[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 4, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S549-S568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 
                                  2003

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1072, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1072) to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes.


                   recognition of the majority leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                   thanking president aznar of spain

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the Senate and House were 
privileged to conduct a joint meeting--a wonderful meeting--to hear a 
powerful address by President Aznar of Spain. I again thank President 
Aznar, who left here just moments ago, for his visit and for his 
remarks today.
  Spain, through this President, has been a true ally in every sense of 
the word. He did a wonderful job in articulating the great friendship 
that our two countries have demonstrated, as he said, over the last two 
administrations of this country.


                                schedule

  Mr. President, this afternoon we have resumed consideration of S. 
1072, the highway bill. We notified Senators last night that it is our 
intention to work to complete action on this bill before the February 
recess. We have made some progress on the bill thus far this week. The 
chairman modified the committee substitute yesterday and is ready to 
work with Senators on their amendments today. Rollcall votes should be 
anticipated during today's session as we begin the amendment process. 
I, once again, encourage Senators to come to the floor and to work with 
the bill managers to schedule floor time.
  In addition to the highway bill amendments, the Senate may act on 
available judicial nominations today. We will alert all Members of 
these votes as they are scheduled.


            unanimous consent agreement--committee meetings

  Mr. President, I have three unanimous consent requests for committees 
to meet during today's session of the Senate. They all have been 
approved by the majority and minority leadership. I ask unanimous 
consent that these requests be agreed to, en bloc, and that these 
requests be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Senator from 
Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Reserving the right to object, I would like to 
ask a question. I was under the impression that I had an opportunity 
today to complete a series of statements I was making on intelligence 
reform, and that was to begin at 1 o'clock.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the managers are here. I know we had not 
locked in any time. I would like to defer to the managers for that 
because, as we had said before, we would like to proceed with the 
consideration of the bill itself.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. If I could add to your unanimous consent 
request a time certain that I could present my third statement on 
intelligence reform; and Senator Feinstein also wishes to make a 
statement on the same subject.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yesterday, we had several occasions where we were trying 
to stay on the bill, and we kept saying: All right, one more person, 
one more person, one more person.
  As manager of the bill, I am going to do everything I can 
parliamentarily to stay on the bill and not get into other subjects.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Well then, I would have to object to the 
unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will proceed with the regular order here 
then.


                              ricin update

  Mr. President, let me just say, in reference to the incident, the 
criminal investigation that is underway because of the attack here with 
ricin now 2

[[Page S550]]

days ago, I will, sometime in the next hour, be coming back to the 
floor for a very brief announcement so our colleagues will know of a 
proposed schedule for the reopening of the Senate office buildings. I 
will be working on that over the course of the next 40 minutes or so. I 
mentioned to the Democratic leader that I will plan to come back.
  I know there is a lot of concern and anticipation, and some 
frustration, not knowing exactly when Senators will have access to 
their offices and to their records. We are working on that. We have 
been working on it over the course of the morning. We made real 
progress yesterday. It was a very successful day in terms of laboratory 
testing.
  But again, let me come back and say that it is the safety and welfare 
of our employees and our staff that is fundamental. The science of this 
particular agent is uncertain and new, but we have a lot of certainty 
that we are gaining with each minute. So I plan on coming back to the 
floor in about 30 minutes.


                           order of procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think we could 
probably work this out. Why don't we go ahead and get rid of the Bond 
amendment--all they want is a time certain--and have them come and talk 
after that?
  I say to Senator Inhofe, through the majority leader--we are anxious 
to have an amendment on this bill--maybe Senator Bond could lay down 
his amendment. We could finish the debate on that, and I assume the 
leader wants a vote on it today. When that vote is completed, they 
could be recognized.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding Senator Warner is not going to be 
here today.
  Mr. INHOFE. At 2:30.
  Mr. REID. Maybe we could lay the amendment down and vote on it at 
some subsequent time.
  Mr. INHOFE. To do everything to accommodate the Senator from Florida, 
what I would like to do is stay on the bill until later on this 
afternoon, and at that time I am sure we are going to come to a point 
where, because of other things that are happening, there are not going 
to be Senators who want to speak on the bill, and then we could go to 
this so the Senator would have the time he requested.
  Mr. REID. How much time would the Senator from Florida need?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Thirty minutes. I would like to have it 
commence no later than 3:30 because I have previous commitments.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like a half hour.
  Mr. REID. So there is an hour here being requested. I have an idea 
what they are going to talk about, and that means there will be time 
requested on the other side to respond to it.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have no objection if he changes his 3:30 to 5 o'clock. 
There are some things happening that affect every Senator in here 
tonight having to do with the National Prayer Breakfast, and I would 
like to accommodate them as well.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I wish I could do that, but I have a request 
that it be no later than 3:30. Frankly, if I had started when we began 
this debate over parliamentary procedure, I would have been a third of 
the way through the speech.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if we have an impasse about scheduling 
this afternoon, I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask consent that 
we have morning business tomorrow immediately after we commence Senate 
business to accommodate the request made by the distinguished Senator 
from Florida and the Senator from California. Could we do that?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. If I may ask, when will we commence the 
session tomorrow?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is a matter to be determined by the majority 
leader, but I would suggest that normally we have Senate business in 
the morning. We could either come in a little bit earlier or figure out 
our schedule. But it would not then interfere with the understandable 
desire on the part of the manager to stay on the bill once we are on 
the bill. Technically we are on the highway bill right now. Tomorrow 
morning we could certainly accommodate the Senator's request with the 
time allotted for his comments and those of the Senator from 
California.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. Leader, may I make one request, that 
morning business begin no later than 9:30 in the morning?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That would be up to the majority leader.
  Mr. INHOFE. The majority leader will have to get in on this, but I 
would say even earlier than that. We are going to have amendments. In 
fact, we have some amendments that will be ready today. We need to get 
to those and get this bill moving.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Florida 
that I will talk to the majority leader. I would be surprised if he 
would have any difficulty coming in prior to 9:30.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator withdraw his request?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time prior to the time we move to 
the bill itself. I wish to comment on a couple of things this 
afternoon.
  Mr. REID. Mr. Leader, if I could interrupt, I wonder if the majority 
leader's request could now be granted, the committees meeting and all 
that.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator withdraw his objection to 
the request for committees to meet?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader had made a unanimous consent 
request. On his behalf, I make it again. I don't think there will be an 
objection.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, the request of the majority leader is granted. The 
Democratic leader is recognized.


                        Conference on H.R. 3108

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was criticized by some Members of the 
House yesterday or today with regard to the pension bill. Their 
criticism was that I was holding the bill. Let me make sure people 
understand: I have not held the bill. I have no desire to hold the 
pension bill. I would like to get on with it. I would like to complete 
our work on the pension bill.
  It is, of course, the prerogative of the majority leader and the 
majority to send the bill to the House once we have completed our work. 
That has not been done. They are certainly within their rights to make 
decisions with regard to the disposition of the bill, but it would be 
in error to say that in any way I am holding the bill.
  I am withholding our consent to go to conference on the bill, which 
is a different matter. I will talk about that in a moment. Obviously, 
Senator Frist and I have had some conversations about how we proceed 
with regard to conferences this year.
  We are unwilling to commit to a process that brought about the 
unacceptable circumstances in conference last year, especially on the 
energy bill as well as the Medicare bill. But there are three 
approaches.
  First, of course, on any bill, we are certainly within our rights to 
ask for a conference with the House. What we have simply asked is that 
if there is a conference, all the conferees be present when 
deliberations take place. That isn't too much to ask. That is all we 
are asking--our presence at conference meetings once those conference 
meetings have been called. We don't think a conference can truly be a 
conference if only one party is represented. That is my simple request. 
Until I have the assurance that that request is be granted, we are 
unable to provide consent to go to conference.
  We are not asking for any predetermined outcome. We are not asking 
for a certain set of expectations with regard to the legislation 
itself. We are simply saying: If you are going to have a conference, 
don't call it a conference unless you have the conferees present.
  There are two other approaches. I have just alluded to the second 
approach, which is to send the bill to the House. We have done that on 
a number of occasions. There is nothing that precludes us from sending 
the pension bill to the House, allowing them to work their will. 
Perhaps they will accept the changes made by the Senate. That certainly 
is within their right.
  There is a third option. This is a tested, tried and true option that 
I can say with some authority has happened on countless occasions in 
past years and conferences. Last year we preconferenced the forest 
health bill. And once successfully preconferenced,

[[Page S551]]

we agreed in conference to the provisions and the bill passed almost 
unanimously. In the 108th Congress, we passed 19 bills by 
preconferencing them first, including the AIDS Assistance Act, the 
Military Family Relief Act, the Veterans Benefits Act. And in the 107th 
Congress, we passed 51 bills by preconferencing the agreements: 
Railroad Retirement Survivors Improvement Act, the Veterans Benefit 
Act, Nurses Reinvestment Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Native 
American Settlements and Indian Financing Act Amendments. Those and 40-
plus more bills were preconferenced.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list of bills preconferenced and 
agreed to successfully in the 108th Congress to date and the 107th 
Congress be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Bills Enacted Into Law Without Using a Conference To Negotiate 
          Differences in Language Between the House and Senate

     108th Congress (as of February 2, 2004--19 bills)
     H.R. 1584, Clean Diamond Trade Act
     H.R. 1298, AIDS Assistance
     H.R. 733, McLoughlin House National Historic Site Act
     H.R. 13, Museum and Library Services Act
     H.R. 3146, TANF Extension
     H.R. 659, Hospital Mortgage Insurance Act
     H.R. 1516, National Cemetery Expansion Act
     H.R. 3365, Military Family Tax Relief Act
     S. 313, Animal Drug User Fee Act
     S. 1768, National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
     H.R. 1828, Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty 
         Restoration Act
     S. 459, Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act
     H.R. 2297, Veterans Benefits Act
     S. 877, CAN-SPAM Act
     H.R. 100, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
     H.R. 1006, Captive Wildlife Safety Act
     H.R. 1012, Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Act
     S. 686, Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act 
         Amendments
     S. 1680, Defense Production Act Reauthorization
     107th Congress (51 bills)
     H.R. 428, Taiwan--World Health Organization
     H.R. 1696, World War II Memorial
     H.R. 801, Veterans' Opportunities Act (insurance coverage)
     H.R. 2133, 50th Anniversary Commemoration--Brown v. Board of 
         Education
     H.R. 2510, Defense Production Act Extension
     H.R. 768, Need-Based Educational Aid Act
     H.R. 10, Railroad Retirement and Survivor's Improvement Act
     H.R. 2540, Veterans Benefits Act
     H.R. 2716, Homeless Veterans Assistance Act
     S. 494, Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act
     S. 1196, Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act
     H.R. 1291, Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act
     H.R. 2199, D.C. Police Coordination Amendment Act
     H.R. 2657, D.C. Family Court Act
     H.R. 2336, Redact Financial Disclosure--Judicial Employees 
         and Officers
     H.R. 2884, Victims of Terrorism Relief Act
     H.R. 700, Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act
     H.R. 3090, Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
     H.R. 2998, Radio Free Afghanistan Act
     H.R. 1892, Family Sponsor Immigration Act
     H.R. 1499, D.C. College Access Improvement Act
     H.R. 3525, Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
     H.R. 169, Notification and Federal Employee 
         Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act
     H.R. 4560, Auction Reform Act
     H.R. 3275, Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 
         Convention Implementation
     H.R. 327, Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
     H.R. 3487, Nurse Reinvestment Act
     H.R. 1209, Child Status Protection Act (immigration)
     H.R. 4687, National Construction Safety Team Act
     H.R. 2121, Russian Democracy Act
     H.R. 4085, Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment 
         Act
     S. 1533, Health Care Safety Net Amendments
     H.R. 3801, Education Sciences Reform Act
     H.R. 3253, Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency 
         Preparedness Act
     H.R. 4015, Jobs for Veterans Act
     S. 1210, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
         Determination Reauthorization Act
     S. 2690, Pledge of Allegiance
     H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act
     H.R. 2546, Real Interstate Driver Equity Act
     H.R. 3389, National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments
     H.R. 4878, Improper Payments Reduction Act
     H.R. 1070, Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act
     H.R. 3394, Cyber Security Research and Development Act
     H.R. 2621, Product Packaging Protection Act
     H.R. 3908, North American Wetlands Conservation 
         Reauthorization Act
     H.R. 3833, Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act
     H.R. 5469, Small Webcaster Settlement Act
     S. 2237, Veterans Benefits
     S. 2017, Native American Settlements and Indian Financing Act 
         Amendments
     H.R. 3609, Pipeline Safety Improvement Act
     H.R. 4664, National Science Foundation Authorization Act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have three options. First, whether it 
is the pension bill or any bill, we can go to conference and do what 
the institution requires, and that is have Members of the Senate and 
House, Republicans and Democrats, present at conferences and resolve 
our differences in the traditional manner.
  Second, we can certainly pass the bill over to the House, send it 
over to the House at any time. We can do that on the pension bill this 
afternoon.
  The third thing we can do is what I have just suggested has been done 
successfully on 19 occasions so far in the 108th Congress and 51 
occasions in the 107th Congress; that is, to preconference and 
ultimately then to confirm our agreements in a formal conference once 
the negotiations have been completed.
  We stand ready, once again, to do whatever it takes to pass the 
pension bill and ultimately put it on the President's desk. There is an 
urgency to this legislation. We will not, on any legislation this year, 
tolerate the unacceptable experience we had on several occasions in the 
first session of this Congress.
  Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to talk further about the 
transportation bill. As I said yesterday, getting this bill to the 
floor has been too long a process. I won't dwell on that other than to 
say the Congress and the administration have not been successful in 
bringing this bill to conclusion, and because of that we have already 
lost 90,000 jobs.
  For too long our economy has been slowed by outdated and inadequate 
transportation infrastructure. Nothing expresses the urgency of this 
bill better than the fact that we have lost 3 million private sector 
jobs over the last 3 years. It is time to get this bill done.
  Make no mistake, not only will this bill create jobs all across the 
country but it will address our Nation's infrastructure deficit as 
well.
  If passed, this bill will improve the more than 30 percent of our 
roads and highways that are in poor and substandard condition today. It 
will help improve the more than 30 percent of our Nation's bridges that 
are functionally obsolete or structurally deficient.
  As I said yesterday, the managers of the bill, Chairman Inhofe and 
Senators Jeffords, Bond, and Reid, have done a remarkable job in 
bringing us a fine product to the Senate floor. This is a difficult, 
complicated issue, with an extraordinary number of different interests 
to balance.
  The Finance Committee, led by Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, 
has also done a fine job of ensuring that there is symmetry in how we 
deal with highways and transit.
  Senator Frist and I met on Monday to discuss the bill and we had a 
very productive conversation. In essence, we both agreed that now the 
Senate has begun debate on the transportation bill, we need to ensure 
it goes forward in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion. That is how the 
Environment and Public Works Committee has approached this bill, and we 
have a fine work product because of that bipartisan, cooperative 
approach. That is how the Finance Committee has approached this bill, 
and we have a fine work product because of the bipartisan, cooperative 
approach there as well.
  That is how the Banking Committee has approached the bill as it 
relates to transit issues, and this morning the Banking Committee 
reported, by a voice vote, a fine work product because of the work 
Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes have demonstrated in their 
cooperative approach.
  That is why I find it so troubling that the administration appears to 
be lagging behind--why they seem to be putting up roadblocks to the 
highway bill instead of paving the way for improved infrastructure and 
more jobs.
  As I said, the Finance Committee reported a bill on Monday. Then 
Tuesday, yesterday, Transportation Secretary Mineta and Treasury 
Secretary Snow sent a letter about those very same financing 
provisions.
  First of all, it would have been helpful to have had such a letter 
before the Finance Committee met, not a day

[[Page S552]]

after. Second, based on the letter, many have claimed the Finance 
Committee does not meet the administration's test with regard to the 
financing provision and have suggested the President may even veto the 
bill.
  Now some of my colleagues disagree. They say the Finance Committee 
bill does meet the administration's test, and I hope they are correct. 
But at this point, we simply don't know the administration's position 
on the bill we are now considering on the floor.
  It is important that the administration make its position clear. This 
bill deserves their unequivocal support. Chairman Grassley and Senator 
Baucus and the other committee members put together an excellent and 
balanced package and showed courage in taking on corporate tax 
loopholes. Most importantly, this bill makes real investments in our 
future in a fiscally responsible way. Every dollar in this bill is paid 
for with a crackdown on corporate tax shelters, which has been a 
bipartisan priority in the Senate for years.
  The package is a rare accomplishment--a bipartisan, fiscally 
responsible one that invests in our future and creates jobs today. It 
is a win for highways, a win for transit, a win for fiscal 
responsibility, and a win for honest taxpayers. The only losers are tax 
cheaters.
  It is inexplicable to me why there is even discussion about the 
administration threatening to veto this bipartisan package. Opposing 
the financing provisions would raise troubling questions about the 
administration's priorities.

  Would they rather protect corporate tax cheaters than repair our 
roads and bridges and provide jobs?
  Would they rather help wealthy people renounce their citizenship and 
avoid paying their fair share of taxes than cut down on the traffic and 
congestion that puts a drag on our economy and inconveniences our 
citizens?
  Would they rather protect corporations that engage in shady 
manipulations than create a modern transportation system for America's 
future?
  I hope those who say yesterday's administration letter is a veto 
threat are wrong. The Finance Committee has done an exceptional job of 
providing for the needs of our economy, while cracking down on tax 
cheats.
  With a $521 billion deficit this year, we cannot afford to let 
corporate tax cheaters continue to pass along their bills to the rest 
of us. We have an opportunity to bring new life to our economy, and 
old-fashioned accountability to our Tax Code. I urge the President to 
make their position clear on this bill soon.
  If we do what the Environment and Public Works Committee has done, if 
we do what the Finance Committee has done, if we do what the Banking 
Committee has done, if we do what Leader Frist and I have agreed to do 
and go forward in a bipartisan, cooperative fashion, if we go forward 
as soon as possible to get this long overdue bill done, we will make 
progress not only for our Nation's infrastructure, but for our Nation 
as a whole.
  This legislation will impact people all across our country every day. 
It will provide jobs. It will make us more competitive in the world. 
Let's get on with passing the bill, and let's do it as thoroughly, as 
completely, but as much in keeping with the bipartisan spirit already 
established in three committees, as has been demonstrated thus far.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the statement of the 
Democratic leader. We have worked hard on this bill. As I have said 
before, it is an imperfect piece of legislation, but we have done the 
best we can and we have been as fair to everybody as we could. We will 
certainly be responsive to requests people have that will improve the 
bill.
  I hope people who want to offer amendments will do so. We are going 
to have a mad rush next week. We are going to either finish this bill 
next week or go off the bill next week. It would be a terrible 
disservice to the country if we don't finish the bill next week. I hope 
people, even though it is inconvenient and they are not in their 
offices, would do what they can to offer amendments if they want to 
change the bill.
  Also, I direct this to Senator Inhofe. It is my understanding the 
statements from the administration yesterday regarding highways did not 
deal with our bill but, rather, what is contemplated in the House. I 
believe everyone should understand that the administration has signed 
off on the bill reported out of the committee. They support what they 
have done in financing this bill. The tax provisions that make up about 
$30 billion of the $255 billion have been supported by the 
administration. My personal feeling--and I have said this before--is I 
wish we had more money. We are not going to get more. The President 
said if there is a bigger bill than what we have, he is going to veto 
it. The reason I asked the chairman to yield is to say it is my 
understanding the President supports our legislation.

  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I have a letter I read yesterday. It is dated 
February 2, 2004. I have not heard anything either way about whether or 
not they are supporting this legislation. But they outlined a set of 
principles yesterday to which our bill complies. I think the minority 
leader covered the three criteria that were used that would keep them 
from opposing the bill, and I believe they have been met. We talked 
about it yesterday. One is to not increase gas taxes. Second, it would 
not have any kind of bonding arrangement. Third, that it would not get 
in the general fund.
  The third one is where there is some debate. I trust the Senate 
Finance Committee. I talked to both sides, Democrats and Republicans, 
and they came up with something I think meets the criteria. I am 
satisfied it does.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the other thing I wanted to say is, there 
has been a statement made, and at least two statements made on this 
floor, about the ``pork'' in this bill. First of all, pork is not a bad 
term with me. I think the things we do for our States, whether a new 
bridge or repairing a road, has nothing to do with anything that 
connotes being bad when it needs to be done in the State. If they are 
referring to that, there is no pork in a negative sense in this bill.
  The vast majority of money in this bill comes from the highway trust 
fund. People, when they buy gas for their car, pay into a trust fund we 
use every 5 or 6 years to fund highway projects around the country. 
That is what we are doing today. People who talk about this bloated 
bill with too much money--this bill is paid for. There are no new 
taxes, and the vast majority of the moneys coming out of the highway 
trust fund is to fund the most important projects around the country.
  I hope people understand this bill, as the Democratic leader said, is 
not a bill for Democrats or Republicans; it is a bipartisan bill that 
has the foundation of the programs of President Dwight D. 
Eisenhower. He, with a Democratic Congress, passed this legislation. We 
have to work together to pass this bill. This is important legislation.

  I repeat to everyone within the sound of my voice, the majority 
leader said we are going to finish this bill a week from Friday. 
Finishing doesn't mean we complete this bill. I hope we do that. It 
would be a disservice to the people of this country if we did not 
finish this bill.
  We are here waiting to do business. If anyone doesn't like the bill, 
let them come and try to change it. If they change it, more power to 
them. But waiting around is not going to help whatever concerns people 
have with this legislation.
  Mr. BOND. Will my friend from Nevada yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate very much my distinguished 
copartner on the Transportation Subcommittee talking about the need to 
get this bill through quickly. He was discussing the difference between 
the bill we have now and the original bill.
  I was wondering if it is correct that the original highway bill 
really didn't have any formulas; it was what one would have to call 
pork because it had various projects in it. It was an effort by the 
Congress to outline where money is needed. Is that not basically the 
form of the original highway bill?
  Mr. REID. Yes. I outlined, as the Senator knows, when we took this 
matter

[[Page S553]]

up Monday, the history of the last 20 years with these highway bills. 
This bill is so much more fair to all 50 States than the bill in 1982, 
and the three subsequent bills. Some States prior to 1982 didn't even 
get 80 cents of every dollar they paid into the trust fund. This bill 
took a gigantic step, and now every State gets a minimum of 95 cents on 
every dollar they pay into the fund. This is a very fair program. It is 
imperfect, as I said before, but we are doing much better.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if the Senator from Nevada will yield for 
another question, isn't it true that the scope of this bill, the size 
of it, reflects programs that Congresses in previous years decided are 
good for the national transportation policy? In other words, we are not 
creating a new formula; we have taken the formula, the apportionment 
that existed. Is it not true that we have attempted to construct this 
bill so that, working with the formula, every State gets up to 95 
cents?
  My State of Missouri was one of those States, when I got here in 
1987, that was only getting back 77 cents. Every State will get up to 
95 cents on the dollar. Every State, at a minimum, will get a 10-
percent increase. Some States that would be getting much more money 
will only get a 40-percent or 40-plus-percent increase, which some may 
object to and say is not enough. But in this day and age, with a tight 
budget, it seems to me a 40-percent increase is not bad to take home 
from a compromise bill. Is that a fair assessment?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I respond to my friend, he is exactly right. 
This bill is not some new invention. We have worked over the last 
several years to develop different programs. One is interstate 
maintenance, which is self-explanatory. We have an interstate system 
that has been completed, and we want to make sure that system is in a 
good state of repair. It is a never-ending job to keep it up the best 
we can. A large amount of this $255 billion goes to interstate 
maintenance. We also have something called the National Highway System. 
We have to make sure there is funding in the bill to take care of that 
program. It is what we have done in the past.

  We also have other programs, such as the Bridge Maintenance Program, 
which is so important. One Senator came to the floor and said that 29 
percent of the bridges are in a state of disrepair. We know that. That 
is why we are working in this bill to try to keep up with this never-
ending system.
  Also in this bill, rather than just building roads and pouring more 
asphalt--and this is something we focus too much attention on, but 
certainly everyone in the country is concerned about the environment 
and the air we breathe--we have a program dealing with congestion 
mitigation and air quality. This is basically the brainchild of Senator 
Moynihan and Senator Chafee. Those are programs in this bill that we 
have found work well.
  The directors of the transportation departments in every State like 
the program we have. We are not, as I said before, sending a new set of 
blueprints to all the Governors saying: Try to figure this out. They 
already figured this out, and we are trying the best we can to fund 
these programs.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, let me make an 
observation. We talked about this bill for several hours. Almost 
everyone who came down was objecting to what their State would get from 
this formula. When you compare this, starting with the same basic 
structure of a formula as we did in TEA-21--and remember, in TEA-21, we 
had the minimum guarantee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 90.5 percent.
  Mr. INHOFE. What that did was take arbitrary political percentages 
and apply them in order to get votes. We have done far more. This takes 
into consideration the streamlining provisions about which we haven't 
even talked. We spent months on this in the committee, as our committee 
members know.
  Safety and freight areas have not really been addressed before. This 
is something of which we can be proud. I have to say, when we put 
together the charts of all 50 States, there isn't one State that is not 
treated fairly, doesn't have an increase and doesn't have some kind of 
logic balancing the donee-donor, balancing the fast-growing States and 
the low-population States.
  All these points are considered, and I think it is a very good bill. 
I agree with all on the committee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, I don't carry 
with me a card that includes what happens to the States that are all 
Republican, but I am carrying with me during consideration of this bill 
a card that lists every State that has a Democratic Senator 
representing it and what they get. It is right here. It is hard to find 
anything that is wrong with it.
  I recognize there are some States that for many years have been 
getting--I want to say this in a way that I will still be a gentleman--
far more than what they are entitled to under the formula. When you go 
to the gas pump and you fill your tank, so much money goes into 
the fund. There are some States getting far more than they are putting 
in. There are a few States still getting more than they are putting in. 
We are balancing this out. As the Senator from Oklahoma said, when we 
did this in the past--this is my fourth highway bill--we put the 
numbers together, found out where the votes were, and jammed it 
through. We have not done that this time.

  This is a fair bill. You could take this to a high school civics 
class and explain what we have done and they would say this is fair. We 
have been as fair as possible. There are some people, who were driving 
around in a Lincoln they couldn't afford, who are upset because maybe 
they are going to have to drop back to a Lexus or something such as 
that.
  The point is, we have tried to be fair. You can't have the program 
going on the way it was in the past and still recognize basic fairness. 
I repeat, what happened in decades past was we would find out where the 
votes were and just jam the bill through: If Missouri was getting 77 
percent, there are only two Senators from Missouri, we don't need their 
votes. We haven't done that this time.
  I think the American public will see this legislation is fair and 
reasonable. I am dumbfounded by some of the people who have come to 
this floor and complained about what they have gotten in the bill 
because they have really done extremely well.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday we started through this bill. It 
is a rather lengthy bill. It covers a lot of provisions that haven't 
even been discussed, and I think a lot of Members are not really aware 
of some parts of this bill.
  As the chairman of the committee, I thought it an obligation to go 
through this section by section, and I did go through sections 1104 
through 1204, where we talked about how this was put together, how the 
formulas were put together. I also spent about an hour talking about 
the environmental improvements that are made in this bill.
  I confess there are many things in this bill that I would rather have 
done in a different way, and I am sure Senator Reid and Senator 
Jeffords would say the same thing. In fact, they have said the same 
thing. Since we will have to get through this today at some point, I 
would like to go ahead and start with section 1205 and finish what we 
started yesterday. I hope any Members who are interested in making 
comments or offering amendments will come and do so, because I will be 
doing this in order to get through the bill.
  Section 1205 is one in which I was particularly interested. Senator 
Reid yesterday talked about Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the 
contributions he made over the years. I felt compelled to stand up and 
remind him that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a Tulsa boy. He was from 
Tulsa, OK, and was one of my very favorite people.
  I think it is very appropriate that section 1205 is the designation 
of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway as a part of the 
bill. Interstate Highway 86 in the State of New York is specifically 
designated as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway in memory 
of our late colleague.
  There are several others who have said good things about him. In 
fact, in the years I have been in the Senate, Senator Moynihan is the 
only Senator

[[Page S554]]

about whom I have never heard one negative thing.
  Section 1301 is the Federal share section. It continues the statutory 
provisions that lay out what the Federal share for the highway project 
will be for different States based on the amount of Federal land within 
their State. The Federal share provisions of current law use a sliding 
scale. This scale permits States with large portions of Federal land to 
match Federal funds with fewer State dollars. That is only reasonable 
because they are not collecting taxes off of these lands and they 
should not have to pay the same match.
  Due to the decreased taxing ability of the States with a higher 
percentage of Federal lands, these States are given access to a higher 
Federal contribution for highway projects within their State. The bill 
before us today modifies this provision slightly to simplify the 
calculation used to determine the Federal share rates that apply to 
each individual State.
  I might add that in this bill there are certain things my colleagues 
will see consistently throughout. One is simplification. One is to put 
it in language that we can all understand, that the public can 
understand, that our people back home can understand, and so that the 
departments of transportation in the various States will have a clear 
understanding as well, and they will take all of these complicated 
interpretations.
  Another thing my colleagues will find all the way through is a 
streamlining effort to try to get more roads for the dollar. I think we 
have successfully done that, reaching a lot of compromises. So this is 
what my colleagues will see as we go through the bill section by 
section.
  Section 1302 is the transfer of highway and transit funds. There is a 
technical fix that was requested by the Federal Highway Administration 
that clarifies that title 23 funds, that is the highway dollars, can be 
transferred to the transit administration from State to State or from 
State to another Federal agency as long as the project to be funded is 
eligible under title 23. I think that is a very reasonable approach.

  An example of when this authority could be used is a State that has a 
congestion problem at or near a border crossing. They may determine 
that the problem is caused in part by inadequate parking facilities for 
the Customs Service to conduct truck inspections. To solve their larger 
congestion problem, it makes sense to provide money to the Customs 
Service to build parking lot facilities for truck inspections. This has 
been done administratively in the past, but section 1302 provides very 
clear guidance so they do not have to sit around and guess what in fact 
is going to come up.
  Section 1303, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act, which is referred to as TIFIA, was established for the 
first time in TEA-21 to provide Federal credit assistance to major 
transportation investments. The TIFIA program has proven to be an 
innovative and successful addition to the conventional grant and 
reimbursement highway program.
  After watching the TIFIA program succeed as a funding device for a 
few large projects during TEA-21 and after receiving input from 
stakeholders and recommendations from the administration, the committee 
bill has made a few changes to the TIFIA program to expand its scope 
and increase its usability.
  The amount of the Federal credit assistance cannot exceed 33 percent 
of a total project cost. TIFIA offers three different types of 
financial assistance to the large projects: One, direct loans; two, 
loan guarantees; and, three, standby lines of credit. The bill also 
lowers the threshold cost for eligible projects from the TEA-21 level 
of $100 million down to $50 million to make it available to more people 
and more projects, making TIFIA accessible to a greater number of large 
highway projects.
  Projects are also eligible for TIFIA assistance when costs are 
anticipated to equal or exceed 20 percent of Federal highway funds 
apportioned to that particular State. With the increased emphasis this 
bill places on freight mobility, the definition of eligible freight-
related projects is expanded.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask my colleague to yield about a matter.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. BOND. We have a number of technical amendments. There is a 
question about whether we want to move to that. We are preparing a 
technical amendment. I have discussed this with both sides. Basically, 
this is a technical amendment that accomplishes a number of things. In 
essence, it achieves the original goal of an amendment offered by 
Senator Warner, which was to increase the metropolitan planning share 
or takedown from 1 percent to 1.5 percent. We are getting a technical 
amendment copied, and as soon as we get the copies, if there is no 
objection from the managers, I thought we would do that.
  Mr. INHOFE. I think the Senator was out of the Chamber when I said I 
eventually wanted to get through this section by section, but I can do 
this at any time. As soon as the Senator has anything ready, certainly 
I am interested in taking that up.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might we inquire of the managers on the 
Democratic side if they are ready to take this up?
  Mr. REID. If the Senator would withhold offering that for just a few 
minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I will be happy to withhold on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, I think he had stated he was not 
prepared to do that right now, but perhaps one will be coming along in 
a short while.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I think probably the best thing to do is to have the 
Senator lay down the amendment. It is my understanding from the 
majority and minority that there are a couple of Senators with whom we 
have to clear it, and we should be able to do that shortly.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have no objection to that. I think it is a good idea, 
and we will so inform Senator Bond.
  Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 2265

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to announce there is an 
amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for himself, Mr. 
     Inhofe, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2265.

  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.''
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senators 
Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid. This is one small step for mankind toward a 
highway bill.
  There had been some concern about offering amendments. This is a 
technical amendment. This changes a number of items that, when crafting 
the bill, were erroneous. Normally we would adopt these technical 
amendments without objection. But there may be some discussion on it. I 
wish to explain the one perhaps significant change in this technical 
amendment so everybody knows what we are doing.
  In the previous bill, TEA-21, the metropolitan planning organizations 
received 1 percent from the Surface Transportation Program to do the 
work that these agencies are required to do in approving transportation 
plans, conforming them to air quality plans. This 1 percent takedown, 
as it is called, amounted to about $1.7 billion over the life of the 
bill.
  In drafting the underlying bill, we increased spending on planning 
for metropolitan planning organizations by $800 million, almost a 50 
percent increase.
  When Senator Warner proposed making the takedown of the share for the 
metropolitan planning organizations 1.5 percent rather than 1 percent,

[[Page S555]]

it was on the assumption that the total of the previous amount plus 
what we did in committee would amount to 1.5 percent. But as it was 
drafted and printed in the committee report, it wound up adding what we 
had previously put in the equity bonus on top of the 1.5 percent.
  I believe this amendment restores the MPO portion to that originally 
proposed and adopted, i.e., a 1.5 percent share, which is what we have 
all agreed is needed for metropolitan planning organizations.

  We have a letter that I will submit, signed by the executive director 
of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials, the president and chief executive officer of the American 
Highway Users Alliance, the chief executive officer of Associated 
General Contractors of America, the executive director of American Road 
and Transportation Builders Association, and the executive director of 
the National Conference of State Legislatures.
  The letter says, in substance--and I will submit the full letter--
that we write on behalf of the organizations to express concerns over 
the size of the total, the 1.5 percent-plus, the additional equity 
bonus. Their point is that the large increase results from a 
combination of adjustments, growth in the overall highway program, an 
increase in the percentage set-aside, and broadening of the program 
base subject to the metropolitan planning set-aside.
  They believed that adding an additional $2.2 billion for planning 
would make that much less available for improving, constructing, 
maintaining, and operating a safe and efficient highway system.
  They come out strongly in support--as we all are--of increasing the 
metropolitan planning funds. The number of MPOs has increased 340 to 
378, and many more are looking at the prospect of being designated as 
nonattainment for the new ozone and fine particulate standards. They 
recommend an increase more comparable to the growth in MPOs, but they 
do not think tripling it is wise. So they have asked us to reconsider.
  The purpose of this technical amendment, among other things, is to 
bring it back to the 1.5 percent increase, upon which we have 
previously agreed.
  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:

                                                 January 28, 2004.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: We are writing on behalf of the national 
     organizations listed below to share our concerns about the 
     size of the increase in metropolitan transportation planning 
     funds agreed to by the Senate Environment and Public Works 
     Committee--from $1.121 billion over six years in TEA 21 to at 
     least $3.3 billion and possibly as much as $3.9 billion if 
     the set aside of planning funds is applied to the new equity 
     bonus program.
       This large increase is a result of a combination of 
     adjustments--(1) growth in the overall highway program; (2) 
     an increase in the percentage set aside for metropolitan 
     planning from 1 percent to 1.5 percent; and (3) a broadening 
     of the program base subject to the metropolitan planning set 
     aside. The combination of the adjustment produces an increase 
     of at least $2.2 billion additional for metropolitan planning 
     and that much less available for improving, constructing, 
     maintaining and operating a safe and efficient highway 
     system.
       Some increase in metropolitan planning funds is justified. 
     The number of MPOs increased from 340 to 378--an 11 percent 
     increase, and more metropolitan areas will be designated as 
     non-attainment for the new ozone and fine particulate matter 
     standards. An increase more comparable to the growth in MPOs 
     is understandable, but tripling the set aside for 
     metropolitan planning funds is excessive when our highway 
     needs are so great.
       We, therefore, urge you to reconsider the manner in which 
     the MPO set aside is calculated.
           Sincerely yours,
     John Horsley,
       Executive Director, American Association of State Highway 
     and Transportation Officials.
     Diane Steed,
       President and Chief Executive Officer, The American Highway 
     Users Alliance.
     Stephen Sandherr,
       Chief Executive Officer, Associated General Contractors of 
     America.
     Peter Ruane,
       Executive Director, American Road and Transportation 
     Builders Association.
     William T. Pound,
       Executive Director, National Conference of State 
     Legislatures.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I see the majority leader is in the Chamber. 
We will not act on this amendment at this time. If somebody wishes to 
object to it after the majority leader speaks, we would ask that they 
come to the floor and make an objection. Otherwise, I propose that at 3 
o'clock we ask that the amendment be adopted or, if we need a recorded 
vote, we will be happy to do that. One way or another, I hope we can 
have action on this by 3 o'clock.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senate majority leader.


                   Reopening Senate Office Buildings

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for several minutes I want to give our 
colleagues an update and make several announcements which will have a 
direct impact on their schedules for the next several days. I begin by 
thanking my colleagues for their patience as we work through these 
uncertain times. I assure them, we are progressing as rapidly as we 
can, as rapidly as is humanly possible. We are on course to be back in 
complete functioning operation here. That plan I will lay out shortly.
  I do want to make a couple of quick points though. First, everybody 
is doing well. There are a number of people who have been in very close 
contact to the poisonous substance which was identified in my office. 
They are all doing well. The emergency responders are all doing well. 
That is my primary focus; that is, the safety and well-being of our 
extended Senate family here. We are continuing to monitor the health of 
all people who were potentially exposed and we have identified and 
spoken with each of those. They have had the appropriate counseling. 
Everybody is doing well.
  As the world knows by now, the impact of inhaled ricin, to the best 
of our knowledge, is over a very short period of time and we are well 
beyond that window, now 48 hours after the time of exposure. I do 
commend and applaud my staff because they were astute in noting the 
powder and responded appropriately and quickly, and that could have, 
and in fact I am sure did, avert a serious and potentially life-
threatening matter for others.
  The incident, as I mentioned, is 48 hours old. We were able to move 
aggressively and rapidly to isolate that affected area in my mailroom. 
The monitoring of health effects has gone very smoothly. I appreciate 
the Capitol Physician's Office, as I mentioned this morning and last 
night, being with all people exposed and have counseled people since 
that point in time.
  We were able to implement plans which had been carefully laid out and 
coordinated among many different groups, agencies here on the Capitol 
Grounds, and that results in protection of Members and protection of 
staff and the reaction in a very sophisticated way to this discovery.
  After consultation with appropriate officials and reflecting upon the 
excellent coordination with the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Hill 
police, I have made a decision this morning, in consultation with the 
Democratic leader and others, that we can accelerate our efforts to 
open our Senate office buildings. It is still not going to be as 
quickly as most people would like, but we can accelerate the initial 
proposal and plans. This proposal is consistent with safely removing 
mail and continuing to review data, which literally comes back every 30 
minutes to an hour, as teams move through the complex, the very large 
complex of the Senate office buildings, but also a response on the 
House side and in the Capitol itself.
  Thus, barring any unforeseen discoveries--and I put that provision in 
there because you don't know an hour later that something may be 
discovered. But barring any unforeseen discoveries, the time schedule 
for opening the buildings will be the following:
  The Russell Senate Office Building, tomorrow, Thursday, at noon, 
February 5. We will be able to open that office building at 12 
noon. Again, Thursday noon, February 5, Russell Senate

[[Page S556]]

office building. Friday at 9 a.m., February 6, we will reopen the Hart 
Senate office building. The Dirksen Senate office building, which is 
the crime scene itself, will open on Monday at 7 a.m., February 9.

  A lot of people thought it would be days and days to reopen. 
Initially we did not know how long. People pointed out with the 
anthrax, the buildings were closed for weeks and weeks. We made a 
decision to accelerate this schedule based on increased manpower that 
has been offered by various agencies, our continued understanding about 
the exposure to ricin, the understanding and information that has 
placed this in one room at this juncture based on the findings to date, 
and that in all of the monitoring equipment, the HEPA filters 
throughout the area that have been examined, and we continue to examine 
them throughout the complex, of all the monitoring and filtering 
equipment employed, the filters have all been demonstrated to be clean 
and therefore there has not been aerosolization of this agent.
  I do also want to tell Members they can have access to their 
offices--they, themselves--after assessing the risk, and our counseling 
will be directly to them. If they want to go to their office and remove 
essential papers or documents--not mail; mail should not be touched--
they can do that. We do ask that they talk to the Secretary of the 
Senate's office where the control room is--they have that telephone 
number--if they plan on going into their office building to access 
important information to allow them to carry out the essential 
functions of their office.
  We will continue to work with all the Members to ensure a smooth and 
safe reopening of the Senate complex consistent with this schedule.
  Again, Thursday noon, February 5, the Russell Senate office building 
will open. Friday, 9 a.m., February 6, the Hart Senate office building 
will reopen. Monday, 7 a.m., February 9, the Dirksen Senate office 
building will reopen.
  Let me close and simply again thank the Capitol police, Chief Gainer, 
who has done a tremendous job, the EPA, the United States Marines, the 
FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Attending Physician's 
office, the CDC, the Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and 
so many others involved in response to this incident.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
report and for the announcement regarding the opening of offices. He 
also ought to be commended for his work and leadership in expediting 
the opening of the offices themselves. This has been a difficult matter 
because his office has been directly affected, but this is a very good 
piece of news that we should be back and up and running with all 
cylinders by the early part of next week.
  I share, as well, his expressions of gratitude for all of those who 
have been involved in this effort to date, having recalled very vividly 
the nightmares of 2 years ago. It is fair to say we have come a long 
way in our ability to deal effectively with matters such as these. 
While this one is different, it is also indicative of the progress we 
have made in allowing the institution to respond more quickly and 
successfully and, hopefully, that will be in evidence as we continue 
our work.
  Again, I thank the majority leader for his report. I know this will 
be good news for all Members.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the Democratic leader's 
comments and will turn the floor back to the managers. We will have 
continued announcements. One of the real efforts we have tried to 
fulfill and missions we put forward is to stay in touch and communicate 
as best we can. We will continue to do that. There will be a press 
conference by the Capitol police with an update later this afternoon 
and they will sit down and announce more about that to give a technical 
update in terms of the progress that has been made.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise again as we proceed on the bill to 
present my concerns about where we are in the process relative to the 
highway bill and relative to the management of the Federal budget.
  The bill before the Senate with the proposed amendment which I 
believe has been offered, the substitute, creates a significant 
increase in funding and spending in the area of highways. Many Members 
support transportation improvements. I have always supported having a 
strong transportation program because it is critical to our 
infrastructure. But in doing that, we have to do it within the context 
of managing the budget correctly. We cannot simply put money into 
programs because we like them without doing it in the context of what 
the budget limitations are and what the various income is in the trust 
fund that would pay for these activities.
  The highway bill has always been a trust fund--not always--a trust 
fund-generated event, where the gas tax and other taxes that are 
highway related and transportation related are collected and spent for 
the purposes of building infrastructure. That is the way it should be. 
That is the way most States do it, too, by the way. I don't think any 
States use general fund revenues for the purposes of managing their 
highways, although I am not aware of that. As Governor of New 
Hampshire, when I had the honor and privilege to serve in that 
position, this was a very big issue that we not use the general funds 
for the purposes of managing our highways.
  However, what is happening in this bill, unfortunately, is that we 
are, through a series of accounting mechanisms which are, in my 
opinion, illusory in some ways and inappropriate in other ways, 
basically raiding the general fund for the purposes of funding highway 
construction activity and at the same time we are dramatically 
expanding the spending levels above what the levels are that are part 
of the budget process for the highway fund. That is inappropriate. It 
is inappropriate that we should be going outside the highway fund for 
the purposes of funding highways and that we should be exceeding the 
budget levels for the purposes of funding highways. Rather, we should 
have the fiscal discipline to recognize when you are in a difficult 
fiscal situation, as we are as a country, when you are running 
deficits, which we are, unfortunately, as a country, you must, in all 
accounts, including those which you are strongly committed to, have 
fiscal discipline. That involves staying within the budget and that 
involves being sure that in something where you are using a trust fund, 
you have the funds in place in that trust fund before you spend it.
  That is why I am concerned about this bill. It is my opinion if we 
allow this bill to go forward in its present form we will be 
significantly aggravating the deficit, we will be dramatically adding 
to the deficit, and we will be creating a precedent of using the 
general fund for the purposes of funding the highway accounts. That is 
bad policy. The underlying policy and having a strong transportation 
program can still be accomplished, but we should do it within the 
context of staying within the budget and staying within the highway 
bill. I have spoken on this before. This is not one item that stands 
alone on this issue. I suppose if we were running a surplus, or a 
deficit which was not so large or was not growing, I would probably 
tolerate this type of spending. This is, rather, an additional straw on 
the camel's back, and specifically our children. Our children have to 
pay the debt which we run up in the Government. It is passed on to the 
next generation. If we are going to be fair to our children and our 
children's children so they can have the quality of life we have, then 
we have to give them a government and a fiscal house that is in order.

  Unfortunately, within the last 2 years we have not necessarily 
followed that course of action as a Congress. We have passed a series 
of bills which have dramatically aggravated the situation relative to 
the budget, deficit spending, and long-term structural deficits--mostly 
on the entitlement side, and mostly in the area of programmatic 
activity that has to be spent, or programmatic activity that is locked 
in place on a flight path of expenditure. It occurs in the Medicare 
accounts and it occurs in the agricultural accounts. There is an 
attempt to do it in the energy accounts. It could potentially

[[Page S557]]

occur in this account, if it passes in its present form.
  That is why I have such reservations about this bill. I especially 
have reservations about the substance of it. I am not absolutely sure 
how it is structured because I haven't had time to look at it yet. But 
it appears to me that in its present form it does take money out of the 
general fund and move it into the highway fund through a variety of 
mechanisms which at best would be called playing fast and loose with 
the budget rules of this Congress. It is probably, therefore, subject 
to a budget point of order and is, therefore, inappropriate.
  In addition, if we are going to take up this bill, it is our first 
opportunity to have a bill which could address a variety of other 
issues we have concerns about as a government.
  There is a bill that was passed out of my committee which I had the 
good fortune to chair, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension 
Committee, which deals with the rights of public safety officers, 
specifically firemen and police officers, who work in one of the most 
dangerous jobs in our country. It deals with fair treatment of them in 
the area of how they protect their rights in employment. It is a bill 
which has passed my committee a couple of times. It was being brought 
to the floor last year, and regrettably it didn't come through the 
entire process. But it does create an opportunity for fire and police 
personnel, and public safety personnel--who are very important, and who 
obviously use our transportation system rather aggressively--to protect 
the transportation system when there are violations of law relative to 
the operation on roads, or protecting it when there are hazardous 
events on the road, or when people are injured and fire rescue 
personnel respond, or even if there are fires involving transportation 
vehicles. So it is tied into this whole bill--the protection of police 
and fire personnel and their rights to have a reasonable workplace and 
a workplace where they feel they are getting what they need.
  It is something which I have been greatly involved in and committed 
to for many years.
  Thus, it is my intention at this time to send an amendment to the 
desk in the nature of a second degree to the amendment which is the 
pending substitute.
  I send an amendment to the desk.


                Amendment No. 2266 to Amendment No. 2265

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2266 to amendment numbered 2265.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
        At the appropriate place in the amendment insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Public Safety Employer-
     Employee Cooperation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY.

        The Congress declares that the following is the policy of 
     the United States:
        (1) Labor-management relationships and partnerships are 
     based on trust, mutual respect, open communication, bilateral 
     consensual problem solving, and shared accountability. Labor-
     management cooperation fully utilizes the strengths of both 
     parties to best serve the interests of the public, operating 
     as a team, to carry out the public safety mission in a 
     quality work environment. In many public safety agencies it 
     is the union that provides the institutional stability as 
     elected leaders and appointees come and go.
        (2) The Federal Government needs to encourage 
     conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid and 
     encourage employers and their employees to reach and maintain 
     agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working 
     conditions, and to make all reasonable efforts through 
     negotiations to settle their differences by mutual 
     agreement reached through collective bargaining or by such 
     methods as may be provided for in any applicable agreement 
     for the settlement of disputes.
       (3) The absence of adequate cooperation between public 
     safety employers and employees has implications for the 
     security of employees and can affect interstate and 
     intrastate commerce. The lack of such labor-management 
     cooperation can detrimentally impact the upgrading of police 
     and fire services of local communities, the health and well-
     being of public safety officers, and the morale of the fire 
     and police departments. Additionally, these factors could 
     have significant commercial repercussions. Moreover, 
     providing minimal standards for collective bargaining 
     negotiations in the public safety sector can prevent 
     industrial strife between labor and management that 
     interferes with the normal flow of commerce.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (a) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the Federal 
     Labor Relations Authority.
       (2) Emergency medical services personnel.--The term 
     ``emergency medical services personnel'' means an individual 
     who provides out-of-hospital emergency medical care, 
     including an emergency medical technician, paramedic, or 
     first responder.
       (3) Employer; public safety agency.--The terms ``employer'' 
     and ``public safety agency'' means any State, political 
     subdivision of a State, the District of Columbia, or any 
     territory or possession of the United States that employs 
     public safety officers.
       (4) Firefighter.--The term ``firefighter'' has the meaning 
     given the term ``employee engaged in fire protection 
     activities'' in section 3(y) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 203(y)).
       (5) Labor organization.--The term ``labor organization'' 
     means an organization composed in whole or in  part of 
     employees, in which employees participate, and which 
     represents such employees before public safety agencies 
     concerning grievances, conditions of employment and 
     related matters.
        (6) Law enforcement officers.--The term ``law enforcement 
     officer'' has the meaning given such term in section 1204(5) 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796b(5)).
        (7) Management employee.--The term ``management employee'' 
     has the meaning given such term under applicable State law in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act. If no such State 
     law is in effect, the term means an individual employed by a 
     public safety employer in a position that requires or 
     authorizes the individual to formulate, determine, or 
     influence the policies of the employer.
        (8) Public safety officer.--The term ``public safety 
     officer''--
        (A) means an employee of a public safety agency who is a 
     law enforcement officer, a firefighter, or an emergency 
     medical services personnel;
        (B) includes an individual who is temporarily transferred 
     to a supervisory or management position; and
        (C) does not include a permanent supervisory or management 
     employee.
        (9) Substantially provides.--The term ``substantially 
     provides'' means compliance with the essential requirements 
     of this Act, specifically, the right to form and join a labor 
     organization, the right to bargain over wages, hours, and 
     conditions of employment, the right to sign an enforceable 
     contract, and availability of some form of mechanism to break 
     an impasse, such as arbitration, mediation, or fact finding.
        (10) Supervisory employee.--The term ``supervisory 
     employee'' has the meaning given such term under applicable 
     State law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act. If 
     no such State law is in effect, the term means an individual, 
     employed by a public safety employer, who--
       (A) has the authority in the interest of the employer to 
     hire, direct, assign, promote, reward, transfer, furlough, 
     lay off, recall, suspend, discipline, or remove public safety 
     officers, to adjust their grievances, or to effectively 
     recommend such action, if the exercise of the authority is 
     not merely routine or clerical in nature but requires the 
     consistent exercise of independent judgment; and
       (B) devotes a majority of time at work exercising such 
     authority.

     SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Authority shall make a 
     determination as to whether a State substantially provides 
     for the rights and responsibilities described in subsection 
     (b). In making such determinations, the Authority shall 
     consider and give weight, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     to the opinion of affected parties.
       (2) Subsequent determinations.--
       (A) In general.--A determination made pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) shall remain in effect unless and until the Authority 
     issues a subsequent determination, in accordance with the 
     procedures set forth in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Procedures for subsequent determinations.--Upon 
     establishing that a material change in State law or its 
     interpretation has occurred, an employer or a labor 
     organization may submit a written request for a subsequent 
     determination. If satisfied that a material change in State 
     law or its interpretation has occurred, the Director shall 
     issue a subsequent determination not later than 30 days after 
     receipt of such request.
       (3) Judicial review.--Any State, political subdivision of a 
     State, or person aggrieved by a determination of the 
     Authority under this section may, during the 60 day period 
     beginning on the date on which the determination was made, 
     petition any United States Court of Appeals in the circuit in 
     which the person resides or transacts business or in the 
     District of Columbia circuit, for judicial review. In any 
     judicial review of a determination by the Authority, the 
     procedures contained in subsections (c) and (d) of section 
     7123 of title 5, United States Code,

[[Page S558]]

     shall be followed, except that any final determination of 
     the Authority with respect to questions of fact or law 
     shall be found to be conclusive unless the court 
     determines that the Authority's decision was arbitrary and 
     capricious.
       (b) Rights and Responsibilities.--In making a determination 
     described in subsection (a), the Authority shall consider 
     whether State law provides rights and responsibilities 
     comparable to or greater than the following:
       (1) Granting public safety officers the right to form and 
     join a labor organization, which may exclude management and 
     supervisory employees, that is, or seeks to be, recognized as 
     the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees.
       (2) Requiring public safety employers to recognize the 
     employees' labor organization (freely chosen by a majority of 
     the employees), to agree to bargain with the labor 
     organization, and to commit any agreements to writing in a 
     contract or memorandum of understanding.
       (3) Permitting bargaining over hours, wages, and terms and 
     conditions of employment.
       (4) Requiring an interest impasse resolution mechanism, 
     such as fact-finding, mediation, arbitration or comparable 
     procedures.
       (5) Requiring enforcement through State courts of--
       (A) all rights, responsibilities, and protections provided 
     by State law and enumerated in this section; and
       (B) any written contract or memorandum of understanding.
       (c) Failure To Meet Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--If the Authority determines, acting 
     pursuant to its authority under subsection (a), that a State 
     does not substantially provide for the rights and 
     responsibilities described in subsection (b), such State 
     shall be subject to the regulations and procedures described 
     in section 5.
       (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the 
     date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. ROLE OF FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Authority shall issue regulations 
     in accordance with the rights and responsibilities described 
     in section 4(b) establishing collective bargaining procedures 
     for public safety employers and officers in States which the 
     Authority has determined, acting pursuant to its authority 
     under section 4(a), do not substantially provide for such 
     rights and responsibilities.
       (b) Role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.--The 
     Authority, to the extent provided in this Act and in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Authority, 
     shall--
       (1) determine the appropriateness of units for labor 
     organization representation;
       (2) supervise or conduct elections to determine whether a 
     labor organization has been selected as an exclusive 
     representative by a majority of the employees in an 
     appropriate unit;
       (3) resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good 
     faith;
       (4) conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor 
     practices;
       (5) resolve exceptions to the awards of arbitrators;
       (6) protect the right of each employee to form, join, or 
     assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such 
     activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and 
     protect each employee in the exercise of such right; and
       (7) take such other actions as are necessary and 
     appropriate to effectively administer this Act, including 
     issuing subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses and the production of documentary or other evidence 
     from any place in the United States, and administering oaths, 
     taking or ordering the taking of depositions, ordering 
     responses to written interrogatories, and receiving and 
     examining witnesses.
        (c) Enforcement.--
       (1) Authortiy to petition court.--The Authority may 
     petition any United States Court of Appeals with jurisdiction 
     over the parties, or the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit, to enforce any final orders 
     under this section, and for appropriate temporary relief or a 
     restraining order. Any petition under this section shall be 
     conducted in accordance with subsections (c) and (d) of 
     section 7123 of title 5, United States Code, except that any 
     final order of the Authority with respect to questions of 
     fact or law shall be found to be conclusive unless the court 
     determines that the Authority's decision was arbitrary and 
     capricious.
        (2) Private right of action.--Unless the Authority has 
     filed a petition for enforcement as provided in paragraph 
     (1), any party has the right to file suit in a State court of 
     competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the 
     regulations issued by the Authority pursuant to subsection 
     (b), and to enforce compliance with any order issued by the 
     Authority pursuant to this section. The right provided by 
     this subsection to bring a suit to enforce compliance with 
     any order issued by the Authority pursuant to this section 
     shall terminate upon the filing of a petition seeking the 
     same relief by the Authority.

     SEC. 6. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS PROHIBITED.

        A public safety employer, officer, or labor organization 
     may not engage in a lockout, sickout, work slowdown, or 
     strike or engage in any other action that is designed to 
     compel an employer, officer, or labor organization to agree 
     to the terms of a proposed contract and that will measurably 
     disrupt the delivery of emergency services, except that it 
     shall not be a violation of this section for an employer, 
     officer, or labor organization to refuse to provide services 
     not required by the terms and conditions of an existing 
     contract.

     SEC. 7. EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND AGREEMENTS.

        A certification, recognition, election-held, collective 
     bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding which has 
     been issued, approved, or ratified by any public employee 
     relations board or commission or by any State or 
     political subdivision or its agents (management officials) 
     in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     Act shall not be invalidated by the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLIANCE.

       (a) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (1) to invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and 
     procedures of any law of any State or political subdivision 
     of any State or jurisdiction that provides collective 
     bargaining rights for public safety officers that are equal 
     to or greater than the rights provided under this Act;
       (2) to prevent a State from enforcing a right-to-work law 
     that prohibits employers and labor organizations from 
     negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that require 
     union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of 
     employment;
       (3) to invalidate any State law in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act that substantially provides for the 
     rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) solely 
     because such State law permits an employee to appear on his 
     or her own behalf with respect to his or her employment 
     relations with the public safety agency involved; or
       (4) to permit parties subject to the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and the regulations 
     under such Act to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an 
     employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer 
     activities during off-duty hours; or
       (5) to prohibit a State from exempting from coverage under 
     this Act a political subdivision of the State that has a 
     population of less than 5,000 or that employs less than 25 
     full time employees.
       For purposes of paragraph (5), the term ``employee'' 
     includes each and every individual employed by the political 
     subdivision except any individual elected by popular vote or 
     appointed to serve on a board or commission.
       (b) Compliance.--No State shall preempt laws or ordinances 
     of any of its political subdivisions if such laws provide 
     collective bargaining rights for public safety officers that 
     are equal to or greater than the rights provided under this 
     Act.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from New Hampshire 
what his substitute does?
  Mr. GREGG. This amendment deals with the rights of police officers to 
have the right to collective bargaining and firemen to have the right 
to collective bargaining.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this obviously is a very important issue the 
Senator has raised. Having this as an amendment to a technical 
amendment raises questions that I think perhaps should be answered.
  First, I point out to my friends who are concerned about it that the 
number we have chosen for the highway portion of the bill was a number 
adopted by a 79-21 vote on the floor of this body. In addition, we 
understand the need to provide funding for highways. The Finance 
Committee has worked very hard to come up with the funding measures. I 
don't serve on the Finance Committee, but they have adopted fuel tax 
compliance measures. They have reformed the provisions for the ethanol 
exemption. It is a very valuable agricultural fuel that improves the 
environment. They will not charge the highway trust fund with that. 
They will pay down the existing interest owed to the highway trust fund 
and spend down the balance. They will clarify mobile machinery 
exemptions and transportation taxes, and discontinue refunds going from 
the trust fund into the general revenue fund for fuel tax exemptions. 
These are generally related to the highway trust fund.
  Further, I will point out for those of us who said we want the trust 
fund used for highways, the trust fund right now is being used for 
other things that are not highway related, such as automobile, bus, and 
truck drivers. Some $36 billion will go to mass transit, a very 
valuable adjunct to the transportation system but not something that

[[Page S559]]

people who pay highway trust fund taxes are using because they are 
putting the gas and diesel in their own vehicles.
  There are also valuable environmental benefits in there such as 
CMAQ--congestion mitigation for air quality. There are also rails and 
trails and other easements in there that are a significant diversion of 
highway trust fund dollars from the direct highway trust fund purposes.
  I hope my colleagues who have problems with strict application of 
highway funds being raised on highway uses deal with that in an 
amendment that is directly related to the highway bill transportation 
which is before us.
  Obviously, one of the things one can do in the Senate is to offer 
amendments that are more properly the jurisdiction of other committees, 
which certainly collective bargaining is, I would say, such an effort. 
But this bill is so important to the United States, to our economy, and 
the safety and well-being of the people who use our highways and use 
our bridges in the United States that I hope we can get back to the 
main purpose of this measure, which is to continue the highway program, 
which builds better roads, better bridges, and provides jobs--47,000 
jobs for each $1 billion of highway contracts--and provides the future 
for economic growth in our States.
  As I have said on many occasions on this floor, I can tell you jobs 
are going to be located in the States where they have good 
transportation systems, and good highways are essential for that.
  Finally, in my State it is a matter of saving lives. So I hope we can 
get back to dealing with the important measures in this bill. I hope we 
can deal with the specific needs, make the technical amendments that 
are normally permitted on such a bill, and debate the major provisions.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. 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.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have been trying to get through the 
explanation of this bill section by section. We have done so now all 
the way up to section 1304. It seems most people were concerned 
yesterday about the formula. Now we are addressing another problem. But 
we have not gotten into the full explanation of the bill. We have gone 
from section 1104 through section 1303.
  I am going to go ahead and proceed. If anyone either has an amendment 
or wants to be heard on the bill, of course, I will give them that 
opportunity.
  Section 1304 is in regard to the facilitation of international 
registration plans and international fuel tax agreements.
  In response to issues surrounding commerce from Mexico, S. 1072 gives 
the Secretary of Transportation discretion to provide financial 
assistance to States participating in the International Registration 
Plan and the International Fuel Tax Agreement. These States incur 
certain administrative costs resulting from their service as a home 
jurisdiction for motor carriers from Mexico.
  The International Fuel Tax Agreement and the International Regional 
Plan are agreements among various U.S. States and Canadian Provinces 
that facilitate the efficient collection and distribution of fuel taxes 
and apportioned registration fees among each member jurisdiction.
  Under both programs, each motor carrier designates its home State or 
Province as the jurisdiction responsible for collecting fuel use taxes 
and fees. Since the implementation of NAFTA, the Mexican Government 
imposes and collects fuel taxes and registration fees differently from 
the United States and Canada. The National Governors Association is 
currently evaluating Mexico and its participation in the IFTA and IRP 
programs. In the interim, Mexican motor carriers may use individual 
U.S. States or Canadian Provinces as their home jurisdiction. So we are 
talking about something that is in the interim until the problem is 
resolved but is necessary.
  Section 1305 is in regard to the National Commission on Future 
Revenue Sources to Support the Highway Trust Fund and finance the needs 
of the surface transportation system.
  As many of you know, I am personally not one to support expansions of 
bureaucracy or the creation of innumerable review boards, committees, 
and commissions. However, this bill creates, and I have found good 
reason to support, a new temporary--temporary--national commission on 
future revenue sources to support the highway trust fund and finance 
the needs of the surface transportation system.
  Funding the highway program has already become increasingly more 
challenging. Even as we debate the funding of this bill, we are 
confronted with the task of finding innovative and efficient funding 
methods to capture user fees lost to the fuel tax evasion and a host of 
other issues that the Finance Committee has done a great job in 
addressing.
  However, one issue that has not been addressed, but must be before 
the next reauthorization cycle, is Federal incentives for the purchase 
of hybrid and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Fuel efficiency is a goal 
I support, but I do not believe it should come at the expense of the 
highway trust fund. So we have these exemptions, which has the result 
of reducing the revenues that would otherwise come in, even though the 
goal or the policy we are trying to establish is, perhaps, an 
inevitable policy.

  We run the risk of making economic and environmental advances at the 
cost of jeopardizing our primary funding source for the highway trust 
fund--gas taxes. In recent years, the highway trust fund has seen a 
decrease in revenues. Constant changes in the automotive industry and 
the economy as a whole impact user fee revenues. We must continue to 
identify new and reliable revenue sources to sustain the program.
  Most recently, we have seen the increase in the cost of fuel and the 
spiking that has been going on. That has a direct effect on the amount 
of revenues that are generated from fuel taxes.
  In response to these changing and growing challenges, the new 
commission created in this bill is established to conduct a 
comprehensive study of the alternatives available to replace or 
supplement the existing fuel tax as the principal source of supporting 
the highway trust fund. We may find that this is going to still remain 
the principal source, but we do not know because we have never had any 
central place where we were trying to put together something this 
creative to replace it.
  Specific factors which the commission will examine include, one, the 
effects of each major tax that goes into the highway trust fund; two, 
the ability to increase taxes if there are future revenue shortfalls; 
and, three, potential new sources of revenue to support highway, 
transit, and other surface transportation programs.
  In regard to the scope of the study, the commission is charged with 
suggesting new or alternative revenue sources to fund the needs of the 
surface transportation system over the next 30 years or the next 40 
years--the next long period of time. It is something we should have 
done before. This bill might have been easier if we had addressed this 
in TEA-21.
  Now we have, in section 1306, the State infrastructure banks. TEA-21 
established a State infrastructure bank pilot program that authorized 
participation among the States of Missouri, Rhode Island, California, 
and Florida. This bill reauthorizes the program to allow all States to 
enter into cooperative agreements with the Secretary of Transportation 
to set up infrastructure-revolving funds eligible for capitalization 
with Federal transportation dollars.
  The SIB program gives States the capacity to increase the efficiency 
of their transportation investment and to significantly leverage 
Federal resources by attracting non-Federal public and private 
investment.
  The program provides greater flexibility to the States by allowing 
other types of project assistance in addition to the traditional 
reimbursement grant. States utilizing SIBs are able to provide various 
forms of nongrant assistance to eligible projects, including at or 
below market rate subordinate

[[Page S560]]

loans, interest rate buydowns on third party loans, and guarantees and 
other forms of credit enhancements. Any debt that the SIB issues or 
guarantees must be of investment grade caliber. The SIB program 
represents one more innovative financing option. We believe, after 
having done this with three or four States, that it is something that 
should be expanded to other States. This is a very positive thing.
  Section 1401 is the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
  Along with the new equity bonus program, the bill's new core Safety 
program is one of the crowning pillars of this legislation. It is both 
devastating and deplorable that motor vehicle crashes are the leading 
cause of death among American's between the age of 1 and 34-years-old. 
In 2002 alone, nearly 43,000 people died on our Nation's highways. 
Although the fatality rate has decreased when compared to the growing 
number of vehicle miles traveled, the total number of fatal crashes has 
gradually increased over the life of TEA-21. Through a reorganization 
of existing safety programs and a significantly increased Federal 
investment, S. 1072, appropriately referred to as SAFETEA, strives to 
combat one of the greatest threats faced on our roads today. Not only 
is the loss of life to unsafe roads and conditions tragic, but vehicle 
crashes have a huge economic effect manifested in medical costs, 
property damage, insurance, and the effects of congestion.
  In response to the need for safer roads and road conditions, this 
bill gives heightened attention to improving traffic safety by creating 
a new core Highway Safety Improvement Program. Under TEA-21 States were 
required to set-aside 10 percent of their funds apportioned under the 
Surface Transportation Program for safety projects to eliminate 
hazardous locations and improve safety at highway-railway crossings. 
The new Highway Safety Improvement Program preserves the ability of 
States to continue funding these important projects, while giving the 
States even greater flexibility to identify and address other traffic 
safety issues such as work zone safety, traffic enforcement activities, 
lane and shoulder widening, use of safety warning devices, safety-
conscious planning, and improved traffic data collection.
  This is just one more effort to recognize that the States are all 
different. The same shoe does not fit all. We are giving them an 
expanded role to determine the best way to handle the problems in 
Vermont as opposed to Oklahoma or any other State.
  Recognizing the various and changing safety needs in each State, the 
bill provides significant flexibility to the States in order to 
determine how the Federal safety dollars can best be spent to address 
the areas of greatest need. These are not always the same in each 
State.
  Section 1402 is Operation Lifesaver. Among the existing safety 
programs that this bill reauthorizes is Operation Lifesaver. This 
program has proven effective as a national education and awareness 
campaign dedicated to reducing fatalities and injuries at highway-
railway crossings. Operation Lifesaver has utilized various means to 
educate both drivers and pedestrians about making safe decisions at 
railroad crossings and has encouraged better engineering to improve 
safety at rail crossings. Due to the valuable service this program 
renders and the cost-benefit effectiveness it has sustained, this bill 
increases funding for the program from $500,000 per year to $600,000 
per year and moves the source of funding for Operation Lifesaver from 
the Surface Transportation Program, STP, to the new Highway Safety 
Improvement Program.
   Section 1403 is license suspension. Another area of concern in 
regards to highway safety is the intoxicated driver and especial repeat 
offenders. Current law imposes penalties on States that have not 
enacted statutes punishing repeat intoxicated drivers with a hard one-
year driver's license suspension. However, as the States have reviewed 
data and adapted their sentencing structures for repeat offenders in 
this area, they have found that habitual drunk drivers whose license 
has already been suspended frequently choose to drive without a 
license, minimizing the effectiveness of the current State of the law. 
In the interest of public safety, some States have actually accepted 
the consequences of the Federal sanction and foregoing available 
Federal funding in order to impose more effective sentencing of these 
repeat offenders. This bill recognizes the reality of repeat drunk 
drivers driving on roads with a suspended license and the wisdom of 
more effective alternative sentencing schemes. Thus, the bill updates 
the ``repeat offender'' sanction in title 23 of the code to allow 
States to incorporate ignition interlock or similar devices when 
sentencing repeat intoxicated drivers.
  At this point we have come through all the way to section 1404. I 
would like to see if the minority leader of the committee, who has been 
so great to work with, the ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords 
from Vermont, has any comments to make about these sections.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman. As has been pointed out already 
by one of our members, the bill we are talking about is rather 
extensive. But it was not done quickly or without the tremendous work 
of staff and many people who have contributed outside of the staff in 
listening to people from all over the country before we put the final 
touch on the bill.
  The highway bill provides us with an opportunity every 6 years to 
give our communities, our businesses and our citizens a real boost by 
renewing our commitment to the world's most extensive transportation 
system. I am proud to be a leader in that effort this year.
  Through the bill before us today, we will improve the condition and 
the performance of our roads and bridges, thousands and millions of 
them. That means both safer travel today and lower maintenance costs 
tomorrow.
  I am particularly pleased that our work continues the transportation 
partnership established under President Eisenhower during the 
Interstate period and expanded with passage of ISTEA 12 years ago. That 
means that local leaders, stakeholders and citizens will continue to 
work with State and Federal officials to set spending priorities and 
define project scope.
  I am also proud that we have maintained the linkage between 
transportation and the environment in our bill. Investments in 
transportation must build strong, healthy communities. Through advanced 
planning and early coordination we can ensure better results.
  I urge my colleagues to work with those of us responsible for this 
bill so that we may complete our work in a timely way. America's 
communities are relying on us. The States are relying upon us. All 
people using the transportation system are depending upon us. I am sure 
we will produce this document in a way that will make us all very 
proud.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First, I agree with the ranking member of the committee. 
We have come a long way. We are ready shortly and will be prepared to 
deal with some amendments. In the meantime, let's wade through this 
thing a little bit more.
  Section 1404. Bus axle weight exemption. SAFETEA holds over-the-road 
buses and intrastate public transit buses to the same standards that 
inner-city transit buses must meet with regard to axle weight, air 
quality, and requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Specifically, the bill exempts any over-the-road buses or intrastate 
public transit bus from the maximum gross weight limitations imposed by 
the State.
  Section 1405 is the Safe Routes to School Act. This was a provision 
that handled a number of compromises. It is one we are all concerned 
about. It has a continuing emphasis on safety. The bill introduces a 
new program that directly deals with safe routes to school, a safety 
improvement program established in SAFETEA. Projects eligible under the 
Safe Routes to School Program are already eligible under the larger 
Highway Safety Improvement Program.
  However, Safe Routes to School provides a dedicated and protected 
funding source for pedestrian and bicycle safety projects near schools. 
The program is limited to projects and activities that will impose 
safety within 2 miles of primary and secondary schools. It sets aside 
$70 million per year for infrastructure and behavioral activities, such 
as sidewalk improvements, traffic-calming measures, speed reduction,

[[Page S561]]

bicycle facilities, pedestrian crossings, traffic signal improvements, 
public awareness campaigns, and traffic education and enforcement.
  I think that is significant. We have noticed, between the time we 
have been dealing with ISTEA and TEA-21, there have been increased 
fatalities in our young kids. We expanded this program during the 
course of our committee consideration. I think it was a good compromise 
to make on the purchase of equipment.
  When conducting projects under the Federal program's authorization 
under this bill, some States will occasionally find the equipment 
necessary to complete the project may be cheaper to purchase than it 
would be to rent for the duration of the project. In such cases, this 
bill instructs them to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the purchase 
of expensive equipment above specified levels in order to evaluate the 
savings associated with purchasing the equipment compared to renting 
the equipment for the duration of the project.
  Everything we are doing here is trying to get the very most out of 
the dollars we are spending in terms of safety and equipment and road 
construction and the other things we are dealing with in S. 1072.
  Section 1407 is work zone safety. Over a thousand deaths occurred in 
work zones during 2002 due to traffic crashes alone. There has been a 
lot of awareness in the public about this fact and States are trying to 
deal with it. We felt it appropriate to have some language in this 
bill. Although work zones represent a critical component of 
infrastructure development, they also pose a unique safety challenge 
for those on the road, and to road workers in particular.
  S. 1072 attempts to minimize the injuries and fatalities in work 
zones by imposing insurance requirements, requiring the use of ITS 
technologies and safety budgeting in construction and contracting. The 
Secretary of Transportation is directed to encourage States to choose 
contractors that carry general liability insurance of at least $15 
million. Transportation projects costing more than $15 million are 
encouraged to include continuously monitored work zone intelligent 
transportation systems, or ITS systems.
  Section 1408. Worker injury prevention and free flow of vehicular 
traffic. In addition to the provision relating to the safety of workers 
in work zones just mentioned, SAFETEA also directs the Secretary to 
promulgate regulations requiring road workers to wear high-visibility 
clothing, with the goal of decreasing worker injury and maintaining a 
free flow of traffic.
  In section 1501, regarding the integration of natural resource 
concerns into State and metropolitan transportation planning, my 
counterpart, the ranking minority member, was very interested in a lot 
of the parts of the bill that deal with natural resource concerns and 
State and metropolitan transportation planning. If the Senator from 
Vermont would like to go over some of these sections, starting with 
section 1501, it might be appropriate since he had a lot to do with 
these particular areas.
  (Mr. SUNUNU assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am most pleased to assist in this 
regard.
  The environmental provisions contained in this bill reflect a 
bipartisan compromise reached among the members of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. Although there are a number of additional 
changes I would like to have made in these provisions, I believe the 
bill deals fairly in regard to these sections, given the variety of 
strong opinions on environmental subjects.
  Several stakeholders have argued any early identification of 
potential environmental concerns may help reduce or avoid delays during 
the environmental review. Therefore, this bill specifies factors that 
may be considered during the transportation planning process.
  Current law already requires transportation planners to consider 
projects and strategies that will protect and enhance the environment 
and improve quality of life.
  The items added by this bill simply provide more direction as to what 
these concepts mean. These items do not constitute a checklist of 
items, whereby every item listed must be considered by each State and 
metropolitan planning organization, or MPO.
  Section 1502. As another means of providing for early consideration 
of environmental concerns, this bill requires transportation planners 
to consult with appropriate resource agencies.
  Interagency consultation should facilitate comparison of 
transportation plans to conservation plans or maps and inventories of 
natural or historic resources, where those plans or maps and 
inventories already exist and are in use.
  The long-range transportation plan will also include a discussion of 
potential mitigation activities and sites that may help compensation 
for issues due to the transportation plan. This requirement is intended 
to get States to think strategically about mitigation. It is not to add 
new mitigation requirements or to require a level of detail better 
handled at the individual project review stage.
  Section 1503. Integration of natural resource concerns into 
transportation project planning. Additionally, the highway bill 
contains provisions to incorporate the principles of context-sensitive 
design into current design standards. These principles involve 
consideration of the environmental context of a project and 
encouragement of design that minimizes impact on the project's 
surroundings. These provisions aim to integrate natural resource 
concerns into the transportation project planning process.
  Section 1504. Public investment in transportation planning and 
projects. Current law provides an opportunity for the public to be 
involved to some degree in the development of transportation plans. 
This bill includes specific ideas for making public involvement 
opportunities more meaningful, such as making publicly available 
documents available on the Internet.
  Section 1506. Federal and State laws often require habitat, stream, 
or wetland mitigation to compensate for direct adverse environmental 
impact caused by transportation projects. To provide additional 
flexibility and certainty in meeting these requirements, this bill 
authorizes the establishment of State mitigation funds, using moneys 
received from the Surface Transportation Program and National Highway 
System programs.
  The State mitigation fund operates as a planning and project 
management tool available to the States. States can even use the 
mitigation funds to undertake larger mitigation efforts based on the 
total impact of a multitude of projects combined rather than project-
by-project mitigation. This enables the States to more effectively plan 
for and provide the mitigation that is or likely will be required for 
transportation projects under other environmental laws.
  The next section, 1511, transportation project development process. 
TEA-21 directed the Department of Transportation, DOT to ``develop and 
implement a coordinated environmental review process for highway 
construction and mass transit projects.'' Unfortunately, this was never 
achieved. It took almost 2 years for DOT to even propose rules, and 
those proposed rules were roundly criticized by many interested 
stakeholders and many in this Chamber.
  That proposal has since been withdrawn. So it was necessary for us, 
obviously, to take the next step legislatively.
  This bill sets up a process for complying with current environmental 
laws. In establishing a process for compliance, the bill does not 
venture to amend any current environmental laws. It does not venture to 
amend any current environmental laws.
  Under this process, DOT is the lead agency with authority to set work 
plans and schedules, determine the purpose and need for a project, and 
determine which alternatives must be considered. This process also 
includes more public participation than currently required and 
continues to authorize DOT to provide funds to resource agencies to 
assist them in expediting project environmental reviews.
  Section 1512. Assumption of responsibility for categorical 
exclusions. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, some 
types of projects can be categorically excluded from lengthy analysis. 
Qualifying projects are those projects that ``do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment.''

[[Page S562]]

  Approximately 90 percent of all surface transportation projects are 
processed as categorical exclusions, or CEs, under NEPA. Since this is 
such an overwhelming percentage of the projects, even a small 
improvement in processing time for each CE can result in a large 
improvement systemwide.
  The bill before us today attempts to make that improvement by 
allowing States to assume the Secretary's responsibility for completing 
the environmental review process for projects classified as CE under 
current regulations.
  This assumption of responsibility will be limited to those States 
that have adequate capabilities and would remain subject to Federal 
oversight to maintain proper accountability.
  Section 1513. Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program. 
Often a State will do much of the work involved with the preparing and 
environmental review of a surface transportation project. Then the 
Federal Department of Transportation must review and approve the 
State's work, the applicable documentation. Some stakeholders have 
argued that allowing States to complete the NEPA review, regardless of 
whether the project requires a categorical exclusion, environmental 
assessment, or even an environmental impact statement, could result in 
significant time savings and speed up project delivery.
  The highway bill sets out to explore this idea by establishing a 
pilot program that allows up to five States to assume the Secretary's 
responsibility for the environmental review of a transportation 
project.

  Under this pilot program, States will have to meet several criteria 
before and after selection to participate. These requirements include 
soliciting public comment prior to applying for participation, 
verifying adequate capabilities to carry out the responsibilities to be 
assumed, entering into a written agreement with the Secretary, 
submitting to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, submitting to 
periodic compliance audits, and complying with the same procedural and 
subsequent requirements under Federal environmental law as would apply 
if the Secretary were conducting reviews.
  Section 1514. In keeping with the new environmental changes, the bill 
directs the Department of Transportation to promulgate new regulations 
within 1 year to implement the planning and project delivery sections 
of the bill.
  Section 1521. Critical real property acquisition. The committee bill 
enables States to use Federal funds to expeditiously acquire a limited 
number of parcels of land that may be needed for future transportation 
development but are threatened by imminent economic development.
  The early acquisition of property keeps future transportation options 
open and provides States with an important opportunity to reserve 
future alignment alternatives while allowing timely and cost-saving 
acquisitions.
  In limited circumstances and with the Secretary's approval, States 
can use the Federal funds to cover the cost incurred in acquiring 
parcels of land that are considered to be critical for any 
transportation project under title 23. Federal land may be used to 
acquire property prior to the completion of the environmental reviews 
for proper acquisition. Environmental reviews and approvals are still 
required before physical construction, demolition, or clearing is 
commenced. If a parcel is later sold or leased, States cannot retain 
the Federal share of the proceeds.
  Section 1522. Planning capacity building initiative. Focusing on the 
importance of comprehensive and integrated planning, S. 1072 
establishes a planning capacity building initiative to strengthen 
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning and to enhance 
tribal capacity to conduct joint transportation planning.
  The bill gives priority to planning practices that support the 
transportation elements of homeland security planning, performance-
based planning, safety planning, operations planning, freight planning, 
and the integration of environment and planning. The planning capacity 
building initiative will be administered by the DOT's Federal Highway 
Administration in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration.
  Section 1601. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement 
control of invasive plant species and establishment of native species. 
Storm water runoff from highways has a direct impact on the Nation's 
waterways, carrying with it pollutions such as brake linings, oils, 
heavy metals, road salts, nutrients, et cetera. To address these 
waterborne pollutants, current law already allows States to use STP 
funds to address water pollution or environmental degradation caused or 
contributed to by transportation facilities currently undergoing 
reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration so long as 
the environmental project does not exceed 20 percent of the overall 
project cost.
  This bill extends eligibility for those types of mitigation projects 
from the States' STP funds to include their funds under the NHS program 
as well. It further allows the funds to be used for environmental 
restoration projects not associated with an active construction 
project.
  The stormwater project must address runoff from an existing Federal-
aid highway but not necessarily one undergoing reconstruction, 
rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration.
  Invasive species are a growing problem both economically and 
environmentally. These harmful plants plague thousands of areas of 
rangelands and croplands and have been cited as a staggering problem by 
such organizations such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association 
and the American Farm Bureau Federation. By making both NHS and STP 
funds available to mitigate invasive species along roadways, we provide 
States with the flexibility to minimize the impact of vehicles as 
vectors of these problematic plants.
  Section 1602 relates to the National Scenic Byways Program. TEA-21 
continues the National Scenic Byways Program authorizing the Secretary 
of Transportation to designate roads that have outstanding scenic, 
historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and architectural qualities 
as all-American roads, or national scenic highways.
  This bill amends the current program to recognize that the Secretary 
already is promoting the collection of ``national scenic byways'' and 
``all-American roads'' under the designation of ``America's byways.'' 
If State and Federal representatives reach consensus on establishing a 
single designation category, then these amendments will provide the 
Secretary with the authority to use any of the three terms, national 
scenic byways, all-American roads, or America's byways, as the single 
designation.
  The bill also authorizes the Secretary for the first time to form 
public/private partnerships to carry out technical assistance, 
marketing, market research, and promotion with respect to national 
scenic byways.
  Section 1603 is the Recreational Trails Program. This bill continues 
the Recreational Trails Program allowing Federal funds to be used to 
provide and maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized 
recreational trail uses. New eligible uses of funds permit trail 
assessment for accessibility and maintenance, and to hire trail crews 
or youth conservation or service corps to perform recreational trails 
activities. Current activities eligible under the program educational 
funding already include nonlaw enforcement trail safety, trail use 
monitoring patrols, and trail-related training.
  Since projects under the Recreational Trails Program are much smaller 
than typical highway projects, this program is relieved of several 
normal requirements which, although appropriate for large highway 
projects, would be excessively burdensome for small trail projects.
  Section 1604 covers exemption of interstate systems. SAFETEA 
establishes an exemption for the interstate system from consideration 
as a ``historic site'' regardless of whether the interstate system or 
portions of the interstate system may be eligible for listing on the 
National Registry of Historic Places. However, a portion of the 
interstate system that possesses an independent feature of historic 
significance, such as a bridge or a uniquely significant architectural 
feature, may still be considered a historic site individually.

  Section 1605 of this bill changes current law to place greater 
emphasis on the need to consider the preservation of human and natural 
resources in the

[[Page S563]]

decisionmaking process of developing highway projects. Consideration of 
a variety of highway project impacts has been part of the design 
process for many years. However, the transportation community has 
demanded improvements in project delivery and in the makeup of the 
product that is delivered. Compatibility with the surrounding 
environment and improved safety for the motorist and the pedestrian are 
critical.
  The bill also directs the Secretary to ensure that the plans and 
specifications for proposed highway projects have considered 
preservation, historic, scenic, natural environment, and community 
values. However, States can use existing processes for demonstrating 
that they have considered these subject factors.
  Section 1606 covers use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes which has 
been a topic of great interest to both States and stakeholders. This 
reauthorization bill clarifies existing law and provides more 
flexibility to State and local agencies for effective management of 
high-occupancy vehicle, or HOV, facilities. Certain types of vehicles 
are exempt from meeting the general occupancy requirements for HOV 
facilities. The bill further identifies the possible operational 
strategies that responsible agencies may select from to maximize the 
use of HOV facilities, manage highway capacity, mitigate congestion, 
and reduce fuel consumption.
  Motorcycles continue to be allowed use of HOV facilities. Responsible 
Government agencies choosing to meet additional requirements may also 
allow low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid 
vehicles, to use HOV facilities. These agencies are also given the 
authority to toll the use of an HOV facility by vehicles that do not 
otherwise meet the normal minimum capacity or other exemption 
requirements.
  Section 1607 relates to bicycle transportation and pedestrian 
walkways. The highway authorization bill makes minor changes regarding 
pedestrian walkways, specifically allowing the use of the Surface 
Transportation Program, STP, funds and congestion mitigation and air 
quality improvement programs, CMAQs, funds for the nonconstruction 
pedestrian safety programs where current law only mentions bicycle 
safety.
  We also explicitly mention the pedestrian use on bridges, whereas 
current law only mentions safety programs for bicycle use. The practice 
of charging user fees for shared-use paths is also permitted so long as 
the fees collected by a State are used for maintaining and operating 
the shared-use paths within the State.
  User fees may not be collected on shared-use paths that are not 
within a highway right-of-way nor make user fees be charged for the use 
of sidewalks or bicycle paths.
  I would like to stop at this point and pass the description to my 
good friend, Senator Bond. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, picking up with the description of this 
bill, which we think is extremely important, I am going to share some 
other views. But I want to continue with this description of the bill.
  Under the current law, there is a general prohibition against placing 
commercial establishments in recreation and safety rest areas on 
interstate rights-of-way. This bill creates a small exception to this 
prohibition by allowing States to place either electrification or other 
idling facilities that can be used for heating, air-conditioning, 
electricity, and communication. This will enable truck operators to 
receive services without continuing to run their engines, thereby 
reducing vehicle emissions. States, other public agencies, and private 
entities are already allowed to operate on the interstate system and 
may charge for the services provided under this new authority.
  Why is this important? This is tremendously important. If you travel 
in your State along an interstate, you will find now that the new 
hours-of-service regulations require truckers to take more frequent 
breaks. There are rest areas in my State which are crowded with trucks. 
There are entrances to and exits from interstate highways where 
significant numbers of trucks are parked. This is to make sure that the 
drivers get the rest they need. There has been some controversy over 
it, but this is the rule and they are abiding by that rule. But when 
they are shut down and idling, particularly in bitter cold weather so 
they can get heat in their cab while they get the necessary rest, No. 
1, it is causing dangerous situations along the roadway, on the exit 
and entrance ramps to interstate highways, and they are needlessly 
burning fuel, polluting the atmosphere, and causing excessive use of 
imported petroleum at a time when we face a real energy crisis.
  So while this is a small part of the bill, it is one which responds 
to very significant needs to maintain safety for the traveling public, 
especially the truckers, and also to eliminate air pollution that comes 
from idling trucks.
  Another program that I think is vitally important to empower the 
improvements in tolling, section 1609, deals with tools for toll 
programs. One of the effective things that has been used in many 
highway locations for raising revenue and regulating the flow of 
traffic is tolling. This bill modifies the Interstate System 
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program, the ISRRP, and establishes a 
new variable toll pricing program. This variable pricing program 
replaces the pilot program which was authorized in the previous TEA-21.
  The new variable toll pricing program enables the use of variable 
toll pricing on congested facilities in order to increase mobility and 
improve air quality. This says that the Secretary can permit a State or 
public authority to toll any highway, bridge, or tunnel, including 
facilities on the interstate system, to manage high levels of 
congestion or reduce emissions in a nonattainment area or maintenance 
area.
  This is extremely important when you look at the kinds of congestion 
we have in many areas during high traffic time. If there are tolls 
imposed when there would otherwise be heavy congestion, then those who 
must necessarily travel at that time can continue to do so by paying a 
toll. This is the ultimate market-based system for assuring that people 
who do not have to travel at high congestion times will not. Obviously, 
this means better traffic flow, this means less congestion, and 
therefore less pollution. So I think this is extremely important.
  The Secretary may permit a State or public authority to manage the 
levels. The States must provide the Secretary with a description of the 
congestion and air quality problems, and the goals. Any State or public 
authority already operating under a cooperative agreement under the 
existing pricing pilot program of TEA-21 can continue under the 
existing laws.

  We also have included some changes in the tolling requirements 
because in some States there are interstates which are badly out of 
date and in need of substantial rehabilitation. In the current laws, 
the provision for establishing tolls on existing interstates has been 
limited to replacement. If you have ever traveled I-70 in the State of 
Missouri, which is the lifeline for our State and for much of the 
Nation for east-west traffic going from coast to coast, certainly 
traveling between Kansas City and St. Louis, you will find that there 
are tremendous delays occasioned because the roads are inadequate. They 
are two-lane roads that are like driving in city traffic, they are so 
filled with cars and congestion.
  In addition, when there are accidents on these roads, it is not 
uncommon for us to experience an hour or 2-hour delay. In one instance, 
I managed to miss a 7-hour delay by taking some back roads which I knew 
about to get around a major disaster.
  This measure expands the ability to say if it is substantial 
rehabilitation or reconstruction, the State, if it chooses, could use 
tolls to improve an interstate.
  Right now, Interstate 70 has the distinction of being the first toll 
road in the United States. But it also means it is a half a century old 
and it is at least 20 years out of date. The total cost for repairing 
it and replacing it is about $3 billion.
  Some of my colleagues will be surprised to know that I have not asked 
in this bill for $3 billion to replace this vital national link. But I 
do believe we need to provide options for States to deal with problems 
such as this one. Whether they do it is going to be up to them. In the 
State of Missouri, there would have to be a vote of the people.

[[Page S564]]

They would have to authorize the issuance of bonds and a tolling 
authority. This does not by any means say we are going to put tolls on 
it. It provides an option for the legislature, the Governor, the 
Department of Transportation to consider as they look at how they want 
to deal with one of these very significant highway corridors, which has 
become far too often a parking lot rather than a means of facilitating 
transportation between our two major cities and for people traveling 
from far beyond, going east to west through the heartland of the 
Nation, through the State of Missouri.
  I think this is a very important provision and one which will provide 
States reasonable flexibility, not allowing them, willy-nilly, to take 
roads already financed through the interstate program, to impose tolls 
on them to finance other activities, but to make sure that we continue 
to realize the dream of those who initially formulated the interstate 
highway program to make sure that we can see traffic continue to 
proceed.
  Let me move to another provision in the bill. It is section 1610, 
which merely directs the EPA to study the ability to monitor 
differentiation between fine and coarse particulate matter.
  As we find out more about the dangers of pollutants, we find they are 
greater risks in the fine particulates in many instances which can 
cause far more significant harm than a coarse particulate because of 
the impact on the lungs.
  Section 1611 adds particulate matter areas to the Congestion, 
Mitigation, and Air Quality Program. The funds under this provision are 
apportioned on the basis of a ratio of total weighted population of a 
State's nonattainment or maintenance areas to the total weighted 
population of all nonattainment or maintenance areas in the Nation.
  If you didn't follow me on that, if a State has air quality problems 
in an area which is one-twentieth of all of the areas in the Nation, 
then they would get one-twentieth of the total funds available.
  It sounds convoluted, but it really targets the CMAQ funds to the 
areas with greatest needs. Since many areas will need assistance to 
meet the new 8-hour ozone standard and the new fine particulate matter 
standard, the CMAQ formula is modified to include those areas. 
Adjustment factors are used to account for the number of pollutants for 
areas in nonattainment or maintenance. Section 1611 says CMAQ funds can 
be used for alternative fuel infrastructure under TEA-21. This bill 
goes further and encourages the use of CMAQ funds by listing the 
purchase of alternative fuel and the purchase of biodiesel fuel as 
eligible activities under CMAQ.
  Due to some confusion in some DOT and EPA field and regional offices, 
we have also clarified that projects to control the extended idling of 
vehicles are indeed eligible for funding under the CMAQ program.
  The bill also fixes oversight under current law that prevents States 
that do not have any nonattainment or maintenance areas from using CMAQ 
funds for CMAQ projects. Frankly, this allows us to get more homegrown 
clean fuels used with the assistance of CMAQ funds.
  I happen to know something about soy diesel and about biodiesel. I am 
a great champion of it, because if you have followed a bus or a truck 
down the road that is burning straight diesel, you know what an 
unpleasant smell that can cause and what damage that can do to the 
environment. Biodiesel is a soybean-based or other biomass-based fuel 
which operates in a much cleaner burning environment. Several years ago 
we started a pilot project at the great training facility at Fort 
Leonard Wood, MO that needed to train soldiers to fight in smoke 
conditions on the battlefield. They had been burning diesel to provide 
that smoke. We felt that was not necessarily a good idea to be burning 
diesel and exposing our finest troops to the diesel pollution and the 
smoke that was caused. We worked with the Department of Defense to 
switch that to soy diesel. There was smoke. I asked them after they 
implemented what the byproducts were. They said, Obviously, we are not 
polluting the environment with petroleum-based diesel. We are burning a 
much cleaner soy-based fuel. It is much less harmful to the soldiers. 
The only problem is it smells like French fries and they get hungry. 
But given the alternative, that seems to be a good idea.
  To the extent we get more buses and trucks using biodiesel, we are 
going to have greater benefits.

  Let me give you two areas where soy diesel or any biodiesel can be a 
great improvement.
  No. 1, firehouses: The fire men and women who live and stay in 
firehouses have complained for years. When they fire up the firetrucks, 
they get the diesel fumes coming up into the rest area. Sometimes, our 
valiant firefighters have to live and sleep in heavily polluted diesel-
fuel-soaked areas. This is not only unhealthy, but it is very 
unpleasant. Fire stations have been some of the first places where we 
have used biodiesel. It has been extremely popular. Certainly when we 
are trying to talk about taking care of our first responders and the 
valiant firefighters who are on the line making sure the engines and 
the firetrucks below them are burning a clean-burning feel, it is a 
step in the right direction.
  Another important area we have talked a lot about is school bus 
safety. When you have kids on school buses, the fumes from petroleum-
based diesel come into that school bus. Do you know where they are the 
most dangerous? They are most dangerous when they are at low levels--
where the small children are. The smallest children are likely to be 
exposed to petroleum-based diesel fumes.
  We are working to encourage more and more school buses to use soy 
diesel, and put aside the fact that kids are going to get hungry when 
they smell something that smells like french fries. But it is vitally 
important that we lessen the danger to our schoolchildren as well as 
lessening the use of diesel fuel and providing a significant benefit to 
those who produce soybean and other biomass.
  I see a couple of our colleagues are here. Senator Thomas wishes to 
speak. We have lots more to talk about, but I will discontinue at this 
point and thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for coming to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Missouri. I am glad 
this conversation is going on. Certainly there isn't anything before us 
that is more immediate in need and more important than this highway 
bill. Not only is it a matter of infrastructure, of course, that we 
necessarily need, but it is also a matter of providing more jobs more 
quickly than anything we can possibly do.
  Someone said this morning at one of our meetings that they will wait 
until next year to use the money. Not at all. I think many of the 
highway departments similar to Wyoming where I am from are ready to go. 
They are ready to contract. They can move very quickly.
  I think it is terribly important that we move forward on this. I hope 
before we are through that we have a thorough discussion of the bill. 
But I hope we don't get off into a bunch of irrelevant amendments that 
really do not belong in here but are simply trying to be used as a 
carrot and a stick. That is not the way it ought to be.
  In any event, this is a very large bill and it is very detailed. We 
have talked a lot about the details. I want to talk a little more 
generally about it.
  This bill, of course, has gone through several committees. The EPW 
Committee, of which I am a member, is the basic committee where a great 
deal of work was done. This is the same committee that dealt with the 
previous bill 6 years ago, a bill, as it turned out, that worked very 
well. There is a great deal of detail here, but the detail has to be 
done in committee, and we need to now talk about the principles and to 
move forward with it.
  The bill as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee 
would authorize $255 billion over 6 years beginning in 2004 to fund the 
Federal aid for highways, highway safety programs, and other 
transportation projects. The last surface transportation authorization 
was the Transportation Equity Act, called ISTEA. We are moving forward 
one more time. As I said, it replaces an older one, and indeed actually 
even before that in the early 1990s, we had this same kind of approach 
with a gas tax. Each of us pays 18.5 cents a gallon of Federal gas tax 
when we buy gas. That goes into

[[Page S565]]

the fund for the purpose of upkeep of the infrastructure.
  This bill makes significant progress in streamlining the 
environmental review and delivery process which, as always, is part of 
the problem.
  It encourages communities and project sponsors to consider 
environmental concerns earlier so things can go together and it comes 
out as a manageable package.
  It increases the oversight on the expenditure side. There is a great 
deal of money here. The highway funds are spent by requiring project 
management plans and annual financial plans of Federal programs. That 
is as it should be. Accountability is necessary.
  Actually, when the Finance Committee then received the bill, the 
funding from the gas tax was not complete enough to cover what we hoped 
to do. It happened to be about a 6 percent reduction that had to be 
filled after it came to the Finance Committee. So we have heard a great 
deal about that, and I understand most want to fund the highway bill 
with funds that come from related sources instead of the general fund.
  I will say a few words about how we are paying with that in the 
highway bill. The Finance Committee reported out a mechanism for paying 
for this bill. This mechanism retains the integrity of the highway 
trust fund. These are truly transportation-related taxes that are now 
deposited in the highway trust fund. Some of the taxes were previously 
deposited in the general fund. In other words, the general fund was 
getting support for transportation-oriented taxes. The Finance 
Committee finally righted the wrongs. The taxes should have been 
funding this trust fund for years. Now they will be.
  In addition, there are exemptions enjoyed by certain taxpayers that 
diminish the taxes that would otherwise be deposited in the trust fund. 
These are exemptions that are subsidies that have nothing to do with 
highway policy. The impetus behind the exemptions was energy policy and 
tax policy. Since they are not highway policy, why should they have the 
trust fund bear the burden?
  No one is taking issue with these exemptions of subsidies but rather 
the funding structure behind them and who pays. The Finance Committee 
made changes that the exemptions are allowed, allowing for the highway 
trust fund to legitimately receive the taxes that have been due for a 
very long time. The exemptions of subsidies will stay in place but now 
appropriately become the burden of the general fund.
  In addition, the Finance Committee went a step further to authorize 
new taxes to take up the slack in the general fund. The result is that 
the tax necessary for the highway fund is there and those funds are 
replaced by new ones in the general fund so there is an equity.
  I heard several Senators talk about funny money and shell games when 
describing this mechanism. The fact is that all highway tax money will 
be paid in full into the highway trust fund--no exemptions; no 
gimmicks.
  Any subsidy that certain taxpayers enjoy will stay in place but will 
be paid from the general fund. Any losses to the general fund will be 
covered by new offsets that have been identified by the Finance 
Committee. We are taking some things that should have been going for 
years into the highway fund--gasohol, gas guzzlers, interest on the 
trust fund balance, these kind of things that should have been going 
there--now we put those in the highway trust fund. The general fund 
does not receive them.
  To make up for that, we have certain other changes, including the 
corporation governances, Enron tax shelters, that have been going into 
the general fund will now be an offset. We are still, then, as a matter 
of fact, funding this highway fund from those kinds of taxes that were 
set in to do the job for highways.

  Certainly nothing is more important than highway and transportation 
infrastructure in this country. It is very important to everyone. Each 
State has a little different approach to it. Smaller population States, 
such as mine, that have large areas, have fewer people per mile and 
therefore the cost per person is higher to keep up the infrastructure. 
But it is a Federal and national system so it needs to go across to 
Wyoming, Nevada, as well as across Pennsylvania and any other State.
  These are the kinds of tasks that we have undertaken and that have 
been resolved in a reasonable manner. Obviously, not everyone has the 
same view.
  I mention again, certainly in terms of jobs inspiring more 
development in States and having the jobs come about quickly, nothing 
could happen more quickly than in the highway fund.
  These are some of the details that will be talked about here. The 
fact is, as I mentioned, they have gone through three committees and 
have been given a great deal of attention. Now we should take a look at 
where we want to be when this highway bill is through to see if we can 
move forward in our States to strengthen this infrastructure.
  I yield to my friend from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his 
statement. I have worked with him on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee on this important piece of legislation. The fact is there are 
a lot of committees involved in this legislation. I am thankful the 
majority leader brought it to the floor.
  We had a cloture vote to move forward with the bill. This bill has 
been before the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, with 
Chairman Shelby, and also before the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, with Chairman Inhofe. Senators Bond, Jeffords, and Reid have 
all had input into this particular piece of legislation. I appreciate 
all of them for the work they put into this bill. It is not easy with 
input from the Budget Committee, from Don Nickles, chairman of the 
Budget Committee. We had input from the Finance Committee, Chairman 
Grassley, and also input from the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee, which has a small section involving transportation.
  This is a transportation bill, not just a highway bill. It is a 
transportation bill. It takes a good deal of cooperation, working 
together, to put together any piece of legislation like this. It is not 
simple.
  Most Members experienced the same thing I have experienced in the 
State of Colorado. The demand and the transportation needs have 
increased in each of our States. Over time, the demand for 
transportation mechanisms has grown throughout the country. The States 
have had to work harder to make their dollars stretch further every 
year. Transportation projects, whether they are building roads or 
laying rail, are simply not cheap. They are getting more expensive with 
each passing year, and the funds required for transportation projects 
are simply staggering.
  The Finance Committee has produced funding mechanisms they believe 
will be able to fund this bill. We must use the moneys intended for use 
in building roads and mass transit projects. That is the money in the 
highway trust fund.
  Some time ago, this Congress decided we need to dedicate a stream of 
revenue into the construction of highways. We need to make sure we 
maintain the integrity of that process because it is important. It 
sends a message that highways and this type of infrastructure are 
important in America. We have told the American people we will use the 
tax they pay on each gallon of gas they buy directly for funding 
transportation projects. We must do that. However, it is not 
appropriate to use moneys from the general fund. We have to stay true 
to the fiscally conservative obligations we have made for ourselves. We 
must not add to our country's deficit as we have an increased demand 
for transportation projects.
  That is why I am excited about the potential of an amendment on which 
I am working. This amendment will allow States to build additional 
capacity. It is called Fast Lanes. On roads that currently experience 
problems with congestion, you toll only those lanes. It brings forth a 
user-pay concept. In other words, if you use these lanes, you will pay 
for them. I worked hard to get this amendment adopted in committee. It 
just barely lost by one vote. I hope we can go ahead and get it adopted 
in the Senate. It gives another mechanism to provide infrastructure in 
this country, badly needed infrastructure, and has a user-pay concept.

[[Page S566]]

  We say on interstate highways you can build additional lanes on to 
existing highways and toll the highways, toll them with a mechanism. We 
use our high technology so there are no toll booths. As the trucks and 
cars go down the toll lanes, commonly referred to as fast lanes, they 
will receive a bill later for the use they put on the highway. That 
helps pay for those fast lanes. It is intended to relieve much of the 
congestion problem we are seeing throughout the United States.
  The toll would be paid with electronic technology. There would be no 
need for a toll booth. The process can happen quickly, without 
requiring a decrease in speed.
  If you wish to use the ``fast lane,'' you pay the toll and do so. 
However, if you do not wish to pay the toll, you simply drive in the 
regular lanes, and that means just sit over in the regular lanes for an 
hour or two on some highly congested roads. It is your choice. But if 
you decide it is worth your time to go over and pay a toll to go on the 
toll lanes, then you can do that.
  So this is the advantage of having toll lanes. I emphasize that when 
we talk about ``fast lanes,'' we are not taking existing Federal 
highway lanes and putting a toll on them. These are new lanes we are 
putting on the side of some of our interstate highways.
  One study found that if every State participates, this ability for 
States to put in these kinds of lanes could raise close to $50 billion 
to go toward increasing road capacity.
  I realize that it is unlikely all States will use this funding 
mechanism, but if a tiny fraction of that is raised, that is still 
additional funding for road capacity that does not put an additional 
financial burden on those who are not willing and able to pay it.
  I see this ability as simply another tool in the ``toolbox'' that 
State departments of transportation can carry around. My staff 
continues to work with Senator Bond's staff to see that these 
provisions are included in the bill, and I appreciate the assistance 
they have given and their willingness to work with us on this 
particular provision.
  Because this is a transportation bill, and not just a highways bill, 
as so many incorrectly term it, I would also like to make a few remarks 
on the mass transit title of the bill. I went through the Environment 
and Public Works Committee. I served on that committee, so I had some 
input there. I serve on the Banking Committee. In fact, I am chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, so I had some input 
there. I am also on the Budget Committee. So I want to make a few 
comments about the mass transit side.
  Before I turn to the specifics of the Banking Committee's bill, I 
would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Shelby. As chairman of 
the Banking Committee, he has worked diligently to make sure the 
committee's jurisdiction was protected, while moving forward as quickly 
as possible with a positive bill. I also thank him for his willingness 
to work closely with me as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Transportation.
  Finally, I also thank Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the 
Banking Committee, and Senator Reed, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee of which I chair, for their work on this particular piece 
of legislation. Along with their staff members, they have spent a 
considerable number of hours working to achieve consensus on many 
issues in the bill, and I appreciate their efforts.
  I was pleased to support the Banking Committee's bill during our 
markup earlier today. I believe it makes important progress in a number 
of areas.
  First, I am especially supportive of the new growing States formula. 
For far too long, the transit formulas have sent the lion's share of 
transit dollars to a small number of cities, primarily located in the 
Northeast. While we can all agree that transit is important to larger, 
east coast cities, there is no denying the need for transit services in 
a number of rapidly growing cities in the South and the West.

  While I believe we still need further adjustments to the formula to 
even better address the growing States, I believe this new formula will 
finally help growing States begin to address their transportation 
needs.
  I am also extremely pleased to see that the bill places a strong 
emphasis on rural transit. While many would consider ``rural transit'' 
to be an oxymoron, in fact, rural areas can often face even more acute 
transportation needs than large cities.
  Last year, one of my constituents, Larry Worth, testified before the 
Housing and Transportation Subcommittee regarding the need for transit 
in rural areas. He described how rural citizens may not have any other 
alternatives to access medical care, jobs, and vital services. With 40 
percent of American counties having no public transportation, this 
investment is long overdue.
  There are a number of other very good provisions in the transit 
title, but I will not take the considerable time that would be 
necessary to enumerate them all. Suffice it to say that I believe the 
transit provisions will be of great benefit to public transportation in 
America. I am pleased to support the transit title, and I look forward 
to passage of the bill, preserving the provisions, and staying within 
our budget.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are checking with our colleagues on the 
possibility of setting a judicial nomination. As soon as we find out 
whether that is acceptable, we will ask consent.
  Mr. President, we have heard lots of reasons why this bill is not a 
good bill, why we don't want to go to this bill, why we shouldn't be 
moving a highway bill. I have talked about some of those reasons, but 
let me share with you some information that indicates how the people of 
America think.
  The Zogby International Survey Group did a broad-based survey of 
American voters. Nearly 70 percent of the voters contacted, in February 
2003, said they believe America is facing a transportation capacity 
crisis, that our Nation's roads, airports, and mass transit systems are 
struggling to handle a growing population and 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 today than just 5 years ago.
  I don't think these answers should surprise any of us.
  Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown by almost 19 percent, the 
number of registered motor vehicles has increased by 36 percent, and 
the vehicle miles traveled has ballooned by 72 percent. And--surprise--
over the past 20 years we have added less than 5 percent to road 
capacity, and even less than that to public transit.
  What are the conditions of roads in local communities?
  Forty-eight percent of those surveyed by Zogby said they were either 
fair or poor. When you move to Hispanic Americans, 75 percent said 
their communities have either fair or poor road conditions.
  This is a problem in communities. This is a problem particularly for 
citizens who are maybe at a disadvantage in their community.
  This survey's results come from a poll of over 1,000 voters 
nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.
  I think some of the other findings are pretty important.
  Eighty percent of the people polled think the Nation's highways and 
public transit networks are extremely important or very important to 
the U.S. economy. That is why we are here. Eighty percent of our 
constituents think highways and transportation networks are important. 
That is what this bill is all about. That is why we want to get 
everybody together to move this bill.
  I urge my colleagues, if you have problems with particular portions 
of the bill, offer amendments. That is how this body functions. We 
would like to have good-faith amendments that seek to make changes 
which are necessary so we can move forward in a reasonable manner.
  I think the people of America, particularly the 80 percent who say it 
is important, deserve to see us vote on issues that are of importance 
to them.
  Eight in 10 of the people surveyed agree that an investment in 
highways, bridges, and public transit should be considered an important 
element in homeland security and national defense.
  Ninety percent believe it is important that their representatives in 
Congress fight to ensure sufficient Federal

[[Page S567]]

funding for transportation improvement projects in their local areas. I 
think some States must be lower than that because I think in my State 
it is higher than 90 percent. So some may have only 80 percent who 
think it is important.
  Two-thirds of Americans say roads and public transit play a vitally 
important role in their life.
  These are scientific surveys that merely confirm what I and many of 
my colleagues already know: If you go back to your home State and have 
a meeting about highway and transportation funding, you better get a 
big hall. I have had people come out to fill any hall that I have 
scheduled a meeting in to talk about it because they want to know more. 
They know it is important. I think this is vitally important.

  I know there are some who may take a different view. Some people 
claim building more roads just causes more traffic. They even say you 
can't build your way out of traffic congestion. They are the zero sum 
game people, the ones who say there will just be more congestion.
  Well, congestion is getting worse at a frightening pace in America. I 
believe the primary reason is a lack of adequate highway and public 
transportation capacity, not only in our major urban and suburban areas 
but in rural areas as well. As I have said several times, that is why 
we are killing people in Missouri. We don't have adequate highway 
transportation, particularly in rural areas.
  Even as we spend more wasted time sitting in gridlocked traffic, many 
well-intentioned Americans, spurred on by the rhetoric of some of the 
extreme advocacy groups who want us all to ride bicycles--and I love to 
ride bicycles, but those won't get me to work and back, particularly 
when we have icy roads, as we do here, or when we have to take more 
people with us--are convinced that adding road capacity only causes 
more traffic congestion, more air pollution, more waste of precious 
fuels.
  I think the answer to that is very clear: Research data from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, and 
the Texas Transportation Institute and common sense, if you and I just 
sit back and think about it, proves just about the opposite. The real 
problem is our lack of resolve to provide meaningful solutions to 
traffic congestion through new capital and operational investments. The 
failure to do so actually results in tons of unnecessary air pollution 
and billions of gallons of wasted motor fuel.
  The Zogby poll found that 70 percent of America is facing a 
transportation capacity crisis, and all of these people realize we 
need, as a nation, the investment in transportation.
  Talk about a drag on the economy, according to the Texas 
Transportation Urban Mobility Report, absent substantial new 
investments in highway and public transportation capacity, 
transportation operations across the Nation, the economic cost of 
traffic congestion in the Nation, lost productivity, wasted motor fuel 
will grow from about $67.5 billion in 2000 to almost $100 billion by 
2009. That is one of the reasons we seek to have the investment. Yes, 
$255 billion is a large amount. It is not all going to highways. It 
comes from highway user taxes, but it goes to mass transit; it goes to 
congestion mitigation; it goes to scenic easements, to other things 
that improve the environment in which we live.
  If we don't make these investments, the Texas Transportation 
Institute forecasts that over this period the average road speed in 
America's 675 largest urban communities will fall from about 42.3 miles 
per hour to 40.3 miles per hour. If you believe, as I do, that time is 
money, that reduction will continue to grow what is really a hidden tax 
levied on American consumers as transportation labor productivity 
decreases and costs increase.
  Another one of the problems we have with congestion is pollution. The 
good news, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, 
is that motor vehicle emissions have declined dramatically since the 
1970s, thanks in part to the developments in new automotive and motor 
fuels technology. Emissions of carbon monoxide are down 45 percent 
since 1970, volatile organic compound emissions are down 60 percent, 
particulate matter emissions are down 47 percent, nitrogen oxide 
emissions are down 5 percent, and lead emissions have been eliminated.
  The bad stuff is being reduced. We are getting the bad stuff out. 
This remarkable environmental achievement, which is responsible for 
most of the air quality improvement in the United States over the past 
three decades, was accomplished at the same time the number of licensed 
motor vehicles in the United States grew 87 percent and total vehicle 
miles traveled soared by 125 percent. Unfortunately, traffic congestion 
is retarding clean air progress just as it is retarding American 
productivity and economic growth.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that at 3:55 today, the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider the following nomination on today's Executive Calendar: 
Calendar No. 457, the nomination of Mark Filip to be U.S. District 
Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following 5 minutes for debate 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their 
designees, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the 
nomination; further, that following the vote, the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return 
to legislative session.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask my 
friend if he would be willing to modify this. We have been asking 
people to come over and offer amendments. Senator Dorgan is here to 
offer a germane amendment. He only wants 8 minutes to speak to offer 
his amendment. I ask that the consent request be modified to have the 
pending amendment set aside and that Senator Dorgan be allowed to offer 
his amendment and speak for up to 8 minutes, and then we adopt the 
Senator's consent as indicated.
  I would also say that I am not sure anybody is going to use any time 
on our side on the nomination anyway. I think adequate time will be 
preserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I would ask what the Durbin amendment does and does not 
do.
  Mr. REID. The Dorgan amendment deals with farmers' transportation of 
hazardous products. I have just glanced at it. It appears there is an 
inordinate burden placed upon farmers to transfer a load of gas to 
their farms.
  Mr. GREGG. What would the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota 
be to? Mine was a second-degree amendment, I believe.
  Mr. REID. We are just laying what is pending aside. His would be a 
separate, independent amendment to the substitute that is now pending.
  Mr. GREGG. And after his was disposed of, mine would be properly in 
order; is that not correct, Mr. President?
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri agree to the 
modification?
  Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, there is some question on 
this side about the amendment being an amendment to the commerce title, 
and at this point we are not prepared to give consent to that. We want 
to work with the Senator who has been working in good faith, but I have 
been asked, since this is a matter that relates to a different section 
of the bill, to hold off. We can work through this if we can go with 
the original consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification. Is 
there objection to the original consent request?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, if I might be recognized 
following the vote to offer the amendment, that is fine. You may want 
to work on this amendment some. It is not an amendment of great moment 
except to family farmers who are concerned about this. I would like to 
be able to offer the amendment. I have been down in the capital office 
hearing the Senator talk about the need for people to come up and offer 
amendments. This is a germane amendment. I would love to offer it and 
be able to debate it. In any event, if we go ahead

[[Page S568]]

with this vote, which is fine with me, if I could be recognized 
following this vote to offer my amendment, I would very much appreciate 
that.
  I would ask the Senator from Missouri whether I might be recognized 
following the vote.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on this side I am not authorized to enter 
into that type of UC. I assure the Senator and my colleagues on the 
other side we will work with them. There is a concern about moving into 
the commerce title. We will work with him if we can move forward on the 
consent for the judge vote; then we will work on this, if we can get 
consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I will go along with what 
the Senator from Missouri requests. It is kind of unfair to the Senator 
from North Dakota. We have been begging people to offer amendments. He 
shows up to offer one and now we cannot do it. It doesn't seem very 
fair. We may be waiting a long time based upon statements by the 
chairman in the Chamber. I am happy--
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will 
not object--if you want Members to come to the floor with germane 
amendments, I am here. I have been hearing that a lot today. I have one 
and it is not a big amendment. What I hear being said at the moment is 
perhaps you want to go through this bill by title, which is something I 
have not heard before. It should be open to amendment at any point. 
That is the reason that, for the last hour or so, I put this amendment 
together.
  My hope is that the Senator from Missouri and those managing will 
understand, when we are ready to offer an amendment, you ought to 
welcome it. I hope when I seek recognition, you will allow me to offer 
it. I expect to speak 8 or 10 minutes. If you want to lay it aside then 
and work on it, I am happy to do that. I shall not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the 
Senator from Missouri?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when are we going to have the vote? It is 
past 4 o'clock.
  Mr. BOND. I believe at this point it is necessary to revise the 
unanimous consent. First, I say to my friend from North Dakota that the 
title he wants to amend has not been offered. That is a problem on 
which we are going to have to work. We have only offered the EPW 
portion.
  I asked unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking member and, thereafter, there be a 
vote on the nomination of Mark R. Filip, of Illinois, to be U.S. 
District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.
  I renew my request. Following the 5 minutes, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation and, following 
the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action 
and the Senate return to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________