues out there,
I think it is important for us to deal with this and to deal with it
promptly. I am delighted that we are going to have it up to date and be
able to work on it over the next week or so.
I have not heard all of the discussions. I am sure I understand what
most of them have been because I have been on the Finance Committee. We
have finally come to an agreement as to what the funding level will be
and what the sources of funding will be. It follows very closely what
we came out with in the Environment and Public Works Committee, of
which I am also a member. So I am very pleased with what we are doing.

Does it suit everybody? Of course not. There are all kinds of
discussions

[[Page S359]]

about funding source. The funding source is not entirely the gas tax.
But the way we work it out, all that additional funding does come from
something related to transportation, so I think it is a justifiable way
to put this in a spending arena that will help accomplish the things we
need to do. I cannot think of anything more important.
We have been in a CR since September. I don't know what you heard
from your transportation departments at home, but they feel as if they
can't move forward, can't do contracting, can't plan on what they need
to be doing in the future until they get more assurance of where we
are. So it is imperative that we do something here.
I can't think of anything more important to our lives, unless it is
energy, than transportation. To be able to go with our families, do our
work, protect our country--all these things are related, of course, to
travel and the highway bill.
The interstate system is 50 years old. The Senator from Arizona was
talking about the little bill that passed 50 years ago. Times have
changed substantially and I believe there is a more comprehensive
approach to travel that combines the spending of all levels of
Government, which amounts to over $100 billion annually, when you talk
about all of them put together. So our share is not the largest, but it
is more than we have had in the past.
It is a critical time. It is a critical situation. We need to move.
As I said, I know there are different views and I understand that.
There are decisions that have to be made in this bill in terms of
distribution of funding, not only among States, but what is used for
mass transit, what is used for pathways, and a number of other safety
projects and things of that kind.
But, really, our responsibility is to come to an agreement and move
forward here and then bring it to the House and get this done. I think,
of course, it is also one of the big economic features before us. It
creates lots of jobs immediately. But more importantly, it strengthens
the whole economic structure so we can develop with other kinds of
jobs.
I know there is the case about there being donors. Let me talk about
a larger State that does pretty well. We have thousands of miles of
roads, 27,000 miles of roads, and relatively few people. But lots of
people who do not live with us are going through. This is a Federal
highway system and it has to move throughout the country. So the
decision as to appropriating and adjusting the money among the States
is not an easy one. Certainly not everybody agrees with how we are
going to do it.
In any event, I am not going to take more time. We have learned a
great deal about it. Again, one of the most important aspects we have
to deal with is the funding that is related to the tax that is assessed
on gas. We made some changes on some of the others.
I urge Senators to pass this bill.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? I understand the Senator, in
addition to being on the committee I chair, is also on the Finance
Committee. Would he care to report on what has just transpired in the
last hour or so?

Mr. THOMAS. We have passed a bill there to bring it to the floor. The
funding is very close to what the chairman used in our Environment and
Public Works Committee.
As we said, the direct amount from gas funding was somewhat short,
but we used some other things, dollars that were related, and scooted
them over from other expenditures into this bill so we are offsetting
the costs. We find ourselves with the amount of money pretty much as
laid out by the chairman and the chairman's committee. I appreciate
very much what he has done and certainly hope we can move forward.
Mr. INHOFE. I further ask, since I am chairman of the committee, if
the Senator who has the floor now will yield to me for a few comments.
Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
Mr. INHOFE. I see Senator Thomas, from a State such as Wyoming, falls
into a category we are taking care of in the formulas. That is low-
yield or low-population States. They have to be looked after. As he
points out, people are driving through, yet they don't have the
population base to be supporting large amounts of revenue to pay for
the roads.
On the other hand, we see Senators such as the Presiding Officer now,
from the State of Texas, one of the fastest growing, largest States. He
certainly has problems. So being very careful to try to take care of
all these diverse needs in establishing a formula to put together
something that would take care of the large States, we put in a ceiling
and we put in a floor. We put something in there for donee and donor
States. It is a very difficult formula.
I remind my colleagues who might not feel this is a fair approach to
it, to remember, to recall when we tried to do this before under TEA-
21, we had a purely political system. Everybody got a percentage of the
amount of money that was there and it was all driven by politics. Once
they received 60 votes, they didn't care what happened. We are not
doing that. We have a formula that takes care of all these needs.
I saw the senior Senator from Pennsylvania coming through just a
moment ago and there have been some complaints from that State. I
compare that to my State. My State is 20 percent larger than the State
of Pennsylvania, yet we have roughly the same number of miles of roads.
Yet under this formula, he is receiving some $3 for every $1 we
receive. That doesn't look like I do a very good job for my State of
Oklahoma. Nevertheless, it is a reality that we have to consider all
these things.
If you look at some of the compromises we have made, we had four
principals who spent more time than anyone else drafting this bill.
They were, of course, myself as chairman, Senator Jeffords as the
ranking member, Senator Reid as the ranking member on the subcommittee,
and Senator Bond on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee,
subcommittee chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. I will conclude by urging my colleagues not to waste any
more time. We need to get to this. We should have done this back on
September 30. I urge colleagues that we invoke cloture and get right to
the bill.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment that I rise
today to express my objection to moving forward on the bill before us,
SAFETEA. The cloture vote that we will have in the next few hours is
the first step towards debating a bill with which few in this body are
completely familiar. Essential elements of the bill came out of the
Finance Committee today, and Senators have clearly not had enough time
to review these proposals and to assess the effect on their States. I
believe that debating and voting on this legislation this week would be
irresponsible, and potentially damaging to many States, including the
State of Wisconsin.
The leadership has made it clear that they intend to push this
measure through under artificial time constraints. Yet, members of the
Environment and Public Works Committee were not given essential
information before the transportation bill was brought for a vote on
November 12, 2003, and now Members of the Senate will be debating a
formula we haven't seen and are told we can't change. The unknowns, at
this point, outnumber the areas of understanding. Many Senators still
haven't seen crucial information from the Finance and Banking
Committees. Questions of how to pay for this bill and how transit
funding will be distributed among the States were debated in Committee
as recently as today. I fail to see how we are acting responsibly to
vote on legislation the same day it comes out of Committee.
I want to make my self clear. I support a 6-year authorization of
transportation dollars. And I support a bill that would be funded at
the levels the Senate supported in last year's budget resolution, and
that is fiscally responsible. During every previous authorization, I
have fought to give my State equitable--equitable, not favorable--
treatement under the various formulas. I could not, in good conscience,
move forward with a bill that would be a step backwards for my State.
I understand that moving forward today does not eliminate all the
opportunities to alter this bill and make it better. However, the
complexities of the formulas that the Senate will be dealing with
require additional time for review. I am particularly troubled by
possible effects on Wisconsin of the

[[Page S360]]

proposed amendment dealing with the distribution of highway funds among
the States. This formula was not released until just over a week ago,
and yet this is what determines every State's level of transportation
funding for the next 6 years. This amendment contains the new ``equity
bonus'' program, dictating the State's percentages of formula funding.
The State of Wisconsin is a loser under this formula. According to
charts from the Federal Highway Administration, Wisconsin's rate of
return will drop to $.95 by the second year of the bill, and remain
there for 4 years. I understand that the formulas involved are
complicated and difficult to alter. In my mind, this provides all the
more reason granting Senators additional time to review and amend them.
A 6-year authorization bill should not move forward under an
arbitrary time limit. As a Senator whose State could be harmed by this
legislation, I will use all the procedural tools at my disposal to give
myself more time to understand and amend the bill. In addition, I will
use any legislative means to fix the inequities that exist in the
proposed formula amendment. I am hopeful that the leadership will work
with me in the coming weeks to protect my State and advance the best
possible reauthorization bill.

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion. The
clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 426, S. 1072, a bill to authorize
funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs,
transit programs, and for other purposes:
Bill Frist, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, Susan Collins,
Craig Thomas, Pat Roberts, Conrad Burns, Thad Cochran,
Norm Coleman, Richard Shelby, Mike Crapo, Robert F.
Bennett, George V. Voinovich, Ted Stevens, Lamar
Alexander, Lindsey O. Graham.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 1072 shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce tha the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett),
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Coleman), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from
South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator
from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The yeas and nays resulted, yeas 75 and nays 11, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

YEAS--75

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--11

Akaka
Dodd
Feingold
Graham (FL)
Gregg
Hutchison
Kohl
Kyl
McCain
Specter
Sununu

NOT VOTING--14

Bennett
Biden
Burns
Coleman
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Harkin
Hollings
Kerry
Lieberman
Murkowski
Reed
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 75, the nays are
11. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like today's Record to
indicate that I am necessarily absent due to a delayed incoming flight
to Washington. Had I been present for the vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of the highway
funding bill, I would have voted yea.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on Senate rollcall vote 7, to
invoke cloture on The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (S. 1072), I was absent due to a
delayed flight. If I had been present for the vote I would have voted
in the affirmative, to invoke cloture and proceed to the bill.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank all the main
principals involved: Senators Jeffords, Reid, Bond, and the entire
committee. I think it was a very good vote. I think we are going to be
able to move on to the biggest jobs bill probably in the last 10 years.
I thank my colleagues for their strong support.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma. I
have been through this before, but this was the most expeditious and
well-run operation I have been involved in, and I think we are moving
toward a successful result.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. 1072, the highway bill, at 10:30
a.m. on Tuesday, February 3.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. What is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on a motion to proceed to
the bill.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Is the Senator wishing to speak in morning business?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________