Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 18 (Thursday, February 12, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 18 (Thursday, February 12, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1195-S1267]
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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

Pending:

Inhofe amendment No. 2285, in the nature of a substitute.
Clinton/Bingaman amendment No. 2311 (to language proposed
to be stricken by amendment No. 2285), to express the sense
of the Senate concerning the outsourcing of American jobs.
Bond amendment No. 2327 (to amendment No. 2311), to limit
liability with respect to the owners of rented or leased
motor vehicles.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Schedule

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will complete the
final 30 minutes of debate prior to the vote on invoking cloture on the
substitute amendment to S. 1072, the highway bill. That vote will occur
at 9 a.m. today. If cloture is invoked, it is my hope that we will be
able to dispose of any germane amendments in a timely manner, thereby
clearing the way to wrap up consideration of the substitute. Once the
substitute is disposed of, we still may require a cloture vote on the
bill itself. It is my hope that we will be able to speed the process
along and be in a position to complete action on the bill today. As was
announced last night, it is my intention to remain in session until we
pass this bill.
Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day. In
addition, I remind all Senators that all second-degree amendments must
be filed at the desk no later than 9 a.m.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the managers will yield to the Senator from
California 5 minutes.

[[Page S1196]]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 9
a.m. shall be equally divided between the chairman and ranking members
of the Environment and Public Works Committee or their designees. Does
the Senator yield a portion of his time to the Senator from California?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I start off by thanking the chairman of
the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, for telling
me yesterday that he would be really pleased for me to speak for 5
minutes. This Environment and Public Works Committee is quite a unique
committee, extremely bipartisan. Working with Senator Jeffords, Senator
Inhofe, also with Senator Reid, Senator Bond, and also with the help of
the majority leader and the Democratic leader, this is a very important
moment for this Senate.
Why do I say that? Times are very tough in this Nation and we have a
Nation divided on so many issues. But one thing we are not divided
about is the fact that we have a very serious job issue in our country.
Now, each party has reasons for why they think this is happening and I
will not go into that; I don't have enough time to do it now.
This morning, I learned on the news that, surprisingly, jobless
claims are up this week again, and retail sales are down. We have a
problem in this country--outsourcing of jobs. That is a big problem in
this country, although it seems that the administration doesn't think
so. I think most Americans--a very strong number of Americans--believe
that taking jobs overseas is a serious problem. Without those jobs,
families struggle. With the fear of losing their jobs, our families are
anxious.
This is a bill that will build the highway and transit systems we
need. This is a bill that will put people to work with good jobs,
excellent jobs, and good benefits that will bring a benefit to the
country. No country that wants to be the leader of the world--which we
already are--can survive if it doesn't keep it up with its
infrastructure needs. This committee understands that. This Public
Works Committee has overcome the things that divide us.
Is the formula perfect? No, it is not.
For my State, we are definitely doing better, and I am very pleased
about that. But I can tell you this: We need the million jobs this bill
will bring. We need the 100,000 jobs that will come to my State. We
need these important road projects. We need to move goods in this
society. Goods movement is one of the key issues we have addressed in
this bill.
In States such as California, where goods are moving off ports and
into the interior of the country, we need attention to these problems.
This bill pays attention to these problems.
At my behest, there is language in the bill about using funds to
reduce congestion. Congestion is a real problem. This chart shows how
many hours are wasted every year with people sitting in their cars in
traffic.
In Los Angeles--we are talking about a year's time--136 hours. That
is what the average person is wasting sitting in their car in Los
Angeles; San Francisco-Oakland, 92 hours a year; San Jose, 74; the
inland empire, an area that is receiving all the goods from a very
robust port of Los Angeles, 64 hours; San Diego, 51 hours.
Whether you are looking at jobs, whether you are looking at goods
movement----
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask if I may have 1 minute to complete
my thoughts.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from California, Mrs. Boxer, have an additional 2 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. That would be wonderful.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized for an additional 2 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, since I have 2 minutes, I wish to say to
my chairman--he may not have heard me--how proud I am of this
committee. His work, along with Senator Reid, Senator Jeffords, and the
two leaders, has brought us to this point. I personally say for my
State and the people in my State who are stuck sitting in traffic 136
hours a year in Los Angeles, thank you.
The Senator's State is a small State. We are a State with 35 million
people, growing to 50 million people. This bill is our lifeblood. I am
so pleased we have a chance today to vote up or down on a clean bill.
Are there problems with the fact the Commerce Committee did not
produce a piece about rail? I think it is a problem. I sit on the
Commerce Committee, and I wish we had done it, and I hope, as this bill
moves forward, we can address that issue. But we have a bill that is
going to meet the problems of this century, that is going to move us
forward.
This is the greatest country in the world. We have to have an
infrastructure that keeps up. I thank very much the leaders of the
committee on which I am proud to serve. I thank the Chair. I hope we
get a resounding vote so we can move to this bill and do something to
create jobs and create an infrastructure that we need at this time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on cloture on
the Inhofe substitute amendment to S. 1072, the SAFETEA bill. As we all
know, the country has important transportation needs that Congress must
address, and I commend the managers of the bill for working hard to
address highway construction, mass transit, highway safety, and other
important programs.
This is a very important bill, and I am not taking my vote lightly.
However, I am concerned that this bill does not do enough to help meet
the transportation needs of my constituents in Wisconsin. And for that,
and other reasons, I will be voting against cloture today.
Before I discuss some of my main concerns with the bill, I want to
note that the substitute amendment before us was laid down on Tuesday.
Furthermore, I understand that the text was not immediately available
for review. I know how hard the managers have been working, and I know
how important this bill is. But surely it is reasonable to give
Senators more than 24 or even 48 hours to review a huge and complicated
piece of legislation like this before filing cloture.
I appreciate the months of hard work that my colleagues have spent on
this bill. However, I have serious concerns about the funding formula
that this bill would establish. Under that formula, certain States
would continue to receive significantly more money than they pay into
the highway trust fund, while other States continue to be denied their
fair share.
Wisconsin is one of the States that will get the short end of the
stick. While increasing the total dollars coming to Wisconsin, this
bill would ensure that citizens of Wisconsin no longer get back at
least one dollar for every dollar that they pay into the highway trust
fund.
I worked hard with the rest of the Wisconsin delegation during the
last authorization to make sure that our State finally got a fair rate
of return. Let me tell my colleagues, that change was long overdue.
According to numbers from the Department of Transportation, from 1956
through 2000, Wisconsin got back just 90 cents on every dollar it paid
into the trust fund.
In TEA-21, Wisconsin at last received a fair return. Unfortunately,
this bill will take us back to where we were for the previous four
decades--in the hole. Under the new formula, Wisconsin will once again
be a donor State, with average rate of return of 95 percent. I have
spoken to other members of our State's delegation, and I think I can
safely say we agree that Wisconsin deserves better.
I am also concerned about some of the environmental provisions in the
bill, particularly those with a potential impact on the Nation's air
quality. The substitute modifies current transportation regulations
dealing with long-range transportation planning, which could result in
a failure to adequately consider the long-term effects of new projects
on air quality.
The substitute also potentially undermines the National Environmental
Policy Act--NEPA--and section 4(f), which guarantee meaningful public
participation in review of the impacts of proposed highway projects.
And I am concerned that the substitute would allow the Federal
Department of Transportation to ignore

[[Page S1197]]

the often valuable input of States, tribes, and local governments, who,
in my State of Wisconsin, have spent valuable public resources and time
to develop transportation and land use plans.
All of which leads me to believe that now is not the time to cut off
debate on the substitute. We need plenty of time to analyze and
understand the full ramifications of this bill. And, I think we need
time to try to improve the bill. I will continue to work hard with the
senior Senator from Wisconsin and the rest of the State's delegation to
do everything that we can to provide Wisconsin with a transportation
bill that is fair for our constituents.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the vote we are about to take is not
just a cloture vote on a transportation bill. The vote to move forward
on this legislation is about safety, it is about worker productivity,
it is about family, it is about fairness, and it is about fulfilling
our responsibility to the American public. But most importantly, it is
about jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs.
These jobs are not in China or Singapore or Chile. These jobs are in
Portland, Springfield, Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Burlington. This
legislation is balanced, it is fair, and it is paid for. We owe it to
our constituents to finish this bill today. Tomorrow let's send it to
the House and then to the President.
I urge my colleagues to support moving forward and completing this
vital legislation. Vote for cloture, vote for jobs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have had 2 weeks of a lot of
discussion. We haven't had a chance to vote on amendments mostly
because there are some Members who have been objecting to moving
forward to consideration of amendments. I think that is regrettable.
We are now to the point where we are going to have a vote on cloture.
It is absolutely necessary. The alternative to this would be an
extension. Probably 20, 30 different times Members have come in and
said we should have an extension. If we have an extension, we will not
have streamlining provisions, and we cannot move on with IPAM. We
cannot immediately start constructing these roads and bridges.
It doesn't make any sense to stall and stall and wait around and do
nothing. We want to get this bill on the road. That is what we are
going to do, and we are going to do it today.
I regret a lot of people who wanted to have amendments considered
during the last 2 weeks have not been able to do so. I regret that some
people just blocked them from having that opportunity.
There have been a lot of objections that have come up on this bill.
Members keep talking about the 40-percent increase--40-percent
increase. That is 40 percent over 6 years. If you said 6.2 percent for
the infrastructure of America that is lagging so far behind, no one
could complain about that. They are making it appear this is 40 percent
in one year. It is not.
They are talking about the amount of money in this bill. We have to
understand we have two things we are looking at. One is capital outlay
and one is obligation limitation. This is a perfectly reasonable
bill. We have done something that has not been done before. It was not
done in 1991, and it was not done in 1998. We have stayed with the
formula. The alternative is to stay with the formula, like we failed in
TEA-21 and failed in ISTEA, and we will have to put in a minimum
guarantee where all you do is pacify some 60 voters by giving them
whatever they want in the percentage of the overall, and as to the
rest, who cares; we have our 60 votes and we run.

That is not the way we did it this time. For that we have been
punished. We have had people assail this bill when this is the first
time it has been done right.
The formulas took into consideration many factors. I know others want
to be heard. I don't want to use a lot of time. At an appropriate time,
I am going to go over what went into these formulas. Fast-growing
States, slow-growing States, donor States, donee States--all these
factors were considered, and then we came up with a formula.
Sure, I heard the two Senators from Arizona were complaining they
didn't think their State had enough and, at the same time, they were
complaining we were spending too much on the bill. When we look at the
formula, their State still gets $40 million more than my State of
Oklahoma over 6 years. Any State can complain about how the formula
comes out. The bottom line is every State gets a minimum of a 10-
percent increase. The average is 35.6 percent.
It is a good bill. We are going to get cloture. We are going to move
ahead. If there are germane amendments everyone agrees should be
considered, we will consider them. I look forward to doing that.
Cloture is important. We are going to get cloture and bring this step
to a halt.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a couple of minutes
to say I hope we can invoke cloture this morning. I think this debate
has been less than many of us had hoped. We hoped we could see more
amendments. We hoped we could have a good debate about many of the
issues.
This is a good bill. It will create the jobs that many of us have
talked about on this floor for the last couple of weeks. It will create
perhaps 1 million, 2 million jobs. We have an infrastructure deficit
that is growing, and this bill, more than any other bill we will take
up this year, is going to address that deficit.
For a lot of reasons, this represents the commitment and investment
to infrastructure and our economic growth that I think warrants support
for the bill.
I am very concerned about where we go from here. The administration
has expressed opposition to this legislation. The House has indicated
they do not support the approaches that have been reflected in this
bill, the very delicate balance we have achieved in public transit and
a commitment to highways. I am disappointed we were not able to deal
with the railroad question, as Senator Hollings and others noted
yesterday. The business of completing our work is far from finished.
I will put my colleagues on notice that we will not be prepared to
move forward to conference until we have a better understanding of the
degree to which there is some meeting of the minds on these issues, on
the commitment and investment to highways themselves, on a commitment
to railroads, on a commitment to public transit, on a commitment to a
budget that will accommodate the infrastructure deficit we face. We
will take conferences one step at a time, and certainly in this case
that is all the more imperative.
I commend the managers of the bill for the extraordinary
bipartisanship that was reflected in coming to this point. Senator
Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, Senator Reid, and others
deserve great credit for working as closely together as they have. If
we can do that through this whole process, we will have a good result
at the end. We will have a result that will generate strong bipartisan
support.
I think we will win cloture today in large measure because we have
been able to demonstrate the bipartisanship that has brought us to this
point, even with the misgivings I have just articulated. I look forward
to working with our colleagues in that spirit and fashion and I hope
that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize the value of
this work product and support cloture this morning.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.

[[Page S1198]]

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader for his very
solid views. Once again, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, Senator Jeffords and Senator Reid, for working in a bipartisan
way to produce a bill that is extremely important for the long-term
economic growth and well-being of our country.
Everybody agrees we need to put much more money into roads, highways,
bridges, and mass transit. This bill does that. This bill also would
create significant numbers of jobs right away if we get it passed. If
this bill passes, 90,000 jobs will be created this year. For every
billion dollars spent on highways, it creates 47,500 jobs.
There are some on our side of the aisle and some others who have
said, well, this bill is too much. The President has recommended $256
billion in obligation limits. Obligation limits are what is spent under
the bill. The contract authority is authorizing language that allows
spending up to the higher amount. That is subject to the normal process
in appropriations and subject to limits imposed by the budget on
transportation.
This bill is at $290 billion. The President was at $256 billion. I
believe clearly they have indicated there has to be negotiations. There
have to be negotiations with the House. Whatever bill we pass is going
to be changed because we have to negotiate with the House. Obviously we
want to hear the concerns of the White House so we can develop a bill
that will be signed by them. We did not go through this drill for over
a year not to get something through. Make no mistake about it, this is
the last and only chance to get started on the kind of major
construction we need on highways, roads, and bridges this year, and to
do what is needed for mass transit this year. If we do not invoke
cloture and pass this bill this week, there will be no highway bill. We
will be stuck at the old level at best, even if we get an extension,
and that extension does not do us any good. That extension does not
increase the building of roads and does not increase the assistance for
mass transit that is so important.
There will be amendments. We look forward to having healthy debates.
I am sure after people have rested up for almost 2 weeks they will have
lots of good ideas. We look forward to having a busy day, but we cannot
work on this bill unless we invoke cloture. Whatever the Senate
decides, we will take that to conference. We need to pass this bill. I
believe this is going to be the most important economic development
bill and job-creating bill in this session of Congress.
Furthermore, it is, as its title says, a major contribution to safety
on our highways. The administration has named it SAFETEA and we have
included almost all of their safety proposals in this bill. Having
traveled the roads of Missouri and traveled the two-lane highways that
are marked with white crosses where somebody's family member,
somebody's friend, somebody's spouse has died, because there is too
much traffic on a two-lane road and somebody has taken a chance,
fatalities result. They passed where they should not have. They had
gotten out of their lane. That is why we have four-lane highways. We do
not have them in Missouri.
There are many provisions that are going to be important for this
Nation. I know the distinguished President pro tempore has a proposal
to help connect communities in Alaska that have not been connected by
roads. I believe that is a high-priority item. There are many other
priority items that must be dealt with in this bill.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's invoke
cloture; let's get about the business of voting on amendments. We are
ready and open for business, but we will have to negotiate with the
House and the White House before we bring back a final version, which I
hope can be passed very shortly, perhaps by the end of the month, to
get highway construction going, improve safety, and improve the job
situation in the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is one minute and 55 seconds on the
majority side and one minute and 42 seconds on the minority side.
Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know we have a couple of minutes
remaining. This morning we have covered some of the arguments that have
been made over the last 2 weeks. There are some aspects that have not
been talked about. I do think we should compliment the Finance
Committee. They have taken a lot of heat. They have taken a lot of
criticism--unjustly, I might add. We made a request of them when we
came up with this bill, at the figures we had in both capital outlay
and obligation limitation. We asked Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley
if they could come up with the amount of money to do this so it will
comply with what the President outlined when he said he did not want a
tax increase, he did not want to go into deficit or have it come out of
the general fund, and they have done that. They have been criticized on
this floor.
I do know this, that the highway trust fund has been raided for
years, and we are now in a position where we can correct and rectify
that problem. I think this is one of the good things that has come out
of this bill, and I applaud the Finance Committee for the work they
have done.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. The
minority has one minute remaining.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield back our time, through the
Chair.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time is yielded back. Under the
previous order, the hour of 9 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will
proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on amendment No.
2285.
Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
substitute to Calendar No. 426, S. 1072, a bill to authorize
funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and
transit programs, and for other purposes.
Bill Frist, James M. Inhofe, Christopher S. Bond, Gordon
Smith, Lamar Alexander, Richard G. Lugar, Pat Roberts,
Robert F. Bennett, Mike Crapo, Jim Bunning, Ted
Stevens, Conrad Burns, Chuck Hagel, Charles Grassley,
Trent Lott, Saxby Chambliss.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 2285 to S. 1072, a bill to authorize funds for Federal
aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 11, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

YEAS--86

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman

[[Page S1199]]

Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--11

Ensign
Feingold
Gregg
Hollings
Hutchison
Kohl
Kyl
McCain
Santorum
Specter
Sununu

NOT VOTING--3

Edwards
Graham of Florida
Kerry
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the ayes are 86, the nays are 11.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. 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.

Amendment No. 2311

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that amendment
No. 2311 is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 2388 To Amendment No. 2285

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to offer amendment No. 2388 and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Kyl, Mr. Levin, Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. McCain, Ms.
Stabenow, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered
2388 to amendment No. 2285.

The amendment is as follows:

In section 139 of title 23, United States Code, as added by
section 1201 of the amendment--
(1) strike ``Set-aside.--'' in subsection (b)(2) and insert
``Funding.--'';
(2) strike ``of the amounts made available'' in subsection
(b)(2) and insert ``the amounts made available'';
(3) strike ``$439,000,000'' in subsection (b)(2);
(4) strike ``allocated'' in subsection (c)(1)(A) and insert
``apportioned'';
(5) strike ``subsection (d).'' in subsection (c)(1)(B) and
insert ``subsection (e).'';
(6) redesignate subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e)
and (f), respectively, and insert the following after
subsection (c):
``(d) Distribution of Funds.--
``(1) Infrastructure performance and maintenance program
distribution.--Notwithstanding section 1101(13) of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2004, and in lieu of the amounts authorized by that
section, there are authorized to be appropriated out of the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for
carrying out the infrastructure performance and maintenance
program under this section--
``(A) $2,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and
2005; and
``(B) $1,750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006, 2007,
and 2008.
``(2) Equity distribution.--On October 1 of each fiscal
year, the Secretary shall reserve a sufficient amount of the
funding available to carry out this section to provide a
final equity adjustment, after making the apportionment under
section 105 of this title, for each State to increase the
percentage return for all highway apportionments, as compared
to the tax payments attributable to the States paid into the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account),
to--
``(A) for fiscal year 2005, 91 percent;
``(B) for fiscal year 2006, 92 percent;
``(C) for fiscal year 2007, 93 percent;
``(D) for fiscal year 2008, 94 percent; and
``(e) for fiscal year 2009, 95 percent.
``(3)(E) Remainder distribution.--On October 1 of each
fiscal year, the Secretary shall apportion the funds
available for allocation under this section among the several
States, after the application of paragraph (1), according to
the ratio that--
``(1) the percentage of tax payments attributable to
highway users in each State paid into the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account), bears to
``(2) 100 percent of tax payments attributable to highway
users in all States paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account).''; and
(7) strike subsection (e), as redesignated, and insert the
following:
``(e) Redistribution of Allocated Funds and Obligation
Authority.--On the date that is 180 days after the date of
apportionment, or as soon thereafter as practicable, for each
fiscal year, the Secretary shall--
``(1) withdraw--
``(A) any funds allocated to a State under this section
that remain unobligated; and
``(B) an equal amount of obligation authority provided for
the use of the funds in accordance with section 1101(a)(13)
of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act of 2003; and
``(2) reallocate the funds and redistribute the obligation
authority to those States that--
``(A) have fully obligated all amounts allocated under this
section for the fiscal year; and
``(B) demonstrate that the State is able to obligate
additional amounts for projects eligible under this section
before the end of the fiscal year.
``(f) Application With Section 105.--Notwithstanding
section 105(a)(2)(H) of this title, section 105(a) shall not
apply to funds apportioned under this section.''.

Amendment No. 2591 To Amendment No. 2388

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhoff] proposes an
amendment numbered 2591 to amendment No. 2388.

The amendment is as follows:

At the end, add the following:
``Sec. . This section shall take effect one day after
enactment of this Act.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the importance of
amendment No. 2388 without the second degree. It is a very important
time for us to start treating our States more equitably and this bill--
I am sorry to say--is a step backward.
TEA-21 embraced as its simple goal the elimination of redistribution
of highway funds based on political considerations. For example, under
the 1998 bill, Texas' rate of return rose from 77 percent to 90 percent
in the formula programs. This means that for every dollar a Texas
gasoline purchaser sent to Washington, we got 90 cents back on the
dollar. So we contributed 10 percent of our revenue to other States.
All of the donor States in TEA-21 were raised to the 90.5 percent
level. There has never been a time when we have treated donor States
differently from one another until this year.
The bill before us creates a new superdonor status. Growing States
and big States, such as California, Texas, Florida, and some smaller
States, such as Colorado and Arizona that are also rapidly growing, are
locked into superdonor status, still sending nearly 10 percent of our
highway funds that we need even more because we are fast growing.
My State is facing budget deficits and is trying to make those up so
we can spend the money we need to fix our highways. Our States are
rapidly growing, and yet we are continuing to be asked to send 10
percent of our highway funds to other States. We are the States that
need the most new infrastructure, because we are experiencing the
greatest population growth.
My amendment would correct a small part of this glaring inequity. It
would take $9 billion from the nebulous IPAM account and redirect it to
the States that need it the most. Basically what you would do is take
the IPAM account, which contains projects chosen on the basis of
favoritism, and put that into the formula so that everyone is on a more
level playing field.
It is not a level playing field. Neither my State nor any other donor
State will come out of donor status under this amendment. But it will
provide gradual relief for these States to begin to work up to that 95
cent rate of return over the course of the bill.
Under my amendment, all States would receive a minimum of 91 cents on
the dollar in fiscal year 2005, and that minimum would rise 1 percent
each year until 2009. My amendment would guarantee more money for every
State. It would not reduce any State's formula percentage. It would not
reduce any State's formula income by a penny. It simply distributes
unallocated funds already in the bill, not increasing the bill, not
lowering any State's income level. But instead distributing that money
by projects, it will create a much fairer formula-based system.
For 50 years, the Federal aid highway program and the States have
maintained one of the world's finest highway networks. Highways are the
first choice to transport most of the goods

[[Page S1200]]

that drive our economy. The majority of that system was designed in the
1950s to help a rapidly growing Nation to connect to new population
centers, especially in the West.
Today there are other critical needs to be addressed. We are not in
the 1950s. We are in another century, and we have new problems. One of
those is the trade that has been created by NAFTA. That is not a
problem, except that it has increased the highway needs in the States
that have the corridors from Mexico to Canada. NAFTA has provided huge
national benefits. The resulting traffic is crippling to our Nation's
infrastructure. Early on smaller States and Western States needed extra
help from larger and more established States such as Texas. Today the
reverse is true.

The funding inequity is increasing at a time when States are growing
more equal in their abilities to contribute and our levels of existing
infrastructure among the States are much more similar.
In the name of fairness, why don't we go to a strict formula system
that will increase everyone's part of the pie on a more equitable basis
than when 100 Senators from 50 States go in a room and start trying to
divide the funding themselves, knowing that some States are going to be
left out, and some States are not going to be fairly treated? Why not
make it fair from the beginning?
My home State of Texas has borne the greatest burden over the life of
the Federal aid highway program. Since 1956, Texas has contributed over
$5 billion more to the program than we have received back in funds to
build and repair our own highways. Each and every year Texas has sent
more highway funding to Washington than it has received to cover
projects in our State.
Texas has more than 300,000 highway miles, the most of any State in
our Nation. Our highways make up almost 8 percent of the total national
mileage and 7 percent of interstates. As a result, the over 20 million
people of Texas necessarily buy more gasoline and contribute more to
the highway trust fund financed by the gasoline tax.
In the past 12 years, Texas and other donor States have made good
progress. In 1998, Texas received only a 77-cent return on every dollar
sent to Washington, a loss of $1.7 billion. Current law guarantees us
90.5 cents on the dollar, but this is still $2.6 billion less than the
contribution we make. This is a significant loss to a State that needs
the infrastructure improvement to take on the added traffic caused by
NAFTA.
The minimum guarantee applies only to formula funding programs and
does not restrict funds distributed through earmarks or by the
administration in the underlying bill. Though we had hoped for more
equality this year, and we hoped for the minimum of 95 cents return on
every dollar we send to Washington, it has not happened.
Of course, I hope the chairman and the committee understand I could
not possibly support a highway funding formula so contrary to the needs
of my home State. We are the biggest loser in this bill, to be sure.
I am also concerned about the precedent it sets to create a
superdonor status for the largest, fastest growing States in our
country. This is not a good precedent for a United States that is
supposed to be one United States.
Our States are much more equal now in ability to contribute and pay
for their own services. This is no longer a situation where we have
vast amounts of western land that have no roads and no infrastructure.
So I hope we will not set a precedent of a superdonor State category
where we take the largest, fastest growing States and treat them even
worse than they have been treated before and for so long.
The bill before us distributes $227 billion in highway funds using a
formula that will hold six States--Texas, California, Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, and Maryland--at this 90.5 percent rate of return
for 5 years. Only in the sixth and final year does the level increase
to 95 cents. If Texas were to receive 95 cents for all 6 years, the
formula would provide Texas hundreds of millions of additional dollars
over this period. But the amendment I have pending today does not even
try to make up this discrepancy. What we are trying to do is increase
just the rate of return 1 percent per year, starting at 91 cents, and
reaching 95 cents in the last year. It is, I think, a reasonable
compromise. It is fair to every State. It increases every State's take
in this bill, and it will set a precedent of fairer distribution, even
though there will still be many donee States that will get more than
they send to Washington.
The superdonor States have one aspect in common: They are the fastest
growing States in America. But the formula in the bill offers the least
relief to the States whose needs are most pronounced: the States and
cities with populations that are developing most rapidly. Three of
these six are also on the Southwest border, so we have the added burden
of infrastructure needs brought on by NAFTA.
In 2002, Texas contributed 9.11 percent of the total dollars in the
trust fund, up from 8.27 percent 4 years earlier. Buying more gas
allows us to contribute more funds. That is why when the distinguished
chairman of the committee says, ``But you are getting more money than
the spending increases in this bill,'' I have to say, yes, but that is
because we are contributing more. We are still getting less in return
than the other donor States that are going to be raised to a higher
level at an earlier time.
So, yes, we are getting more than the 36 percent increase in spending
in the bill--I am told we are getting 42 percent--but what we are
contributing is far more than the 42 percent growth we would be
receiving. It is an enormous loss to Texas over the period of this
bill; that amount could go a long way toward alleviating the huge
traffic jams we are facing on our major NAFTA corridors.
Eighty percent of NAFTA traffic travels through my home State of
Texas. And while the entire Nation benefits from that resulting
commerce, Texas bears the brunt of maintenance and upkeep on our
highways. In 2002, over 4 million trucks hauling 18 billion pounds of
cargo entered from Mexico through 24 commercial border crossing
facilities. Over 3 million of those trucks--or 68 percent--entered
through Texas. In addition to commercial traffic, 90 million personal
vehicles from Mexico also traveled through the southwest border States.

So Texas, with its increased infrastructure burden, is getting a
lower percentage of what it sends to Washington than almost all of the
other States. I hope we don't break precedent and create this new
stepchild in donor States because I know if we see it go through today,
we will see it again in every formula. So the inequity in formula
funding for Texas, California, and Florida will be imprinted on every
formula we have in our system. This is a terrible precedent for a
country that calls itself the United States of America.
To its credit, the committee did, for the first time, create a border
and corridor fund that reflects the added burden on the States on our
northern border with Canada and southern border with Mexico. I commend
the chairman and thank him for adding those funds. However, I have to
say the $1 billion for each of those funds, when Texas gets its
portion, will still not bring us anywhere close to a fair share or
match the amount we are losing by not being treated like other donor
States. The superdonor category just sets a terrible precedent.
I would love to take the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member to Interstate 35. Interstate 35 goes from the border of Mexico
up through Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas. I had the unfortunate
experience of driving from Austin to Dallas one evening, and it was a
parking lot. It took us longer to drive from Austin to Dallas--almost 6
hours--than it does to fly from Washington, DC, to California. It is
ridiculous. It is a parking lot because of the added traffic from
Mexico that comes through this very important NAFTA corridor.
I know small States have more voting power in the Senate. I also
understand small States have traditionally had a larger piece of the
funding pie than larger States. However, I have to say I think the
concept of donor/donee States should go by the wayside, in a gradual
manner, because States are much more equal in their capacity to pay
than ever before, and some of these larger States on the border have a
real and huge infrastructure need due to NAFTA traffic.

[[Page S1201]]

I see my distinguished colleague from Arizona is in the Chamber. He
wishes to speak on the bill and on my amendment as well. I am going to
yield the floor, but first it is my great hope that the Senate will not
take the unprecedented move of creating superdonor States that are in
fact the stepchildren of America. Creating such an inequity says,
``because you are bigger, you should pay more,'' without considering
you are sending more to Washington, you are in a crunch from the NAFTA
traffic that is coming through your State, you have extra needs, you
are a large, growing State, and you are being asked to take a 10
percent deficit on the funding you send to Washington despite all these
reasons.''
It is time for the Senate to step up to the plate and say that we
should not have stepchildren in formula funding. This is a new concept.
In the past, the donor status has been shared by 20 to 25 States. So
the cost of helping smaller States has been less of a burden. It is no
longer fair to have such a disadvantage, and it is especially not right
when many of these border States have greater infrastructure needs.
When we were trying to help the West, Texas stepped up to the plate,
as other States did. Now it is time to help the States that have the
fastest growing populations and the greatest infrastructure needs and
not to put them in a stepchild status for our country that calls itself
the United States of America.
I thank the Chair. I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from
Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The senior Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
amendment being offered by the Senator from Texas. Her eloquent
explanation of the amendment is very compelling.
Let me go back to the larger issue. It is fascinating to me that
after receiving a Statement of Administration Policy where the
President of the United States says:

In total the Senate bill authorizes $318 billion in
spending on highways, highway safety, and mass transit . . .
a full $62 billion above the President's request for the same
period. . . .
Accordingly, if legislation that violates these principles
(such as this legislation, which authorizes $318 billion)
were presented to the President, his senior advisors would
recommend that he veto the bill.

There was discussion amongst Republican Senators yesterday that we
will fix it in conference. I have this quaint and unusual idea that
when we are authorizing $256 billion or $318 billion, maybe the whole
Senate ought to be involved rather than ``fixing it'' in conference.
I cannot speak for my friends on the other side of the aisle--they
are the opposition party--but how does this party, the party of fiscal
sanity, the party of smaller Government, the party of lower taxes, the
party that insisted that any revenues to fund highways should come out
of the trust fund, now support a bill--according to the last vote--
overwhelmingly when the President of the United States and the American
people are saying ``enough.'' Enough deficit spending, my friends.
Enough. We are mortgaging our children's futures.

We just found out we have been sold a bill of goods on the Medicare
prescription drug bill. It is $153 billion more than it was advertised
to be a few months ago. When does it stop? When does the Republican
Party find its soul? And this bill is an outrageous manifestation of
how badly we have left our moorings. The amendment of the Senator from
Texas at least restores some equity and fairness to this proposal.
I don't want to take too much more time except to mention one other
point about the President's message:

In addition, the Administration opposes inclusion in a
surface transportation bill of unrelated provisions regarding
Amtrak. Any legislation regarding the future of Amtrak should
be considered separately and should provide for meaningful
reforms. . . .

What is interesting about that aspect of the President's message is,
as chairman of the Commerce Committee, none of the provisions that the
administration objects to came out of the Commerce Committee, the
authorizing committee. It was stuck in by the managers of the bill who
have about as much knowledge, expertise, and jurisdiction over Amtrak
as I do over nuclear science.
It is fascinating the overreach of this bill. They add provisions for
Amtrak that have nothing to do with their area of jurisdiction, and
what we reported out of the Commerce Committee was not objectionable to
the administration.
Finally, this whole formula is just crazy. It is bizarre and
byzantine. In TEA-21, there was an immediate increase in the highway
formula to provide each State a minimum return of 85 percent to 90.5
percent. The very first year of the authorization period, all donor
States received an immediate increase. It has still not been explained
to me or any of my colleagues why we should wait 5 years before our
share increases. Why should we wait 5 years? It is patently unfair, and
it is patently abusive, particularly for those of us who represent
States that are dramatically growing in population, which means that
our needs, obviously, are greater.
I make no argument that my State deserves more, not in any way. I say
the citizens of my State deserve $1 back for every dollar they sent in
the form of taxes to the Federal Government.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have said on this floor on a number of
occasions how the chairman and ranking member of the full committee and
how the subcommittee chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee
have worked together for more than a year to come up with a program
that we thought would be the most fair for this country.
I say to my friend from Arizona for whom I have the deepest respect,
and my friend from Texas for whom I also have great affection, in years
past we did not go through the turmoil of coming up with 95 percent for
all States. In years past we just decided how many votes it would take
to get a bill passed. Some States did very poorly.
When I started in this process, some States got less than 80 cents'
return on every dollar. It was moved up to 80, then 85, then 90.5. We
have taken this gigantic first step from the last bill, which had no
increase, for 95 cents for every State. It is a remarkably fair, good
way of doing business.
I say to my two friends--I acknowledge it is imperfect--but we have
had people who have run on computers numerous other programs to try to
come up with something that would satisfy the needs of this country.
How would the State of Alaska like it if for every dollar they paid
into the highway trust fund they got $1 back? Alaska would suffer. The
State of Alaska, which has such tremendous, important needs and has
weather conditions that make road construction and road rehabilitation
extremely expensive, could not survive with a return of $1 for every $1
they paid in.
My friends have indicated that would be the fair thing to do: For
every dollar a State puts in, they get a dollar back. It doesn't work.
Yesterday, the distinguished senior Senator from Wyoming spoke.
Wyoming is a perfect example of a State that cannot survive on dollar
for dollar. What we have done is taken into consideration in this
formula States, such as Wyoming and Alaska, and made sure they get more
than $1. If some States get more than $1, some States are going to have
to get less than $1. That is the way it is.
These big States--Texas, which has two votes in this body; Florida,
which has two votes in this body; California, which has two votes in
this body--we could have made it so that all States got 95 percent
except States with populations of more than 15 million people. That
would have been easy. We would have lost six votes. We could have still
passed this bill.
We thought in fairness that those large States should also get 95
cents on the dollar, and we have done that. I think this is fair and
reasonable, and I commend and applaud my colleagues on this committee.
We have a diverse group of Senators on this committee. We were able,
working for more than 1 year, to come up with a formula that met the
needs of this country to the best of our ability. To come in at this
late date and say:

[[Page S1202]]

We have a better formula, we have worked on it the last week, and your
work the past year does not mean much, and let's have the State of
Alaska get a dollar back for what they pay in, the State of Wyoming get
a dollar back for what they pay in, and everybody will be happy and we
can go home--what we have done has been extremely fair.
I hope the Senate will respond as they did with this cloture vote.
This is a resounding vote that we had this morning because the Senators
recognized by a vote of 86 to 11 that what we have done is appropriate.
There are very few measures that come before this body that get a
vote like this: 86 to 11. I think that represents fairness in this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield to me for a comment,
through him, that is a correction?
Mr. INHOFE. I will yield for 1 minute.
Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I was incorrect in my
comments concerning the Amtrak provisions. These were provisions that I
opposed in the bill and I was incorrect when I stated that they were
put in by the committee. My apologies to the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am going to withhold commenting on
this amendment because I have made notes. I know it was not
deliberately misrepresented, but the information is not accurate that
we have heard on this amendment. It is very important that everyone
know that, but I would rather have everyone vent everything they want
to vent.
I wish to make one comment, first, though. The Senator from Nevada
pointed out what we could have done with the six fastest growing
States, the largest States. We could have lost six votes and never even
looked back. That is exactly what happened 6 years ago. They went into
a minimum guarantee program where they were counting votes. It was
totally political and that is what we are getting away from. We have a
good formula. I will defend that momentarily after we hear from
everyone who is speaking in support of this flawed amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, this bill contains a very carefully
crafted formula. This committee worked for close to a year to develop
the formula contained in S. 1072. Balance, that is what this bill is
about. The donor States such as Texas have gained 95 percent. That has
been their goal for 6 years. Some would say for longer. Now they have
achieved their goal and they are still complaining.
This formula is fair. The formula the Senator from Texas put forward
would undermine the highway program in many States and therefore I
oppose the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment of the
Senator from Texas, and I will explain a couple of reasons for that.
First, there has been a suggestion to the States that did not receive
their full share of funding, the fast growing States--California,
Texas, Florida, Arizona, Colorado primarily--that there just was not
enough money to be able to bring those States up to the same level as
the other States.
There is an acknowledgment that a lot of other States get to the 95-
cent level long before these five States do. That is the primary reason
for the deficiency. In fact, as my colleagues can see from this chart,
Arizona is in the dark blue, and we have simply selected a State--and I
do not mean to pick on my colleagues from this particular State because
there are others that reveal the same kind of thing--this happens to be
the State of Missouri. We can see that beginning in the very first
year, Missouri is returned 95 cents for every dollar. That is
guaranteed to the State of Missouri all the way across from the very
beginning. Whereas in my home State of Arizona, we are stuck at the
current level of 90.5 cents in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. It goes up
one- or two-tenths of a percent in 2008. It is not until the sixth
year, if the funding is available, that Arizona, as well as these other
donor States that I mentioned, would be brought up to the same level
that all the other States have been at all this time.
In the case of Arizona, the lost revenue during this period of time
is about $160 million. So that is money Arizona would have received had
it been treated the same as Missouri in terms of the 95 cents received
per dollar.
The Senator from Oklahoma is quite right that when there are States
that need more than a dollar, then there are going to be States that do
not get a dollar for every dollar in taxes that they send in. That is,
of course, true. Under the Federal system I think there is an
acknowledgment that it is not totally unfair that some States are going
to send more in in gasoline taxes than other States. When it is way out
of balance and the balance can be corrected, it ought to be corrected.
The argument has been that it would simply have cost too much money
to bring States such as Arizona up to this level. I think it would only
cost $2 billion. In any event, the Senator from Texas distributes $9
billion over this period of time and makes these States whole.
One place that the $9 billion could have come from, had they wanted
to, is the set-aside program in the committee-reported bill for
something called the Infrastructure Performance and Management Program.
The IPAM is a--I do not want to call it a slush fund but it is a source
of funding that is very unclear about where it is going to be spent.
Very little is known about the purpose of such a program, although
there are some who believe that it basically will be used to distribute
to folks who vote for the bill and whose vote is needed for the bill
and that the money, therefore, needs to be held in reserve in order to
ensure that in the end they will have enough money to do all that they
want to do. Why not use that money to bring the States such as Arizona,
California, Texas, and those other States up to this 95-cent level? It
is more than enough to do that.
So when they say there is not enough money to do what we are
complaining needs to be done, that is simply incorrect. There is enough
money. It just needs to be moved from this one program, which does not
seem to have a very clear or fair purpose, and move it over to fund
this deficiency.
I have just used the State of Arizona with another State that is
somewhat comparable, in terms of size and so on, to illustrate the
point, but I think the same can be demonstrated for the other States
involved. That is why I support the amendment of the Senator from Texas
because what it would do is restore this funding level so that from the
very beginning all of the States would be treated the same.
Now, that can be done at whatever level of spending one wants to do
it. I believe that the level of spending should be much less than the
level in the bill. The President believes it should be much less than
is in the bill. The President believes that the total amount should be
$256 billion. That ought to be enough. That is a 21-percent increase.
That is what I think. Whatever the level of spending in the bill, it
should be fair as between the States.
Not all States can be treated exactly the same. We understand that.
At least it is fair to have a base level. I will give credit to the
chairman of the committee and others; they wanted to get this base
level at 95 cents and they got there for most of the States but they
did not get there for five or six of the States. My State happens to be
one of them. It is not fair to the citizens of Arizona.
As a result, I support the amendment because it would bring this
level up to 95 cents for the entire period of time we are talking
about, not only in the very last year. I urge my colleagues to support
fairness and to support the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I, too, support the amendment of the
senior Senator from Texas. As a member of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, it has been my privilege to work with the Senator from
Oklahoma as the chairman and the Senator from Vermont as the ranking
member.
While admittedly I was not satisfied with the formula that came out
of the

[[Page S1203]]

committee, based on my belief and the good faith of the chairman and
others, we have been discussing ways that we could make this bill
fairer to my State. The reason I support this amendment is because I
believe it would do that--not just to the State of Texas but to also
other what I would call superdonor States such as Florida, California,
Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and Maryland.
As the Senator from Arizona says, it is a matter of fundamental
fairness. Texas contributes a dollar to the gas tax and, all things
considered, currently gets back about 88 cents on the dollar. In fact,
I have had some of my legislators come to see me and say that our
transportation needs are so great in Texas, given our size, given the
10-year lifespan of NAFTA, increased truck traffic on our highways,
that we would just simply like to be able to keep that dollar in Texas,
spend it on our own roads and not send it to Washington, DC, and have
10 or 12 cents taken off that dollar and the remainder simply sent back
to us. I understand this is a national transportation system we are
trying to take care of here. But I believe Texas, and I believe all of
the superdonor States, the ones that contribute the lion's share for
transportation needs in this country, are entitled to greater
consideration than is currently reflected in the formula.

I think the senior Senator, Senator Hutchison, has come up with a
good idea on how to do that, by using the $9.1 billion that is
currently not distributed, which I understand remains in a
discretionary spending account which can later be doled out. In other
words, this will not add to the cost of this bill. It is money that is
already figured into the bill but will simply be distributed according
to the formula which she has already laid out, and which I think will
not only result in greater fairness to my State but also to other
States.
In the end, this does not just benefit the superdonor States--
Florida, Maryland, Arizona, Texas, Colorado. Indeed, under this
amendment every State would end up with more money, so I think every
State would win.
If I can say a couple of more words, though, about the unusual
posture of my State when it comes to the transportation dollars. As I
mentioned earlier, NAFTA is a big consideration. Obviously, for the 10
years NAFTA has been in effect, it has resulted in tremendous increases
in trade and benefits to Americans, to Mexicans, and to Canadians. It
has raised the level of the water and all boats have risen. Because of
the increased trade, more products from our country were bought in
Mexico and Canada, and vice versa.
One of the things we are concerned about--we will have a hearing on
it today in the Judiciary Committee--is our broken immigration system.
One of the best ways I believe we can deal with the causes of illegal
immigration is to increase trade with Mexico, for example, so the
prosperity of that country will increase, jobs will increase, so people
feel less and less need to immigrate illegally to this country to
provide for their own families.
My point is this. Because of our proximity to the border, because we
have a 1,200-mile border, because of the number of border crossings we
have, Texas transportation infrastructure has simply borne a
disproportionate amount of the burden, from which eventually all of the
country benefits because of this increase in trade and truck traffic I
mentioned a moment ago. As a matter of fairness to Arizona, which is in
a similar situation, and Texas, our infrastructure has degenerated. It
has been overused, in a sense. The public safety has suffered because
we have simply been a donor State and have not been getting back enough
of the gas tax dollar to help provide for our transportation needs in
the State.
As I say, as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee
and the Transportation Subcommittee, I continue to hope--not just hope
but also will work toward trying to make this bill acceptable and fair.
It is certainly something I hope I will be able to support in the end.
But I do think the proposal of the senior Senator, resulting as it will
in a greater distribution of discretionary funds now into a formula
that will then result in all States seeing an increase in
transportation funds, is a step in the right direction.
Finally, I would like to allude for a moment to the comments of
Senator Kyl relative to the cost of this bill. I, too, believe in
fiscal responsibility. I don't know ultimately how the Finance
Committee will find a way to pay for this bill in its entirety. I think
it is clear the President is not going to go for either a gas tax or
for deficit spending. But should the overall amount of money be reduced
from the current level to a lower level that would not require an
increase in the gas tax or an increase in deficit spending, then my
understanding is essentially the formulas we are looking at right now
are out the window and we are going to have to look to ways to live
within our means. But also, at the same time, we have to make sure this
bill is fair to all States, particularly, I submit, the donor States
that for a long time have paved roads and provided transit systems in
other parts of the country from which the citizens of my State get no
benefit. That is a matter of fundamental fairness we need to take care
of. I believe this bill, with this amendment, would go a long way to
doing just that.

I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I hope very much our colleagues will
also listen to the arguments against the second-degree amendment and
for this amendment. I know the committee tried very hard to balance
what they considered to be every State's wishes and needs, but they
have made a major precedent-setting change in the business of the
Senate by creating a new stepchild category for superdonor States.
They picked States that have other huge problems such as high growth
and falling median incomes. Targeting these high-growth, large States
that have huge infrastructure problems and other problems that go with
being on the border with another country is a major step in the wrong
direction.

I hope the chairman will reconsider. That is not likely right now,
but we have been trying to work with the chairman to see if there could
be some accommodation that would acknowledge the huge infrastructure
needs of these superdonor States created in this bill. I hope the
Senate does not do this in the end. In our amendment every State comes
out better. It will create a more level playing field. The existing
bill is not a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination.
We are trying to gradually raise the percentage that every State will
be able to get when we are sending more to Washington than we receive
in return. Our amendment simply assures that every State will get at
least 91 cents back from what it sends to Washington next year; the
year after that, 92 cents; the year after that, 93 cents; and the year
after that, 94 cents, until all the donor States reach 95. It would be
a gradual increase to 95. If we went to 95 immediately, it would
deliver even more to Texas. We are not trying to do that. We are trying
to enact a modest increase aimed at a more equitable donor status.
We will never get $1 back for what we send to Washington in this bill
or in this environment. My hope, of course, is that at some point we
will, that at some point other States will step up to the plate and
say: We can bear our fair share and we do not need other States to pay
our costs. That is not the case today.
This amendment is a measured approach. Every State gets more under
this amendment. Alabama will receive $125 million more under this
amendment than they would under the committee bill before the Senate;
Alaska, $13 million; Arizona, $216 million; Arkansas, $84 million;
California, $1.30 billion; Colorado, $178 million; Connecticut, $66
million; Delaware, $16 million; the District of Columbia, $7 million.
All of these are increases in what these States will receive under my
amendment over 6 years: Florida, $481 million; Georgia, $288 million;
Hawaii, $15 million; Idaho, $35 million; Illinois,

[[Page S1204]]

$460 million more; Indiana, $291 million more; Iowa, $120 million more;
Kansas, $68 million more; Kentucky, $142 million more; Louisiana, $12
million more; Maine, $40 million more; Maryland, $164 million more.
Massachusetts, $119 million more; Michigan, $337 million more;
Minnesota, $217 million more; Mississippi, $96 million more; Missouri,
$188 million more; Montana, $28 million more; Nebraska, $48 million
more; Nevada, $64 million more; New Hampshire, $29 million more; and
New Jersey, $265 million more.
Every State comes out better. It is more equitable and it takes out a
lot of the politics. Senators who end up voting against my amendment
think they will do better by divvying up a $9 billion pot into specific
projects in their States, but all 100 Senators cannot come out winners
that way. I would rather see us respond in a statesmanlike way, divide
all of the money by formula, and give every State a more equitable
portion. Every State will be helped and that is how our country should
operate, with greater equity and a more level playing field.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the Senator seeking the yeas and nays
on at this time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I seek the yeas and nays on my amendment, and I seek
the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment, as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is only in order at this time to ask for
the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
vote on her amendment. I believe it takes unanimous consent. And I ask
for the yeas and nays, not a vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking consent to request the
yeas and nays on the first-degree amendment?
Mr. REID. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to it being in order to
request the yeas and nays on that amendment at this time?
Without objection, the Senator may request the yeas and nays.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me make a parliamentary inquiry. I was trying to
get the yeas and nays on the underlying amendment, but I need the
parliamentary way to get there, which I think both Senator Reid and
Senator Inhofe are trying to help do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Consent has been granted for the Senators to
seek the yeas and nays. Does the Senator seek the yeas and nays?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I seek consent to ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays have been ordered on the first-degree amendment.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Texas, do you
have others who want to speak on behalf of your amendment?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. No.
Mr. INHOFE. All right.
First of all, I recognize we are not objecting to a rollcall vote
like some have been doing all week long.
I make a couple of comments about this because it has been
inadvertently misrepresented. Let me talk a little bit about the States
of Texas and Arizona. We have talked about this before. Arizona has a
40 percent growth rate, dramatically greater than the average, which is
35.6 percent. Arizona is comparable to Oklahoma in many ways. But
Arizona actually gets $40 million more than my State of Oklahoma.
If we average that amount over TEA-21, it averaged $463 million. It
goes up to $800 million at the end of this time and it reaches the
donor status that is desired. In the State of Texas, the average over
the 6-year period of TEA-21 was $2.1 million. It is the third highest
growth rate in the Nation. It is the second highest amount of money,
second only to California. It is part of the formula.
Let me say something about the formula. Everyone is deriding this
formula. We went through the same thing 6 years ago. They did not like
the formula because everyone wants to get something more than perhaps
they are entitled to under any formula. That is human nature. We made a
commitment, working on this formula for over a year, that we would stay
with the formula. I am talking about a bipartisan bill, Democrats and
Republicans on our committee.
When we looked at the factors--this is not just some States: let's
see the big States and the little States and things like that--we
covered a number of things: total lane miles on the interstate; the
VMT, that is the vehicle miles traveled; the annual contributions to
the highway trust fund attributed to commercial vehicles; the diesel
fuel used on highways; the relative share of total cost to repair and
replace deficient highway bridges--like in my State of Oklahoma, we are
dead last in the Nation--weighted nonattainment and maintenance areas;
rate of return of donor States, donee States, fast-growing States.
We have ceilings. We have floors. It is a very complicated formula.
You don't come along at the eleventh hour and say, oh, we are going to
change one thing and everyone is going to be happy because if you did
that, then you are going to affect some other States in a way that is
certainly not fair.
Now, let's just look at some of the arguments that have been made.
The NAFTA corridor: Because of the insistence of one of the members of
our committee, the junior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, we added $280
million--this goes to Texas--under the Borders Program. The IPAM
Program, that has been ridiculed on the floor, is a program that takes
projects that are ready for construction. These projects can start jobs
immediately. You don't have to sit around and wait. That is why I am
personally offended when people come along and say, well, let's have
another extension. If we have another extension, none of this stuff
gets done, none of the streamlining elements in this bill happen, which
means we will not be able to do nearly as many roads per dollar as we
can under this bill. That is why we are going to have, at the end of
this thing, a 6-year bill. It is going to go to conference, and we are
going to end up with a good bill. But we are not going to operate any
longer on the extensions.
Now, I know there is politics involved in these things. We have tried
to keep this at a minimum. If you look at TEA-21, it was dominated by
the Northeastern States. You had several very important people on the
committees.
Certainly, Congressman Shuster, over there from Pennsylvania--I
served for 8 years with him on that House committee--and, yes, they got
up to a very large amount in TEA-21: $1.21 return for every $1 they
paid in.
Senator Moynihan--we all loved Senator Moynihan--he had a lot of
influence on the committee. New York, as a result of that influence, I
believe, got $1.25 back for every $1 they paid in.
Certainly, our beloved John Chafee from Rhode Island did his best
work. They ended up with $2.16 for every $1 they paid in.
Montana--Senator Baucus was actually the ranking member of both the
committee and the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure--
$2.18. Now, there are reasons for this, of course, because they do not
have a lot of people paying up there. But you have to have roads. You
have to get through Montana. You have to get through the Western
States.
My State of Oklahoma--and I was on the committee, and I was on the
conference committee--90.5 cents.
We have done a job here in really helping people out. But I want to
point out the most important part of this program. Everyone who stood
up and talked about this new formula has talked about how everyone is
going to get a little bit more. Let's stop and think about that. That
is going to cost money, isn't it? I do not think there is a person who
is supporting this bill who did not first come down to the floor and
complain that we are spending too much money in this bill, that $255
billion is too much--and you add the transit on there--it is too much
money.

This amendment will increase the cost of this bill by $7.25 billion.
If you want to increase the cost, if you want to go tell the White
House, ``No, we didn't like the $255 billion so we are going to raise
it up to $262.25 billion,'' go ahead and do it. I don't think you would
be very well received. The

[[Page S1205]]

money has to come from someplace. It is coming from IPAM. Quite
frankly, I am not going to stand here and accept and support a change
in the formula that increases the cost by $7.25 billion. It is totally
unreasonable, and after a year we are not going to do it.
I say to the Senator, do you want me to yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I simply want to say, when the Senator finishes, we have
been advised by leadership that they need a vote in the next 5 minutes.
If we have more speakers, then I will have no alternative but to move
to table. But what we have agreed to do, I say to the chairman of the
committee, on this side, is to allow an up-or-down vote, but there will
not be an up-or-down vote unless there is some acknowledgement that the
debate is going to end now because we have spent considerable time on
this amendment. It has been a good debate, but all things have to come
to an end, and they will, either with a motion to table or an up-or-
down vote now.
Mr. INHOFE. I am through, Madam President.
I want to reemphasize this amendment costs $7.25 billion more, and
people have to understand that.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Thank you very much. I would direct, through the Chair, a
question to the Senator from Texas.
Are you about to complete your statement?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
Madam President, I would just like to take a couple minutes to
respond to the chairman's remarks, and then I will be ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we are not adding money to the bill.
We are taking money in the bill that is unallocated--promised but not
yet granted to specific projects in specific States--and redistributing
that on a fairer basis than that of political rewards in project money.
We are trying to take the politics out and establish fairness for the
States made superdonors, or stepchildren, in the Senate's highway bill.
I hope people will look beyond their pet projects and see that
everyone benefits and the money used is already in the bill. The
amendment does not add even a penny. Yet it creates a fairer planing
field for every State already.
So I hope the Senate will rise above project fighting and distribute
this funding on a formula basis in order to treat every State more
fairly.
Madam President, when I came to the Senate, one thing that impressed
me the most is that although I was a member of the minority party at
the time, no State ever was ever penalized for size or growth. Every
State was given funding that matched its needs.
This bill is setting a new precedent that has never been the policy
of the Senate to use big States as providers for other States. Everyone
can see this play is not fair.
I hope Senators will support this amendment. We are not adding a dime
to the bill. We are redistributing the money that is in the bill in a
fairer way. No one loses from the formula that is in the bill, and
everyone gains much-needed funding.
I hope the bill does not go to the President without a formula
amendment. It would set a terrible precedent to institute a new
superdonor category of States with more highway mileage and therefore
always paying more money to the highway trust fund than they will ever
get back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have discussed the formula, which is
what the Senator from Texas has been discussing in the last couple
minutes. I want everybody to know, this is 7.25 billion new dollars,
new spending under this formula. If you vote for this, you are voting
to increase the authorized level by $7.25 billion.
If you look at the pending bill, it says: Under the IPAM Program,
under section 139 of that title, $2 billion for fiscal year 2004 and
nothing thereafter. If you look at the amendment, it says:

$2,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005. . .
.

That is $4 billion, plus:

$1,750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006, 2007, and
2008.

You add it up, and that is $9.25 billion, $7.25 billion more than the
pending bill. Everyone has to understand that. When you vote for this,
you are voting to increase the spending under this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I echo what my good friend, the chairman
of the committee, stated. The amendment does not keep the balance
between donor and donee States. Our staff has run through many of these
options, 300-plus runs from the Federal Highway Administration, to come
up with a fair balance between donor and donee States.
When you take a look at what is fair, we have heard complaints about
the increase, that they are not getting enough percentage increase, but
when you look at the State of Texas, over the 6 years of the bill, it
gets a 42-percent increase. That is $5.3 billion. If you look at the
State of Arizona, it gets a 40.23-percent increase, or $1.11 billion
over the 6 years. California has a 40.14-percent increase, or $6.1
billion. There are a couple of States that even get 40-percent
increases. This amendment purports to increase fairness by giving an
even greater share to some of the States that have the largest share of
the increase already. That does not have much to do with fairness.
This is a very ill-advised amendment. As the chairman has pointed
out, there is not money in the bill. This would add approximately $7
billion to the cost of the bill. I find it passing strange that some of
the cosponsors of this bill were ones who opposed the Bond-Reid
amendment to set the figure at $255 billion, and they have been very
vocal in saying this bill spends too much. They would add about $7
billion to the bill.
We are going in the wrong direction. We are being asked to reward
those States that are already doing better than almost any other State
in terms of the increase in the money that is coming back. This bill
followed the formula as best we could. We did get all States to
increase by at least 10 percent. We got all donor States up to 95 cents
on the dollar. But nobody, other than about two States, has made it up
to a 40-percent increase.
To say certain States who are already in the 40-percent increase need
more is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to move to table. We have waited.
The time has come. We either have an up-or-down vote now or I am moving
to table. I am not going to yield the floor anymore.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, it is fine for the Senator to move
to table.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. There was a misrepresentation that just occurred.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have the floor. I direct a question
through the Chair to the Senator from Texas: Can we have an up-or-down
vote? The leadership wanted one 5 minutes ago. We either do it now or I
am moving to table.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, misrepresentations have just been
made. If the Senator feels he needs to cut off the ability to answer
that, the Senator is perfectly free to do so.
Mr. REID. I ask the Senator from Texas, how much more time do you
need to respond?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. If there are no further arguments that misrepresent
the facts, I need 1 minute.
Mr. REID. I ask the Senator be yielded 1 minute prior to a vote on
this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
This bill came out of the committee with $9 billion in money that was
unallocated. Now we are being told there is only $2 billion. It is a
fair question to ask, where did the other $7 billion go?
The fact is, the money has not been allocated until we vote on this
bill. We would have the ability to create a level playing field with
the exact same money that is in the bill. It has not been voted on by
the Senate. Where is the $7 billion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page S1206]]

Amendment No. 2591, Withdrawn

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, the pending substitute has been available
for 2\1/2\ days now. Everything is in there. We dropped IPAM down to $2
billion. You want to increase it to $9.25 billion. That is an increase
of $7.25 billion. It has been down there. We all looked at the pending
substitute. We read it. We have been debating it now for 2 days. It is
an increase of 2.5.
Madam President, I withdraw my pending amendment so the Senator may
have her up-or-down vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2388

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2388 offered by the Senator from Texas.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Santorum) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring the vote?
The result was announced--yeas 17, nays 78, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

YEAS--17

Bayh
Boxer
Campbell
Cornyn
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hutchison
Kohl
Kyl
Levin
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Stabenow
Sununu

NAYS--78

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Santorum
Specter
The amendment (No. 2388) was rejected.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan sent Congress what should be a much needed and sobering wake-
up call. He warned that a lack of fiscal discipline could lead to
increased long-term interest rates and called for new steps to restrain
spending.
In delivering the Fed's monetary report to the House Financial
Services Committee, Mr. Greenspan said that should investors become
significantly more doubtful that the Congress will take the necessary
fiscal measures, then appreciable backup in long-term interest rates is
possible.
Also, as we know, yesterday the administration transmitted its
statement of administrative policy which we will continue to talk about
throughout this debate. We all know the projected budget deficit for
2005 is over $500 billion, half a trillion dollars. Almost every Member
in this Chamber has been talking the talk about reining in spending,
but when are we going to start to back up our words with our actions?
Passage of this bill would be the quintessential example of what we are
doing wrong and how we are not stepping up to future financial straits
for our children and grandchildren.
The current budget resolution provided $231 billion for the EPW
Committee to spend on its portion of the bill. That is the current
budget resolution. The pending EPW proposal would instead provide $255
billion, or $24 billion over the current budget resolution by which we
are to be abiding. The current budget resolution provided $37 billion
for the Banking Committee to spend on its transit portion of this bill.
The Banking Committee proposal contained in the pending bill provides
$46 billion or 25 percent over the budget resolution.

I guess I have to ask a question about this body's adherence to the
budget resolution. We spend arduous days, and then with a vote-athon
that is the most unpleasant day and evening of the year--certainly for
me and I believe for most of my colleagues--we come up with a budget
resolution and one we at least commit to abide by.
This bill, at least in two instances which I am bringing to your
attention, is $24 billion over the current budget resolution by EPW,
and 25 percent or $9 billion over the budget resolution by the Banking
Committee.
A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial entitled ``Road
Kill'' had some pretty harsh comments about what we are doing today. I
will not quote from all of it. The Wall Street Journal editorial says:

An old political adage has it that the most dangerous place
in Washington is between a Congressman and asphalt. That is
exactly where taxpayers now find themselves as Congress
conspires to pass another monster highway bill. The only good
news is that President Bush is showing signs he may fight
this election year.
The administration has its own highway proposal which is
hardly cheap. Mr. Bush is asking for $256 billion over six
years, which is 21 percent more than the past six years and
fairly close to Treasury estimates of revenue from the
current 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax that is earmarked
for roads.
Ah, but this isn't enough for the boys of summer
construction. The draft Senate bill demands $55 billion more
than Mr. Bush and is loaded with fiscal gimmicks that divert
money from general--non-gas-tax--revenues into roadbuilding.
One of the more embarrassing arguments from Congress's
highwaymen is that this is somehow a ``jobs bill.''

That is what we continue to hear on this floor over and over again.

So at least for parochial matter, Republicans claim to
believe in the superiority of government over private
spending. Some Econ 101: Highway spending rolls out slowly
over many years but new taxes are immediately taken away from
the more productive private economy.

I would like to repeat that.

Highway spending rolls out slowly over many years but new
taxes are immediately taken away from the more productive
private economy. Still, this is a fight worth having.
Congress will keep spending freely until Mr. Bush shows he's
willing to spend political capital to say no. In a letter to
Congress last week, Administration officials warned that any
bill that includes higher gas taxes, trickster accounting or
a siphoning of general tax revenues will face a veto.
Presidents who make veto threats and don't fulfill them
quickly come irrelevant.

There are one of two things that are going to happen and let's be
very clear about what is happening. One of two things is going to
happen.
No. 1, if we pass this bill, it goes to conference and the President
of the United States makes good on his very specific veto threat. I am
sure that will be of benefit to the President of the United States in
showing he is willing to crack down on reckless fiscal insanity, which
is really what this bill is all about, or, somehow, a bill is passed by
both bodies and they go to conference and, without the participation of
the majority of Members of the Senate, the bill will be pared down to
the President's demands.

Either way, this bill is rendered meaningless. What we are arguing
about is a meaningless 1,300-page piece of document because the
President has assured us that, unless it is a certain level, far lower
than the present level, he will veto it.
I don't know if the President has the votes to sustain his veto in
this body, but I am confident the President has the number of votes to
sustain his veto in the other body. Either way, my dear friends of the
Senate cannot come out of this looking good because we are so far over
in excess of what the President has guaranteed he would veto.
As my colleagues who are managing this bill keep saying: We will fix
it in

[[Page S1207]]

conference. We will fix it in conference. The last time we fixed
something in conference we got a Medicare prescription drug bill that,
it turns out, was only $143 billion short.
I have seen things fixed in conference and there is nothing worse
than seeing a piece of legislation ``fixed in conference.''
So we are arguing about a piece of legislation that cannot pass--that
cannot pass, certainly at its present level, by a significant number of
billions of dollars. We are in violation of our own budget resolution
in this bill.
Therefore, I raise the point of order against the substitute
amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Pursuant to section 904, I move to waive all Budget Act
points of order for consideration of the pending substitute in its
current status and the underlying bill as amended by the substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is debatable.
Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Doesn't it have to be sent to the
desk?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the motion does not have to be in writing.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask for it to be sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to debate the measure, waiving the
Budget Act point of order. I would point out the chairman of the
Commerce Committee, who has just spoken, is talking about the reckless
fiscal insanity in this 1,300-page bill. A good portion of that is the
Commerce Committee title, his committee's title. We don't know what is
in that title.
We have laid out our bill. We have taken it through the committee.
Our committee voted on it. We brought that bill to the floor. We have
had it out here. We are still trying to find out what is in the
Commerce Committee bill. We are told it is very different than what was
passed out of the Commerce Committee. We have just tried to make an
analysis of it and, as best we can tell, the budget resolution
authorized the Commerce Committee to spend $4 billion and it appears
the Commerce title before us spends about $6.5 billion. So we hope we
could help the Commerce Committee by waiving the Budget Act point of
order.
Let me talk a minute about why this vote is so important. The vote is
on two very important issues. The first is the size of the highway
bill--$255 billion for highways, $56 billion for transit. The second is
firewalls ensure highway trust fund dollars are spent on this Nation's
transportation needs. Last year, during consideration of the budget
resolution, the Senate voted 79 to 21 in favor of funding the highway
bill at $255 billion, and mass transit at $57 billion. That vote seemed
to me to be a resounding victory for adequate funding levels for these
two very important subjects.
The administration's proposed bill would fund highways at under $200
billion over the next 6 years, and to cut that would cut $4.5 billion.
Furthermore, the highway funding would not reach the level included in
the 2004 Omnibus bill until 2008, the second-to-last year of the bill.
This would result in a net loss of 850,000 jobs compared to the CBO
baseline, because that is how far the level would fall under that which
the House-Senate budget resolution authorized.
The funding levels in this Senate transportation bill are
responsible. When the budget was adopted there was a provision in there
saying the level for highways would be $231 billion unless other funds
could be put into the highway trust fund.
I commend the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, and
Ranking Member Baucus, who have taken steps to ensure that they have
closed loopholes; they have directed into the highway fund new highway
fund measures, and as a result, according to the Finance Committee,
this bill will not add to the deficit. Now, in fact, not only will this
bill not add to the deficit, it will be a huge economic stimulus.
Everyone knows $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure
creates 47,500 new jobs.
In addition, in the last year for which we have statistics available,
over 42,000 Americans lost their lives on our Nation's roadways in
motor vehicle accidents. Roughly 35 percent, or 14,000, of these are a
result of road conditions. It is likely our State may be higher than 35
percent because we have many narrow, two-lane roads, with far more
traffic than we have highway to accommodate. In other words, if you
have 15,000 cars a day using a two-lane, two-way road, people try to
pass at times that are not appropriate, and many other risks are taken
by drivers with a result that there are head-on collisions and traffic
fatalities.
This is a safety measure. The figures we have are figures that match
the initial representations, the initial 79-Member vote in this body.
The additional funding above the House-Senate joint resolution is
achieved because the Finance Committee put additional funds into the
highway trust fund. That is a very sound way of going about it. I urge
my colleagues to support the Budget Act waiver.
The Senator from Arizona also raised questions about why we are going
to write it in the conference. We have been in touch with the White
House and just learned after the bill had been brought to the Senate
they were reluctant to accept the figure we had. At this point we need
to work with the House and the White House to come up with a final
figure.
I cannot imagine anyone thinking a bill we pass out of here, which
has so many different interests, will not be changed when it comes back
from the conference with the House. We are not the only body. I have
worked on a lot of conference reports and if it comes back looking very
much like what we pass out of the Senate we have done a good day's
work. I have never seen it come back looking exactly the way it left
the Senate. That is how this place works. We have to have compromise
when we go to the conference committee between the House and the
Senate. When the White House feels strongly about it, they have a great
say because they have the final say. They have the final say whether it
is signed or vetoed.
We have worked too long and too hard to get a good bill. The
chairman, the Senator from Oklahoma, the distinguished ranking members,
the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Nevada and the members of
the committee, worked on the EPW portion. The other portions have been
worked on in their committees. We will do the best we can to follow the
outlines we have and come up with our proposal.
We should remind those who criticize this measure, who say they want
to know more about it, that we marked up our bill before Congress
recessed for Christmas and have used the base text throughout this
entire process. For the past 2 weeks, we have consistently urged our
colleagues to come to the Senate and offer amendments. Our staff, my
staff, the other principal staffs, have been here late every night. We
announced last week that the staff was available to discuss amendments
throughout the week. Many Members took advantage of it. We tried hard
to be open and accommodating to every Senator. That is why it is
extremely frustrating to be criticized by Members who have never come
to the floor to offer an amendment, let alone send their staff to meet
with the EPW Committee staff to discuss changes or to offer amendments
for consideration.

Even more frustrating, the fact that rather than offering suggestions
or amendments, we are criticized for deficit spending. I remind my
colleagues, the point of order was raised by a colleague who
cosponsored an amendment we defeated this morning that would add $7
billion to the cost of the bill. It would add more to his State and
several other States. It is beyond what is paid for in the bill. It is
beyond what is available in the bill.
There has to be some consistency. People say consistency is the
bugaboo of small minds, but when we take a look at budget numbers, we
ought to be making adjustments in the numbers based on what is
available.
Second, when we are criticized for not being open with our bill, I
urge the chairman of the Commerce Committee to bring his substitute for
the committee bill to the floor to discuss it, to let us know what is
in it so we might make meaningful suggestions and directions.
As I said, we have not been able to review it in detail. It is not
the same

[[Page S1208]]

title as reported out of the Commerce Committee. That Commerce
Committee bill which had allocated $4 billion under the budget
resolution came in at over $6 billion.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BOND. I will yield in a moment. I want to conclude my comments.
I urge my colleagues to waive the provisions of the Budget Act as
outlined in the motion to waive previously submitted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question before he yields the
floor?
Mr. BOND. Certainly.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator could state--since he is moving to waive
the Budget Act because the bill exceeds the budget--in his opinion,
what dollar amount does this bill exceed the budget?
Mr. BOND. The original proposal in the bill agreed on by the budget
conference committee between the House and the Senate was below the
Senate number. It came in at $231 billion.
The Finance Committee has fulfilled its obligation to raise enough
funds in the highway trust fund to enable us to reach the level of $255
billion, the amount originally adopted by a 79-to-21 vote in the
Senate. Rather than argue about that detail and the other details, I
want to put the measure to waive that and we can debate the Finance
Committee and other questions as they arise.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield further for a question, that was
not necessarily my question. My question was fairly specific. If you
accept the number $255 billion as the number you are working from as
the budget number that would be defensible, by what amount does this
bill exceed the $255 billion number? What is the specific amount?
I presume as one of the managers of the bill that the manager must
know that number.
Mr. BOND. I suggest that my colleague ask the Commerce Committee
chairman by how much his title exceeds the budget resolution. I believe
our number is at $255 billion. I want to help out the Commerce
Committee by getting a waiver for what I understand--I cannot be sure--
is a 50-percent increase over the budget allowed to the Commerce
Committee.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, is the
Senator's position that this bill does not exceed the budget, and
therefore, if that is the Senator's position, why would the Senator be
asking for a waiver of the budget?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to answer my colleague, it appears that the
Commerce Committee is over the limit and we are going to have this vote
at some point. This is a good time to have it. There will be questions
raised about the Budget Act. My understanding is that the Commerce
Committee is over its $4 billion allocation.
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to respond to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor and I am happy
to yield for a question to the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware that the EPW portion is over, by $24
billion, the budget resolution? The Commerce Committee is over by $2.5
billion. The reason it is over by $2.5 billion is because of
administration requests. But I would be more than happy and would vote
for removing the $2.5 billion which the Commerce Committee is over and
the $24 billion that Environment and Public Works is over. That, it
seems to me, would be fair.

Again, I hope the Senator from Missouri would look at the substitute
that contains the Commerce Committee's input in title IV. The Senator
from Missouri keeps claiming that the Commerce Committee is not in
there. Look at title IV of the substitute, I say to the Senator from
Missouri, and then you will find out what the Commerce Committee is. I
am astonished he does not even know what is in his own substitute.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate that question from the Senator
from Arizona and that answer, both of which were excellent, by the way.
I am glad somebody around here--who is not necessarily a member of the
committee bringing the bill to the floor--knows the number by which the
bill exceeds the budget. I do think that is sort of an elementary item
you might want to know when you bring a bill to the floor of the
Senate, by what amount do you exceed the budget, especially when you
ask to waive the budget.
The Senator from Arizona has answered that question. The bill exceeds
the budget by somewhere in the vicinity of $24 billion, I believe was
the Senator's statement, on the EPW side, and $2-something billion on
the Commerce side. I am not quite sure why we should be waiving the
budget on that size number. That is a big number: $24 billion.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GREGG. I would be interested in getting an answer first from the
Senator from Missouri, who refused to answer my prior questions with
any specificity, before I yield for a question. I will complete my
statement and then yield.
Mr. BOND. All right.
Mr. GREGG. The point is, we see a bill which has been brought to us
which is dramatically over--dramatically over--the number which was
proposed by the President, and then the number that was passed by this
House as a budget number, and now, when there is an attempt to bring
some fiscal discipline to the bill, we see the committee come forward
and say, well, we don't know how much we are over or we are not going
to tell you how much we are over, but we want to waive the budget.
At what point does fiscal discipline enter any of the discussion
around this Senate? It appears to have become a fantasy land for the
purposes of spending, and it is unfortunate because who is going to be
paying this bill? Well, it is going to come out of the general fund,
which means it will be added to the debt, which means that our children
are going to pay for it.
Now, there are ways to fund a highway bill that are appropriate, and
it is called going to the highway fund and using the money in the
highway fund. This proposal, as it came out of the Budget Committee, as
it was presented by the President, represented a 19-percent increase in
funding, using dedicated funds. It was a very reasonable approach. But
the bill, as it is on the Senate floor today, represents something in
the vicinity of a 40-percent increase in cost, and it is not paid for
with highway funds. It is paid for by borrowing from the general fund,
which means running up the debt, and that is inappropriate.
So the Senator from Arizona has raised a very legitimate point, which
is that this bill violates the budget. Then, when he asked and I asked
the manager of the bill by how much, they could not answer the
question, or they would not answer the question, which is ironic and
maybe reflects either their lack of knowledge of the bill or their lack
of desire to tell us what the number is.
Now, the Senator from Arizona has put a number on the table. He
believes this is $24 billion over the budget. That is a lot of money--a
lot of money. I think the Senator is probably right. I certainly cannot
understand why we would be waiving the Budget Act when we have those
types of dollars being added to the deficit, when the deficit has
already ballooned beyond what anybody should reasonably expect a
disciplined government would be running.
Mr. President, I have a list of just how much this bill has gone up,
and I will put it in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that this list
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

TRANSPORTATION PROPOSALS RAW NUMBERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In billions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) TEA-21's Total Cost 1998-2003........ $218
Highways............................... $167
Transit................................ $41
Safety, Motor Carrier Adm.............. $10
(2) Straight 6-Year Extension (6 years @ $243.4
FY03 Funding level of $40.5 million.
Highways............................... $190.8
Transit................................ $49.2
Safety, Motor Carrier Adm.............. $3.4
(3) Administration Proposal.............. $248
Highways............................... $195
Transit................................ $50
Safety, Motor Carrier Adm.............. $3
(4) ``SAFE TEA''--EPW's S. 1072.......... $318.5
Highways............................... $255 (w/Finance additions)
Transit................................ $56.5
Safety, Motor Carrier Adm.............. $7
(5) TEA-LU: House Bill................... $375 (w/o Safety Money)
Highways............................... $293
Transit................................ $82
Safety, Motor Carrier Adm.............. Amount not clear at this
point
------------------------------------------------------------------------

House bill has yet to be marked up. Young is now
negotiating w/ Thomas who intends to mark up a $318 billion
proposal in Ways and

[[Page S1209]]

Means that is very close to Inhofe's Senate bill.

Mr. GREGG. The TEA-21 total cost for 1998 to 2003 was a $218 billion
bill. That included highways at $167 billion, transit at $41 billion,
and safety and motor carriers at $10 billion.
A straight 6-year extension of that would have been a $243 billion
bill, with highways at $190 billion, transit at $49 billion, and safety
and motor carriers at $3.4 billion.
The administration's proposal was originally a $248 billion bill,
with highways at $195 billion.
SAFETEA, which is what is on the floor now, is a $318 billion bill,
with highways at $255 billion, transit at $56 billion, and safety and
motor carriers at $7 billion.
The House, which is talking about marking up its own bill, is at $375
billion allegedly, with highways at $293 billion, transit at $82
billion--and it is not really clear yet what the safety and motor
carrier number is, but it is pretty obvious if the House is over our
number as we are taking this bill up on the floor, we are not talking
about a conference that is going to come back to the budget number. So
our one opportunity to enforce the budget, to have fiscal discipline,
and to not significantly aggravate the deficit is this vote that is
going to come up on the issue of waiving the budget.
I certainly hope we will stand with the Senator from Arizona as he
tries to enforce some fiscal discipline on this bill which, remember,
if the budget number is put in place on this bill, it will be a 19-
percent increase. We are not talking about cutting spending.
We are talking about cutting spending in a lot of accounts. The
President has sent up a freeze budget for domestic, nondefense, and
nonnational security issues, so we are going to have to cut some
spending around here. This bill is not going to cut spending. If it
meets the budget, it is going to be up 19 percent. So it is not like we
are asking people to take a hit or to reduce highway construction. In
fact, highway construction will increase considerably if we go forward
with a bill which is within the budget, and it will also be
responsible, which is the key to this exercise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The junior
Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think my colleague from Arizona makes a
valid point of order. And as the Senator from New Hampshire has just
pointed out, the bill clearly exceeds the budget; therefore, a budget
point of order is valid and should be supported by the Members of this
body. For those who would vote against the budget point of order, they
are in effect saying: Throw the budget to the wind; we want to spend
more money than is authorized; and we are going to do that.
The response from our side, those people who wish we would stick with
the budget, is to vote to sustain the budget point of order so that we
can at least try to keep within the bounds we ourselves have set.
The rejoinder of our colleagues who oppose sticking to the budget is:
We will fix the bill in conference. But they are never willing to
commit they will bring a bill out of conference that does not violate
the budget.
That is our problem. That is why we cannot accept the proposition
from our colleagues that we will just pass this bill, that it is all
going to somehow magically get fixed in the conference. There have been
no commitments made that the bill that comes out of conference will be
consistent with the budget. This is why the President has also
expressed concerns.
In the Statement of Administration Policy, after noting the fact that
the bill pending before us is $62 billion above the President's
request--which was for $256 billion--the letter reads as follows:

The Administration's proposed authorization level of $256
billion over six years is consistent with the three
principles listed above.

And those are the principles that have been read before that called
for a bill which does not raise taxes, which does not use smoke and
mirrors, and which does not take money from the general fund to pay for
the highways.
The letter goes on to say:

We support a reasonable [responsible] six-year bill and
support many of the provisions contained in this legislation.
However, we oppose S. 1072 and the pending substitute because
their spending levels are too high and they violate these
principles discussed above. Accordingly, if legislation that
violates these principles (such as this legislation, which
authorizes $318 billion) were presented to the President, his
senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

If we sustain the budget point of order that has been raised by my
colleague from Arizona, we will go a long way toward meeting what the
President has asked us to do: to stick within the limits that he set
and that we set. If, on the other hand, we support the motion to waive
the Budget Act of the Senator from Missouri, we have basically said we
are not yet prepared to face up to fiscal realities. We are not
prepared to show we are going to be fiscally responsible. But trust us,
when we get to conference, we might or might not be doing something to
bring us back into fiscal balance.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the budget point
of order raised by the Senator from Arizona and to oppose the motion to
waive all budget points of order offered by the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I erred on a matter of decorum. I said I
would yield to the Senator from Missouri for a question. Unfortunately,
I failed to do that. If the Senator from Missouri did have a question,
I apologize. He has probably forgotten his question by now. It was a
long time ago. I am sure it was going to be a telling question, so it
was best that I wait anyway.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to answer the question once more, he said
how much was it over the budget. As to the original budget passed by
this body, it is right at the budget, 255. How much is it over the
joint House-Senate budget? It is $24 billion over, but that Budget Act
specifically said additional money put in the highway trust fund can be
used for trust fund purposes. That is what we have done. The reason we
asked to waive the Budget Act points of order is so we can stop the
dilatory tactics that have dragged this out without getting a vote for
almost 2 weeks.
I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire if he intends to continue
to delay, to attempt to prevent votes on the substantive amendments
which may be brought to the bill. If he could give us some assurance
that he will not continue to use dilatory tactics and raise points of
order, should we not waive the budget?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I knew the question was going to be a good
one. Let me point out that I offered an amendment 2 weeks ago. I was
ready to vote on it at any time over those 2 weeks. It is hardly my
dilatory tactics that kept us from going to a vote on that amendment.
In fact, it was the manager of the bill who decided to take a
parliamentary move which brought down my amendment and made it
impossible for me to get to a vote. Why would it be dilatory on my part
that the managers brought down my amendment without allowing me a vote?
I guess I would turn the question back to the manager. Is the manager
at this point willing to vote on my amendment? In fact, I ask unanimous
consent to be allowed to bring forward, recognizing that it is not
germane at this time because the manager has positioned the bill so it
is not allowed to be voted on, but I ask unanimous consent at this
point, because the managers asked for a vote, that I be given a vote on
my amendment, which was the amendment dealing with collective
bargaining which was pending for a week and a half in this body and on
which I was not given a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we object. It is not a germane amendment.
That was the problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think that answers the question. It is
not I who has not asked for votes. It is not I who has been dilatory. I
have been aggressively pursuing a desire to vote on that very
reasonable amendment for a considerable amount of time. I do not wish
to waive my rights to maybe raise that issue at some point in the
future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page S1210]]

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, since the Senator from Missouri is on the
Senate floor, I draw his attention to the index of his own substitute
which has the commerce provisions of the bill in it in title IV. I wish
he would ask to strike his comments if he doesn't know what the
Commerce Committee is. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a
little surprised that he doesn't know what is in his own substitute.
The Senate Budget Committee staff tells us that EPW is $24 billion
over the budget; Banking, $9 billion over the budget; Commerce, $2.5
billion over the budget--I would be more than happy to erase all of
those--for a total of $35.5 billion over the budget. Meanwhile,
everybody in America is warning us about running up these huge
deficits. The President of the United States, the administration's
proposed authorization level was $262 billion on highways and highway
safety, $50 billion over the President's request; $56 billion on mass
transit, $12 billion over the President's request. In total, the Senate
bill authorizes $318 billion in spending on highway safety and mass
transit over the next 6 years, a full $62 billion above the President's
request for the same period.
The President has guaranteed a veto. He has guaranteed a veto if we
go on with this number which the managers of the bill continue to
stoutly defend. King Canute had a better idea.
I hope my colleagues will vote to support the point of order which
was raised against the Budget Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe many questions were raised about
financing. I see the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance
Committee, in the Chamber. I will just note that he could answer those
questions, if he is recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I want to make a couple comments about the
bill in general and spending.
We are debating whether to waive the budget point of order. There is
a point of order in order simply because this transportation bill goes
way over--tens of billions of dollars over--what we voted on as a body
and agreed to last year. That is why a budget point of order stands
against this bill.
Transportation spending is one of the most legitimate uses of
government dollars. Everybody benefits by it. I don't think there is
any question. Anybody you talk to agrees it is a legitimate use of
dollars. But there are people who want to go above the budget, who want
to spend more than the trust fund brings in. The trust fund is that
money that comes in because of user fee taxes paid into a fund that are
supposed to build our roads and the like, the rest of the
infrastructure.
Instead of putting this tax on our children or on the next Congress
because we are deficit spending and passing debt, when you pass debt on
to the future, you are going to have to raise taxes in the future. We
have seen Congress doesn't cut spending. So because you are passing
taxes on to the future, the people who want a higher highway spending
bill should have the courage to raise the taxes. I don't believe we
should. But if those people want to spend more money, they should at
least have the courage not to put it off to the next Congress to raise
taxes. That is why this point of order should be sustained.
To put this in the context of the economy and other spending, they
are touting the jobs that will be created. Alan Greenspan testified
that the biggest threat to our economy and to jobs is runaway Federal
spending. The markets are watching us right now. Whether somebody is a
supply side economist or a Keynesian economist, it doesn't matter what
view they take, the one thing they will all agree on--whatever causes
the deficit, they may disagree--is the deficit is a huge threat to the
future growth of our economy and jobs in America. And they are all
watching us right now. The markets are watching; the Federal Reserve is
watching what we are going to do on this very bill right now. That is
why it is so critical we exercise some fiscal discipline on such an
important issue.

It will help us all by voting for more transportation spending; it
helps us all for reelection. That is why this bill is so popular. We
politicians can get up here and tout how much money is coming to our
States; it is going to help you for reelection. But we have to think
about not just our parochial interests in our States but put that into
the broader context of the overall economy and also in the context of
what we are doing to future generations.
If we keep deficit spending, we are putting taxes on to the future
generations. We did the farm bill, the Medicare prescription drug bill,
this transportation bill--we have passed so many things, plus all of
the other discretionary accounts, on top of a war. And Americans
understand that sometimes you have to deficit spend during recession
and war. But we are out of the recession now. The war is still there,
so we have that aspect of it. But to continue to add to the deficit
with all of this other discretionary spending and going above the trust
fund I think is wrong.
That is why I call on colleagues, if they really want the $311
billion, or whatever the spending amount is they come up to, not to
play games, not do this shadow game being done with a lot of the
numbers.
I appreciate what the chairman of the Finance Committee has tried to
do. He was given a task and he has done the best he possibly could. I
think too many games have been played. We ought to be honest. If we
want to spin that number and if people want that number, they ought to
vote for a gasoline tax increase to pay for it. That should be the only
way we do this.
Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks by saying I hope we act in
a more fiscally responsible way than we are doing within this bill. I
am applauding the President for putting his foot down and saying enough
is enough. We have to get our fiscal house in order.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I spoke, similar to what I am going to
say today, last week on the floor of the Senate because I heard these
very same considerations and very same criticisms of the Senate Finance
Committee bill at that particular time. And at that particular time, I
thought for Senators who don't have time to read legislation, or be
advised by their committees or by their staffs on what the committee
might be trying to accomplish--I ought to take time to inform
colleagues about what my committee actually did.
I can tell by the debate today that either no one was paying any
attention to my explanation last week or they forgot or they didn't
care, because I am hearing the same criticism this week. I want to
state why that criticism is unfounded, and I want to say to my
colleagues that what we are doing in this legislation is following
precedent and making sure that money that ought to be in the trust fund
is in fact in the trust fund, and that any sort of exemption we have is
to make all those exemptions and/or subsidies perfectly consistent.
I have found the unfounded criticism of the legislation that has come
out of my committee falling into two categories: First, the general
fund money is going into the trust fund. In other words, nonroad-
related money is going into the road fund and the highway fund, the
trust fund, the transportation fund, whatever you might want to call
it. Second, the Senate Finance Committee has made changes that are in
fact not legitimate changes but are gimmicks.
Let me respond to those. This response is not much different from
what I would have stated last week. In response to the argument that
general fund money is going into the trust fund, under the Finance
Committee amendment no general revenue is transferred to the highway
trust fund. We keep hearing this incorrect allegation. I encourage the
critics to read the Finance Committee title of the transportation bill.
Under the Finance Committee amendment, the highway trust fund will
retain more excise taxes. It is not general fund revenue. That is
excise taxes. And excise taxes go into this trust fund. We accomplish
this by eliminating the partial exemption for ethanol-blended fuel.
Ethanol-blended fuel users will now pay the full excise tax and the
trust fund will receive the

[[Page S1211]]

money. The benefit will be taken as a tax credit against the general
fund. And just to verify that this is a totally consistent policy, this
is exactly as all other energy production incentives are handled.
Likewise, the trust fund, as a second source of revenue, will retain
the excise taxes collected from certain users, such as exemptions that
are given to State and local governments. Those vehicles use our
highways, use our transportation systems; should they not be paying
taxes? Should that money not be going into the road fund?
Under the Finance Committee amendment, the refund is not charged to
the highway trust fund, so that every mile that a city of Des Moines
vehicle puts on, that money would go into the road fund, just like the
gas tax I pay for the car I drive on the highways in the State of Iowa.
Again, this means, then, that the trust fund retains more of the
excise taxes. So let's be clear. The Finance Committee amendment does
not transfer general revenue to the trust fund.
The second argument is that we have used accounting gimmicks. We hear
the allegations that the Finance Committee is doing this many times on
the floor of the Senate. It is an unfair, incorrect allegation. What
the Finance Committee did in our amendment to this transportation bill
was to ensure that the trust fund keeps more of excise taxes that
should actually be in the trust fund and should be spent on our
transportation system.
The Finance Committee also recognized that the trust fund should earn
interest on its balance. You know, just like we are telling our senior
citizens all the time, that surplus in the Social Security payroll
taxes coming in, that is not being paid out currently, is invested in
Treasury bonds. The interest on that is accumulated and accounted to
the Social Security trust fund. So doesn't it make sense to ensure that
any surplus in the transportation fund--and there must be some surplus
to cover shortages after September 11 when people didn't drive as much
and not as much road tax money was coming in--for items beyond what we
can plan for needs to be accounted? That surplus then earns interest.
That hasn't been accounted for in the highway fund. It now will be.
These changes align trust fund receipts with spending purposes.

There are policy initiatives that burden the highway trust fund that
have nothing to do with highway policy. We are going to unburden the
highway fund. These policy initiatives have, in fact, reduced highway
trust fund receipts, money that should have been available to build
highways, not available because of exemptions. We accommodate those
exemptions. Accommodating an exemption, consistent with good accounting
practices, is not a gimmick.
The effect is that these policy initiatives are carried in the
general fund where they belong. I heard one of my colleagues'--Senator
McCain--harsh criticism of the Finance Committee. Senator McCain's
committee, the Commerce Committee, approved new spending of $7 billion
in its programs. The Finance Committee didn't question the Commerce
Committee's needs and, without reservation, the Finance Committee found
a way to fund the needs of this specific committee doing their
legitimate work.
The Senator from Arizona legitimately put a burden on the Finance
Committee, and we accepted that responsibility within our jurisdiction,
within our power, within our responsibility. We bore the Commerce
Committee's burden.
Now, after doing their work, the Finance Committee is criticized for
what it did. It is easy to put burdens on others. It is easy to
criticize those who did the heavy lifting. It is a lot harder to find
ways to do the heavy lifting. But that is not their responsibility.
They did what they needed to do under the responsibilities of that
committee for this transportation bill. I find no fault with what they
have done, and I assumed the responsibility as chairman of the Finance
Committee, working with my 20 members, to make sure the money was
available.
This isn't just because that is something I assumed. This is
something that last summer the leader of the Senate, Senator Frist,
asked us to do. He got members of the Commerce Committee, the Banking
Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Environment and Public Works
Committee together and said that we needed to find something, a common
ground we could agree on or he didn't want to bring this bill to the
floor. That was last summer.
We didn't have time last year to get it done. We extended it until
February 29, but as far as I know, that same collegial assumption of
responsibility to produce good transportation policy is still in
effect. The three committees decided what those programs should be and
the Finance Committee, the committee I chair, met our responsibilities.
Let's deal with reality for a second. As the cloture vote shows, the
will of the Senate is to provide resources at the levels provided by
these three authorizing committees. The Finance Committee did the job
and provided funding at the outlay level. The Finance Committee
preserved its role by maintaining the importance of the trust fund.
A week ago, I spoke to these points. I asked the critics, in light of
where the Senate was on the numbers, how would you fix it? We have a
few vocal people throwing rocks at this bill. None of the rock throwers
have accepted my challenge and answered the challenge. What would you
do and have it be sustained by the Senate, particularly, as I stated
last week and I haven't said yet this week, when we did have that vote
of 79 to 21 last year where there was a clear decision made by the
Senate to spend a lot more money on transportation.

I was one of the 21 who felt we should not go that far, but how are
you going to argue with the Senate making a decision, with only 21
dissenting votes, that the Senate is wrong? I still may think they are
wrong, but that doesn't change my responsibility to provide the revenue
to meet the needs of the three committees, and I assumed that
responsibility. That is what we have done.
It is easy to criticize. It is a lot harder to legislate and do the
people's business, and that people's business I think is represented by
that 79-to-21 vote last year and by the work of the three authorizing
committees--the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Banking
Committee, and the Commerce Committee--on how much money needs to be
spent. It falls on my shoulders to do it. I have done it in a way that
is consistent with the way excise tax money ought to be handled. It is
done in a way that any subsidy the Congress thinks ought to be
established is done. What do you want me to do? Last week I said if you
don't like what we did, I am open to suggestion.
I have one promise that I made to my committee, in the meantime,
about the package that is before us. We followed the same policy that
we did in the tax bill of 2001, and that was to make some changes in
the payment of the corporate tax so that we would have a revenue-
neutral bill coming before the committee. At least the leaders of the
Budget Committee asked me and Senator Baucus during our committee's
deliberation to not use that source of revenue, and we are committed to
responding to that request. Beyond that, I think the bill voted out of
the committee stands, and it is one that meets our responsibility to
the Senate, to the leader who asked the four committees to work
together, to the transportation needs of our Nation, and, most
importantly, in this body doing something in a bipartisan way which, if
it isn't done, this body does not have a product for the American
people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in my view--and I think it is the view of
the vast majority of the Members of the Senate and probably the
majority of Americans--this highway legislation is critical. It needs
passing immediately. It is critical because our country so much depends
upon our highways. The past highway legislation spent a good amount of
money to help repair our roads, provide for new roads, bridges, and
safety. We know the importance of our infrastructure system.
This bill expired. We are now in an extension period. Because it
expired, we desperately need to pass replacement legislation.
It is also a jobs bill. This is a no-brainer. If we have lost--and
nobody

[[Page S1212]]

disputes this figure--a couple to 3 million jobs in this country in the
last couple of years, we need to pass a bill that creates and provides
jobs. That is a highway bill. It does not take much brain power to
figure that one out.
I urge our colleagues to get on with it and pass highway legislation.
We should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. There may be one
or two points--and they are not big points--that individual Senators
may want to have in this bill, but we should not let that get in the
way. We should pass this legislation.
There are some Senators who say, oh, my gosh, this breaks the bank;
it spends too much money. Respectfully, our President has suggested
this is too expensive and spends too much money. There is even talk of
a potential veto. Well, I doubt seriously that the President of the
United States is going to veto this jobs bill. It just is not going to
happen. First, the President has not vetoed any bill in his
Presidency--none. I doubt that his first veto would be the highway
bill, a jobs bill.
Also, importantly, this bill does not increase the debt. It does not
increase the deficit. All of the revenue that will be spent for
highways is already paid for, except for a small portion of general
revenue that goes to pay for a portion of mass transit, but that was in
the budget resolution, and the budget resolution with respect to
highways does not increase our debt.
I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about that because for
those who say it breaks the bank, that is just not accurate. This bill
does not do that. I might say, in my State of Montana, this is our jobs
bill, this is our economic development bill. This creates and maintains
about 17,000 jobs in our State. We are a highway State. We do not have
a lot of people in our State compared to others and we have great
distances to travel, but we would like to have a highway program that
enables us to get around in our State.
That is probably true for all of these folks from all around the
country who come and visit Montana. They like to be able to travel on
roads that do not have potholes. They want to be able to travel to
various resorts in Montana to go skiing in the winter and backpacking
and fishing, fly fishing, in the summer. My colleagues would be amazed
the number of people I meet who tell me they come to Montana,
especially in the summers, to go fishing and just have a good vacation.
They want the same highways in Montana that they will find in other
States of the Nation.
I just cannot say too strongly how much we need this legislation. I
might say, too, this has been a product of bipartisanship, which is so
important. We all know that most anything of consequence that gets
passed in the Senate is passed only when we work together, Republicans,
Democrats, House and Senate. That is this bill. That is this
legislation.

I take my hat off to the chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator
Inhofe, and to the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, who worked very
closely together.
I might also say that the money for this bill has to be authorized by
the Finance Committee. That is the committee of which I am the ranking
member, and the chairman of our committee just spoke preceding me. We
have all worked together, all four of us, on a bipartisan basis to get
a good highway bill passed. That is the only way we can do legislation,
in my view.
The bill also corrects two mistakes. One of them currently--there are
a lot of them, but a lot of the money now that goes to the general fund
should go to the highway trust fund. For example, interest on the
highway trust fund currently goes to the general fund. Well, that does
not make any sense. It is interest on the highway trust fund. It should
go to the highway program. That is a no-brainer. The same with the
ethanol subsidy. There is a 2.5 percent deduction from the ethanol
portion of the highway users tax that goes to general revenue. That
does not make any sense. Folks who drive cars powered by gasohol drive
on highways just like people who drive cars powered by an ordinary gas
engine. It seems to me that for anybody who drives on the highway, the
excise and gasoline taxes they pay should go to the highway trust fund.
A portion of it should not go over to the general revenue. The Finance
Committee fixed that and there are some other changes as well.
To summarize, this is a good bill. It is needed. I urge my colleagues
to pass it very quickly. The cloture vote was very reassuring. I think
only 11 Senators voted against cloture and that was because the
remaining Senators who voted for cloture realized we have to proceed.
We have to get this bill passed; it is very important. I encourage my
colleagues to act accordingly.
I also thank my good friend, Senator Reid, from Nevada. He has worked
hard on this bill, in a totally bipartisan way, knowing how important
it is for Nevada. Nevada is a huge State. A lot of folks in Nevada live
in Las Vegas and Reno, but I am sure the Senator would like to get up
to the northern part of the State sometime, and this helps him do so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I take a brief minute to express my appreciation, as I have
done in this Chamber before, to the chairman of the Finance Committee
and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and
Baucus, for their outstanding work on this legislation.
For anyone to come to the floor and accuse the senior Senator from
Iowa and the senior Senator from Montana of being budget busters simply
does not meet the facts of their careers. These two fine Senators are
known for pinching pennies. They are known as people who are concerned
about taxpayers' dollars, as indicated by the many disputes that have
arisen and the fact that we have criticized them a lot of times for not
coming up with enough money for different things.
For them to come forward on this bill means so much. It exemplifies
their public service and also exemplifies the importance of this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada. I
think he is one of the best Senators in this body and I think his
statement indicates--if one reads between the lines, listens to the
music--why.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from
Georgia.
(The remarks of Mr. Miller are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Grassley and
Baucus for the contributions they have made to this very important
measure. They worked diligently to come up with the funding to pay for
the programs contained in this legislation. The Finance Committee has
provided the revenue to meet the needs of the three committees that
contributed to this bill. In doing so they protected revenue that
deserves to be in the highway trust fund and found appropriate ways to
offset these costs. Through their hard work we can report that this
bill is paid for.
Technically, a budget point of order can be lodged against this bill
because a small amount of general revenue is needed. But I want all my
colleagues to remember that we have gone beyond the budget for the war,
for defense spending, and for tax cuts. Has the spending contained in
these type of measures resulted in the creation of U.S.-based jobs?
That is debatable. But this bill is a jobs bill. There is no doubt in
anyone's mind that this bill will create many, many jobs. Should we
bring this bill down over a small technicality? No. We should pass this
bill today.
I yield the floor with full confidence that we will do so.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the issue in the
highway bill on which Senator McCain raised a budget point of order. I
am not sure I would have made it at this point, but a point of order is
legitimate. Frankly, if you believe in sustaining the budget, if you
believe in a budget, this bill isn't paid for, and the budget point of
order is well made.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the budget point of
order even though I am relatively certain it will not pass. I have
tried to restrain myself on making budget points of order. I think it
is important that points of

[[Page S1213]]

order be sustained. I thank my colleagues because almost every time
last year--about 60 times--budget points of order were sustained. As a
result, we saved hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. Now we
find ourselves confronting a highway bill.
I compliment Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe for their
leadership. They have worked very hard to put together a bill with
allocations and formulas which are fair in meeting our Nation's highway
and bridge needs. I understand those needs are great, indeed. I
understand they want to increase employment. I concur with the
objectives. They have worked long and hard to make that happen and to
come up with the funding formulas. I don't think Congress has worked as
long and hard on how to pay for it. I have heard compliments of our
colleagues, the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking
member. I compliment them as well. But the Finance Committee portion of
this bill doesn't pay for this bill that is before us. Those are just
the facts.
Somebody can say we think it is paid for, but I can tell you it is
not paid for. I will give you a couple of examples. Maybe I don't know
how to read, but I happen to be a member of the Finance Committee. The
Finance Committee has revenue raisers to replenish the general revenue
fund at about $22 billion, over 10 years. This bill is over 6 years.
The amount of money raised by this bill to replenish the general
revenue fund over 6 years is only $11 billion. It doesn't meet the gap.
If you look at the revenues on the scoring sheet that was handed out
by the Joint Committee on Taxation of February 2, the corporate
estimated tax payment due July through September of 2009 increased to
119 percent of otherwise required amounts. That moves $11.4 billion
from the year 2010 to the year 2009 so they can say we met our targets
for the first 6 years of the bill. That is a sham. That is a shell
game. To say that pays for this highway bill defies reality.
I told my friends--and they are my friends. Senator Grassley is one
of my very best friends. I was elected at the same time Senator
Grassley was elected. He and I will be very good friends long after
this bill. Senator Baucus and I are good friends.
But I think it does not pass the smell test. This shouldn't be
enacted into law. They have assured me it won't be, that they will come
up with a replacement. I haven't seen the replacement yet. But I just
try to look at the numbers and see if it adds up. The fact is right now
it doesn't. Maybe there will be an amendment offered later by
leadership, or maybe one offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus
that will pay for it. But right now, it doesn't. Right now, it relies
on this shell game of moving $11.4 billion from 2010 to 2009 and saying
that helps make it work. It doesn't.
I am amazed people think we are going to be able to get all of this
highway spending for nothing. This is a 46-percent increase over the
last highway bill, TEA-21. The President proposed 17 percent, but this
is 46 percent. The House is proposing 72 percent. They talked about
increasing the gasoline tax to pay for it. But they did not. I am
guessing they will have to come down. But where is the money coming
from for the 46-percent increase? The Federal gasoline tax right now is
18.3 cents. No one here has yet said let us increase the gasoline tax.
The President is opposed to that. I happen to agree with him. He thinks
if States want to increase their gasoline taxes, let them do it. But
right now we are saying we are going to increase Federal contract
authority and obligation authority, but we don't have any new money
coming in for it.
I looked at what the Finance Committee did. They came up with a bunch
of transfers, most of which are taking money from general revenue funds
and putting it into highway funds, some of which is sort of related to
highway and some not. That totals about $11 billion. It really comes up
short. Even if you said this escalating corporate estimated payment in
2009 was legitimate--and it is not, and I wish somebody would come to
the floor and say that is very legitimate because it is not
legitimate--it is still short. So we are increasing the deficit.

It depends on whose baseline you are using to see how much we are
increasing the deficit, but the President forecasted the deficit at
$500 billion-plus this year. This will increase that number. The
President has deficit figures, estimates for this year $521 billion,
$364 billion for the following year, and $268 billion for 2006. This
bill is substantially higher than the President's number. Compared to
the funding that is actually in the fund, it is about $39 billion
shortfall. Compared to the President's number, it is $29 billion. The
President was pushing the numbers as far as he thought we could push
them without bankrupting the fund and without saying raid the general
revenue.
Let's look at what is coming into the fund right now. I mentioned we
have an 18.3 cent tax. Some is earmarked for transit, but if you add
the total amount of money coming into the fund, it is $228 billion over
the next 6 years. This bill would result in estimated outlays of $281
billion. That is a difference of $53 billion. The Finance Committee
came up with about $11 billion from general revenue, increasing to $14
billion including fuel fraud receipts to the trust fund, so $14
billion. So there is a shortage. It is not paid for. It will increase
the deficit. I hope everyone understands that. I will hear a lot of
speeches saying this deficit is too high. I want Members to know this
bill will increase the deficit. It is not paid for. If it was paid for,
it would not be increasing the deficit. It will increase the deficit.
The total amount of money coming under this bill is $242 billion and
the outlays are estimated to be $281, and the contracts we are making
are greater than $281 billion. The obligation limits are $290 and the
total budget authority is $318, and $318 billion is about a 46 percent
increase over present law. We did not increase gasoline tax, so that is
too big of an increase. It is not paid for.
The point of order made by my colleague from Arizona should be
sustained. I am relatively certain it will not be sustained. I hope
people understand, in my opinion, we are making a mistake. We should
use user fees to pay for the highway program. If we break that link and
say highways should be financed out of general revenue funds such as
income taxes or payroll taxes, there is almost no limit to how much
this bill could cost.
There used to be a limitation on the highway program and the mass
transit program. You said users have to pay for the program; when you
fill your car with gasoline, you are paying for the roads that you are
using. That makes sense. We will be breaking that link under this bill.
We are breaking it with general revenue financing and we are not paying
for it even at that.
Some Members, Senator Conrad or others, may have an amendment to pay
for it. That would probably be better than just deficit financing.
But we are making a mistake when we break the link between the user
pay and paying for highways or not. If people say, I want a 60 or 40-
percent increase in gasoline tax, you want a 50-percent increase in the
highway program--this is almost 50 percent--you would have to increase
the gasoline tax by 9 cents. You want 50 percent more of a program,
increase the gasoline tax from 18 cents to 27 cents.
That is not what we are voting on. What we are voting on is
increasing the program by 46 percent and we will take some money out of
general revenues to pay for it. That puts more pressure on the deficit.
I don't diminish for a second the good intentions of the authorizers
who are working to help build a national infrastructure that is in
desperate need of more resources. I do not denigrate their efforts one
iota. I compliment them. They worked a lot longer than we did on the
Finance Committee to pay for it. Again, I am not disparaging the work
of the chairman and ranking member, but it falls short and it needs to
be improved. It will not fund this bill. It relies on a shell game of
at least $11.5 billion.
They said they are trying to raise $22 billion to replenish the fund
and they do that over 10 years and we find about $11.4 billion is a
shell game. It does not meet the needs of financing the bill if people
want to say legitimately the bill is paid for.
We have to be honest. We have to say this bill is taking a lot of
money out of general revenues and it will increase the deficit to pay
for the 46-percent increase in highways. People need to know just the
facts. People are always

[[Page S1214]]

entitled to their own opinion, but I don't think they are entitled to
their own facts. The facts are this is a tremendously large increase in
the highway program that is not yet paid for and will increase the
deficit. Therefore, I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of the
budget point of order later this afternoon.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
Mr. CRAIG. We are talking about rates of increase from the last
transportation bill to this bill, 43 percent. The President is
proposing a level of spending. What does this represent as an increase
over the last?
Mr. NICKLES. The President's proposal increases from $218 billion to
$257 billion, an increase of 17 percent.
Mr. CRAIG. There is a 17-percent growth rate above current levels of
expenditures. Is that annualized?
Mr. NICKLES. Over the 6 years, a 17-percent increase. The bill before
the Senate in contract authority is an increase of 46 percent.
Mr. CRAIG. That is annualized?
Mr. NICKLES. It is 46 percent over the 6-year period. You have a 6-
year bill. The bill that just expired, TEA-21, was $218 billion over
1998-2003. This new bill will be a total of, for contract authority,
$308 billion; total budget authority would be $318 billion.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague.
Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. 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 (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was gone during part of the discussion
on this issue. I would like to reemphasize a couple points. First of
all, when we talk about 40 percent or 43 percent, we are talking about
over a 6-year period. Generally we are in the mindset of talking about
from year to year down here, and there are people walking around
thinking we are talking about a 40-percent increase. We are talking
about, if you would amortize it and put it the way we normally discuss
things, 6.2 percent a year. This is in infrastructure, things you see
out there. I think people need to understand that.
Secondly, those of us who were in the business of putting together
this bill over the last year, along with its formula and everything
else that is being criticized, considered all these things. Then we
went, as we should, to the Finance Committee and said: All right, how
are we going to pay for this? And, yes, we can do it. I do not want to
get inside the minds of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus as to what
considerations they were making during this time, but I will say this,
they are the guys who are running the Finance Committee.
They have said this bill is going to be paid for. They have said the
three criterion the administration sent down some time ago--that, No.
1, it would not increase gas taxes; No. 2, it would not have any fun-
and-games type of bonding fixes; and, No. 3, it would not add to the
deficit--is met.
There are 100 people in this Chamber, and I know there can be any
number of them who are going to disagree. But I believe if we take this
to the committees that have the jurisdiction, have the expertise, have
the resources, have the personnel, have the staffers who can put these
things together, that is the place it should be, and they have given us
the assurance this bill will be paid for.
We just had a vote today. We defeated an amendment that would have
increased the amount of money by $7.25 billion in this bill. In other
words, the transportation portion of this, the highway portion of this,
would go up from $255 billion to $262.25 billion. I think a lot of
people who voted in favor of that amendment are the same ones who are
talking now about the fact this is too much.
I know we have the genuine division of interpretations as to what the
Finance Committee did and how this thing is really going to be paid
for. But I have often said--in fact, I said to the administration that,
to me, instead of coming down and saying this bill is going to have to
be $50 billion less, I would think they would be better off to say: So
long as the bill is paid for, does not add to the deficit, does not
increase taxes, then we would support it, we would not veto it. I am
hoping before this thing is over that is where we will be.
Let's keep in mind one other thing, too. We are sending a bill to
conference. In conference all kinds of things happen. I had occasion to
speak with the Speaker of the House at length yesterday. We understand
when it gets into conference we are going to be able to look at this
and take everything into consideration. At that point, we will be able
to really evaluate this finance package and see where we are. There is
no one out there who is going to say: I want deficit spending. I do
not. That has never been my philosophy. I think the senior Senator from
Oklahoma has known me well for many years, and he has heard me say for
many years that we, who are fiscal conservatives, are big spenders in
two particular areas: One is in national defense and the other is in
infrastructure.
As I have heard different individuals such as from Arizona and Texas,
I am reminded of what happened during the Thanksgiving holidays and the
Christmas holidays. We are used to this in Oklahoma. I can remember
someone saying: Well, I came from California. As I came across Arizona,
they had such great roads. I came across Texas and everything was
great. I sure could tell when I got to Oklahoma. They had lousy roads.
That is what we have been plagued with for a long time. Our bridges in
the State of Oklahoma are dead last of the 50 States.
This is a spending bill that is paid for. It does not increase the
deficit, in the opinion of the Finance Committee. I take their word for
it, and I know others may not. For that reason I know this discussion
is good, but we need to move along.
We are going to be moving along. There is much more cooperation on
the floor now. I have to say, this has not been a partisan fight. This
has been something where there are honest philosophic disagreements.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe and I have been in touch with
a number of Senators on the other side. What we would like to do is
have anyone who wants to speak on waiving the point of order do that,
and then, when that is done, we are going to ask consent to set aside
the waiver and go to the next amendment, which would be Senator Kyl,
who has another amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. NICKLES. I understand from one of the proponents of the budget
point of order they do not wish to concur to setting aside the
amendment.
Mr. REID. OK. That settles that. I would advise all Senators, then,
we will not be able to vote on this until maybe a little before 2
o'clock. Both leaders have indicated there are people who have problems
with being here, and they have agreed to let them not be here, so we
will try to speed that up and get to Senator Kyl as quickly as we can.
I would say this: If there is no more debate and it is completed on
the point of order waiver, rather than sit in a quorum call, I would
suggest maybe Senator Kyl could talk about his amendment to just speed
things up when we finish the point of order vote.
I want to say to everyone here, I think sometimes mornings are a
little testy around here. I think, as the day has gone on, we have
worked out an arrangement where, to this point at least, we have had
up-or-down votes, and we are going to continue to do that for the
foreseeable future. The main thing Senator Inhofe and the rest of the
managers and I want to do is make sure people feel they have had a fair
shake here. We hope we are accomplishing that. We are certainly trying.
I indicated to the Senator from Arizona that at the appropriate
time--and probably this is an appropriate time--I would talk publicly
about statements I made on the floor yesterday. There was some, I
think, very serious debate yesterday, and I indicated during that
debate the Senator from Arizona was--I think the words I used were ``at
the

[[Page S1215]]

beck and call of the White House.'' I would like the Record to reflect
that was a poor choice of words, that the Senator from Arizona on many
occasions has been independent on issues the White House has propounded
and advocated.
And so without belaboring the point, if there is an apology that is
necessary, I am certainly willing to do that and apologize to my friend
from Arizona, who I have the highest regard for. If I did anything to
hurt his feelings, embarrass him or--in hindsight, it does not make me
look very good to be name-calling. That is basically a subtle way of
name-calling, and I apologize for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the
words of my colleague from Nevada. I would like to make two points.
First of all, when my staff showed me this morning the words of the
Senator from Nevada--and they seemed to be very concerned about it--
they probably were a little astonished that my reaction was not
particularly negative. I said: Look, people say things on the floor not
exactly the way they meant to express them, and I simply attribute it
to that. Then I chuckled. The Senator from Nevada and I talked a bit
about it, because I said: My friends at the White House might wonder
what on Earth the Senator from Nevada was talking about when they
appreciate the fact that I don't support the amount of funding in the
highway bill even that the President supports, that I don't support the
amount of the funding in the energy bill, and in some cases I have been
kind of a royal pain for folks in the administration.
I try to support the President all I can, and I do support the
President a lot, but we all find ourselves sometimes in opposition to
the administration, sometimes in support of the administration. But I
do appreciate the sentiment of the Senator from Nevada. He certainly
did not mean to suggest, I know, that I only do things if the President
wishes them. I appreciate his comments just now.
I also appreciate what else he said, which is the debate has been
constructive, that there has been a process to try to get amendments to
votes. Just to reiterate that, and describe what I think might happen
here next, the budget point of order my colleague from Arizona raised a
moment ago has been amended by the Senator from Missouri. I checked
with the staff for Senator McCain, and he has no objection to having
that vote at or about 2 o'clock, depending upon what the managers of
the bill wish to do in that regard. He would be prepared, as I
understand it, to come to the floor just before then to make closing
comments about that point of order.

I also know Senator Graham is here and wishes to speak. Rather than
lay aside the pending business, my suggestion would be to go ahead with
that, have any other people speak on it who wish. The managers should
certainly be the ones who determine what time the vote is. I will
simply express what Senator McCain's staff has told me, which is that
he has no objection to voting at or about 2 o'clock and would presume
to be here for a few minutes ahead of that time to speak on this budget
point of order.
Then presumably following that, if there is not a Democrat who wishes
to offer an amendment at that time, I would like to offer an amendment
which should not take very long to debate and would be happy to have a
vote on that amendment as soon as debate time is concluded. I mean
perhaps half an hour or something in that timeframe. I don't know who
all might want to speak on it, but I don't have that much time left,
and I want to save a little bit of time to speak on other business as
well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I must say this has been
a very interesting first year in the Senate. Our country has been
challenged in many ways. I have listened to this debate about the
highway bill. If I were a citizen of Oklahoma, I would be pretty proud.
You have two Senators down here expressing different points of view but
in a very articulate way.
The problems Senator Inhofe related in Oklahoma are very real in
South Carolina. We are billions short of the money we need for bridges
and roads. It is an honest-to-God legitimate problem. This is not about
getting reelected. When people say that, I disassociate myself with
that. This is about trying to do some good for the country
economically.
One good thing about the highway bill that needs to be said more is,
it is not just about jobs. That is very important. But another thing
for sure, these jobs are going to be here. When you pave these roads
and you build these bridges, most of the time, if not all the time,
Americans are going to be doing the jobs.
One of the reasons we have had a kind of jobless recovery is that the
jobs that are being created are being created overseas. When you look
at trying to create a domestic opportunity for somebody to go to work,
a bill such as this is an excellent opportunity for people to go to
work.
Whether or not it busts the budget, I have had a fascinating
opportunity, sitting in the chair for the last hour, to try to figure
all that out. Senator Nickles is going to be sorely missed by this
body. I find him to be an extremely smart, capable person. Senator
Grassley and Senator Nickles are very good friends. I like them
both. Senator Grassley took the floor about the bill being paid for.

Here is where I come down. The President has made a decision for the
first time in his Presidency to threaten to veto a bill if it goes
above $256 billion. To the defense of the people in the Senate, there
has been a little bit of bait and switch here. The White House at one
point in time was not so inflexible in growing the number. I don't know
what has happened there, but something has happened. My best guess is
that the President sees a trend that is pretty disturbing to our party
and maybe the country in general. We have lost sight of our fiscal
responsibilities. The deficit is larger than anyone would like. It is
going to grow.
The things we have done in the past have all been necessary. A
prescription drug benefit can save you money because if you keep people
out of the hospital with a prescription drug, that is a lot better than
having to treat them in the hospital. But at the end of the day I voted
no on that bill because I believed that by the way we set it up,
utilization rates would go through the roof.
I am totally convinced that the marketplace works in two ways: It can
bring out the best in people or the worst. If you have a dollar
copayment, if you make under $12,000 a year as a senior--and a lot of
people are in that situation--your payment under the Medicare
prescription drug bill is $1. That is it. I just really believe that
people are going to start using drugs at a higher rate and that if you
are in the middle of the pack, as a middle-income senior, this is not
that great a deal. The donut hole will be filled in because of
political pressure. The means test is a great idea and the health
savings accounts is a great idea, if we can hang on to them.
At the end of day, my fear was that the Medicare bill would not be
$395 billion; it would explode. Even in my wildest dreams, I never
believed it would explode by some $130 billion in a week. So the
estimate of 395 is now 534.
Let me tell people in South Carolina about these estimates. It is a
guess at best. It is an educated guess. The deficit is an educated
guess. Two years ago we had trillions of dollars of surpluses as far as
the eye could see over a 10-year period. The truth is, you really can't
govern based on what is going to happen 10 years from now because you
really don't know. You can govern pretty well if you will watch every
year or every couple years where you are and project down the road and
not let this thing get out of hand.
The highway bill is not like the farm bill. The farm bill was
special-interest driven even more than the highway bill. I wound up
voting for the farm bill. The amount of money we spent on the farm bill
was more than I felt comfortable with, but I wound up voting for it
because I am trying to get my legs here as a new Senator.
Senator Inhofe and Senator Grassley were the two leading proponents
of the tax cuts. I am very glad I voted for the tax cuts because I
think they have helped the American economy. But we are going to have
to make a decision in

[[Page S1216]]

light of everything we have done in the last year--the war, the tax
cuts, because it does take money away from the budget in the short
term, but it has helped the economy--how far do we go down this road,
no pun intended.
I guess I have made a decision. I have made a decision that the
President's desire to not see this bill grow over 256 is probably a
good decision. You hate to do it on a bill where so many people have
worked so hard to address legitimate needs and to clean up the mess of
highway funding. Senator Inhofe, his colleagues, and his ranking member
should take great pride in the fact that they have taken the funding of
highways that was kind of a hodgepodge and made it more professional.
You brought money back into the highway trust fund that should have
been there all along. You have taken interest payments on highway trust
fund moneys that went to the general revenue and you have brought them
back. I congratulate you for trying to build a stronger fund because we
need a stronger fund.

Here is the really hard part for me as a conservative. The average
person in my State works until about May, or now almost June, to pay
taxes. If you are out there working for a living, when you add up your
State tax and local tax and Federal tax and you look at your pay, it
takes you almost half the year before you start working for yourself.
So the last thing I want to do is come up here and put another burden
on people.
The worst thing I could do is come up here and lie to people. This is
the truth: Our highway funding needs are far in excess of the money
coming in from the gas tax, the mass transit taxes. We are trying to
get more money back into the pot, and I don't want to use general
revenue.
The reason I don't want to use general revenue is that it would be a
bad principle. If you start using general revenue to fund highways,
then you will just have total budget chaos. The authors of this bill
have tried to avoid that as best they can. They put money back into the
fund. In their opinion, it is not enough.
We are at war. The Senate highway bill is increased by 43 percent. I
am sure every penny could be used in a legitimate manner. But when you
do the family budget and when you do your budget back home at a
business entity, to raise one area by 43 percent would be a very
difficult task to do to keep the budget balanced. As much as I would
like to get money into Oklahoma and South Carolina in a more robust
fashion, I don't believe a 43 percent increase, given our financial
dilemma up here with the war and other problems, is going to be
fiscally sound.
With the President's increase of 18 percent and 43--I hope we can
reach a compromise. The House version of 70 percent is not going to
happen. The key issue is, how can you get more money in the trust funds
without raising taxes? Down the road, I don't see how you do that. So
some time in the near future, America is going to have to come to grips
with a couple of competing concepts. The war on terrorism was
unexpected in many ways, in terms of its scope and cost. Maybe it
should not have been, but it was. Every day we are trying to get better
in fighting that war. We have spent a lot of money we did not plan to
spend but couldn't afford not to spend. That is on the deficit.
The recession is finally over. That has been hurting our revenues. As
I see it, as a fairly new Member of this body, future budgeting is
going to be tough to get this thing back to balance in my lifetime. We
are going to have to do some things we have never done before. I think
there have been a lot of creative things done to the trust fund to make
it more solvent in the future.
This is a bridge too far for me. I want to build bridges, but there
are too many being built given our other needs right now. Probably,
over time, conservatives are going to have to come to grips with a gas
tax increase, which is going to be the only legitimate and honest way
to make up the shortfalls in terms of our highway needs in this
country. You can play with the numbers all day long, but a legitimate,
honest debate over whether we need new revenue has been had in this
bill. The question is how to do it.
I think this bill borrows money. This bill is not paid for. The point
of order is legitimate. I am not blaming anybody because the needs are
real. But some day, somehow, somewhere, we are going to have to start
saying no to something. The President has chosen to say no to this
approach to highway funding.
This President has not vetoed a bill since he has been in office.
Whether or not he will veto this particular bill, I don't know. But his
letter was correct in terms of his concerns about the way we are going
as a Nation, in terms of spending. I hope and pray we can work out a
compromise between the House and Senate and the President that will do
most of the things Senator Inhofe would like to do, because those are
legitimate concerns. They will not be able to get everything they want,
given the amount of money we have to spend. That is probably true of
people in South Carolina who voted for me or did not vote for me. This
year, you are not going to get everything you would like because times
are tough.
My hope is if we cannot do a 6-year bill we can agree on, which will
withstand the highway road building projects in a way that will allow
things to go forward, we will come back next year after the election
and look at some long-term solutions. That is my hope. At the end of
the day, I think the President will veto this bill, and it will be a
debate that probably needs to be had about how far you can go before
you literally not only break the bank but make it impossible for the
bank to be restored.
I know a lot of people have worked long and hard. Senator Grassley
was given the job of trying to come up with some offsets, and he is
right, it is hard to do. I think Senator Inhofe has looked at the
highway trust fund every way you can look at it to try to make it more
sound and secure and to get legitimate revenue into the pot.
Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the amount of money we are going
to spend has a deficit component, in my opinion. I may be wrong. But
the President sees it that way. The politics of this bill is probably
the most important decision we will make this year in terms of domestic
spending. If we can resolve this issue in a way that maintains budget
integrity and gets money out into the country to create jobs, we have
set a good tone for the rest of the year. But if the political
discourse about this bill at the end of the day divides us along many
lines, and creates an us-versus-them attitude and we try to say one
side is good and the other side is bad--that is about where we are
right now--the prospect of a consensus down the road to maintain the
fiscal discipline we need to balance the budget one day I think will be
lost. I don't know how it happened, but it has happened.

All the forces that are in play post-9/11 and before are coming
together on this bill--the obligation of the country to defend itself,
the obligation of the country to make itself economically viable by
improving infrastructure, the moral duty for one generation not to put
so many burdens on the next so that they cannot survive, making hard
decisions that are inconsistent with some of the things you have said
as a politician in the past, like raising taxes--all of those concepts
are coming to bear on this bill. To me, this bill and how we resolve it
is a test of character as much as it is of anything else.
Do we have the ability to set aside our individual hopes and dreams,
whatever they may be--whether deficit reduction, highway spending,
never having a tax increase, whatever drives your train--can we find
some common ground? If we leave the playing field having a veto that
was overridden, the consequences to this country, not just the
Republican Party, are extremely serious because if we cannot control it
on highways, as popular as that might be, how will we ever control it
when it comes time to repair Social Security?
That trust fund is $5 trillion short of the money it needs to
maintain solvency by 2042. By 2075, that trust fund is $75 trillion
short of the money it needs to maintain solvency. Those are numbers
beyond comprehension. How did we get into that mess? Both parties, in
my opinion, have played games with the real problem of Social Security,
because nobody in the past has really wanted to embrace the looming
problem Social Security faces. Why? It is very hard in any election
cycle to talk about Social Security, because people who are on it get
scared to death.

[[Page S1217]]

I was born in 1955. There were over 16 workers for every retiree when
I was born. Today, there are three workers for every retiree. Twenty
years from now, there are going to be two workers for every retiree.
The point I am making is Social Security has a problem that is not
created by the Republican or Democratic Party. Social Security is
funded by payroll taxes. That is the exclusive source of money coming
into Social Security. The highway trust fund is funded by gasoline
taxes. If you think the highway bill is a problem, trying to live
within these numbers, you have not seen anything yet when it comes to
Social Security. The consequences of having 2 workers for every retiree
versus 16 for every retiree when I was born are huge.
In 2042, which is not that far away, the only way we can keep the
checks coming is to reduce benefits across the board by 28 percent or
double taxes. To sit on the sidelines for the next 30 years and argue
with each other is unacceptable because after 2042, it gets worse. The
highway bill has a similar problem but not nearly as dramatic. I think
every dollar we will spend in this highway bill has a legitimate
purpose.
If we overspend this year, if we go to 43 percent this year and add
to the deficit and not have a fiscally sound plan to save the highway
trust fund, we set in motion the forces that come back to haunt us. If
we could solve the highway problem in a bipartisan fashion, then maybe
we will solve Social Security in a bipartisan fashion. But the truth is
that the highway needs, the infrastructure needs of this country cannot
be maintained at the current rate of revenue flowing into the trust
fund. That problem gets worse over time, not better.
I do not want to pass on every problem on my watch to somebody else.
I would like to be thought of as somebody who at least embraced a few
problems on my watch in a serious way and did things outside the box.
There is nothing outside the box about trying to create offsets. We do
that all the time. There has been some outside-the-box thinking about
this trust fund and recapturing money, and that will make this trust
fund more solvent and more sound over time.
At the end of the day, in my humble opinion, we can't afford, at this
point in our Nation's history, with a looming deficit that seems to
have no end, a nation at war that seems to have no end in the short
term, to increase spending on something as meritorious as highways at
this level now this way. That is why I think this vote on this bill
will define us for the rest of this year and maybe in years to come.
I am totally convinced of the following: That if the leaders of the
House and the Senate sat down with the President, we could find a way
to put new money into the trust fund, get through this conflict, and
next year talk about some new funding that would be permanent over
time. I think that is possible. I hope that happens because the quality
of the people with whom we are dealing are capable of doing that. I
will not be in that room as a junior member.
I just have one vote, and my vote will be cast for a purpose. It is
not to deny anybody a chance to improve their State or for us to
improve the economy through better infrastructure. I will vote no, and
hopefully the President will have some support for his veto threat.
That ``no'' vote is cast to say let's look at a different way, a better
way of resolving this issue. This, right now, is sheer, tough politics.
People wonder: If they vote no, will they lose all their highway
projects. That won't be up to me. People have to choose the path they
think is best to manage their bills and to run the Senate. But I can
say for absolute certainty that the best way for me to go home and get
reelected is to be me. I am not going to try to change and become
something overly opposite of what I ran on. So I believe if I vote no
with the proposition that 43 percent is more than the taxpayers can
afford right now in terms of retiring the deficit over time, that this
is a bridge too far, most people will agree with me.
That is my hope; that is my bet. But if they don't, I am still going
to vote no because the reason I was sent here, I assume, was to use the
best judgment I can muster. And the best judgment I can muster after
having listened to this debate, which I think has been good and
healthy, is that this highway bill has been innovative. We have done
some things to make the trust fund sound, and the needs are real, but
we are going too far. We are putting too much pressure, combined with
the other actions that we have taken, on future generations, and
somebody sometime has to say: Whoa.
That is what I intend to do--to cast my vote with the idea of let's
look at this in a new and different way in light of the rest of our
problems.
I yield the floor. Mr. President, I thank you for listening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I compliment the
Senator from South Carolina on his comments. I, too, will be voting no
on this motion to waive. As a member of the Finance Committee who
worked on this legislation, I just want to say that the reports about
this bill not being paid for are accurate. There are games clearly
being played to try to move money from one year to the next, to cover
up money by moving money from the year 2010 to 2009 and pretending this
is new money. In fact, this increases the deficit in 2010 because it is
outside the window of what this bill deals with; it is only a 6-year
bill.
We have provisions that increase taxes in areas that have nothing to
do with transportation in order to fund transportation dollars. I know
a lot of people don't care about that. Most people in this Chamber,
obviously, by their votes are not going to care about that. We
increasingly care less and less how things are funded around here. At
one time around here we were actually concerned about that.
I admit, I am guilty on my own account having voted for this Medicare
bill we just passed where we increasingly, over time--it took us a
while--increasingly over time we separated the funding taxes and stream
for Medicare from the money we actually spent on Medicare because the
demand was so great to provide Medicare services that we decided just
to fudge and lose a little general fund revenues, then a little more, a
little more, and then a lot more and a lot more, and all of a sudden
now the Medicare Program has grown and the vast majority of it is now
funded, in large part, by general fund revenues. It has no relation to
the Medicare tax that we pay. That is only a small part of the program,
as it turns out.
Highways and transit have always been funded historically by user
fees. Most of it is gasoline taxes, but there are other excise taxes
and special taxes that are put on transportation. Why? Because the
concept was we were going to create a Federal gas tax and collect money
from the users.
One of the points we hear over and over is this is a user fee. It is
not a general tax, but we are going to tie the amount of money we
collect to the people who use it, and that makes sense. Those who use
the roads should pay for the roads, and the costs should be passed
along to those who benefit from the use of the roads, from the
businesses that pay the taxes and individuals, for that matter. There
was always this nexus, and that stood us in stead.
The argument was made for years around here that we were paying more
taxes than we needed to pay because we weren't spending all the money
that was coming in, and that was a legitimate complaint we had two
transportation bills ago to spend all the money that was coming in and
not use some of these gas taxes to pay for other Government spending to
hide the real cost of Government.
I supported that because I supported the concept that when someone is
being taxed on gasoline and other excise taxes, that money should be
used to improve the roads on which they are driving.
We were able to accomplish that 12 years ago. Six years ago we said
we not only are going to take all that money, but the money that
accumulated over time, we are going to spend that down. I thought: That
is really a general fund transfer, but legitimately that money was put
in there for that purpose. OK, I will support that.
Now we are saying there is no more money left in the trust fund,
there are no more revenues coming, but we still want to spend more.
Why? Well, I have developed an axiom in Washington and

[[Page S1218]]

that is: Never get between a Congressman and asphalt because you are
destined to get run over. And that is exactly what is happening in the
Senate and the Congress.
There are a few of us who will soon be roadkill on the Senate floor,
who are going to try to get between a Congressman and a Senator and the
ability to go back home and say look what wonderful road projects I am
delivering.
I am for road projects. I am for transit projects. I believe we need
to improve our infrastructure. I just think we need to be honest how we
are paying for it. So let's be honest about it. We are not paying for
it.
Now, if any of my colleagues went home, as I did, over the break, one
of the things they probably heard over and over again was the
profligate spending that is going on in Washington, DC. Republicans and
Democrats alike, there is no difference between us, we are all just
spending money like there is no tomorrow and there is no deficit.
So many of us came back saying there is a point where we need to rein
this in. We have huge deficits that go off in the future. It is time
for us to start drawing the line, and it is important not just because
we have huge deficits but it is important to signal to the markets, it
is important to signal to those who value our currency, that we are not
going to allow this fiscal irresponsibility to continue; that we are
not going to continue spending at outrageous rates of growth like the
45 percent increases that are in this bill.
I think it is unfortunate that the highway bill is in the crosshairs
because this is a bill that is very important. I understand that. But
let's be honest about it. The signal we are sending is; the throttle is
still wide open; we are going to spend, spend, spend. Of course, we
will justify it by saying a whole host of things about how important
this is to our economy and all the other things, but the bottom line is
we are spending a ton of money and we are not paying for it. We are
adding to the deficit and we are doing something very dangerous, which
is taking money from the general fund to fund highway programs.
I think it is wrong. That is why there is a budget point of order
against this bill. Now, I understand we are not going to succeed
because this amendment or this point of order gets between a
Congressman and asphalt. Most amendments will fail when that is the
case.
The bottom line is, somebody somewhere in this Senate is going to
have to start getting between Members of the Senate and House and the
projects they want to deliver back home. Otherwise, this deficit is
just the beginning of problems.
I had an opportunity to spend a little time with the President up in
Pennsylvania this morning. I had a chance to chat with him just briefly
about this legislation. Let me assure my colleagues, any Member of this
Senate who thinks they are going to go back home and get a bill that is
$290 billion or $318 billion or $375 billion, which is what the House
was talking about, they may be able to do it but they are going to have
to do it by overriding a veto.
Again, that is the old axiom that maybe the President is going to try
to stand between a Congressman and asphalt. The President has a pretty
big roadblock that has to be gotten through, and I am one Senator who
is going to support that roadblock because I believe we have to at some
point start to say fiscal responsibility matters and we are not doing
it.

I would rather have us have a vote on the floor of the Senate right
now about gas taxes. If my colleagues want to fund this program, fund
it by putting a gas tax in place. Where is the courage of the people
who say we need more roads to pay for the roads? That is the problem we
have. We always want to spend more money, do more things, and we do not
want anybody to pay for it today. Whether it is Medicare, highways, or
whatever the case may be, it is spend more now, get the political
benefit, and pass on the bill to that future generation that, by the
way, I do not have to worry about because I am not going to be running
when they are voting; I can always give them something and pass it on
to the next generation and they will not be mad at me.
At some point, this Ponzi scheme is going to come up. In my mind,
this is a Ponzi scheme. It is wrong.
Now, I admit--and I am going to talk about this later, not now,
because this is a debate on the budget point of order--this is a bad
bill for a lot of reasons. One is because it uses general fund
revenues. No. 2, it raises the deficit. It is not paid for. There is
also a reason I will talk about later, which is what it does to my
State, which is a grave injustice. It is counter to everything.
This entire area of funding transportation projects from Washington,
DC, which is a fairly recent phenomenon, the whole idea was to
facilitate national security and defense but also interstate commerce.
What does that mean? That means States that shoulder the burden of
carrying cross traffic should get paid by other States that do not have
that burden but get the benefits of it. I daresay there is no State in
the Union that carries more cross traffic than Pennsylvania. Yet we
become a donor State under this bill, which is an outrage. That is a
parochial interest about which I will talk at another time.
The philosophical and, I believe, fiscal reasons to oppose this bill
have been laid out clearly by several people in the Chamber. It is
wrong. We will lose, but ultimately the American economy will lose. The
impact and ripple effect of this bill, which will send a signal to
those who are looking at the Congress of the United States to see
whether we are going to constrain spending, will be profound and will
multiply innumerable times the number of job losses versus the job
creation in this bill. This is a bad jobs bill, and we need to put an
end to it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I probably will not win this vote since I
think the sentiments of many of the Members were expressed in the
cloture vote, but I think it is important to point out again that the
total spending in this bill exceeds the current budget resolution by
$35.5 billion. We are facing a $500 billion deficit for the year 2005.
In the Armed Services Committee hearing the other day, the Secretary of
Defense pointed out that they will be coming in for a supplemental
appropriation, many billions of dollars, after the elections, probably
sometime in January. Our service chiefs mentioned that they might be 4
months' short of being able to operate with the funding they have. Our
priorities seem to be passing a bill that exceeds the budget resolution
by $35.5 billion.
I note the presence of the Budget Committee chairman, who I think
does an outstanding job. I appreciate the credible efforts he has made
both as chairman and otherwise for fiscal sanity. I wonder if we ought
to waste our time this year going through the couple of weeks of trying
to come up with a budget, or should we consider, as many House Members
have and other Members of this body, that perhaps we should make the
budget resolution signed into law by the President of the United
States? With all due respect to my dear friend from Oklahoma, who has
been here many years, this makes a mockery of the entire budget
process.
The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee came to the floor
and raised these old chestnuts as to how we are going to finance it. My
all-time favorite is customs user fees. Again, I ask my friend, the
chairman of the Budget Committee, how many times have we used customs
user fees as a way of paying for something which has now given us a
half-trillion-dollar deficit, the party of the balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution in 1994?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Oklahoma
to respond to my tirade.
Mr. NICKLES. I will respond to the question of my colleague and
friend, and the question was how many times we have used customs user
fees. They have been used several times, although I do not know that we
have passed it. It is used to help pay for more spending in many cases,
maybe other tax cuts, but it has not been enacted into law. My guess is
it will be at some point, but I think my friend from Arizona is making
a very valid point and I appreciate that.

[[Page S1219]]

My colleague asked, if we pass this, do we still need to pass a
budget? I happen to think we do. Because we passed a budget last year,
we saved hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of spending over a 10-
year period of time. The budget resolution helped make that possible.
So I hope we will still be able to pass a budget resolution in spite of
this bill.
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, I thank him for his hard work. Again,
I do not look forward to the most unpleasant day we have this year in
the Senate, and that is when we all vote every 30 seconds on issues of
huge import and none of us have a clue as to what we are voting for
when we do it.
Again, I don't think it is through any fault of the chairman of the
Budget Committee that this is over the budget resolution by $35.5
billion. But, if this is the process we should go through when we are
authorizing or appropriating money--we have a budget resolution. It
calls for a certain amount of money to be spent for a certain function.
But then we can get the chairman of the Finance Committee to come down
and say, Don't worry about what we decided in the budget resolution; we
will just find some more money. Usually customs user fees is one of the
old chestnuts that are drawn out of the fire to be used over and over
again.
The other thing about this, my dear friends, the House of
Representatives just decided to delay by 4 months consideration of the
transportation bill. Why? Because there is an outright revolt over
there, because they are closest to the people, about these totally out-
of-control spending practices which have given us these unprecedented
high deficits. I hear a rumor that they may do what is probably the
right thing to do and just extend for 1 year the existing
transportation legislation.
So what do we do? We are passing legislation of which the President
of the United States has guaranteed a veto. Again, I like to point out,
it is the Republican Party that is the majority. It is the party of the
President of the United States that is in the majority here, yet we are
pushing a bill to which the President says he is unalterably opposed.
What is going on?
I hope my colleagues will consider voting to uphold this budget point
of order. It is clearly valid. This budget point of order is clearly
valid.
My friend from Oklahoma said he wished I hadn't raised this point of
order because he doesn't like to see the budget really overridden. A
vote against upholding the budget point of order, to waive the budget
point of order, will basically override the work of the Budget
Committee. I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration if
they vote to waive this and future budget points of order.
It is interesting, on this bill no further budget point of order can
be raised, according to the waiver that is before the Senate now. No
matter how outrageous, no matter how egregious, we have waived this
budget point of order and future points of order.
There is something wrong with this system. Let me remind my
colleagues again, we have been on this for 2 weeks. For 1 week we
didn't have a single vote. Yes, I oppose unanimous consent agreements.
I never ever opposed votes on amendments. I was in favor of those. Why
didn't we have a vote on the Gregg amendment? The reasons are obvious:
Because they didn't want a vote on it. But that was not a reason to
stall any process. But that is behind us.
Now we are faced, as of yesterday, with a veto threat from the
President of the United States because of the tremendous $35.5 billion
increase in spending over the budget resolution and about $62 billion
above the President's request on this legislation.
I urge an affirmative vote, a vote against the motion to waive the
budget point of order.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking member of the Budget
Committee. There is no question that this budget point of order is well
taken, in the sense that the legislation before us as it is at this
moment is not paid for. It is not paid for in any way that is serious.
In the Finance Committee, Senator Nickles and I raised this point
repeatedly and secured a commitment from the chairman and the ranking
member that, before this legislation would leave the floor, it would be
paid for. I had offered an amendment to pay for this bill in the
Finance Committee and only withheld that amendment based on the
commitment that we were given by the chairman and ranking member of the
Finance Committee that this bill would be fully paid for before it
leaves this Chamber. I am trusting in the chairman and the ranking
member to keep their word--to keep their word to me, to keep their word
to Senator Nickles--that before this bill is passed, it will be paid
for.
It is on that basis that I will vote to waive the Budget Act. But I
think it should be abundantly clear Senator McCain is correct in saying
that, as it is before us, this bill is not paid for.
I do want my colleagues to know that in the Finance Committee the
chairman and the ranking member pledged that before this bill leaves
this Chamber, it will be paid for. I trust them at their word. They
have made that commitment. I can say that they have kept commitments to
me in the past. I am counting on them to keep that commitment that in
this Chamber, before this bill leaves the floor, that it will be paid
for--and not by any timing changes; not by moving corporate receipts
from 2010 to 2009, or any funny-money financing, but really paid for.
I should add, I am disturbed that this waiver takes down other
potential budget points of order except out of the conference
committee. Out of the conference committee, if it is not paid for, we
would still have budget points of order apply. But I must say I am very
disturbed that this waiver will be for all budget points of order
because there are other legitimate points of order that could be raised
unless this problem is fixed, as the chairman and ranking member have
promised this will do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the waiver.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question occurs on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''
The yeas and nays resulted: yeas 72, nays 24, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

YEAS--72

Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--24

Alexander
Allard
Bayh
Brownback
Burns
Chambliss
Craig
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham (SC)
Gregg
Hagel
Hutchison
Kohl
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
Miller
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Sununu

NOT VOTING--4

Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Specter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 72, the nays are
24. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order is not
sustained.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S1220]]

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 2473 To Amendment No. 2285

(Purpose: To provide for a substitute to title V)

Mr. Kyl. Mr. President, if the managers of the bill have nothing at
this point, I have an amendment at the desk which I would like to call
forward. The amendment is No. 2473.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 2473.

Mr. KYL. 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 printed in the Record of February 11, 2004, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe for my colleagues
what this amendment does. In simple terms, it reduces the funding we
have provided for the transit and highway purposes of this bill from
the amount in the substitute offered by the Senator from Oklahoma to
the amount requested by the President; namely, $256 billion over the 6-
year period.
That is the amendment. There are some features of it we could
discuss, if you like, and I would be happy to answer questions from my
colleagues. But the gist of this amendment is simply to say, we
understand the bill before us is too expensive. The President has said
he supports a $256 billion number. The statement of position by the
administration would recommend a veto if the bill violates the
principles set forth by the President, including specific reference to
the substitute that we are considering.
So it seems to me if we want to ensure the bill will not be vetoed,
if we want to demonstrate that we are going to begin to spend money
wisely here, then we should be willing to support the level requested
by the President over 6 years, which is $256 billion.
Now, we have quoted before from the Statement of Administration
Policy. What I would like to do is quote from the President's press
officer, Scott McClellan, on board Air Force One this morning at just a
little after 10 o'clock. After talking about some other things, he had
this to say about the question of the highway bill before the Congress.
He said:

This is the first test for the Congress when it comes to
spending restraint. And the President's proposal is at $256
billion.

I am reading from the comments this morning of the President's press
secretary. He said:

This is the first test for the Congress when it comes to
spending restraint. The President's proposal is at $256
billion. This is for the next 6 years. It's a 21 percent
increase above the previous 6 years, and we urge Congress to
show spending restraint in moving forward on this
legislation.

That is the basis for this amendment, to limit our funding for
highway transit purposes for the next 6 years to this level, $256
billion.
Let me get into a little bit of detail about what the Finance
Committee did to come up with a larger number. One of the reasons it is
important for us to focus on this number is because in all three
respects that the President's advisers laid out in the statement of
position of the White House, the bill before us violates the principles
laid down by the President. Those three principles which caused the
advisers to the President to recommend a veto if any of them were
violated are as follows: That the transportation infrastructure
spending should only rely on gas tax revenues and that there not be any
increase in gas tax or other Federal taxes.
This bill raises other Federal taxes. This bill provides new spending
that doesn't come out of the highway trust fund but, rather, results
from work the Finance Committee has done to close a variety of
corporate loopholes. We are familiar with some of the corporate
loopholes the Enron executives were able to take advantage of, for
example. There are some other provisions we were able to close which
represent tax increases for the people who otherwise would have been
able to take advantage of those loopholes.
Those tax increases will produce revenue--I have forgotten the exact
amount, but in the neighborhood of $50 billion or thereabouts. That was
revenue we counted on to use in providing relief to our manufacturing
facilities because we are going to be taking away from that some
special tax treatment the World Trade Organization held to be
impermissible under the WTO principles. Our European trade competitors
brought a case against us in the WTO, and we lost that case.
The way in which we gave tax advantages to our manufacturing
companies can no longer exist. We have committed to the WTO we will
change our tax laws so those advantages no longer exist. However, we
recognize we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs over the last
several years. We don't want to simply reduce for those companies the
offending provisions. We want to substitute something else so our
manufacturing corporations and other corporations will have the tax
structure to continue to grow economically, to continue to produce jobs
and hopefully create new jobs.
If we use the revenue the Finance Committee came up with for this
purpose--and it is called the FSC ETA reforms--if we use those revenues
instead to build highways, I don't know where we are going to come up
with the money to aid our manufacturing firms. I mean this with all
sincerity. It is fine to respond to our general contractors who are
great people back in our home States; we are going to be spending a lot
of money on highways. We are going to be increasing spending by 21
percent if we just adopt the amendment I have laid forth and the number
the President has requested. But I don't know how we are going to look
our manufacturing constituents in the eye, and particularly the people
who work for them, and say: Gee, we are sorry. We spent the money we
would have provided to you on building highways.

I don't know where we are going to get the money to support the tax
relief to these manufacturing corporations if we use all of that money
for this purpose.
That is exactly what the Finance Committee bill does. The chairman of
the committee has said the bill is paid for. This is how the bill is
paid for. So we have increased taxes, and we are going to be
transferring that revenue from a project we all committed to, and we
have to move this forward by March or there will be retaliation by our
trading partners in Europe. They have waited patiently for a year and a
half or 2 years now. We have to do that. But now we are going to apply
those revenues to this bill. Why? Because the chairman of the Finance
Committee felt he had an obligation, in view of the Bond amendment that
passed last year, to find some way to fund the level the Senate had
passed.
It raises taxes. It violates the President's principle. On that alone
the President's people would recommend a veto. We should not do it.
Secondly, the President's principle was the bill should not be funded
by mechanisms that conceal the true cost to taxpayers. This bill
obviously conceals the true cost to taxpayers because it doesn't limit
highway and transit spending to revenues we collect in taxes from those
revenue sources. The gas tax produces $196 billion in revenue over 6
years. But we don't limit the spending on highways to $196 billion.
Instead, we have found other ways to increase that amount of money.
In the Finance Committee we went over all of these various options,
and there are some of them that make enough sense that I am willing to
support them and say: All right. You could go above the gas tax
revenues of 196. You can get up to about 210 to $214 billion and argue
with a straight face this is money that is real money and could, in
fact, be attributed to the highway trust fund.
But beyond that, we are in fact concealing what we are really doing.
That gets into the third principle, which is we should not be funding
from the general fund; that we should fund from the revenues we derive
from the gas tax and should not take money from the general fund for
this purpose. This substitute violates that principle that until now
has guided our spending for

[[Page S1221]]

highway projects. It is there both to protect highway users to make
sure the money in the fund will be used for highway purposes--a point
that was eloquently spoken to by the chairman of the committee, the
Senator from Oklahoma, a day or so ago.
It also protects those people who don't pay a great deal into the
fund because they don't drive very much and they don't buy very much
gas. It protects them from having to pay income taxes to support roads
they never use. We have always had the principle that we are not going
to dip into general revenues, because once you begin doing that, there
is literally no constraint, up until now. Now for the first time we are
going to dip into general revenues.
How does this bill violate that principle and the second principle of
concealing from the American people exactly how these revenues are
going to be spent? It pretends money is in the trust fund that is not
there. By saying that, I don't mean to denigrate the purposes or
motives of my colleagues who created this mechanism. But the fact is,
no new revenue is being created by the collection of gas tax revenues
to be put into the trust fund. We are simply going to deem that money
was put there without it ever having been put there through the gas
tax.

For example, there is an exemption for schools and churches and
States and towns. So when your local school bus drives around and has
to refill the gas tank with gas, we don't charge them the Federal gas
tax for that. What we are going to do now is pretend as though we did.
We are going to say, there is $9 billion that would have been collected
if we had done that, so we are going to pretend as though there is $9
billion in the highway trust fund.
The other thing we are going to do is, if you buy ethanol, you get a
5.2 cent exemption. You don't pay the full 18.3 cents. You pay 18.3
minus 5.2. We are going to pretend as though that 5.2 cents was
collected and transferred to the highway user fund. When I say that,
the mechanism is we are going to actually collect that tax, but then we
will rebate it to the taxpayer. So it actually was collected once, but
it has also been rebated. So again, no net new money.
Since you have to pay highway contractors in real dollars--they don't
pave these highways for nothing, with fake money--how do you do it?
That is where this corporate tax increase money comes in. The Finance
Committee closed these tax loopholes, raised taxes on these
corporations, and produced--again, the number is roughly 50 billion. If
one of my colleagues wishes to correct me, I am happy to be corrected,
but say it is $50 billion.
That new tax increase from corporations is going to then be taken
from the general fund and transferred over to the highway trust fund.
That is general revenues.
So all three of the principles that the President laid down will have
been violated. We have increased taxes on corporations, we have
obscured the fact that the highway trust fund doesn't pay for all of
what we are spending here, and we have transferred money from the
general fund into the highway trust fund in order to pay for the bill
on which we are about to vote.
In all three respects, we have violated the principles that the
President's statement of policy laid down. Given the fact that the
advisers to the President said they would recommend a veto if we do
that, and if we move forward with legislation--I will cite the sentence
from the Statement of Administration Policy:

Accordingly, if legislation that violates these principles,
such as this legislation--

These people are saying ``this legislation'' violates those
principles--

Accordingly, if legislation that violates these principles,
such as this legislation, which authorizes $318 billion, were
presented to the President, his senior advisers would
recommend that he veto the bill.

As that letter says, and as Scott McClellan confirmed, the
President's proposal is $256 billion, a 21-percent increase over the
previous 6 years. That ought to be enough. That is why I offered as an
amendment for colleagues to vote on here the opportunity to support the
President and say, enough is enough, a 21-percent increase is enough--
we don't need to spend more--and, as a result, we are going to exercise
fiscal restraint and pass a bill that is funded at the $256 billion
level.
I would like to yield the floor now to any of my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to offer a
few observations about my friend's amendment. He has spoken with his
usual eloquence. I listened with care to the three points he raised. I
say this with entire sincerity, even though I confess that I didn't
agree with a word he said.
I was in the Chamber yesterday and had with me the survey of the
Department of Transportation on the needs of the United States of
America for transportation. It was about the size of this volume I have
in my hand. It was an exhaustive survey that concluded we needed a
transportation infrastructure bill of around $375 billion to take care
of our crumbling transportation infrastructure.
It is a fact that I have not heard contested, much less contested
successfully, on this floor, that 32 percent of the roads in the United
States are in poor or mediocre condition; 36 percent of the urban roads
are in that condition; 28 percent of the bridges are substandard; we
lose $65 billion a year in productivity and man-hours because people
are trapped on congested roads; there is $50 billion a year in extra
maintenance costs that we have to pay because our automobiles have
maintenance problems due to the fact that the roads are no good.
Who hasn't been in a situation where they have rolled over a
pothole--and not always on some subdivision road but on a highway--and
blown out a shock or their tires have gone out of balance? It is
because of the road, and you have to pay for that. It is not going to
get better if we don't do something to make it better.
This is what I don't understand from the critics of the bill. What do
they want to do? Are these roads just magically going to fix
themselves? Is there something defective about this survey? That is
what the Department says in terms of its academic study, if you will.
We all know it is true. We encounter it every day here on the east
coast, and we encounter it when we are in our States. My friend from
Arizona talked about the bill conceals something. It doesn't conceal
something. It is an attempt to meet the problems of transportation
infrastructure.
What is concealing things is to pretend that the problem doesn't
exist, to set an arbitrary limit for how much we are going to spend and
say, based on what we are willing to spend, that is what we need to
spend, instead of honestly assessing where we are in terms of
transportation infrastructure in this country and coming up with the
money one way or another to meet the needs.
The critics are concealing the fact they don't intend to do anything
about the problem. This is what they say: Well, OK, you cannot raise
taxes to raise money to deal with the problem. You cannot use bonding
because we have never done that before. Everybody else in the country
does it. I spoke at some length about this yesterday. I will not
inflict it anymore on the Senate. Everybody else in the country bonds
for roads and highways and bridges, but we cannot do it here. Now we
cannot use general revenue either. So go ahead and fix the roads, but
you cannot raise taxes, use bonds, or use general revenue. Go ahead and
get the $375 billion.
That is concealing the fact that they are not going to do anything
about the problem. We are going to continue losing the $65 billion a
year in lost productivity, $50 billion in increased maintenance--and
what about the people who die because the roads are no good? What about
those people? Tell them we don't need to do any more? Tell their
families we don't need to do any more for transportation
infrastructure?

I hear my friends say it is not fair to use general revenue, not fair
to the taxpayers. There are a lot of people in Missouri who get up
every day, and they have worked hard and been fortunate enough that
their lives are going pretty good. Maybe they are single or they have
families. They work and get taxes deducted from their paycheck every
week. They pay the taxes at the pump. They pay all the other taxes they
have to pay. On April 15, they write another big check. Because their
lives are going good and they don't need a lot of extra help, they
don't participate in a lot of Federal programs

[[Page S1222]]

that we have here. They support them. They want people with needs to
have access to help. They don't participate in it because they don't
need it. If you stopped and asked them, what is it you get directly out
of the taxes you send to Washington, and they stop and think about what
it is that Washington does that makes a difference for them day to day,
about the only thing they would say is the roads. They would say: It
would help if I could get to work in the morning.
Sure, we have a problem with the fiscal future of the country. That
is not even considering what we have to do with Medicare and Social
Security when the baby boomers begin to retire.
Mr. INHOFE. I didn't hear the figures the Senator mentioned that were
tied to lost productivity and maintenance. What were the figures?
Mr. TALENT. It is around $65 billion a year in lost productivity
because people are trapped in traffic jams.
I say to my friend from Oklahoma, it certainly makes sense. We have
the workers of the country every morning going to work--and I see it in
Missouri--and they are trapped in traffic jams. That is time they are
not spending on the job producing goods and services and wealth for the
United States.
Mr. INHOFE. The other figure on maintenance was what?
Mr. TALENT. It is about $49 billion in extra maintenance costs
because the roads are not good.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. TALENT. Yes.
Mr. REID. My friend's memory is very good. The figure is $67 billion.
And people wait in traffic and waste 5.6 billion gallons of gasoline
every year.
Mr. TALENT. I appreciate the question of the Senator from Nevada,
also.
If you went to that taxpayer and said, what do you get for the money
you send to Washington, and they thought about it, they would say,
well, the roads.
I have people say to me: We don't really want anything, but it would
be nice if you would fix the roads. It would be nice if you had an
extra lane on that bridge or it would be nice if I didn't have to, when
my kid went out on a date at night, wait up at night, not worrying
because I thought the kid would get into trouble but whether my kid was
going to get home on those roads.
So I think the people who are paying the income taxes of the country
into the general revenue of the United States of America would
appreciate it if we used a little bit of that to fix their roads. I
don't know whether that fits whatever rules of accounting we have been
following in the past. I think it would make a difference for the
people of the country.
You know what I don't think is fair--what is not fair is to pass the
bill for the Nation's infrastructure on to the next generation, knowing
we have not done our part to pay it.
Yes, this highway bill is bigger than the last highway bill. As
everybody said, it is about 30 percent bigger. The gap between where it
is and where it should be is bigger, too, and what that tells us is
with each highway bill, we are failing more and more to get to where we
need to be, and it is going to have to get bigger and bigger as time
goes on if we are going to make up for this transportation deficit.
I used this example yesterday. You are a homeowner, and you have a
hole in the roof. You have to consider what options you are going to
use to pay for fixing it. But what isn't an option is not fixing it
because if you don't fix it, it doesn't get any better; it just gets
worse and eventually the roof collapses. I think we should do our part
and face honestly what we need.
I appreciate the managers of the bill getting this bill up to the
level they have. I ask them to hang tough. We need a highway bill at
that level. I made a point of saying yesterday that we need it more
than that. I am hopeful, as this process goes on, that we can persuade
those who, with the sincerest of intentions, are concerned about the
fiscal state of the country, that we don't improve the fiscal state of
the country by undermining the economy that produces the wealth on
which this Government depends.
We are going to meet these needs in the future. We are going to meet
it through growth. America is going to go out and produce and create
jobs and grow and make enough for everybody. America will rescue us
from this fiscal situation if America can get to work in the morning,
and that is what this bill is about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the
amendment. The previous speaker has outlined articulately the huge loss
in productivity this Nation suffers because of the present situation
with respect to our highways, and that if we don't do something about
it, we, obviously, are not going to get the productivity we need. With
international competition from all over the world now, lost
productivity becomes even more important as we go forward.
Many in this body have argued that the level of funding in our bill
is too low. In fact, if we look at the transportation needs of the
Nation, they may be right. What we have done in this legislation is to
follow the will of the Senate.
Last year, during debate on the budget, this body overwhelmingly
voted in favor of the budget levels contained in this bill. In
addition, our levels are almost $60 billion less than the House
proposal--again, $60 billion below the House. In fact, our bill falls
right between what the President wants and what the House wants. We are
in the right place. I could be wrong--maybe I am--that we should accept
that low a level, but we will never get this bill to the President's
level. And without a bill, we risk missing out on the creation of many
jobs.
The American people need these jobs. The biggest problem we have
right now is the lack of effort to pull forward and increase
productivity and to increase the number of available jobs. This bill
will do it. It will create thousands of new jobs, and it will create
them within proper areas of expenditure.
This is a good bill. I would like to see it a little bigger. Maybe we
will get it a little bigger. The House is certainly going to give us
that opportunity. Right now what we should do is pass this bill and get
it on to the President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this will be brief because I think we are
getting redundant in some of the things we are saying. I do find it a
little bit puzzling that the people who are promoting this type of an
approach--whether it is temporary extension or a narrowed-down version
and spending less--are the same ones who were willing to spend $7.25
billion more just a few minutes ago.
On the issue of amount, the 40 percent we keep battering around, we
have to remind ourselves that when we look at Government programs that
are worthwhile Government programs, it is not unusual to have an
increase of 6 percent a year. I draw a distinction between this and a
lot of programs we have--I have a long list I could read about foolish
things we do around here wasting money.
As a fiscal conservative, I believe in spending more in certain
areas. One area is national defense and another area is infrastructure.
I know that is what we are supposed to be doing here. In fact, the
Senator from Missouri has access to a survey that shows that 69 percent
of the people in America, as opposed to 22 percent against it, favor
spending more money right now in this climate on infrastructure--roads
and bridges. That is what we are here for.
I do want to say again--and I am sorry about being redundant, but it
is very important--the President sent over three criteria. I think the
first two we can't even argue about. We are not talking about raising
gas taxes. He wasn't talking about plugging corporate tax loopholes. He
was talking about increasing gas taxes. We don't do that.
Secondly, some of the things he considered to be gimmicks, we are not
doing. I know the Senator from Missouri would like to approach the more
creative types of financing.
In the third area where he talks about taking out of the general
fund, that is one that could be debated. I am fully willing to take
money out of the general fund if it got to the general fund from the
highway trust fund. And it never should have.
One sentence out of the Finance Committee says:

[[Page S1223]]

In the view of the tax committee, these tax policy benefits
have nothing to do with highway use and should not burden the
trust fund.

In other words, if you are going to pass something having to do with
vehicles that use less fuel, or something similar to that, that is
policy and has nothing to do with traveling on roads. Because those
vehicles travel on the same roads as other vehicles, why have the
highway trust fund pay for that? I think that is absurd.
I was here in 1997 when we had a balance of $16 billion in the trust
fund. The previous administration wanted $8 billion. We said let's take
half out of the $16 billion. So they took that out of the highway trust
fund and put it in the general fund. That ought to go back. That is a
policy of being honest with the people. I think it is a moral issue, in
a way, because 99.9 percent of the people who pay their taxes are
willing to do that, assuming that goes to building roads and repairing
bridges, and it is not because we have been raiding the trust fund over
and over for the 18 years I have been here.
That is what this is all about. The Senator from Missouri is exactly
right. We can't continue to do nothing. We are going to have to rebuild
our bridges and roads.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first I wish to correct something I said. I
was trying to estimate the amount of money the Finance Committee has
come up with in corporate loophole closings. That is a gross way of
saying what we did. We have changed several provisions of law that are
going to raise revenue. It amounts to a tax increase on certain kinds
of businesses, but it represents good policy. Some of this follows the
Enron scandal.
I thought we had gotten up to about roughly $50 billion. Actually,
the amount is $22 billion. I stand corrected on that. That would be a
$22 billion tax increase if you want to put it that way.
Second, there are two things to which I want to respond. My colleague
from Missouri basically made the argument: But our needs are great; we
have a great need to rebuild our highway system.
First, I don't want my views to be characterized as I don't care
about building highways; that I don't think we have needs. Of course we
have needs. We have all kinds of needs. If the Congress responded to
every need that every Member brought forth, we would have a budget that
is five times as big as it is right now. We can't possibly satisfy all
of the needs of all of the people all of the time with the revenues we
have, and it is probably a good thing because it does force us to set
priorities.
That is what this amendment does. It says we would like to have maybe
a 42-percent or 41-percent increase over the last 6 years in highway
spending, but everything else in the budget is going to be less than 1
percent, except for homeland security and defense.
If we can set a priority with health, education, welfare, and justice
and all of the other activities we do, if we can create a budget that
has growth of less than 1 percent for those activities, then why do we
have to have more than a 21-percent increase in highway funding, which
is the amount that $256 billion finances?
That is the amount the President will support. I do not want my
colleagues to characterize this amendment as against highway funding.
It is a 21-percent increase. Is that not enough? No, my colleagues say
it needs to be 41 percent. Well, that is a legitimate argument, a
difference of opinion: Do we need to increase it 41 percent or 21
percent? But do not mischaracterize the argument that those of us who
think 21 percent is enough are somehow against doing something about
our infrastructure.
The final point I want to make is to respond to the Senator from
Oklahoma. As to the rationale used, and he characterized it correctly a
moment ago, in the Finance Committee by those people who say this money
ought to be attributed to the highway trust fund, we only raised $196
billion in gas tax revenues, but we have made some public policy
decisions, the results of which have denied money to the highway trust
fund and because of that we ought to attribute those funds to the
highway trust fund.
One public policy decision is that schools, towns, and churches
should not pay the gas tax. That is a legitimate public policy
decision. So we do not collect the gas tax. But the logic is stood on
its head to say but because that is a decision that denies funds from
the trust fund we should pretend as though we put the money in the
trust fund.
The bottom line is, the general revenues of the country are paying
for that policy decision, and the same thing is true with respect to
the ethanol tax. We do not collect 5.2 cents of it. Now we are going to
collect it and rebate it, and they say that hurts the highway trust
fund. Fine. Then charge the tax. Do not pretend as though we charge the
tax and say that justifies attributing that money to the highway trust
fund when, in fact, there is no money, and the only way one gets the
actual money in the highway trust fund is going over to this $22
billion in new corporate taxes, taking it from the general revenues and
then putting it in the highway trust fund.
That is why I think we should limit this funding to $256 billion, a
21-percent increase. The President says that ought to be enough. I
agree with the President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, from time to time I say nice things about
Senators on this side of the aisle, and I do not often enough say nice
things about those on the other side of the aisle. I want to say the
presentation made by the junior Senator from Missouri is one of the
finest presentations I have heard in many years in the Senate. It was
logical. It was to the point. It laid out what we, the four managers of
this bill, have been trying to do, and how difficult it was to arrive
at the point where we are. I want to express my appreciation to the
Senator from Missouri for an outstanding statement. It was well
delivered and had a lot of substance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. This
is an opportunity for the supporters of this legislation to avoid a
Presidential veto, in two ways. One, bring it down to the President's
number and, two, the criteria established by the statement of
administration policy highway spending should be financed from the
highway trust fund, not from the general fund of the Treasury. All
spending for highways should be authorized and appropriated from the
trust fund and derived from taxes imposed on highway use. It says the
administration supports an authorization level of $256 billion. So to
avoid a Presidential veto, I think the Kyl amendment is very important.
I do not want to comment on the statement of the Senator from
Missouri, but I was entertained by his comments about the hole in the
roof. I will tell the Senator from Missouri, there is actually a hole
in the net, there is a hole in the safety net. Maybe highways are more
important than people's Social Security and health care to the Senator
from Missouri, but the fact is, and ask any expert, including testimony
by Alan Greenspan just yesterday, this deficit is going to destroy
America, and the first casualties will be Social Security and Medicare
because they are unfunded mandates to which we just added, with the
support of the Senator from Missouri, a $400 billion and now $543
billion debt on the taxpayers of America.
So if he is worried about a hole in the roof, I hope we are worried
about a hole in the net, the safety net, the guarantee that we have
made to people who are the least able to defend themselves and help
themselves in our society. Those are recipients of Social Security and
Medicare. Both systems are going bankrupt while we spend 60-some
billion dollars more than the President wants and $35 billion more than
the budget resolution we passed calls for.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KYL. If the Senator from Nevada would permit the Senator from New

[[Page S1224]]

Hampshire to speak, then I am happy to let the vote go forward after he
has concluded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to speak a few moments in support
of the amendment, and perhaps to address some of the issues and
concerns that have been raised as well. I begin with the points made by
the Senator from Arizona about the overall size of the bill. This
amendment, if and when adopted, would certainly reduce the total amount
of funds available in the bill, but the increase in highway spending
relative to the last 6-year bill would still be 21 percent. To suggest
that somehow the supporters and proponents of this amendment do not
want to invest in infrastructure, do not want to improve the safety of
our highways, do not want to improve the quality of our bridges, do not
want to expand in some cases the existing interstate highway system, is
simply not correct.
We are not engaged in a debate about the value of infrastructure. We
are engaged in an important debate and discussion about how much is
enough and about how much we can afford and, as Senator McCain of
Arizona pointed out, what our overall priorities are going to be.
I understand for some a 20 or 30 or 35-percent increase in spending
is not enough. I certainly believe it is enough, given that the
President has pledged to veto a bill that is at that level, given that
we have other pressing national security issues, Social Security
modernization questions, a Medicare bill that was passed last year that
is going to be far more expensive than even the supporters of that bill
suggested. We do have other priorities among which we are going to have
to choose.
I think it is very misleading to suggest the supporters of this
amendment do not care or are not willing to commit that money we are
collecting in excise taxes, gasoline taxes, to this kind of investment.
This bill as it is currently written breaks the budget. It violates the
budget resolution. We just had a vote to waive the budget requirements,
to waive a budget point of order so this bill could go forward, because
it violates the budget resolution, because it breaks the bank, because
it is far more than was prescribed in that budget resolution. As a
result, it is going to significantly increase the deficit.
In addition, the legislation contains financing mechanisms that are
disingenuous at best, and phony at worst. We are diverting general
revenue funds that were never intended to go into the highway trust
fund into the highway trust fund, and we are doing it by crediting
money to the highway trust fund that is never collected. We say, well,
if we had excise taxes that applied to States, cities, and towns, we
would collect more in excise taxes, so let's pretend we collected those
taxes and put them in the highway trust fund. That is simply wrong.
When that money is credited to the highway trust fund, it has to be
taken from somewhere else and it is being taken from general revenues.
I think it is instructive to go back to the last debate we had when we
wrote a highway bill--in fact, in 1998--and the proponents of a very
large highway bill at that time said the only thing we are asking for,
and the only thing we ever will ask for, is that all of the money we
collect in gas taxes go to highways. That was essentially accomplished
with the writing of that bill.
Today we are listening to a debate that pretends that commitment was
never even made.
The goal seems to be to scrape every penny possible into the highway
trust fund in order to pass a bill that is as large as it could
possibly be. That certainly is not OK by me.
I am sure there are some people here who would like to raise gasoline
taxes. I am certainly willing to have that vote. There are some people
who would like to pass bonding authority. I am certainly willing to
have that vote. But somehow the supporters of those ideas, while they
want to talk about those ideas and suggest there is a conspiracy to
prevent them from doing those things, don't really want to have those
votes because they know they would not win.
This bill adds to the deficit, and we do have an extraordinarily high
deficit right now. Our economy is just beginning to grow. It is
certainly not the right time to raise taxes, but I think it is the
right time to begin to exercise some fiscal restraint.
Another question that I think is begged by some of the claims thrown
around in this debate is, What is the role of States in highway and
infrastructure--transportation spending? There is certainly a tone that
suggests the State of Missouri, or the State of Texas, or the State of
New Hampshire, or California somehow do not have the wherewithal to
design and build a decent road; they don't have the commitment or the
foresight to levy excise taxes, collect those taxes, hire good people
to run departments of transportation, and invest in maintenance or
safety, bridge management, or new highways.
I think that is simply wrong. States are not incapable. States
certainly care every bit as much as any Member of this Senate about the
safety of their roads, and about their potential for economic growth.
If you look at the highway fatality rates of the different States,
some States have done a much better job than other States in dealing
with the safety issues that were discussed earlier by some Senators. I
think States have not just an important role but a leading role to play
here. Certainly in my experience they set better priorities. They tend
to spend the money a little more efficiently.
That brings me to my final point. Ultimately, what we are really
talking about is a redistribution of funds. If you think literally
about what we are doing, the Federal Government is collecting 18.4
cents for each gallon of gasoline sold in the State of New Hampshire or
the State of Missouri, or Oklahoma, literally bringing that money here
to Washington, and then we are engaging in a debate as to how to divide
up that money to send it back to the States. It makes you wonder what
the purpose of this diversion is in the first place because I can
assure you, the laws of physics, finance, or nature result in less
money ultimately going back to invest in pavement or bridges or transit
at the local level than ever came to Washington in the first place--
unless you believe all the administration, oversight, and regulation
that comes from Washington with regard to transportation is free.
It is not. Ask any worker at the Department of Transportation. They
may wish they were earning a better wage but they are certainly not
working for free. There is a significant overhead cost. That does not
mean there is no Federal role at all in these programs or projects or
investments, but I think we need to be a little more careful in our
debate and discussion. Certainly we need to be a little more careful
with the use of the moneys we are collecting, and be more careful in
the debate or discussion than to somehow suggest the Federal Government
is the only entity that has the ability to make a good decision about
which 5- or 10- or 50- or 100-mile stretch of pavement ought to be
dealt with first and foremost in our States.
If you don't think we are just talking about a redistribution of
money, take a look at the tables that are part and parcel of this
legislation. The percentage redistributed to each State is spelled out
in excruciating detail, year after year. You can see one State has
102.5 percent of what was collected from that State in gas taxes in
year 1. Then it might go to 104.8 percent and then 95.4 percent and
then 93.2 percent. The only reason to calculate such specific
statistics is that ultimately this is a vote and a battle over a
formula for redistributing the money we took from our States and our
consumers in the first place.
I think there is some value in a discussion about whether we should
leave more of that money at the State level in the first place.
Certainly we could give the opportunity to those States that would like
to collect that excise tax in the State to spend it locally, and I
believe a little bit more efficiently than Congress might do here in
Washington.
That is not part of this debate, empowering States, empowering
consumers, empowering local officials to collect and invest a little
more of their share of these excise taxes, but perhaps in the future it
will be. But at the very least, we can take up and support the

[[Page S1225]]

amendment before us today that will bring this bill into compliance
with the budget, that will bring this bill to a level that will not be
vetoed by the President, that will bring this bill up to a level that
will ensure we do not have to raid the general fund; that we don't have
to raid taxpayers' funding that they are sending for programs other
than laying pavement.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 78, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

YEAS--20

Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Brownback
Chambliss
Craig
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham (SC)
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Kyl
McCain
Miller
Nickles
Santorum
Specter
Sununu

NAYS--78

Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Edwards
Kerry

The amendment (No. 2473) was rejected.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, may I make a suggestion. This last vote took
35 minutes. We have people who have been waiting to offer amendments
all day. We have a number of amendments lined up for people to offer. I
would hope the leadership would call a halt to these votes after a
reasonable period of time.
There are people who have already come to me, there are people who
have come to Senator Inhofe and the two leaders, about how long this is
going to take. It could take a long, long time, but it is going to take
a lot longer time if these votes go on endlessly. So I would hope we
could terminate these votes more quickly.
If people miss a vote now and then, it is not the end of the world. I
hope everyone would be in agreement. People feel very strongly about
these amendments, and they have a right to offer them. The decision has
been made today by the managers of the bill to let them offer them, to
have up-or-down votes on them. Until there is some change, that is what
we are going to continue to do. But everyone should not be punished by
the dilatory nature of Senators for whom we wait around endlessly. I
hope the next vote will be 20 minutes and then we will call it quits.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 2430 To Amendment No. 2285

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2430.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 2430 to amendment No. 2285.

Mr. DORGAN. 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:

(Purpose: To modify the penalty for nonenforcement of open container
requirements)

On page 147, after the item following line 24, add the
following:

SEC. 1409. OPEN CONTAINER REQUIREMENTS.

Section 154 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Transfer of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall withhold the
applicable percentage for the fiscal year of the amount
required to be apportioned for Federal-aid highways to any
State under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section
104(b), if a State has not enacted or is not enforcing a
provision described in subsection (b), as follows:

The applicable percentage is:
Fiscal year 2008.............................................2 percent.
Fiscal year 2009.............................................2 percent.
Fiscal year 2010.............................................2 percent.
Fiscal year 2011 and each subsequent fiscal year.............2 percent.
``(2) Restoration.--If (during the 4-year period beginning
on the date the apportionment for any State is reduced in
accordance with this subsection) the Secretary determines
that the State has enacted and is enforcing a provision
described in subsection (b), the apportionment of the State
shall be increased by an amount equal to the amount of the
reduction made during the 4-year period.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment about which I have
spoken previously. It deals with the subject of drunk driving. More
specifically, this amendment deals with the issue of open containers of
alcohol in vehicles. It is similar to an amendment that was voted on
and approved by the Senate when we passed the previous highway bill 6
years ago. I would like the opportunity to explain what this amendment
does and what it means.
Let me describe to my colleagues an organization that most of them
know well, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a wonderful organization that
sprang up over recent years dealing with the issue of drunk driving.
Every 30 minutes someone gets a call that their loved one has been
killed by a drunk driver. That is a relentless number of deaths caused
by something that can be avoided and can be dealt with, if we get tough
dealing with drunk drivers. The scourge on American highways from drunk
driving is not some mysterious illness for which we don't have a cure.
We know what causes it. We know what cures it.
Let me offer some statistics: Of the children from birth to 14 years
of age who were killed in alcohol-related crashes in 2001, more than
half were passengers in vehicles with drivers who had been drinking; 23
percent of the children under 15 years of age who were killed in motor
vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes in 2001; the
leading cause of death for children 4 to 14 years of age is motor
vehicle crashes, too many of them, far too many, as a result of
alcohol.
During the year 2001, 8,054 passenger vehicle occupants under 15 were
involved in fatal crashes. It is estimated that 269 children under age
5 were saved as a result of child restraint. The statistics about
safety issues with children are really quite remarkable. It is
especially compelling to take a look at what is happening with respect
to drunk driving. It is important to understand what we can do about
it.
The amendment I have offered is very simple and would be hard to
oppose. It says that nowhere in this country should you, driving a
vehicle, come to an intersection and meet someone else driving another
vehicle who is drinking while they are driving. It ought not be legal
anywhere in this country to drink and drive. It ought not be legal in
this country anywhere for there to be open containers of alcohol in
moving vehicles.
Some say: Well, but that is the State's decision. That is a decision
the States ought to make.
Thirty-six States have already made that judgment. Thirty-six States
have said they agree, under no condition

[[Page S1226]]

should there be open containers of alcohol in passenger vehicles on the
roads.
There are 14 States, however, that don't make that same judgment.
There are some that prohibit consumption by the driver but say it is
fine if others in the car are drinking alcohol. There are some that say
it is OK to have open containers of alcohol, but you can't have it when
the car is in motion. You just have to pull off to the side of the
road. There are others that have prohibitions on open containers that
apply only to drivers. But one State has an exception for frozen
daiquiris. Sound goofy? It does to me. Let me say that again.
We have 14 States that do not comply with the requirement that would
prohibit alcohol in a moving vehicle on America's roads. There are
several States in which there are no laws at all with respect to
alcohol in vehicles. You may, in some of those jurisdictions, put one
hand around the neck of a bottle of Jack Daniels, put the other hand on
the steering wheel, start your car, begin to move, and you are
perfectly legal. You may drink and you may drive. That is unforgivable.

Nowhere in this country should we have laws that permit drinking and
driving or drinking in vehicles that are on American highways. This is
not rocket science. We know how to prevent this, and 36 States do.
Six years ago, when we passed the legislation creating the highway
bill, we had a vote on this. It was a tougher amendment that I offered
then. It would have imposed a penalty that 5 percent of the highway
funds that were going to a State be withheld unless that State complied
with the requirements to prohibit open containers of alcohol in
vehicles. That passed the Senate 52 to 47. The first year it was losing
5 percent; the second year and thereafter, losing 10 percent of the
highway funds. That was tougher than this amendment.
This amendment provides that if States do not comply with a
prohibition on alcohol in passenger vehicles, then they will lose 2
percent of their highway funds each year during the 6 years. The
amendment that passed the Senate 6 years ago--an amendment I offered
and one that was supported by a majority of my colleagues--was watered
down in conference. The requirement still existed, but it was a
requirement that said, in effect, you better watch it. It said if you
don't comply, some of your highway funds, a small amount, will go to
hazard mitigation or safety programs. Money is fungible, so these 14
States that have not complied have not minded that because they have to
use money for hazard mitigation in any event. So we have 14 States that
have decided it is all right in some circumstance or in some form to
have alcohol in your moving vehicles.
I mentioned that one State does actually have a small prohibition
against this practice, saying that apparently drivers only cannot
drink, with the exception of a frozen daiquiri. There is actually a
frozen daiquiri exception.
I think I have the exception here. In this particular State, just to
show you the extent to which States have gone to produce their own
version of whether you ought to be able to drink and drive: It shall be
unlawful for the operator of a motor vehicle, when the vehicle is on
the public highway or right of way, to possess an open alcoholic
beverage or container or consume an alcoholic beverage in the passenger
area of a vehicle.
Then it describes alcoholic beverage: Beer, ale, port, or stout, so
on, wine, distilled spirits. Open container means any bottle, can, or
other receptacle--(B) except open alcoholic beverage container shall
not mean any bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains any amount
of frozen alcohol beverage unless the lid is removed and a straw
protrudes.
I don't think there ought to be a State in this country where you
ought to be able to drink and drive. It is as simple as that.
It is a fact that conditions have changed dramatically in this
country, and thank God they have. It wasn't too many years ago when a
drunk driving arrest produced a slap on the back and a knowing grin--
well, you got caught, did you, old buddy? These days, it is far more
serious than that.
A wonderful organization called Mothers Against Drunk Driving decided
to stop the carnage on America's roads. They have had a dramatic impact
in Congress and in State after State. I have met most of the presidents
of that organization in recent years. All of them have lost children to
drunk driving accidents. They are all passionately committed to
stopping this. Again, there is no mystery to this. We understand what
causes these deaths, and we understand how to stop it.
I have told my colleagues before that, at 10:30 at night, I received
a call that my mother had been killed by a drunk driver. I will not
describe that except to say the horror of that call, that happens over
and over and over again in this country, is a horror you never forget.
It is so tragic because none of it has to happen. All we have to do is
get serious about drunk driving and enforcing our laws and having the
right laws.
I wish we were as tough and serious as Europe is. In most of Europe,
your attitude had better be that you will not even think about doing
this. You don't dare get caught in Europe drunk driving. The
consequences and penalties are far too great. That is what I wish we
would do in this country.
For about 12 years now, I have been unable to successfully persuade
the entire Congress that there ought to be such penalties to require
every State in this country to make a very simple statement with their
law, and that would be that, in no circumstance, at no intersection, at
no time shall anybody be driving a vehicle in this country and drinking
at the same time and be perfectly legal. It is nuts, in my judgment, to
have laws that allow that to happen--and not just drivers. Yes, there
are circumstances where drivers can drink and it is legal in this
country--in addition to others in moving vehicles who are consuming
spirits and wine, beer, liquor. It is not the right thing to happen in
this country. We have gone well past the time when this ought to be
debatable.
My colleague, Senator DeWine--who, incidentally, supports my effort
here--offered an amendment dealing with drunk driving which I
supported. My colleagues in this Chamber know this is an important and
serious issue. They also know that this is the place to address it. If
you were going to address the issue of drunk driving, it seems to me
you would address it in this venue, right here on this bill.
We spent a great deal of money putting together a piece of
legislation using Federal revenue that we collect and send back to the
States. We have every right to impose a restriction that says we expect
the States to have a prohibition on open containers of alcohol. As I
have indicated to you, 36 States have such a prohibition. This
relatively small map shows, in dark green, all of the States that
already have legislation that causes a complete prohibition on the
consumption of alcohol in a moving vehicle.
The legislation I offer would simply require the other 14 States to
comply. In fact, a fair number of the 14 are close to complying. I
believe it would not be much effort for them to do so. Only those few
States that are remaining, where they insist on some sort of personal
right to allow people to drink and drive, would object. There is no
justification for that objection.

When someone turns an automobile into an instrument of murder because
they decide to get drunk and drive, then there need to be consequences.
One of the consequences, in my judgment, is not only to get tough with
drunk driving, as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have all across the
country--they have gone to court and they have represented victims and
they have insisted on changing State laws. They have been here in the
Congress and have been very successful in dealing with Federal law
changes.
In addition to that, they support this, and I believe we ought to
change Federal law one more time to make this prohibition on open
containers stick across the country. Once again, there is no
justification to say that anywhere, anytime, under any circumstance,
someone ought to be able to drink and drive. Too many of us--many in
this Chamber, in fact--have experienced a phone call and that phone
call is one we never, ever forget because it is such a senseless
tragedy and needless death when someone gets

[[Page S1227]]

drunk and decides to get into a vehicle and it results in the death of
another American.
Let me make a couple of additional comments and then I will complete
my presentation. We know from studies that have been done that
prohibitions on open containers of alcohol in vehicles--the laws that
exist--have made a difference. They have deterred both moderate and
heavy drinkers from driving. We know those laws are successful. In
fact, some States have had the laws for many years, and there are a
good many studies that describe that success. States with prohibitions
on open containers in vehicles have had significantly lower rates of
alcohol-related fatalities than States without. States with open
container prohibitions have had lower numbers of hit-and-run crashes
than States without such laws.
In every single State in this country, the majority, by far--80
percent, 90 percent, 76 percent, 91 percent--of the people say they
support passing legislation prohibiting the open container of alcohol
in vehicles.
My amendment is not hard to understand. It is simply written. It is a
short amendment. The objective of it is quite clear, and the passion
with which I have, for 12 years, worked to try to effect this change
remains. I don't know how the vote will occur today. I regret that some
will decide we cannot take the simple step of saying to the American
people that nowhere in this country should you be able to drink and
drive. I regret that some will oppose that. My hope is that perhaps the
Senate once again today will decide, on this issue, to do what is
right. If so, perhaps we can go to conference and do what is right.
We won't know the names of those whose lives we saved, but I can tell
you they are young children, high school students, babies, senior
citizens, workers, moms, and they are grandpas. A lot of people's lives
will be saved if we take this step, pass this requirement, and get
people off America's roads who now drink and drive and, in some parts
of the country, who drink and drive legally. In my judgment, that is
unforgivable. I don't want any American, under any circumstance, to
come to any intersection at anyplace in this country and meet someone
driving another vehicle who is driving with one hand on the steering
wheel and the other hand on the neck of a bottle of Jack Daniels,
drinking whiskey, and it is legal. That situation exists in this
country and it ought not to.
If this Senate doesn't have the stomach to take that simple step, I
wonder whether we have the capability to legislate on much of anything.
That completes my remarks. I don't know what the procedure might be.
I expect we will have a vote on that. I suggested that the manager of
the legislation, the chairman, accept it by unanimous consent or by a
voice vote, or at least vote for it. I don't know what the chairman
intends to do.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate the choices, but it is going
to be none of the above. I know the Senator is very passionate about
this issue. I also know that currently in title 23 there is this 1.5
percent that is taken out of the programs it is designed to be used for
and put into other programs, such as the section 402--the alcohol-
impaired driver countermeasures and all that. Now, this is different in
that it takes money away--well, look at it this way. The States pay the
taxes that go into the Federal Government, and then we take those and
go back to the individuals and say: Unless you do something in the
wisdom of us here in Washington, even though your State does not agree
with it, we are going to withhold your money.
Let me share a short story with my friend from North Dakota. Many
years ago, I was elected to the State legislature. My first trip to
Washington was 1967. Do you know what it was for? To testify before the
Environment and Public Works Committee protesting Lady Bird's Highway
Beautification Act of 1965 because of this very reason: philosophically
using money that comes from the State to blackmail them to do
something, however good the cause.

I was sympathetic with Senator Warner on his seatbelt amendment, but
I had the same objections. I think the Senator is going to find some
philosophical objections to his amendment. Yet I assure everyone within
earshot, the Senator from North Dakota is very passionate about this
issue, he believes in it, but I will respectfully vote against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this most surely is a mandate, and those
who believe no mandate is worthy ought to oppose this.
I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, the proposal that has existed now
for some years in which we have tried to encourage the States to comply
is a very simple proposition that has not worked.
The encouragement has been to say you will lose highway construction
money that will go into hazard mitigation if you don't comply. Fourteen
States have not complied. In some States, it is legal to drink and
drive. I say this to my friend from Oklahoma, if ever there is a case
for a mandate, it ought to be to say that, as a nation, we have a
national purpose and a national interest in deciding that nowhere in
this country on no public highway shall it be legal to drink and drive
at the same time. I think there are enough Americans who understand the
consequences of this and the tragedy of it to understand why it is
necessary for us to be aggressive.
We can decide that we don't like mandates. That is perfectly
acceptable. But that then will not solve this problem. I guarantee, if
we pass this legislation and the other 14 States comply, lives will be
saved.
In any event, aside from the mandate issue, I don't expect there is
one person in the Senate who will come to the Chamber and say: I really
think it is good public policy to allow people the choice, to let
people choose whether they want to drink while they drive. If someone
has a hankering thirst for whiskey and a powerful need to drive at the
same time, God bless them, get them on the road. There is not one
Senator who will come to the Chamber and say that because that is nuts
and we know it.
There is no justification for allowing anybody in this country to
drink and drive. None, none at all. If this Congress cannot take baby
steps in the right direction dealing with public safety, then a lot
more lives will be lost. This is not radical. This is easy. This is not
complicated. This is simple.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I do not wish to speak on the amendment.
I wish to speak on the bill.
First, I have great respect for the chairman of the committee and the
ranking member. I understand this is one of the toughest jobs we have,
trying to draft a highway bill which everybody thinks is fair. I
suggest it is an impossible task because someone is going to benefit
and someone is not. All we can do as Members is try to make our case as
to why our respective States should be treated in a manner that befits
its condition.
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we have historically benefited
from the Federal highway program. We have benefited in the sense that
more money comes to our State than we have paid in taxes to the Federal
highway fund.
I would make the argument that is as it should be. Of course, every
Senator will stand up and say that is as it should be, everyone should
be a donee State and, of course, that is impossible to do.
The question is, Why should States be donor States and why should
States be donee States? I will give my rationale, which I think is the
rationale underpinning the whole reason the Federal Government gets
involved with highway programs.
Of course, all of our States have highway departments. All of our
States have departments of transportation. All of them have gas taxes,
excise taxes that raise money for the purpose of providing roads. The
question is, Why does the Federal Government do what is already being
done by the States? There is one overriding reason.
Originally, the Interstate System was designed for moving defense
items around in times of war. That was the Interstate System. The
reason for the Federal Government's involvement has to do with
interstate commerce. And the reason for a Federal gas tax is to make
sure there is a network of highways that facilitates interstate
commerce.

[[Page S1228]]

For example--and I use the example of Florida--you want to make sure,
if you are an orange grower in Florida, that you get your products
before they perish to market over a system of roads. So you are willing
in Florida, which has virtually no interstate traffic, to pay a little
bit more for Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia,
Maryland, and Pennsylvania to have good roads so you can get your
products up to New York, Boston, and places such as that.
The idea is that States that may not have a lot of cross-traffic are
willing to pay other States that do to facilitate commerce on behalf of
that State. That, to me, is a very logical reason for there to be a
Federal gas tax.
That being the premise of my discussion, I want to get to my State.
One additional premise. What causes a lot of trouble for roads? There
are two major causes that I can think of--there may be more and I will
be happy to hear them. The two major causes are weather--and I
challenge anybody to go out in the DC area and drive around, now that
we have had a lot of freezing, thawing, snow, and ice, and look at all
the potholes. It is not a common occurrence in this area because we
don't have a lot of thawing and freezing generally. We do now. We are
having weather like Pennsylvania.
A lot of freezing and thawing beats up the roads in combination with
what? Really the biggest thing that beats up roads is weight, heavy
trucks--heavy trucks pounding and beating up roads. Heavy trucks, in
combination with freezing and thawing, really kick a lot out of the
roads.
A premise of my discussion is, No. 1, what is the purpose of this
bill? The purpose of a Federal tax is to facilitate interstate commerce
in those States that benefit from the cross-traffic that occurs in
other States that don't get an economic benefit. I remind my
colleagues, if a heavy shipment is going from Florida to New York and
it goes through the State of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania gets all of the
aggrieved road problems and none of the economic benefit.
Weather and heavy truck traffic. Let's look at the situation in my
State. Why do I bring up my State? Because my State historically has
been a donee State. Historically, we have benefited from the Federal
program. Why?
The reason we benefited, based on the premises I laid out before, is
because we get a heck of a lot of cross-State traffic, heavy truck
traffic that neither originates nor is destined for our State. In other
words, our State gets no economic benefit from heavy trucks in large
numbers rolling through our State.
Let me give you the numbers. As far as ton miles--what am I talking
about here? Heavy trucks, weight that hurts highways weight that
destroys highways, disproportionately to car traffic.
As far as ton miles, we are fifth in the country in ton miles--fifth
in the country in ton miles in our State.
Now, that does not necessarily say Pennsylvania deserves more money
because we get all of this heavy traffic. Let's look at an additional
factor which I think is vitally important--in fact, more important when
it comes to this formula--and that is how much of that heavy traffic is
just going through our State and does not stop, how much of that
traffic gives no economic benefit to our State.
We are third in the percentage of heavy truck traffic going through
our State that does not stop. Forty-seven percent of the heavy truck
traffic going through our State does not stop in my State. Our State
gets no benefit from these heavy trucks beating up our roads and
rolling through our State. There are only two States that have a higher
percentage, and that is Indiana and Ohio. Which States have more heavy
truck traffic than Pennsylvania? Well, Texas does. They are No. 1.
Texas, obviously, is a much bigger State than Pennsylvania, but only 15
percent of the traffic going through Texas is not originating or
destined for Texas. So they do not get near the amount of cross-traffic
that we do. So most of the heavy truck traffic is to some economic
benefit either to someone who is getting shipped the goods or shipping
the goods.
What is the second one? California. Only 2 percent of the heavy truck
traffic going through California is just going through California and
not stopping there. So my colleagues can see what I am talking about.
It is not just that we get heavy truck traffic.
What is the point of this tax? What is the point of this formula? To
compensate States that are what we call in the airline business fly-
over States. Well, we are a crossover State. Vermont happens to send a
lot of stuff through our State--ice cream and milk and all that kind of
good stuff. But the fact is, the reason I have not been happy with this
bill and have been critical of it and have voted to try to change it is
because I believe if we look at the numbers and look at the weather
factors we have to deal with, which a lot of the country does not have
to deal with, particularly the South, and look at the number of vehicle
miles--I mean, look at this. Here is Pennsylvania. These are all the
interstates that go through Pennsylvania: I-70, I-76, I-78, I-79, I-80,
I-81, I-83, I-84, I-90, I-95, I-476. I-99 is an interstate--but it is
not interstate--that is just in Pennsylvania. Look at all of these
interstates where heavy truck traffic is trundling through, beating up
our highways, with no economic benefit to our State.
What is this Federal tax intended to do? It is to say to States that
get no economic benefit from having that traffic go through those
States that we are going to compensate them. But what happens in this
bill? We actually contribute to other States that do not have near the
traffic we do coming through our State for no benefit.
One of those States--and I do not want to pick on a particular State,
but to me it is the most dramatic example because a lot of traffic for
that State goes through Pennsylvania--is Florida. How many interstates
does Florida have? Really three: I-95, I-10, and I-75. I-4 is an
interstate but it goes from Daytona to Tampa, so it is not really an
interstate. The fact is, there are three.
And by the way, less than 3 percent of the traffic that goes through
Florida is originating somewhere else and destined somewhere else--3
percent of all the traffic. In our State, 47 percent of the truck
traffic is neither originating in our State nor is destined for our
State; Florida, 3 percent. Yet look at what happens. Florida--yes, it
is a bigger State. It has more people. I understand that. Do they have
ice, snow, and freezing rain in Florida? Do they have heavy trucks
running over their roads? Do they service other economies and do other
States benefit from the traffic going through Florida? The answer is,
no, no, and no. Yet over the 6 years of this bill they are going to get
a billion dollars more than a State that is shouldering the burden of
trying to keep this economy up and going by carrying truck traffic,
heavy destructive truck traffic, through our State.

So one might ask, and I know several have: Senator, why are you so
upset about the way this bill is put together? Again, I am not being
critical of the chairman or the ranking member. They have a tough job.
I am focusing on one aspect. I happen to believe it is a very important
aspect of why highway formulas are put together. I am sure the Senator
from Oklahoma will tell me, well, there are other factors where
Pennsylvania does not stack up. Pennsylvania is a State that does not
have as many people as Florida, or is not as big geographically as
California or Montana. I understand those are all factors.
Again, if we look at the central premise of why we are here, why do
we have a Federal tax program for highways, we have to ask that
question. It is not because we want to raise money and just turn it
back to the States. I hear it said on this issue that every State
deserves 95 cents on the dollar. Let me just say something very clear.
Why? Why does every State deserve 95 cents back on the dollar? Why does
the State of Florida, with only 3 percent of its traffic is cross-
traffic, deserve money from a Federal program that is designed to help
facilitate interstate commerce? They are the beneficiary of all of the
other States when a truck runs from Florida or to Florida, and the
roads get the heck beat out of them. They do not originate in my State.
So I am not picking on Florida, but that is the most dramatic example.
The fact is, if this program is designed to help States that are
carrying the burden of other States and getting no economic benefit, if
that is the reason we have a Federal highway program--and I would argue
that is the principal reason we should have a Federal highway program--
then States

[[Page S1229]]

such as Pennsylvania and Ohio--and my sympathy goes to Ohio. I know
Senators DeWine and Voinovich are enthusiastic about the improvements
in this bill, and they should be improved. They have been on the short
end of the stick for a long time. Indiana and Illinois, the States that
are sort of the freeway of the heavy trucks and the bad weather, those
are the States that the rest of the States in this country,
particularly in the region, should be helping out because they benefit
economically by having good roads going through those States.
I think I have a valid complaint. That complaint will go on deaf ears
today because this bill will pass and instead of Pennsylvania being a
donee State to help compensate us for the 47 percent of heavy truck
traffic that goes through our State, for which we get no economic
benefit, now we are going to contribute to other States and have the
blessing of carrying their truck traffic on top of it. To me, that is
unfair. It is an injustice to the people of Pennsylvania who are going
to be driving on those pothole-filled roads that are going to be
pothole filled because of heavy trucks going through our State, beating
them up, and providing no jobs except crews running around trying to
fill potholes with tax dollars from Pennsylvania residents.

That is not what interstate commerce is all about. That is not what
this tax was designed to do. It is an outrage that the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania is being treated in this fashion. I am hopeful that after
my explanation those who are in authority, who can look at this and
hopefully fix this problem, will see that we have a legitimate
complaint, and we will have an opportunity in conference to try to
address an issue which I think is going to hurt interstate commerce and
job creation because we are not going to have the quality of roads in
Pennsylvania to shoulder that 47 percent of the truck traffic that goes
through our State of which we get no economic benefit.
It will hurt my State because in my State the quality of roads will
decline. I understand some will say the money goes up in this bill.
Yes, the money goes up. That is assuming we get a bill at this level,
which is looking increasingly uncertain given the President's comments.
So the money probably is not going to go up as much as this bill
suggests it will. So keeping the same formula, our increases are going
to look less and less, as will every other State.
This bill spends about a 45-percent increase in highway funding. We
get a 19-percent increase. Finally, I make the argument that this
premise that every State is entitled to 95 cents back on the dollar is
what happens in Washington all the time. We set forth a goal and
purpose for legislation which is we are putting this bill forward, and
we are putting this system forward to help facilitate the interstate
commerce of America. That is what it was designed to do. But what we
turn it into is: No, this is money coming from my State and I deserve
it back.

If that is the case, if that is what this is for, I am for repealing
the whole thing and just letting the States raise the money. If that is
what we are going to do, let's not bother. If this is all just about
raising the level on the Federal level and giving it back in the
percentage which they raised it, why are we here? We are here because
we wanted to help those States that carry the disproportionate burden
of making the economy of the rest of the country work and getting no
economic benefit from it. That is what originally, I would argue, the
highway formulas have accomplished, at least for my State.
I can stand up and say for Ohio it didn't work that way, and it
should have. I don't know what happened that it didn't. I understand
for other States it didn't work that way. At least it did for mine, and
I hope we can have it work more equitably for the purpose for which
this legislation was originally intended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator
Santorum, for his very cogent remarks about the highway bill and its
effects on Pennsylvania. I associate myself with what my colleague from
Pennsylvania has said.
I think it is unfortunate we have a bill which appears to be heading
for a Presidential veto. We have a bill which quite a number of States
find unsatisfactory.
I compliment the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, the chairman
of the committee, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the
committee, as a whole, for their very strenuous efforts. But I do
believe Pennsylvania is not being treated fairly. Senator Santorum has
gone over the specifics about our State, which has very heavy traffic
going through the State, the third heaviest truck traffic State in the
Nation. Almost half of the trucks which go into Pennsylvania do not
stop in Pennsylvania. There are very difficult problems of weather,
potholes, and highway deterioration that require Pennsylvania be
granted more of the funding.
Pennsylvania has traditionally been a donee State, which means
Pennsylvania receives more than the funds which Pennsylvania
contributes to the trust fund. Now Pennsylvania, for the first time,
was turned into a donor State, so Pennsylvania is contributing more to
the trust fund than Pennsylvania is receiving. I think that just is not
appropriate.
I have also expressed my concern earlier in voting against cloture,
on the first cloture vote earlier in the week, about the concerns I
have for the size of the budget. There has been a clear-cut statement
from the White House that the President is not going to agree with the
figure present in the Senate bill. That is why I voted against cutting
off debate, because I think to be fruitful in what we are doing here we
are going to have to work with the President's figure.
We all know about the ballooning deficit, in the range of $500
billion. We all know about the national debt. We have very heavy
expenditures in many areas. We have a budget that has been submitted
which grants a very small allocation for discretionary spending. In the
context of where we are with the deficit, it seems to me the President
is correct, that this bill ought to be pared, at least to some extent.

The bill is ultimately going to have to be signed by the President,
although it is a matter of speculation as to whether there are enough
votes to override a Presidential veto. But I am not prepared to
override a Presidential veto and I am not prepared to support a bill
with this funding flow, where there has not been some accommodation
with the White House, some accommodation with the President.
There are many steps before the matter comes to a final
determination. There will be final action taken by the Senate, which
appears to be passage. We will have to see whether there are more than
67 votes in favor of the bill. There will be a conference. Senator
Santorum and I are continuing to talk with the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member and others on the committee to try to
get a more equitable share for Pennsylvania. But on this state of the
record, I cannot support this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand there is a pending
amendment, the Dorgan amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to set that amendment aside temporarily and
speak on an amendment which I intend to withdraw.
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. INHOFE. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No objection is heard. The Senator from
Louisiana.

Amendment No. 2615 To Amendment No. 2285

Ms. LANDRIEU. I send this amendment to the desk for its
consideration, but my intention is to speak for about 10 or 15 minutes
and then I am going to ask to withdraw the amendment because,
unfortunately, even though this is an extremely meritorious concept, I
am not certain we have the votes for it at this time, but I thought I
should take some time to talk about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S1230]]

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] for herself, Mr.
Breaux, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Pryor, proposes an amendment
numbered 2615 to amendment No. 2885.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a program to apportion funds to States for use
in the acceleration and completion of coordinated planning, design, and
construction of internationally significant highway projects)

On page 39, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
(17) FINISH program.--For the FINISH program under section
178 of that title, for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2009, an amount equal to 6.4 percent of the amounts received
in the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) for the fiscal year under section 9503(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
On page 389, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 18__. FINISH PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subtitle I of chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code (as amended by section 1815(a)), is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 178. FINISH program

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and carry
out a program, to be known as the `FINISH program', under
which the Secretary shall apportion funds to States for use
in the acceleration and completion of coordinated planning,
design, and construction of internationally significant
highway projects, as determined by the Secretary.
``(b) Eligible Projects.--The Secretary shall apportion
funds under this section for highway projects described in
subsection (a) that are located on any of the high priority
corridors described in paragraphs (1) and (37), (18) and
(20), (23), (26), (38), or (44) of section 1105(c) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105
Stat. 2032), as determined by the applicable State and
approved by the Secretary.
``(c) Apportionment.--For each of fiscal years 2004 through
2009, the Secretary shall apportion funds made available
under this section for the fiscal year to each State in the
proportion that, as determined by the applicable State and
approved by the Secretary--
``(1) the estimated amount that may be obligated in the
fiscal year for the completion of the eligible projects
described in subsection (b) in the State; bears to
``(2) the total estimated amount that may be obligated in
the fiscal year for the completion of eligible projects
described in subsection (b) in all States.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2009, there is authorized to be
appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) to carry out this section an amount equal to
6.4 percent of the amounts received in the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) for the fiscal year
under section 9503(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code (as amended by
section 1815(b)), is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``178. FINISH program.''.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator Breaux, Senator Pryor, and Senator Lincoln from
Arkansas--the two Senators from Arkansas and Louisiana. There are other
Senators who are very interested and have given us a lot of
encouragement as we moved forward with this concept.
I first want to thank the leaders of this bill for their tremendous
work in putting a very balanced transportation bill together. You can
see how controversial and emotional some of this debate is regarding
highways and jobs. Highways, if not built correctly or built in the
right way, or if rail or mass transit isn't provided, if the trade
burden is too heavy on one area, can cost jobs, as you just heard the
Senator from Pennsylvania speak.
This is a very complicated and very big bill and a very expensive
bill, but one we certainly have to find a way to afford because it is
the infrastructure on which our economy in large measure is built. It
is not the only infrastructure. I would like to remind everyone that
schools and education are just as important, but our highways, our
rail, and our Interstate System particularly are the foundation for
jobs and economic growth.
The concept of the amendment I talk about--again, I am going to
withdraw it--is to pull a few percentage points of dollars away from
the general program and direct it to the completion of major interstate
routes that are in desperate need in order to handle the new
international trade and the increased truck traffic and the increased
moveable inventories that are in large measure traveling by truck on
our highways because of policies we have as a Congress put into place
over the last couple of years.
We have an Interstate System to be proud of. We have made mistakes
over the decades as we have constructed it. Obviously we have not been
as sensitive to the environment when we began this several decades ago
as we are today. But it has been a remarkable achievement of the
American people, to dedicate their tax revenues and their gasoline tax
revenues and general tax revenues. It is a true partnership between the
Federal Government and local governments, as we built this Interstate
System, primarily built by the Federal Government.
As you can see, these are the major corridors throughout our country.
In the early days of the country, as trade was more east-west, as we
traded more with Europe and with the Pacific rim, our highways have had
to move across the country and of course the whole Nation has been on a
westward expansion. It started on the east coast and then moved
westward.
The problem now is States such as Louisiana and Texas and in large
measure Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri--the heartland
States, these States right here in the middle of the country--are under
a tremendous burden as the population has increased. I realize two-
thirds of our population lives within 50 miles of a coast. I am from a
coastal State so I understand the populations are very heavy. But the
populations are also very heavy right here in the heartland and there
simply are not enough interstates moving north-south.
That is what this amendment attempts to do, to say to those writing
these policies--and all of us have an input in that--let us pay
attention to finishing some of these interstate corridors. From
Louisiana, the corridors that are most important to us are I-49 and I-
69. I will talk about that in just a minute.
Again, the map shows the concentration of interstates is east of the
Mississippi River, not west. The Western States, particularly those in
the center, need to have additional interstates that are completed. I-
49 would affect Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and others; I-69
which is not completed, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan; I-35, which is not completed, Iowa and
Minnesota; the CANAMEX interstate, which is not yet completed, Arizona,
Nevada, Utah, Idaho; and ports to plains, Texas, Oklahoma, and
Colorado.
Although I did mention Pennsylvania, I want to put up another map. I
know the chairman has worked very hard. I am sure he and the staff know
these numbers, but 46.6 percent of the truckborne traffic that comes
from Canada comes through this entrance right here, and 49 percent that
comes from Mexico or through Mexico comes through this point.
The I-69 corridor, which is not finished, is a very important
corridor to be completed because other corridors that do exist--there
are probably one or two others in this section--are not enough to
handle the percentage of the traffic.
The Senators from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter and Senator Santorum,
with New York and Pennsylvania right here, are feeling the sting of a
lot of those trucks coming through, not stopping, not delivering goods,
not delivering jobs, but creating a lot of traffic, havoc, a lot of
potholes, and accidents are coming through these corridors because of
the way our economic system is developing.
Do we want to stop the economic growth? Absolutely not. But we have
to provide for it. That is basically what our amendment attempted to
do.
I wish to speak for a few more minutes about it, but I am hoping as
we draw some attention to this corridor and the percentages of trade
that come through on a north-south direction we can get more help and
more support.
I think the committee has done a beautiful job. I have worked with
the chairmen on both sides. Louisiana has been treated fairly. This is
not a complaint from the State of Louisiana. I like the idea that our
State, along with many others, is getting a bit more money under the
new formula.
I think it sounds very fair when you say every State should get at
least 95

[[Page S1231]]

percent of what they put in. But the problem with that is it sort of
takes away a bit from our concept of interstates and completing
interstates. Whether it helps Louisiana or not, ultimately, when these
corridors are completed, it helps every State. In this case, two of the
corridors I am speaking about would cut through Louisiana, and would be
a great help to us, and also to the whole Nation and our metropolitan
areas.
That is the underlying concept of the amendment. Again, to generally
describe it, it would take a small percentage--6 percent--which equates
to about a $16 billion commitment over the next 6 years to finishing
anywhere from four to five of the major corridors through the middle
part of the country. This is only one. There would be others that
would fall into this concept and this amendment.

Let me keep the I-69 chart up for 1 minute and talk about one of five
that will be completed in the middle part of the country.
I-69 will serve the Nation's top 25 seaports, 13 inland waterway
ports, and 15 of the Nation's top air cargo ports. One of the reasons
we need to finish I-69 is because it helps to link our seaports, our
waterways, and our airports. That is true for every one of these
corridors that would be proposed in this plan.
When I-49 is complete--hopefully one day soon--it will extend from
New Orleans to Kansas City, but it benefits the whole Midwest part of
the country, from the great port of New Orleans, the port of Houston,
the port of Mobile, with huge amounts of trade and traffic which are
goods imported and exported moving through these ports. They need
north-south corridors. We simply don't have enough north-south
corridors. We have a lot of east-west corridors but not north-south
corridors.
Once completed, the I-49, I-29, and I-35 corridors will intersect
with nine other east-west interstates, including I-94, I-190, I-80, I-
70, I-44, I-40, I-30, I-20, and I-10. Building the north-south
corridors connects them to the east-west to make this grid workable and
helps all of us to be more efficient and profitable as we move goods
and services around and through this great Nation.
There is one final point I want to show a picture of. This is a hard
picture for me to look at, but the ranking Member from Vermont, Senator
Jeffords, has actually seen this with his own eyes. He was gracious
enough to come down to Louisiana. We were literally standing there
looking at a bridge, which is not in this picture frame. The Senator
asked me what would happen to the bridge if there was an accident. At
that point, a large shrimp trawler literally hit the bridge, knocking
the mast of the trawler off and knocking the nets down. The bridge was
out of commission for several hours. The Senator witnessed that
himself. There is only one way in and one way out.
But the frightening thing for people who are observing and listening
to this today is this is the main highway for offshore oil and gas
revenues coming into the continental United States. This is LA-1.
Eighteen percent of the imports and a majority of the offshore oil and
gas drilling that is done happens at the end of this road. With a heavy
rain, it goes under water. This road needs to be elevated and
protected. The marshlands need to be restored. All of that can be done
with the right kind of investment.
This is probably one of the worst examples of not using our Federal
resources directly and well, in the sense that $6 billion is produced
from the Treasury off the shores of this highway, but we can't get one
penny to broaden or fix this highway--that is not true. We have,
through the generosity of the chairman, gotten some money to fix and
designate this highway. But this is one of the corridors that could be
greatly improved by a commitment to finish the major economic corridors
we rely on for our security and which give us energy security--but also
in the middle part of the country to help us move oil and gas off our
shores to light up Chicago, New York, or places in Pennsylvania and
Vermont, and move goods through the Gulf of Mexico. This is a major
corridor.
My amendment seeks to re-focus only a small percentage--6.4 percent--
of our Federal highway spending on finishing our network.
My proposal calls for creating a finish program. The finish program
would provide enough funds to finish or substantially finish a few
highways of international significance.
In 1995, we dissolved the interstate program and left behind a few
major uncompleted segments. From its founding by President Eisenhower
until its dissolution in 1995, the Federal interstate program provided
a dedicated stream of funds to build our system of interstate highways.
This map of completed interstate's shows the concentration of
interstates east of the Mississippi River and the great gaps in the
network that exists west of the Mississippi River, particularly north-
south interstates.
ISTEA and TEA-21 provided a new program that listed a number of high
priority corridors that are vital to national economic development, but
did not provide the funding to construct these highways.
The proposed finish program would provide the necessary funding to
finish or substantially finish the most significant of these
Congressionally designated high priority corridors so that we can begin
closing the remaining gaps in our national network.
All of the proposed roads for the FINISH program have already been
Congressionally designated high priority corridors, yet we haven't
given them priority funding. Many segments of these roads do not exist.
Some of these roads exist but are inadequate and are awaiting
improvements. All of these proposed road projects link our borders
north and south. All of these proposed road projects will bring
tremendous social and economic benefits for both their regions and for
the Nation.
Of the six corridors that I propose be included in the FINISH
program, I want to focus on three specific corridors that I know best
because they directly impact Louisiana. These three specific corridors
are: I-69, I-49 and LA-1.
When completed, this will span the Nation's heartland, connecting
Canada and Mexico through the States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas.
Since the passage of NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are now the U.S.'s
major trading partners. In 2001, 80 percent of U.S. trade with Mexico
and 67 percent of U.S. trade with Canada was transported by truck. The
I-69 corridor accounts for over 63 percent of the Nation's truck-borne
trade with Canada and Mexico. This map of the I-69 corridor shows that
the Michigan border points of Detroit and Port Huron account for over
46 percent of the Nation's truck-borne trade with Canada. The Texas
border between Laredo and the Lower Rio Grande Valley accounts for over
49 percent of the Nation's truck-borne trade with Mexico.
I-69 will serve the Nation's top 25 seaports, 13 inland waterway
ports and 15 of the Nation's top air cargo airports. This corridor
would directly serve 25 million people. I-69 will provide economic
development in some of the Nation's most impoverished regions,
including the Mississippi Delta and the lower Rio Grande Valley.
In the I-69 corridor States, there are over 9.1 million people living
below the poverty level. In 6 of the 9 corridor States, the population
in poverty exceeds the U.S. average. Currently, only two sections of
this corridor--Interstate 69 from Port Huron, MI to Indianapolis and
Interstate 94 from Port Huron to Detroit and west to Chicago--are
complete and open to traffic. However, these sections are in need of
upgrading. The remainder of I-69, from Indianapolis south to the
Mexican border, is in varying stages of completion. Location and
environmental studies are near completion and many sections are under
design work and construction.

When completed, I-49 will extend from New Orleans to Kansas City.
When completed, it will provide a continuous trade highway from Canada
through the Midwest and New Orleans to Latin America.
Major portions of the route are already constructed: In Louisiana,
from Lafayette to Shreveport as well as other sections in Arkansas and
Missouri. Environmental work has been completed for every unconstructed
section of the roadway. Records of decision for every one of these
sections

[[Page S1232]]

have been signed by the Federal Highway Administration. Project funding
is the only remaining obstacle to the completion of the Interstate.
I-49 is a nationally significant freight distribution and inter-modal
corridor that will service the deepwater ports of South Louisiana, New
Orleans, Houston, Beaumont--four of the top five ports in the Nation by
tonnage--the Great Lakes ports of Duluth, Superior, Chicago, Gary and
Milwaukee, as well as numerous other inland waterway ports throughout
the Midwest and plains States.
The I-49 corridor bisects a 420-mile north-south gap in what is
potentially one of the most agriculturally and industrially productive
regions of our country between I-55 to the east and I-35 to the west.
Once complete, the I-49/I-29/I-35 corridor will intersect with nine
other east-west interstate highways including: I-94, I-190, I-80, I-70,
I-44, I-40, I-30, I-20 and I-10.
With existing rail facilities along the corridor including BNSF,
KCS--now NAFTA Rail--and Union Pacific, completion of I-49 will spur
the creation and expansion of major inter-modal facilities from Canada
to the Gulf of Mexico. Once complete, I-49 will provide $817 million in
annual savings to the Nation's economy by reducing travel time,
transportation costs and congestion. Over 6 years, these savings will
total over $4.9 billion. Coincidentally, the total remaining cost to
construct I-49 is estimated at about $4.9 billion. Construction and
completion of I-49 will support the creation of up to 206,290 new jobs.
I thank the chairman from Oklahoma and the ranking member from
Vermont. Of course, the Senator from Nevada had a great deal to do with
this bill. I thank them for their balanced approach. But I suggest to
them if we could accelerate the completion of some of our major
interstates in the middle part of this country, it would help everyone.
It is desperately needed from an economic, security, and safety
standpoint for the 30 or 40 States that are tremendously affected by
the lack of this kind of infrastructure.

Amendment No. 2615 Withdrawn

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 2615), to amendment numbered 2285, was withdrawn.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have just spoken to Senator Dorgan. He is
in the cloakroom and he wishes to speak for a few minutes prior to the
vote on his amendment. We should advise the Senate there should be
another vote in the next 10 minutes or so. Does the chairman agree with
that?
Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, we should emphasize we will
not have more 38-minute votes. It could help the situation to be
prepared for perhaps two more votes, if that is necessary.
Mr. REID. I appreciate my chairman acknowledging the fact at this
stage--things could happen later on--we have another amendment on our
side and two more amendments on the other side, and that is all we know
of on this bill. There may be other things come up but that is what the
managers have been told.
I underline and underscore what the chairman of the committee has
said. It is not right to have these votes go 38 minutes. People have
other things to do. It is unfair to the Members here, voting on time,
to nonchalantly walk in, knowing the vote has been held up. These are
not close votes. There is nothing that will be damaged by someone
missing a vote. If you have an important engagement, tell that to your
constituents. It is unreasonable to do this. I hope later we will
acknowledge that and help move the bill forward.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there any way the votes could be stacked at a set
time so we would know about votes later tonight?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the junior Senator from Louisiana, we
have tried that today and we have had objections to stacking votes. We
will continue to try. We would be elated to do that. We know the
schedule is extremely difficult for everyone but it is especially
difficult for a mother of two children at home.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Senator Breaux and I are entertaining for Mardi Gras
this weekend. We are honored to have 2,000 of our friends in town. But
he will have a good time anyway.
Mr. REID. Knowing Senator Breaux--and this is directed toward him--we
hope he does not have too good of a time.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding Senator Dorgan is here and will
speak. If he could confine his remarks to less than 10 minutes, we
would have no objection to accepting his amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we could dispose of
the amendment I have offered in a moment.
Let me again explain this amendment. Six years ago, the Senate did
pass an amendment that is slightly tougher than the one I now offer
dealing with the issue of drunk driving. It specifically deals with the
issue of open containers of alcohol in vehicles.
We understand that nowhere in this country should someone be able to
drink and drive at the same time. Yet there are still jurisdictions
where that exists. The Senate has had a vote on this. When we
previously considered this legislation 6 years ago, the Senate voted in
favor of my amendment. It did get watered down in conference. My
understanding is that the amendment would now be accepted, and I
appreciate that. I have spoken twice on it and have fully explained it.
I feel passionately about this piece of public policy.

I thank Mothers Against Drunk Driving and all of the other Senators
across this country who dedicate their time and commit their lives to
try to do something to make a difference about drunk driving and save
the lives of so many in this country who are at risk as long as there
are people who are drinking and driving in the United States.
I thank the two managers of the bill.
I yield the floor with the understanding the amendment is accepted.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. DORGAN. May I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is my amendment will be
cleared by an approval of a voice vote and I ask that that occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2430) was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like my fellow Senators to learn
of some of the tremendous advances we have been able to make under this
bill in the past relative to the changing needs of our Nation. I am
going to spend just a few minutes on the North Street Revitalization
Project.
This effort is an innovative transportation project in Vermont that
demonstrates the value of the Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Program, also know as the TCSP.
When the TCSP was authorized in TEA-21, the city of Burlington
quickly realized that this innovative program could be used to
revitalize a blighted neighborhood called the Old North End.
North Street is located in the heart of Burlington's Old North End.
The North Street revitalization project was born of a need to
reinvigorate one of Burlington's oldest and most densely populated
neighborhoods, a neighborhood where nearly a third of

[[Page S1233]]

the inhabitants fall below Federal poverty levels, where over 85
percent of elementary school children receive free and reduced price
lunches.
It has been a wonderful example of a community using transportation
funds to fight sprawl by investing in an older urban neighborhood.
I do not exaggerate when I say that efforts to revitalize the Old
North End have been underway for over 20 years. The early TCSP Program
grant for North Street has been the single most important factor in the
success that the project is finally achieving.
I am pleased to report that the project is out to bid and
construction will commence this spring. In addition, business activity
in the neighborhood is way up and housing investment is increasing. The
optimism is infectious and the infrastructure work has barely just
begun.
As you can tell, I am very excited by this project. But I have chosen
to highlight the project for another reason.
The North Street revitalization project is an excellent example of
the benefits of the TCSP. The TCSP allows projects such as this one to
develop all over this country. It encourages communities to consider
the ways in which transportation investment can improve mobility,
economic vitality, and quality of life.
I am pleased to say that we have continued this program in our
reauthorization package and increased the funding associated with it.
This is only one of the many excellent programs that this bill
authorizes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I just want to speak briefly because there
has been some talk and discussion floating around the Chamber that one
of the proposals that is being considered is to use customs fees to try
to fill the failure of this bill to meet its budget obligations.
As we have discussed earlier, the bill is about $24 billion over
budget, minimum. I think that is a conservative figure, but that is the
number that is being accepted as the number that is given.
Unfortunately, a lot of the additional spending in the bill, rather
than coming from the highway trust fund, which is where it logically
should come from because the highways should be paid for by the highway
trust fund, comes from a variety of movements of dollars, which
essentially ends up with the general fund funding the highway trust
fund from between about $226 billion up to about $255 billion, I
believe. Off the top of my head, I think those are the numbers that are
picked up by general fund activity that is now alleged to be highway
fund activity, which is inappropriate. We should pay for roads with
highway fund activity.
But I just want to put a marker down that if we--on top of all this
other gamesmanship as to how this is being paid for, and the deficit,
which is being added to by this bill--move to try to use customs fees
to give a figleaf of financial correctness to this bill, we would be
making a serious and inappropriate error.
First off, the use of customs fees would be a direct raid on the
general fund because it would mean that fees, which are dedicated and
which go into the general fund and would support the Customs Service,
and anything else the general fund needs to spend them on, would then
be moved over to the highway fund. That would be inappropriate because
that would mean, yes, it might fill up the highway fund with more
money, but it would take money out of the general fund, and you would
have to borrow to cover that and you would end up aggravating the
deficit to the extent you did that.
So it would not accomplish anything other than to give you a figleaf
approach to fiscal responsibility. But even more importantly, this
whole issue of customs fees has been around the track so many times. It
has been used so many times here that I would think people would start
feeling a little reticent about trying to use it again. Literally,
customs fees have gone around the track probably more times than
Seabiscuit.
I just want to list a few times we have used customs fees--the same
customs fees, by the way.
We used customs fees to pay for H.R. 7 in the 107th Congress, which
was the Community Solutions Act. We used customs fees to justify--we
never used them. We use them to justify that the bills are within the
budget. That is what this whole exercise is about. We used them again
in the 107th Congress on the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. We used
them again in the 107th Congress for the Personal Responsibility, Work,
and Family Promotion Act. We used them again in the 107th Congress for
the American Competitiveness and Corporate Accountability Act. We used
them again in the 107th Congress for the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Improvement Act. We used them again in the 107th Congress for the
Servicemembers' Tax Assistance for Noteworthy Duty Act.
That was the 107th Congress. We used the same custom fees six times
in the 107th Congress. That is amazing, gamesmanship at a new level.
Then we move to the 108th Congress. How many times have we used
custom fees so far in the 108th Congress? Well, it was used for the
Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act; the jobs and growth tax
relief reconciliation bill. It was used for the Relief for Working
Families Tax Act. It was used for the Relief for Working Families Tax
Act twice, in fact. It was used for the Rebuild America Act by the
House. It was used for the Health Care Coverage Expansion and Quality
Improvement Act. And, of course, we are considering using it for this
act.
At some point we have to have some modicum of fairness and
forthrightness about what we are doing around here. I will strongly
resist using custom fees as a vehicle for giving a figleaf of fiscal
accountability to this bill because that is all it is. It is not
legitimate to use it. We know it won't be used. Its only purpose would
be so that people could come to the floor and argue that they somehow
paid for this bill when, in fact, the practical effect of it is that it
will never be used. It has not been used yet in the prior 13 instances
I have cited. And if it were used, it would mean a direct shift of
funds out of the general fund into the highway fund, creating a deficit
situation in the general fund, aggravating the deficit to the extent
that it was scored as being used in the highway fund.
It is bad policy. I wanted to lay down an early marker that this
should not be a manner in which we proceed on this bill.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal 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.

Amendment No. 2502 To Amendment No. 2285

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have at the desk amendment No. 2502. I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
numbered 2502.

Mr. BOND. 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:

(Purpose: To strike the highway stormwater discharge mitigation
program)

Beginning on page 876, strike line 12 and all that follows
through the matter between lines 6 and 7 on page 880.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment to S. 1072 preserves the
basic expansion of eligibility for storm water mitigation projects but
removes a mandatory 2 percent set-aside for storm water which was added
in committee. While I protect storm water mitigation project
eligibility for funding from highway programs, I oppose sending another
Federal Government mandate to the States, telling States they must set
aside 2 percent of their surface transportation programs for

[[Page S1234]]

storm water activities regardless of the actual need in the State.
There are few greater champions of Federal funding for water quality
and drinking water in the Senate than myself and my colleague from the
State of Maryland with whom I chair and serve as ranking member--
depending upon who is in control--of the appropriations subcommittee
which funds water projects and programs in the EPA budget. Senator
Mikulski and I year after year have squeezed the rest of the budget to
put badly needed funding for clean water and safe drinking water
measures into our bill because we know there are great needs. Every
year we have to restore hundreds of millions of dollars that OMB, on a
bipartisan basis, always takes out of the State revolving fund.
Last year we appropriated $1.35 billion to States for the clean water
funds and $850 million to States for their drinking water funds. Every
year we appropriate millions of dollars to protect, sustain, and
restore the health of our Nation's water habitat and ecosystems.
We spend millions of dollars funding water programs for the
Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound,
and the Great Lakes. Last year we sent hundreds of millions of dollars
more to member States for targeted investments in their water
infrastructure. We do that every year for our colleagues because we
believe so much in providing clean and safe drinking water for our
families and local communities.
In this highway bill, I was also proud to join my colleagues,
Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid, in expanding the eligibility for
storm water mitigation projects. Current law allows States to spend
surface transportation program funds on storm water mitigation needs.
In S. 1072, section 1601, we expand storm water eligibility to allow
States to spend National Highway System funds on storm water mitigation
needs. States can spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost on
environmental restoration or pollution abatement such as storm water
mitigation. However, that amount will be left up to the State and the
individual conditions at the site of each project. We should not set an
arbitrary number in Washington and force States to set aside that
amount.
We are not talking about a small amount of money. A mandatory 2
percent set-aside equals almost $1 billion over 6 years. That is $1
billion States must divert from their surface transportation programs
regardless of need. By now, many of you have heard from State DOTs that
they oppose a mandatory set-aside. Almost none of them, and nobody who
is running highway programs, likes to have mandatory set-asides. Our
States certainly do not appreciate mandatory set-asides from
Washington.
We also must remember that not every State has the same environmental
conditions or needs. A State's need to spend highway funds on storm
water will differ depending on the individual conditions in each State
or each part of the State. States in the upper Midwest, States in the
West, States in the Great Plains will not see the same rainfall nor
storm conditions as States in the East. Nonetheless, all States will be
forced to set aside 2 percent of their STP funds for storm water unless
this section is struck.

What sense does it make for a State which has tremendous highway
needs but relatively few storm water needs to set aside 2 percent? Let
me repeat, with my amendment, storm water mitigation projects are still
eligible for funding from highway programs. We preserve and expand
storm water funding eligibility. States will be free to spend the
amount of money they believe necessary to address storm water needs in
their State. There may be years in which Missouri spends more than 2
percent on storm water needs. But our State has heavy rainfalls.
This vote is about whether we want to impose another mandate on our
States. I urge my colleagues to turn back this Federal Government
mandate to say what the needs of every State are. There may be many
States for which this is not appropriate. I urge my colleagues to let
States decide how best to spend their highway dollars, and I urge
support of my amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal 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.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, the four of us--the chairman,
ranking member, chairman, and ranking member--have worked tirelessly to
arrive at a point where we can complete this bill. This is an important
amendment.
The Senator from Missouri has worked with us, the three managers--if
I said weeks, it would not be valid; it is months. We are at a point
where we simply cannot do this. I will make a commitment to my friend
from Missouri that when we get to conference or when we work on this or
do our deal with the House, I will personally be involved in this and
try to work out something that would be satisfactory to the Senator
from Missouri. It simply won't work at this stage. I ask that the
Senator withdraw the amendment at this time.

Amendment No. 2502 Withdrawn

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my cohort on the
Surface Transportation Subcommittee. We have worked together over the
years. I raise this point for the entire Senate so they know we are
going to have to address it in the Congress, because there are many
States that I am sure we will hear from that do not need this. In order
to move the bill along and to avoid causing our colleagues to have
another vote--perhaps those who need to get away--I withdraw my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senator did that because
it was to strike a provision I worked on in the bill.
Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the amendment
offered by my colleague Senator Bond to strike the Committee's
stormwater mitigation program.
The full committee adopted an amendment I offered with many of my
colleagues to begin to address--for the first time--an unfunded Federal
mandate on our localities.
I regret that my colleague opposes helping our localities with the
serious financial burdens imposed by the Clean Water Act to correct
stormwater runoff problems. I have heard him tell the Senate that this
stormwater provision is a mandate on our state highway departments, but
he has not told you the rest of the story.
The rest of the story is that the existing Clean Water Act regulatory
program requires all of our communities to obtain a permit for their
stormwater discharges and flood control projects. According to many
organizations who are on the front lines in dealing with this problem,
they strongly support this modest provision to begin to address
pollution problems from existing highways.
This modest program of $160 million annually is a very small part of
this massive $311 billion bill. It begins to fund an unfunded Federal
mandate. Most importantly, our states want this program.
The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators--our state officials responsible for improving the water
quality of our rivers, lakes and streams--have written urging that the
Senate retain this small program.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I refer to a portion of the State
officials letter:

Communities throughout the nation, including numerous
smaller towns and counties are required under the Clean Water
Act to obtain discharge permits for stormwater. Even those
communities, which have long understood the value of
protecting their drinking sources and recreational waters
from stormwater impacts, are already hard-pressed to cope
with the cost, as they have been absorbing the costs of
discharges from highways. This represents an unfair burden to
these communities and we believe it is fair for the
transportation funding system to remedy this problem where
existing highways and other roads cause significant runoff
problems.

The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies has written that

[[Page S1235]]

``This amendment marks a crucial step toward addressing the billions of
dollars in expenditures that state and local governments are required
to make in controlling stormwater generated by our nation's highways. .
. .
Similar letters of strong support have come from the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies, the American Water Works Association, and the Association of
State Floodplain Managers, and numerous other groups.
The support for the Committee's provision is strong because everyone
recognizes that stormwater runoff from highways is a known impediment
to good water quality. Some have calculated that this runoff is the
leading cause of pollution for nearly 50 percent of our national
rivers, lakes and streams.
Roads collect pollutants from tailpipe emissions, brake linings, oils
and other sources. During storms they mix with other contaminants of
heavy metals and road salts that wash into our waters. This result is
seriously degraded water quality of our rivers, lakes and streams.
Today, every new highway must include methods to control this runoff.
But, there is a large need for our states and local governments to
construct stormwater mitigation projects on existing roadways to meet
the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Under federal regulations,
even our smallest communities and counties will be required to
implement projects to control stormwater runoff.
The modest program in the Committee bill requires States to dedicate
2 percent within the Surface Transportation program--one category of
highway funding--to control stormwater runoff from our roads.
It is true that stormwater mitigation projects are eligible for
funding under the NHS and Transportation Enhancements program. However,
the funding demand for these programs is great.
I have also heard the author of this amendment that will punish our
local governments say that we will work to fund these stormwater
activities under the Clean Water Act. The Environment and Public Works
Committee, however, has struggled unsuccessfully with financing our
Nation's multi-billion dollar water infrastructure needs. We've come to
no consensus or new financing package.
In 2000, EPA estimated at least $8.3 billion over 20 years in local
funding needs to address stormwater requirements. The modest program in
the bill before us provides approximately $958 million over 6 years.
This is simply some small relief to our localities to address pollution
from existing highways.
Our States want this program. Our communities deserve to have some
relief from this unfunded Federal mandate.
For the benefit of all of my colleagues--make no mistake--this is not
the only requirement on how States spend Federal highway dollars. The
bill before us is full of mandates on our States. Even the proponent of
the amendment has offered his own mandate in the bill. It requires that
States divert 2 percent of the National Highway System funding to
connector roads that are not even on the National Highway System map.
Perhaps this is a worthy goal, but again, it is a mandate on our States
on how they use their Federal highway funds.
I ask my colleagues to carefully consider this amendment and ask that
they not move to take away this critically needed funding from our
localities and work to meet unfunded mandates.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip is recognized.
Mr. REID. This has been a long, arduous 2 weeks for me and the other
managers. We are at the point now that I understand we can soon go to
final passage. If there is something to the contrary, I would certainly
like to know about that.
Prior to final passage, the chairman of the committee has some
matters that need to be disposed of. I wanted to alert everybody we are
getting close to the end of this matter.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have the managers' amendments that we
have talked about for a long period. I ask unanimous consent that they
be agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor and cannot
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, yesterday, I filed an amendment with
Senator Allen and Senator Burns to the Household Goods Moving portion
of SAFE-TEA. Under the circumstances, I will not call it up. The
amendment's purpose is to enact meaningful consumer protections that
also safeguard small businesses and their employees.
Each year 1.5 million households hire commercial moving companies to
move their household goods to another state. There are almost 3,000
federally registered motor carriers who transport household goods
across state lines. Most of these moving companies are small
businesses--Mom and Pop family-owned businesses.
In addition to the thousands of licensed small business movers, there
are countless unlicensed and unregistered movers. Everyone agrees that
the vast majority of movers provide quality service in an ethical
manner, but there are some ``bad apples'' that don't follow the rules
to the detriment of consumers and other reputable small businesses.
These ``bad apples'' take advantage of consumers with misleading
estimates, baiting them with deals that are ``too good to be true.''
They're also known to hold customers' household goods hostage while
they demand higher fees.
The predatory tactics of these ``bad apples'' give the entire moving
industry a bad name. They hurt consumers and they threaten thousands of
legitimate small business moving companies, endangering the jobs of the
tens of thousands of employees and the families that depend on them.
Congress needs to commit itself to enacting reforms that will help stop
unscrupulous movers and their predatory tactics and protect consumers
and the small business jobs in the moving industry.
I appreciate Senator McCain and his staff's efforts in this area.
Many of the reforms in the Household Goods Moving portion of SAFE-TEA
accomplish these goals. I believe that Congress can enact legislation
that will protect consumers, small businesses and the thousands of jobs
in the household good moving industry. My amendment works to punish
``bad apples,'' protect consumers, safeguard the thousands of
legitimate small businesses, and sustain the good jobs in the moving
industry.
When I was Chairman of the Small Business Committee in the House, I
learned that sometimes regulation offered even with the greatest of
intentions could unfortunately have an opposite and devastating impact
on the people it intended to protect. It is clear that some of the
provisions in the underlying bill will not hinder unscrupulous ``bad
apples,'' but instead seriously harm legitimate small businesses and
endanger American jobs and the families that depend on them.
I have some concerns about the consumer protections that were
attached, because some of them operate in a way where they burden the
honest businesses and do not stop the dishonest ones. That is always
the nightmare with regulation when we do it. Sometimes they end up
making it difficult for the people who are trying to comply with the
law, and the corner cutters still cut corners and we end up with the
worst of both worlds.
There is a provision in the bill that was added in the Commerce
Committee, for example, that would allow lawsuits against movers who
don't use the absolute shortest route to get the household goods from
one place to another. That is very understandable because some of the
bad apples will drive around town in order to build up the price and
get a higher fee for the moving.
At the same time, they are very legitimate reasons why a business may
not take the shortest route--safety reasons, for example. What I am
saying is we need to look at the provisions that were enacted in
committee in conference to make certain that we do the best job we can
do of protecting consumers while partnering with the legitimate small
businesses, because they want the bad apples out of the business as
well. All of us have had an experience or we know of friends who

[[Page S1236]]

had experience with these businesses that want to hurt everybody.
We want to protect consumers. We have to do it in a way that partners
with the good companies. We don't want to drive their costs up, which
will then be passed along to consumers. Worst case, some of these
legitimate small businesses will have to go out of business. These
issues deserve further consideration in the conference.
Our amendment offers commonsense solutions.
My amendment protects a legitimate small business mover's right to
collect for additional work requested by the customer at the time when
his or her goods are delivered.
My amendment enhances consumer protections. State enforcement laws
should strictly protect consumers by prohibiting movers from holding a
customer's goods hostage.
My amendment defends legitimate small businesses' right to recoup
attorneys fees if they are determined to be ``in the right'' by a
court.
My amendment also addresses provisions in the underlying bill that
have little to do with consumer protection.
For example, if the underlying bill is passed as written, attorneys
could legislate through prosecution the route a legitimate small
business mover must take when delivering household goods.
Admittedly, this provision was designed to protect consumers from
``bad apples'' that literally take their customers for a ride, using
longer routes and charging higher fees.
But, unfortunately, the way the provision is written, mom and pop
small business moving companies would also suffer and be exposed to
lawsuits and fines that will threaten their business and the jobs of
their employees. Attorneys should not determine the fate of legitimate
small business movers.
Small business movers are experienced and they know which highways to
take in traffic and in bad weather. In St. Louis, Missouri, we have two
central highways: highway 40 and 44. It's clear to anybody who travels
on those highways that 44 is often the quicker route in rush-hour
traffic. But, this provision would take away an experienced drivers
right to choose. It could be mandated that he use only highway 40.
Legitimate movers don't make their money scamming customers; they
make their money getting shipments on and off, on-time.
Despite the fact that this provision is intended to protect
consumers, it could have the opposite effect, requiring movers to take
less efficient routes; routes they knew were slower because they drive
on those roads everyday; and all because an attorney decided it was
quickest.
As a result, the longer shipment times would translate into higher
costs for consumers since carriers would be forced to petition for
higher fuel tax surcharges, a cost born by consumers.
I believe that it's important in situations like these to reach out
to the stakeholders in the community of legitimate small business
movers those who are affected by these provisions and partner with them
to determine the proper solution. Everybody wants to stop the ``bad
apples.''
This list goes on and on. Many of the provisions do not protect
consumers and force unnecessary and burdensome regulations on mom and
pop small businesses across all 50 States; possibly causing an increase
in carrier rates across the country; harming legitimate small
businesses--and not the ``bad apples''; and threatening the jobs and
livelihoods of the thousands of employees in the moving industry. These
issues deserve further consideration in conference and I urge my
colleagues to continue their good work; and to partner with the small
business moving community to punish the ``bad apples'' and enact
meaningful consumer protections, safeguard small businesses and protect
the jobs of the tens of thousands of employees and families that depend
on them.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
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.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, earlier today the Chairman of the Senate
Commerce Committee was here on the floor charging Chairman Inhofe and
our EPW Committee with inserting Amtrak legislation into our highway
bill. Shortly thereafter, I was glad to see that same Senator rise to
apologize for this incorrect statement. Because the truth is, that the
provisions the Senator was talking about are actually in his own
committee's title of this bill.
So now that it is established not even the Chairman of the Commerce
Committee knows what is in his title, I think it is only appropriate to
address some of the problems in that title.
Earlier today I discussed a few of the problems I have seen in that
title. At that time, I pointed out that we still have not heard from
the Commerce Committee Chairman what is in his title. Well, we still
haven't had an explanation . . . and if that committee's chairman
didn't know that the Amtrak provisions were actually in his own title,
it makes me wonder if anyone actually knows what is in the Commerce
Committee title of this bill.
That said, I am back here again to briefly address a few more
problems with the Safety Title of this bill. And in an effort to safe
time, I will not call up amendments to fix these problems, but I hope
that these concerns can be addressed in Conference.
I am concerned that certain provisions in the Commerce Committee's
Title go a little too far in specifically directing the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to publish final rules on a wide
variety of new vehicle safety requirements. I am all for highway
safety, but to assume that today, we know enough to tell NHTSA exactly
when it must promulgate over a dozen rules, covering many elements of
vehicle design to crash testing, over the next few years, seems
disruptive to NHTSA's safety priorities. I am not an expert in this
area, but let me read what the administration thinks of this amendment.
I remind my colleagues that earlier today we were told by the Commerce
Committee Chairman that none of the statements in the SAp were in
relation to his committee's title. Well, this if from the statement of
administration position on this provision issued February 11.
``The administration strongly opposes mandate rulemakings for NHTSA
and the FMCSA. These provisions predetermine timetables and outcomes
without adequate grounding in science, engineering and proof of net
safety benefits. By prescribing specific requirements and mandating
priorities, these provisions will delay or interfere with ongoing
safety initiatives and may have the unintended consequence of
redirecting agency resources away from programs that will do more
overall good for safety.''
My main concern is that these mandates disrupt NHTSA's safety
priorities and might not be the best use of its resources. We have
passed laws that govern the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards
requiring NHTSA to consider all available safety data when setting new
standards and that those new standards must meet the need for highway
safety, as well as be reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the
vehicles to which they apply. This amendment, by telling NHTSA it must
promulgate certain standards, is inconsistent with existing law and has
the potential to require NHTSA to publish standards that might not be
in the best interest of highway safety. I hope that the sponsor of the
amendment will agree to work with me, and others, to ensure that we
actually improve highway safety and not do harm by requiring the
experts at DOT to divert valuable and limited resources from their true
safety mission.
Mr. President, this debate is not personal. But I cannot stand idly
by and have one Member or a handful of Members tell us all that the EPW
Committee is a budget buster, or is the only part of this package that
carries a veto threat, or that Amtrak provisions are in our title, or
on and on.
The truth, Mr. President, is that this bill is paid for, is budget
neutral based on the Finance Committee title which pays for increases
over the budget resolution. For the Record, of all the titles above the
budget resolution (though paid for), it's the Commerce Committee title
that is the highest increase over their allocation. In fact, that title
is a 50-percent increase over the budget allocation.
Mr. President, it is also true that the Commerce Committee title is
new. It is

[[Page S1237]]

not what was reported out of Committee, and it was not altered by the
amendment process here on the floor. Instead, it was changed by the
Commerce Committee staff, and apparently not even the Chairman knows
what is in it.
I want a good highway bill. There are some real problems with this
title, and I urge my colleagues to take a close look at it. And I hope
we can address some of these harmful mandates in Conference.
We had thorough discussions when other safety provisions had come
forward. This one has been slipped into the commerce title. There are
some real problems. Earlier today, we were told by the Commerce
Committee that none of the statements in the Statement of
Administration Policy were in relation to the committee title. Let me
read from the Statement of Administration Policy on this provision
issued February 11:

The administration strongly opposes the numerous mandated
rulemakings for NHTSA and the FMCSA. These provisions
predetermine timetables and outcomes without adequate
grounding in science, engineering, and proof of net safety
benefits. By prescribing specific requirements and mandating
priorities, these provisions will delay or interfere with
ongoing safety initiatives and may have the unintended
consequence of redirecting agency resources away from
programs that will do more overall good for safety.

I think this provision disrupts NHTSA's safety priorities. We passed
laws that govern the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards.
Unfortunately, they are not going to be able to use the full scientific
and engineering information they wish to if they are forced to take the
provisions in this amendment.
This is inconsistent with existing law. I hope in the conference we
will work to change these so we do not foul up the efforts of NHTSA to
use the best safety and engineering to achieve goals that have not been
discussed or debated on this floor. I hope we can change that part.
Finally, the truth is, this bill is paid for. It is budget neutral
based on the Finance Committee title. For the record, all of the titles
in the budget resolution are paid for. It is the Commerce Committee
title that is the highest increase over the allocation. It is 50
percent over the allocation. These are problems we are going to have to
deal with in the conference. I assure my colleagues we need to address
all of these issues.
I close my comments by thanking the chairman, Senator Inhofe, the
ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and my good friend and colleague,
Senator Reid of Nevada, for the cooperative way we have worked through
this bill. There is a long way to go before we get to a conference
agreement with the House that we hope will be able to include concerns
by the administration so we will be able to move quickly to get a good
highway bill which will deal with our tremendous overwhelming
transportation safety problems in the United States and put people to
work sooner rather than later.
Finally, as I said, I support the proposal raised by my colleague
from Missouri, and I hope that can be included in the conference.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill to move the
highway and transportation bill forward and get a good bill that can
make a great deal of difference for the economy, for jobs, long-term
economic growth and, most of all, for the safety of transportation in
the United States.
I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2333 to Amendment No. 2285

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Harkin,
proposes an amendment numbered 2333 to amendment No. 2285.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To encourage States to give priority to pedestrian and
bicycle facility enhancement projects that include a coordinate
physical activity or healthy lifestyles program)

On page 389, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 18__. PRIORITY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITY
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS.

Section 133(e)(5) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Priority for pedestrian and bicycle facility
enhancement projects.--The Secretary shall encourage States
to give priority to pedestrian and bicycle facility
enhancement projects that include a coordinated physical
activity or healthy lifestyles program.''.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my amendment concerns transportation
enhancement projects, and the need to promote physical activity and
healthy lifestyles. In particular, my amendment gives priority to
transportation enhancement projects that include a coordinated physical
activity plan.
Over the last 20 years, new public health threats have emerged--
obesity and the chronic diseases associated with poor nutrition and
lack of physical activity. In fact, chronic diseases now account for 75
percent of our Nation's $1 trillion annual health care costs.
The health statistics on obesity are staggering. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two-thirds of Americans
over overweight or obese, and the rates of obesity have doubled in
children and tripled among teenagers since 1980.
Obesity also increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke,
several kinds of cancer, and other health problems. Approximately
300,000 deaths a year in the United States are associated with obesity
and being overweight.
Spiraling rates of obesity don't just affect individuals, they place
a burden on the average taxpayer and on the Federal Government. The
U.S. Surgeon General estimates that obesity costs the Nation $117
billion a year in health care and related costs. Physical activity
alone costs over $75 billion per year.
There is no single solution to the problem of obesity and overweight.
This is a complex problem, and it must be addressed creatively and
comprehensively. One opportunity is before us today in the
transportation bill.
The amendment that I am proposing today concerns transportation
enhancement projects, a long standing transportation program under
which a large share of our hiking and bike trails on non-Federal lands
are built.
Such trails, paths, and projects can play an important role in
promoting physical exercise in our communities. My amendment seeks to
encourage transportation trail enhancement projects to include physical
activity and healthy lifestyle programs. Very simply, within the
applications a State or planning organization receive for trail or bike
path funding, it gives priority to trail projects that encourage
coordinated physical activity or healthy lifestyle programs. It does
not shift the balance of funding to trail enhancement projects from
other allowable categories. It certainly has no impact on the total
dollars that go to enhancement projects.
This amendment does not micromanage funds or tie the hands of States
seeking to make choices that are most appropriate to their needs. I
believe individual States and local planning organizations should have
flexibility to make decisions about their transportation priorities.
And my amendment preserves that flexibility.
Possible examples of such efforts might include an exercise course on
the side of a trail; or perhaps an exercise program run by a local
recreation department. We have had tremendous success with local trails
and bikeways.
If we do not start seeking out opportunities to encourage healthier
lifestyles for Americans, whether it be in an obvious place such as a
child nutrition or health care bill, or in a less obvious bill such as
this transportation bill, we will all pay the price--both in our health
and in our budgets. I ask for the support of my colleagues on this
commonsense amendment.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S1238]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TALENT. 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. TALENT. I have an amendment filed at the desk on behalf of Mr.
Wyden and myself. I think we have had it cleared, and I was going to
ask unanimous consent that it be adopted. It is amendment No. 2482.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an amendment pending. Is this a
second degree?
Mr. TALENT. There is an amendment pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is.
Mr. TALENT. I will wait until that amendment has been resolved.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside while
I offer this amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Democratic whip.
Mr. REID. Are we in a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
Mr. REID. What is the matter pending before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Harkin amendment No. 2333.
Mr. REID. To my understanding, there is no further debate on that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2333.
The amendment (No. 2333) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada withhold?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada suggested the absence
of a quorum. Does he withhold?
Mr. REID. I withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

Amendment No. 2482 to Amendment No. 2285

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 2482 to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Talent], for himself and Mr.
Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 2482 to amendment No.
2285.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-
exempt private activity bonds to be issued for highway projects and
rail-truck transfer facilities)

On page 1298, after line 24, add insert the following:

Subtitle H--Tax-Exempt Financing of Highway Projects and Rail-Truck
Transfer Facilities

SEC. 5671. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF HIGHWAY PROJECTS AND RAIL-
TRUCK TRANSFER FACILITIES.

(a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of
section 142 (relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by
striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (13), and by adding at the end
the following:
``(14) qualified highway facilities, or
``(15) qualified surface freight transfer facilities.''.
(b) Qualified Highway Facilities and Qualified Surface
Freight Transfer Facilities.--Section 142 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(l) Qualified Highway and Surface Freight Transfer
Facilities.--
``(1) Qualified highway facilities.--For purposes of
subsection (a)(14), the term `qualified highway facilities'
means--
``(A) any surface transportation project which receives
Federal assistance under title 23, United States Code (as in
effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection), or
``(B) any project for an international bridge or tunnel for
which an international entity authorized under Federal or
State law is responsible and which receives Federal
assistance under such title 23.
``(2) Qualified Surface Freight Transfer Facilities.--For
purposes of subsection (a)(15), the term `qualified surface
freight transfer facilities' means facilities for the
transfer of freight from truck to rail or rail to truck
(including any temporary storage facilities directly related
to such transfers) which receives Federal assistance under
either title 23 or title 49, United States Code (as in effect
on the date of the enactment of this subsection).
``(3) Aggregate face amount of tax-exempt financing for
facilities.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall not be treated as an
issue described in subsection (a)(14) or (a)(15) if the
aggregate face amount of bonds issued by any State pursuant
thereto (when added to the aggregate face amount of bonds
previously so issued) exceeds $15,000,000,000.
``(B) Allocation by secretary of transportation.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall allocate the amount
described in subparagraph (A) among eligible projects
described in subsections (a)(14) and (a)(15) in such manner
as the Secretary determines appropriate.''.
(c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph
(3) of section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to exception for certain bonds) is amended by
striking ``or (13)'' and all that follows through the end of
the paragraph and inserting ``(13), (14), or (15) of section
142(a), and''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 5672. ADDITION OF VACCINES AGAINST HEPATITIS A TO LIST
OF TAXABLE VACCINES.

(a) In General.--Section 4132(a)(1) (defining taxable
vaccine) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (I), (J),
(K), and (L) as subparagraphs (J), (K), (L), and (M),
respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph (H) the
following new subparagraph:
``(I) Any vaccine against hepatitis A.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9510(c)(1)(A) is amended
by striking ``October 18, 2000'' and inserting ``the date of
the enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) Sales, etc.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to sales and uses on or after the first day of the
first month which begins more than 4 weeks after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1) and section
4131 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of
sales on or before the effective date described in such
paragraph for which delivery is made after such date, the
delivery date shall be considered the sale date.

SEC. 5674. ADDITION OF VACCINES AGAINST INFLUENZA TO LIST OF
TAXABLE VACCINES.

(a) In General.--Section 4132(a)(1) (defining taxable
vaccine), as amended by section 5673 of this Act, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(N) Any trivalent vaccine against influenza.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) Sales, etc.--The amendment made by this section shall
apply to sales and uses on or after the later of--
(A) the first day of the first month which begins more than
4 weeks after the date of the enactment of this Act, or
(B) the date on which the Secretary of Health and Human
Services lists any vaccine against influenza for purposes of
compensation for any vaccine-related injury or death through
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.
(2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1) and section
4131 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of
sales on or before the effective date described in such
paragraph for which delivery is made after such date, the
delivery date shall be considered the sale date.

SEC. 5675. EXTENSION OF AMORTIZATION OF INTANGIBLES TO SPORTS
FRANCHISES.

(a) In General.--Section 197(e) (relating to exceptions to
definition of section 197 intangible) is amended by striking
paragraph (6) and by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as
paragraphs (6) and (7), respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1)(A) Section 1056 (relating to basis limitation for
player contracts transferred in connection with the sale of a
franchise) is repealed.
(B) The table of sections for part IV of subchapter O of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section
1056.
(2) Section 1245(a) (relating to gain from disposition of
certain depreciable property) is amended by striking
paragraph (4).
(3) Section 1253 (relating to transfers of franchises,
trademarks, and trade names) is amended by striking
subsection (e).
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to property
acquired after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Section 1245.--The amendment made by subsection (b)(2)
shall apply to franchises acquired after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, the time is short. This amendment would
allow private activity bonds. It has been cleared on both sides. The
President supports it. It has been fully offset and I ask that it be
adopted.

[[Page S1239]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2482.
The amendment (No. 2482) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. TALENT. 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I know there are discussions going on, but
I would like, if at all possible, to begin to bring matters to a close
in the next several minutes. While some final decisions are made on
this important bill, I will make a closing statement and then we will
see what the outcome is on the remaining amendments.
The transportation bill that we have been considering for the last 2
weeks is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will
consider in this second session. It is important not only for
maintaining and improving our transportation infrastructure system--
something that we talked a lot about over the last 2 weeks--but it is
also important, as has been discussed, for creating jobs.
Conservative estimates are that this legislation would create as many
as 1.6 million jobs over the life of the bill, and some analysts now
believe it can create as many as 2 million new jobs.
This legislation is also important for our Federal-State partnership.
The bulk of expenditures in this country for our public infrastructure
programs, for building, for expanding and maintaining transportation
systems is not Federal dollars but State and local expenditures. The
Federal share from all public infrastructure spending in this country
averages about one-quarter or 25 percent. That is the Federal share.
Further, at the Federal level annual spending for ground
transportation programs represents less than 2 percent of all Federal
spending. But this important spending serves as a catalyst for economic
growth. I believe it is a small investment we can make in our economy.
It is an essential investment in moving our economy forward while also
making it safe for us to use our highways and our intercity rail
systems.
The funding for our Federal highway and mass transit infrastructure
system is complex, it is obscure, and I freely admit that it is
confusing. Here in the Senate, the legislation involves at least six
standing committees, sometimes with overlapping jurisdiction.
The financing of our Federal highway system includes spending subject
to annual appropriations. It also includes automatic or mandatory
spending. The financing of these expenditures comes from many sources--
from gas taxes, from excise taxes, from user fees, and from general
revenues.
But this afternoon, I would like to address in as simple a way as I
can my understanding of the Federal spending issue that clearly has
frustrated both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Several points: First, this is a 6-year authorization and spending
bill. The administration supports enactment of a 6-year bill. While
they do not support the level of resources this bill devotes to
transportation spending, I hope we will be able to find a compromise
with the House of Representatives and the administration that will meet
all concerns.
We are currently operating all these programs under a temporary
extension that expires on February 29. Before the end of the month, we
will have to once again temporarily extend the expiring authorities.
Funds have already been provided for the programs this year in the
Omnibus appropriations bill that we enacted last month, but
authorization to expend those funds will lapse at the end of this
month.
Point No. 2: The bill--or I should say more precisely the four
bills--highways, mass transit, safety programs, and financing--
establish an overall level of ``contract authority.'' For the next 6
years, this contract authority is estimated to total $318 billion.
What is contract authority? There has been a lot of confusion. I was
on the Senate floor as we talked about this bill in the last several
weeks. And, indeed, throughout Capitol Hill, people do not fully
understand what contract authority is.
Contract authority is created in law, authorizing the Federal
Government to enter into contracts and incur obligations in the future
but in advance of, or even in excess of, funds available for that
purpose.
The funds actually necessary to carry out that contract authority
must be provided later--usually later in the appropriations bill--and
it is called liquidating appropriations.
Point No. 3: How will this bill before us today, if enacted, impact
Federal spending in the future? There has been a lot of focus on
spending today, and a lot of fracturing of the discussions on this
spending.
Interestingly, the bill also includes language that limits the amount
of this $318 billion in contract authority that can be obligated or
liquidated over the next 6 years. This bill sets that limit to be $290
billion, which is nearly $28 billion less than the level at which the
contract can be set.
If one is concerned about spending, it is this so-called obligation
limit that really matters--not the contract authority. Therefore, when
I compare what the Senate bill proposes to spend versus the President's
budget request, it is a difference of about $6 billion a year.
I am committed to resolving this difference as this legislation works
its way in regular order through the Senate and conference with the
House.
Fourth and last point: Since this bill limits the amount of contract
authority that can be obligated over the next 6 years, one possible
solution might be to reduce the higher contract level to a level that
we actually believe will be obligated and spent. There may be some who
can explain the difference, but simplistically I think that those two--
the obligation limit and the contract authority--should be the same.
Indeed, the President's budget sets both the contract authority and
the obligation limit at identical levels. Therefore, I suggest that we
all remain flexible on this spending issue, and that as this bill goes
forth we give consideration to reducing the contract authority level
down to what we truly expect to spend.
Today, even before this bill ever becomes law, the Federal aid to the
highway trust fund is estimated by the administration to have $25.6
billion in unobligated balances. This is in unobligated contract
authority.
Let me repeat. Today, we have put on the books $25.6 billion in
contracts that we have not fulfilled and are not likely to honor
because we have been limited--or will be limited--by previous
legislation to the level of these obligations.
Thus, I am convinced that as this bill proceeds we can find ways to
reduce its costs and address the concerns raised by the President.
This is a very difficult and complicated legislative issue. I
congratulate all the committees involved, especially the committee
chairmen and ranking members and their staffs who have brought this
legislation to the Senate for consideration. Indeed, it is because of
all the complexities involved that they are to be truly congratulated
for even getting this far.
In closing, just as an aside, let me conclude that one lesson that we
might learn from these legislative exercises surrounding the highway
bills over the last several weeks--indeed months--is as we look to the
future, we may want to rethink the structure of our committees in this
area. We may want to find ways that could streamline this overall
legislative process to make funding more transparent and to improve the
overall oversight of these various transportation programs.
I probably would find that restructuring of committees and how we
consider major infrastructure legislation in the Congress even more
difficult than just passing a highway bill. But I think we need to
start thinking about this for the future.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we would like to at this point yield for a
unanimous consent request of the Senator from Ohio.

[[Page S1240]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 2396 to Amendment No. 2285

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] proposes an amendment
numbered 2396 to amendment No. 2285.

Mr. DeWINE. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be
agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2396) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2308 to Amendment No. 2285

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senator Corzine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Corzine,
proposes an amendment numbered 2308 to amendment No. 2285.

Mr. REID. 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:

(Purpose: To permit funds to be used for programs to impound the
vehicles of drunk or impaired drivers)

On page 762, between lines 12 and 13 insert the following
new paragraph:
``(6) The costs of operating programs that impound the
vehicle of an individual arrested as an impaired operator of
a motor vehicle for not less than 12 hours after the operator
is arrested.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2308) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2312 to Amendment No. 2285

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2312.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Corzine,
proposes an amendment numbered 2312 to amendment No. 2285.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To require additional programs and activities to address
distracted, inattentive, and fatigued drivers)

On page 724, strike line 19 and all that follows through
page 725, line 2, and insert the following:
(A) by redesignating clause (6) as clause (8);
(B) by inserting after ``involving school buses,'' at the
end of clause (5) the following: ``(6) to reduce aggressive
driving and to educate drivers about defensive driving, (7)
to reduce accidents resulting from fatigued and distracted
drivers, including distractions arising from the use of
electronic devices in vehicles,''; and
(C) by inserting ``aggressive driving, distracted
driving,'' after ``school bus accidents,''.

On page 731, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
``(5) Research on distracted, inattentive, and fatigued
drivers.--In conducting research under subsection (a)(3), the
Secretary shall carry out not less than 5 demonstration
projects to evaluate new and innovative means of combatting
traffic system problems caused by distracted, inattentive, or
fatigued drivers. The demonstration projects shall be in
addition to any other research carried out under this
subsection.

On page 770, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
``(2) Data on use of electronic devices.--The model data
elements required under paragraph (1) shall include data
elements, as determined appropriate by the Secretary in
consultation with the States and with appropriate elements of
the law enforcement community, on the impact on traffic
safety of the use of electronic devices while driving.

On page 770, line 8, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.

On page 770, line 19, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.

On page 770, line 23, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.

Mr. REID. I ask the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from New Jersey.
The amendment (No. 2312) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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. 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.

Amendments Nos. 2498 and 2532, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2285

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have an amendment for Senator Murkowski
relating to Denali and a second-degree amendment of Senator Shelby, No.
2532. I ask unanimous consent to call these up, as modified, and ask
they be accepted. The modifications are on the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be so
modified and agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 2498 and 2532), as modified, are as follows:

(Purpose: To establish the Denali Access System in the State of Alaska)

On page 39, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
General Fund Authorization.--
(17) Denali access system.--For the Denali Access System
under section 309 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42
U.S.C. 3121 note; Public Law 105-277), $30,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.

amendment no. 2532, as modified

At the appropriate place, insert:

``SEC. . THE DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code (as amended by section 1814(a)), is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``178. Delta Region transportation development program

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program
to--
``(1) support and encourage multistate transportation
planning and corridor development;
``(2) provide for transportation project development;
``(3) facilitate transportation decisionmaking; and
``(4) support transportation construction.
``(b) Eligible Recipients.--A State transportation
department or metropolitan planning organization may receive
and administer funds provided under the program.
``(c) Eligible Activities.--The Secretary shall make
allocations under the program for multistate highway and
transit planning, development, and construction projects.
``(d) Other Provisions Regarding Eligibility.--All
activities funded under this program shall be consistent with
the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning
processes required by section 134 and 135.
``(e) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall select
projects to be carried out under the program based on--
``(1) whether the project is located--
``(A) in an area that is part of the Delta Regional
Authority; and
``(B) on the Federal-aid system;
``(2) endorsement of the project by the State department of
transportation; and
``(3) evidence of the ability to complete the project.
``(f) Program Priorities.--In administering the program,
the Secretary shall--
``(1) encourage State and local officials to work together
to develop plans for multimodal and multijurisdictional
transportation decisionmaking; and
``(2) give priority to projects that emphasize multimodal
planning, including planning for operational improvements
that--
``(A) increase the mobility of people and goods;
``(B) improve the safety of the transportation system with
respect to catastrophic--
``(i) natural disasters; or
``(ii) disasters caused by human activity; and
``(C) contribute to the economic vitality of the area in
which the project is being carried out.
``(g) Federal Share.--Amounts provided by the Delta
Regional Authority to carry out

[[Page S1241]]

a project under this section shall be applied to the non-
Federal share required by section 120.
``(h) Availability of Funds.--Amounts made available to
carry out this section shall remain available until
expended.''.
``(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter I of
title 23, United States Code (as amended by section 1841
(b)), is amended by adding at the end the following:

``178. Delta Region transportation development program.''.

On page 678, after line 5, insert:
General Fund Authorization.--
(16) Delta region transportation development program.--For
planning and construction activities authorized under the
Delta Regional Authority, $80,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2009.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, one of the amendments I filed
yesterday, along with Senator Stevens, was in relation to what I am
calling the Denali Transportation System. I am disappointed the full
amendment will not be part of the bill, but I am grateful for the
efforts Senator Inhofe and others who were able to accommodate even
part of it.
As my colleagues know, the National Highway System we established in
the 1950s not only brought benefits to individual States but to the
country as a whole. It has more than lived up to its promise of greater
access, an improved quality of life, and increased wealth for all
Americans. Throughout the United States, a modern highway system
connects virtually every single community in every single State--except
one.
The majority of Alaskan communities remain unconnected. Alaska has
been left far behind the rest of the Nation, with a road system that is
no system at all. If the highway system is the Nation's skeleton,
Alaska is still missing its arms and legs.
As a result, many Alaskan communities are punished with third-world
conditions and an extraordinarily high cost of living, and the Nation
as a whole is that much poorer because Alaska's tremendous natural
wealth cannot be shared.
This is not the first time that Congress has dealt with a similar
problem. When the Appalachia region needed extra assistance, Congress
responded to the call by providing $450 million per year for the
Appalachia commission to construct the Appalachia Transportation
System. The bill before us proposes to increase that sum even further,
to $590 million per year.
A 1998 Congressional Research Service report reads as follows:

In 1964, a Presidential commission on Appalachian region
reported that ``geographic isolation'' was the very basis of
its development lag. The commission argued that development
``could not proceed until its regional isolation was overcome
by its penetration by an adequate transportation network.''
Further, they said, a system was needed ``to and from the
rest of the nation and within the region itself.''
Their core argument: ``before development could take place
in Appalachia, major investments had to be made in basic
public facilities.'' This was coupled with a belief that the
``barrier-effect of Appalachia's mountain-chains was a major
cause of underdevelopment'' and led to a proposal that a
development highway system be built ``to break the isolation
of Appalachia's economically depressed regions.''
Importantly they noted, ``that the routes not be chosen to
ease congestion or upgrade heavily traveled areas but to
stimulate traffic through remote areas that have a
development potential.''

My amendment would allow the Denali Commission to begin doing for
roadless areas of Alaska what Congress authorized for Appalachia.
However, there are some critical differences. I want to emphasize that
word ``roadless.''
In the Appalachia region, communities were isolated by poor roads. In
Alaska, they are isolated by no roads. We are not asking for an entire
network of major highways, only for the simple ability to move people
and goods overland from one place to another. The dirt roads Appalachia
started with would be regarded as a blessing in Alaska.
Second, we are proposing only to construct connections for
communities that have no current access--no highway, no rural two-lane
road, no dirt road, or improvements to the internal roads in these same
isolated communities. The latter is critical for residents to get to
their schools, to clean water sources, to clinics and stores and
garbage dumps.
Third, and most important, we are not asking for similar funding. I
understand the fiscal realities before us today. The amendment I filed
asked for only $50 million per year for Alaska. As revised, it will
provide $30 million.
The increase this bill contains for Appalachia is almost three times
that sum. In all, the Appalachia system will receive almost 12 times
what we are asking.
I do not object to spending money in Appalachia. I think that money
has gone to good use. I simply believe we would get even greater value
from a modest investment in the 49th State.
Alaska is rich in resources that can and should be a driving force
for the Nation's economy, stimulating hundreds of thousands of jobs
throughout the country. It is in an ideal location to be a crossroad
for international trade, both by air and by sea, especially if you
believe predictions that warming trends will open up a northern sea
route to Europe in a few short years.
Yet we remain poor both in population and in highway miles. The
formula funds we receive through the highway bill are not sufficient to
allow the construction of new links between communities, no matter how
badly they are needed.
I also understand some of my colleagues wish to create a new
Appalachia-style system for the lower Mississippi area. I noted some
pictures of a bridge were displayed on the floor yesterday, and it was
suggested that that bridge was inadequate. At least the citizens of
that area have bridges to complain about. My constituents do not.
It is important to make the point that this is not just about
Alaska's needs. We all expect and demand certain basics for our
constituents: clean water and food, warmth, shelter, schools and
medical services.
In my State, because of the isolation of so many communities, all
these services have to be duplicated over and over again, because the
Native people of these isolated communities are eligible for and
receive Federal assistance to ensure they have access to those
services.
I have heard some of my colleagues suggest that Alaska demands a
great deal. Let me suggest that we would be happy to demand less, if we
were in less desperate need. No State--or its citizens--can prosper
without adequate transportation systems. In much of the country, such
systems have been in place since before the American Revolution, and
have been constantly changing, adapting and being upgraded ever since.
In much of Alaska, in contrast, residents are still forced to travel
between communities by boat, or on frozen rivers, just as they did when
the Territory of Alaska was first purchased from Imperial Russia. In
this day and age, such a situation is completely unacceptable. It is a
lasting mark of neglect, and it is past time to rectify it.
The Denali Transportation System will provide far greater benefits
than costs. As we enter an era where gigantic natural changes are
occurring in the Arctic environment, and ice-free maritime
transportation through the Arctic Ocean is expected to become a reality
within decades, it is critical that we begin to prepare ourselves for
those changes. Adequate transportation connections to--and within--
America's only Arctic State are imperative.
This is a time for foresight. The key to long-term prosperity is wise
investment. Investing in Alaska is investing wisely for the future of
the entire nation, just as investing in Appalachia was a wise choice.
We have incomparable resources and vigorous citizens. It is time we
have the transportation system that will allow those assets to be used
as they should be.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
cloture motion on the bill and then ask the bill be read for a third
time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.
Mr. INHOFE. I withdraw the previous unanimous consent request and now
send the managers' amendment to the desk. We have no further debate on
the managers' amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The managers' amendment is not yet pending.

[[Page S1242]]

Amendment No. 2616 To Amendment No. 2285

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the
managers' amendment?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Mr.
Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 2616 to amendment
No. 2285.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further debate on the managers' amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the managers' amendment.
The amendment (No. 2616) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2285, As Amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the substitute,
as amended.
The amendment (No. 2285), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal 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, I now ask unanimous consent to vitiate
cloture on the bill and then ask that the bill be read a third time and
the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to say a word about tax
provisions being included in non-tax titles. The Finance Committee has
sole jurisdiction over tax matters. The reasons for this are rooted in
the U.S. Constitution. As a committee, it is imperative that we weigh
in on all tax matters. This is particularly true with the provision
included in the EPW Committee Substitute. We have heard from the
Justice Department that this provision, as drafted, could jeopardize
law enforcement efforts against organized crime and money laundering.
The provision did not have the benefit of committee review or process.
I appreciate the sponsor's interest in this issue. But I would remind
Members that the chairman and ranking member take the responsibilities
of the Finance Committee seriously. When we go to conference, I also
want to ensure that regardless of the fact that the provision is
included in the EPW title, the tax-writers are given responsibility to
oversee the provision.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman for his comments, and I look forward
to working with him to resolve this matter.

preserving parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
historic sites

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to engage the Senator from Ohio, Mr.
Voinovich, on the intent of his amendment regarding the preservation of
parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic
sites. The amendment would require the Secretary, when making a finding
of de minimis impact, to consider all ``avoidance, minimization,
mitigation, and enhancement measures'' that have been incorporated into
the project. Could you explain how this provision would be implemented?
Mr. VOINOVICH. This language serves an important function: it builds
in an incentive for project sponsors to incorporate environmentally
protective measures into a project from the beginning in order to
support a finding of de minimis impact.
Obviously, there will be projects whose impacts will exceed the de
minimis threshold even when mitigation measures are taken into account.
For those projects the traditional Section 4(f) requirements will
apply. But there also are many projects that could meet the de minimis
impact standard if the project sponsor commits to take specific actions
to reduce or offset the project's impacts on Section 4(f) resources.
This amendment will make it possible for a finding of de minimis impact
to be made in those situations.

Revenue provisions

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the Finance Committee consideration
of the tax title of this bill, there was significant debate on the
provision in the bill that would shift a portion of corporate estimated
tax payments from 2010 into 2009. This provision raises $11.4 billion
in the year 2009, but loses $11.4 billion in the year 2010. The
Chairman included this provision in his bill in response to concerns
raised by me and the Chairman of the Budget Committee that the highway
spending is not fully paid for over six years. I appreciate his
sensitivity to my concerns. I believe that the spending in this bill,
which occurs over six years, should be fully paid for over the same six
year period. However, I do not believe that the shift in corporate
estimated tax payments in the most appropriate way to achieve the goal
of fully funding this bill over six years. The provision proposed by
the Chairman shifts a hole in general revenues from one year into
another.
In lieu of me offering an amendment during the Finance Committee mark
up to replace the shift in corporate estimated tax payments with
different revenue offsets, the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the
Committee made a commitment to work with me to find new offsets before
the highway bill is voted off the Senate floor. The second degree
amendment that I have filed to the amendment by the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, would have executed the commitment that was made
to members of the Committee during the Finance mark up.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to work with
my colleague on the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, and with the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee on this matter. I
share the concern of the Senator from North Dakota about using a timing
shift in the corporate estimated tax payments as a way to pay for the
spending in this bill. Although I realize that this payment shift has
been used as an offset previously by the Finance Committee and this
body, I do not support using the provision in the legislation before us
today. I agree with my friend from North Dakota that real spending
should be offset with real revenues. Senator Conrad's second degree
amendment to my amendment striking the shift in corporate estimated tax
payments would replace the $11.4 billion that is shifted into 2009 with
real revenue over the six year period of the bill.

Mr. CONRAD. My friend from Oklahoma is correct. My amendment would
have replaced the provision shifting corporate estimated tax receipts
with an extension of IRS and Customs User fees, and with several tax
loophole closers that are included in S. 1637, the JOBS Act. These
measures have already been reported by the Senate Finance Committee. I
thank the Senator from Iowa for trying to include our amendments in his
package of technical tax measures. Unfortunately, because certain
provisions of my amendment are considered non-germane, we were unable
to consider it on the floor today. I hope that the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee will continue working with me as the
legislative process moves forward to address my concerns.
Mr. NICKLES. I, too, am disappointed that we were unable to consider
the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I look forward to
working with him and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance
Committee to find a way to fulfill the commitment that was made during
the Finance Committee mark up of the highway bill.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I support the amendments offered by my colleagues from
North Dakota and Oklahoma. I

[[Page S1243]]

want to assure them that I fully intend to make good on the promise
made in the Committee mark up. In a separate statement I made today, I
laid out for the Senate the history of the use of the corporate shift.
It has been used in varying forms on a number of tax bills that have
been enacted. In making this agreement, I do not concede that it is an
improper provision for the tax writing committees to use. As the
legistlative process moves forward, I pledge that I will continue
working to address their concerns.
Mr. BAUCUS. I concur with the statement of the Chairman of theh
Finance Committee, and pledge to continue working to address the
concerns of my colleagues from Oklahoma and North Dakota.

Transit funding for Michigan

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee. The
SAFETEA bill provides over $656 million in transit formula funding to
the State of Michigan and while this represents a 53 percent increase
over our funding under TEA-21, it still falls short of our transit
needs. The Michigan Department of Transportation, MDOT, estimates that
their routine Federal capital needs over the next 6 years just to
maintain existing systems and services would exceed $1 billion. This
comes at a time when Michigan's ridership continues to grow. Over the
life of TEA-21, Michigan's transit ridership has grown from 81.6
million passengers in 1997 to over 89 million passengers in 2002--close
to a 10 percent increase. The Senior Senator from Michigan and I have
submitted a request on behalf of MDOT to help close this funding gap.
The request would provide MDOT with $120 million in the 5309 Bus
Discretionary account over the next 6 years. Would the chairman and
ranking member work with us in conference to provide MDOT with this
necessary funding to support Michigan's transit needs?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Michigan in making
this request. Michigan has tremendous transit needs. There are bus
systems operating in every one of Michigan's 83 counties, from the
urban Wayne County to rural counties in the Upper Peninsula. Despite
covering all counties, service in many areas is minimal, creating a
real hardship for working families who cannot afford to own a car. This
shortfall exists despite the significant contribution by Michigan
taxpayers. Michigan ranks sixth, behind five States with rail, in
direct support for its public transit systems. Under TEA-21, Michigan
ranked last in Federal transit funding among the Great Lakes States,
and only received 43 cents back on every transit dollar it contributed
to the highway trust fund. To help close this equity gap, I would also
urge the chairman and ranking member to work with us in conference to
provide these critical transit funds for Michigan.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will work with my colleagues from
Michigan to address this issue in conference and provide this critical
funding for their transit systems.
Mr. SARBANES. I, too, will do everything I can to support funding in
Michigan in conference.
Ms. STABENOW. We thank the chairman and ranking member.

golden gate bridge

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wanted to discuss the importance of the
seismic retrofit project for the Golden Gate Bridge.
The Golden Gate Bridge is an internationally known landmark. The
bridge was constructed with local funding and opened in 1937, serving
as a critical link in California's highway system.
The Golden Gate Bridge now carries 40 million vehicles a year and is
visited by more than 10 million people annually. However, retrofitting
this bridge to withstand an earthquake with a magnitude of 8.3 is an
expensive undertaking, with a total cost of $392 million.
The Golden Gate Bridge District paid for the first part of the
retrofit--$71 million--with tolls. But, tolls will never raise enough
money. Federal assistance is needed to protect this national treasure.
In TEA-21, I was able to obtain $50 million for the seismic retrofit
of the Golden Gate Bridge. I would like to be able to provide funding
for this project in SAFETEA.
Mr. REID. I agree with the Senator from California on the importance
of the Golden Gate Bridge for the State's highway system. I support
working with you during conference to ensure that the Golden Gate
Bridge District can receive funding for seismic retrofit.
Mr. INHOFE. I also agree with my colleagues from California and
Nevada that the Golden Gate Bridge is very important for the State. I
also support working with the Senator from California in conference to
provide funding for the Golden Gate Bridge District.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you for your support.

spirit high priority corridor

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Environment
and Public Works Committee for all of his fine work on this highway
bill the Senate is now considering. I know he has had a very difficult
task to balance the infrastructure needs of each state, and I
appreciate the excellent job he and his staff have done.
If I could, I ask the chairman if he is familiar with the proposal to
designate U.S. Highway 54 in the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Kansas as the SPIRIT high priority corridor on the National Highway
System?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I am familiar with the proposal and am pleased to be
a sponsor of the bill of the senator from New Mexico to designate U.S.
54 as a high priority corridor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I know the chairman is aware that community leaders in
the four states have been working for 9 years to focus attention on the
SPIRIT corridor because of the heavy truck traffic on the route and the
important role that transportation plays in economic development. Is
the chairman aware that Senators Roberts, Domenici, and I have offered
an amendment to the highway bill to designate the SPIRIT corridor as a
high priority corridor, but the managers of the bill have stated they
prefer to consider it during the conference with the House?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, the Senator is correct. I am aware of the amendment
and will do my best to consider including the SPIRIT corridor
designation in the conference report on the highway bill.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman for his consideration of my
amendment in the conference.

protecting history and natural beauty

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Ohio,
Mr. Voinovich, for his hard work, fairness, and responsiveness that he
showed to me as he worked to resolve issues involving the preservation
of parks, recreation areas, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and
historic sites.
In 1970, it was a privilege for me to serve as the chairman of
America's Bicentennial Celebration. During that time I had an
opportunity to visit many historic sites across this country. In
Virginia we have a proud heritage that is enriched by the preservation
of hundreds of historic properties. These sites have witnessed the
shaping of our Nation. Today, they serve as our outdoor classrooms that
bring alive the history of our democracy and our communities. They are
living treasures of our past and are the foundations for our future.
For these reasons, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my
colleague on the intent of his amendment. I understand that the
amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations
clarifying the factors to be considered and the standards to be applied
in determining whether alternatives are ``prudent and feasible'' under
section 138 of title 23 and section 303 of title 49. Would the
amendment by my colleague that is included in the managers substitute
alter or weaken the standards established in the Supreme Court's 1971
decision in the Overton Park case?
Mr. VOINOVICH. This amendment does not alter or weaken the Overton
Park standards for determining what constitutes prudent and feasible
alternatives. In authorizing this rulemaking, it is our clear intention
that Overton Park will continue to serve as the lodestar--the
fundamental legal standard--for defining and evaluating feasible and
prudent alternatives. Under this standard, an alternative is considered
``not prudent'' if it would result in cost or community disruption of
extraordinary magnitude, and is considered ``not feasible'' if it
cannot

[[Page S1244]]

be constructed as a matter of sound engineering. This amendment would
not change those long-standing definitions of ``prudence'' and
``feasibility.''
The basic problem we face today is the gradual accumulation of
different interpretations of the Overton Park standards over the past
30 years. In particular, the lower Federal courts' interpretations of
the Overton Park standards have resulted in considerable confusion and
uncertainty about how to determine the ``prudence'' of alternatives.
The net result is that Section 4(f) is sometimes viewed as an
inflexible prohibition--an ``avoid at all costs'' requirement. That
mistaken interpretation of Section 4(f) leads to many of the so-called
horror stories that we hear so much about.
With this amendment, we are directing the Secretary of Transportation
to issue regulations clarifying the application of the ``prudent and
feasible'' test in a variety of circumstances. For example, it is only
common sense to recognize that the ``prudence'' of an avoidance
alternative depends in part on what you're avoiding, and how hard it is
to avoid it. Are we dealing with a major part of great significance to
the community--such as the famous Overton Park in Memphis, Tennessee?
Or are we dealing with an easily replaceable ball field in an area
where a replacement can be located without detriment to the interests
of the affected users? Both of these parks receive a substantial degree
of protection under Section 4(f). But what's prudent in one situation
is different from what's prudent in the other, depending on a range of
factors, including the degree of harm and the consequences to other
resources from avoiding it. Those are the kinds of distinctions that
need to be clarified in the regulations.
In short, the sole purpose of this amendment is to require the
Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations that provide more
detailed guidance on applying the Overton Park standards on a case-by-
case basis. The result will be greater consistency in the application
of the standard throughout the country.
Mr. INHOFE. I would also like to assure the Senator from Virginia
that I concur with the explanation provided by the Senator from Ohio
that it is our intent to retain the Overton Park standards as the
fundamental legal standards to be applied in determining prudent and
feasible alternatives.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would concur with the comments of my colleagues and
join Senator Warner by reiterating the need to preserve our history.
In my state of Vermont, we have a wealth of history and natural
beauty. To see the wildlife that populates the Missisquoi Wildlife
Refuge or the covered bridges used by our forefathers is to experience
a heritage that we all want preserved for future generations.
Section 4(f) has helped preserve these treasures. The Revolutionary
War site at Fort Venegence on Route 7 in Pittsford, Vermont, was
avoided as a result of 4(f).
An excellent collection of historic metal truss bridges across the
Connecticut River was rehabilitated, not replaced, as a result of 4(f).
A road in the Danville Historic District was narrowed in order to
keep the historic characteristics of the historic village because of
4(f).
Section 4(f) protections have served us well and will continue to
safeguard our precious resources in the future.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, those of my colleagues who have Native
American tribes located in their States will understand the importance
of the Indian Reservation Road funding authorized as part of the our
highway program. However, they may not be aware that the Indian
reservation roads program does not treat all States equally. There are
serious deficiencies in the inventory of road miles eligible for
funding under the Indian Reservation Road--IRR--program.
Yesterday, I filed an amendment intended to address this issue. I
understand the National Congress of American Indians and other groups
favor action on this matter, and I would certainly be willing to
entertain any suggestions for improving the current amendment.
Unfortunately, it appears the present situation may make it impossible
for the Senate to deal appropriately with this important matter.
In most areas of the country, the BIA had a reasonably complete
inventory of roads and road needs by 1993, and these were incorporated
into the IRR inventory. In Alaska that is not the case. The inventory
numbers for Alaska are in no way complete, nor are they based on an
actual count of road miles. They are based instead on a 1993 document
that was never intended to serve as a complete inventory. The document
was essentially a list of specific project requests known at that time.
As a result, it omitted even core infrastructure in many villages, and
completely overlooked approximately one-third of the villages in Alaska
that should have been included.
Furthermore, BIA policy does not allow the situation to be corrected,
as it arbitrarily limits increases in the inventory to 2 percent per
year. While this may be appropriate in areas for which an accurate
inventory was available in 1993, it is by no means equitable for
Alaska's Native villages. In addition to missing entire Native
communities, the BIA's inventory data has other flaws such as simply
not having complete or current construction cost data for large parts
of Alaska.
Let me add also that Alaska is not the only State where inventory
deficiencies are a problem. Around the Nation, there are 93 to 99
tribes, depending on how you count, that have zero recorded inventory.
By far the greatest numbers are in Alaska and California, but there are
affected tribes in the East, the Midwest, the Southwest, the Pacific
Northwest, and the Plains States--in short, throughout the country. If
the Indian Reservation Roads program is to function the way it was
intended to function, a new national inventory must be completed and it
must be completed fairly. Congress must act to ensure that the absence
of information on roads is not treated as the absence of need.
In recent years, our Native communities have themselves attempted to
begin the planning and inventory process needed to develop a true
inventory or a long-range transportation plan.
However, very little of this work product has actually been accepted
by the BIA. Once inventory updates began to be submitted to BIA on a
large scale, we found that the BIA was applying a ``2 percent'' limit
to inventory increases. In Alaska we were limited to 365 miles in the
2001 update--2 percent accumulated from 1993--and since then, the limit
has been about 45 miles per year. For a State with 229 tribes, a
tragically deficient BIA inventory, and a transportation need that is
second to none, the current policy is an absolute travesty of
mismanagement.
Legislation would not be necessary if the BIA were willing to correct
its own mistakes, but it has not done so. The inventory updating
process has been a nightmare for Alaska Natives. BIA has changed the
rules every year, has imposed requirements over and above what is
contained in its own guidance manuals, and on occasion has changed the
rules so close to the deadline for submittals that compliance is
virtually impossible
In my opinion, the current formula and inventory system is based on
an implicit BIA policy decision to focus future funds on the existing
incomplete system, rather than on creating a system that serves all of
the Nation's tribes equally. That is not BIA's decision to make, and it
is not the process required by the law, but it is the apparent
reality--and it badly needs to change.
Mr. President, among the amendments I filed for this bill is one to
encourage additional motorcyclist training, which was cosponsored by
Senators Inhofe, Stevens, and Campbell. This matter is in the
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. It is deeply disappointing to
think that the Senate may not act on it. Lives will be lost as a
result.
My amendment has the full support of the American Motorcyclist
Association, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, the National Association
of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, regional and local riders
groups throughout the country, and many others.
The single best way to prevent accidents is to provide better
training.
A study of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program designed by Dr.
John Billheimer and completed in 1996 found that rider training
dramatically reduces accidents, and thus eliminates injuries and
fatalities. Specifically, the study stated,

[[Page S1245]]

Analyses of statewide accident trends show that total
motorcycle accidents have dropped 67 percent since the
introduction of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program,
with a drop of 88 percent among the under-18 riders.

Current statistics from the Commonwealth of Virginia are equally
amazing. Virginia has approximately 110,000 registered motorcycles.
Since 1998, there have been 7,099 motorcycle crashes in Virginia and
222 of those crashes have been fatal. Yet out of all those accidents,
trained riders were involved in less than 4 percent of the total, and
the number of fatal accidents involving trained riders is just 1.8
percent.
What this tells us is that the vast majority of motorcycle accidents
involve riders who have not received proper training, and that when
riders do receive training, the accident rate will drop dramatically.
My amendment is simply intended to encourage States to support
motorcycle rider training and to adopt other important measures to save
lives and prevent injuries. A State which demonstrates that it is
making improvements in motorcycle safety would qualify for a grant of
$100,000 per year, which is to be used to further improve and expand
formal training for motorcyclists and for programs to improve driver
awareness of motorcyclists.
Let me also stress that participation in this program is voluntary.
No State is being forced to comply, and the amendment contains no
sanctions for those which do not. This is strictly an incentive to do a
better job at saving lives.
Why is this important? I have addressed this issue in detail in a
previous statement, but let me recap some of the key points.
There are almost 5 million motorcycles operating on America's
roadways, covering almost 17 million miles per year. Many more are used
off-road, and some estimates put the actual number of riders at up to
20 million. The number of riders is steadily increasing every year, and
as that number increases, so do accidents. At the same time, we are
falling farther and farther behind in training people to ride safely.
The single best way to avoid injuries, fatalities, high insurance
costs, lawsuits, medical costs and all the other factors that come into
play is by avoiding the accidents in the first place.
The authors of the ``National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety'' agree.
The ``National Agenda,'' published by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, was a cooperative effort of that agency, along
with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the National Association of
State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, and a host of others
representing the insurance industry, law enforcement, riders, traffic
safety experts and others.
The National Agenda identified a number of steps needed to reduce the
tragic rate of motorcycle accidents. Rider education was one of its
``essential'' recommendations.
Unfortunately, there is currently no uniform process for providing
such training. Although many, if not all, State provide at least moral
support, most training is funded almost entirely by the students
themselves, who pay up to $300 per person for the privilege. Many
States also collect additional fees--often a nominal charge of $5.00
for a motorcycle operator's license--but it doesn't always go toward
training programs.
That means there are more people who need and want training than
there are programs to deliver it. Throughout the country, the waiting
list for training class ranges from several weeks to several months.
In California, which has one of the oldest and strongest programs, it
may take as long as 3 months. In Wisconsin, motorcyclist groups self-
fund training classes, but the waiting list may be as large as 7,000
people. In Illinois, almost 11,000 people were trained last year, but
nearly 4,000 were turned away for lack of space. That is happening in
State after State.
The number of untrained riders is increasing, and we urgently need to
reverse that trend. If you can pass your State's operator test, you can
ride. And if you just spent thousands of dollars on a new motorcycle,
the chances are you won't be letting that new motorcycle license go to
waste. But passing a test doesn't make you a safe rider--that takes
either years of experience--or it takes formal training.
The longer we ignore this issue, the more lives will be lost, the
more injuries will be suffered, the more insurance rates for both
drivers and riders will go up, and the more families will be harmed.
This body should be acting, not avoiding.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak in
support of the transportation bill now pending before the Senate and
urge my colleagues to support final passage of the legislation.
This is an important bill that will create thousands of wellpaying
jobs, make needed investments to the Nation's bridge, highway, and mass
transit infrastructure while injecting billions of dollars a year into
the economy and saving commuters millions of hours on the roads. The
chairman and subcommittee chairman along with the ranking member and
the senior Senator from Nevada have worked hard to craft a highway bill
that balances the often conflicting needs of the States. Similarly, as
a member of the Banking Committee, I want to recognize the bipartisan
manner in which the chairman and ranking member worked with all
colleagues to craft a transit package that meets the varying transit
and bus service needs for our constituents.
In my remarks, I follow a host of other Senators who have come to the
floor over the past week to highlight the importance of passing a
robust transportation bill. In many respects, the matter we are
debating has a more direct and daily impact on our constituents than
just about any issue the Congress considers. Reducing accidents through
increased road safety, replacing and refurbishing aging infrastructure,
and moving people more efficiently and effectively go directly toward
improving the quality of life throughout the Nation.
South Dakota is a large State and its citizens often time have to
travel extraordinary distances to visit friends and family, receive
medical care, or connect to major economic markets. With thousands of
miles of roads, efficient, reliable, and dependable transportation is
directly linked to the prosperity of rural America and our quality of
life. The first emphasis of a transportation bill should be on a robust
highway program. Without a comprehensive Interstate Highway System and
secondary feeder roads it would be very difficult for the constituents
of my state and those in other rural places to travel and earn a
living. The bill before the Senate recognizes the national interest in
transportation in and across rural America.
Passing a highway bill is also good for our economy. The jobs created
through this legislation are permanent, high-paying jobs that will spur
further economic development and put people to work in what has largely
been a jobless economic recovery. According to the South Dakota
Association of General Contractors, if the Congress passes this highway
bill over 20,000 new jobs will be created in my State in the next 6
years. The importance of passing the bill goes beyond job creation.
Good highways in rural areas also enable agricultural products and
natural resources to get from source to market. The farm-to-market road
system developed by the State depends upon a vast and reliable network
of interstate highways, in good condition, to move products throughout
the country and grow the economy.
As a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Committee with jurisdiction over bus and transit programs, I believe
that the transportation bill makes important investments in rural and
urban transit. Transit and especially bus service; however, is an
important link in rural America where social service providers, local
governments, and state agencies struggle to provide reliable bus
service. Federal aid to transit and buses is the crucial link ensuring
that reliable and dependable service exists throughout many
communities.
In meeting with transit providers across South Dakota, I fully
understand the unique challenges toward providing reliable and
dependable bus service over longer traveling distances. Although routes
are more heavily used in urban areas, certain basic needs for public
transit remain constant in urban and rural areas: there must be a
driver, parts must be purchased, and

[[Page S1246]]

costly, but necessary, insurance obtained. The transit title considered
by the Senate recognizes for the first time these unique challenges in
constructing a financing mechanism that will grow rural transit and
enhance service. Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes deserve much of
the credit for working with rural state Senators on the committee to
incorporate this provision in the final bill.
It is vitally important that the Senate pass the transportation,
transit and road safety bill pending before the Senate. As a member of
the Senate Budget Committee, I am pleased that the committees
constructing this bill did so within the budget framework this body
adopted last year. The Senate-passed Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution
called for a six-year transit program totaling $56.5 billion. The
Senate Finance and Banking Committees have worked diligently to
construct a comprehensive and forward-looking bill that stays within
the budget while addressing the Nation's critical infrastructure needs.
Mr. President, as the Senate considers legislation to reauthorize
Federal transportation programs, I want to take a few minutes to
address the transit programs authorized in the bill. As a member of the
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee with jurisdiction
over bus and transit programs, I believe that the transportation bill
makes important investments in rural and urban transit. Chairman Shelby
and Senator Sarbanes have performed an admirable job in constructing a
transit title that enhances bus and transit service in large
metropolitan areas, as well as rural States like mine.
South Dakota is a large State and its citizens oftentimes have to
travel extraordinary distances to visit friends and family, receive
medical care, or connect to major economic markets. With thousands of
miles of roads, efficient, reliable, and dependable transportation is
directly linked to the prosperity of rural America and our quality of
life. The first emphasis of a transportation bill should be on a robust
highway program. The bill before the Senate recognizes the national
interest in transportation in and across rural America. Transit and
especially bus service, however, is an important link in rural America
where social service providers, local governments, and State agencies
struggle to provide reliable bus service. Federal aid to transit and
buses is the crucial link ensuring that reliable and dependable service
exists throughout many communities.
In meeting with transit providers across South Dakota, I fully
understand the unique challenges toward providing reliable and
dependable bus service over longer traveling distances. Although routes
are more heavily used in urban areas, certain basic needs for public
transit remain constant in urban and rural areas: there must be a
driver, parts must be purchased, and costly, but necessary, insurance
obtained. The transit title considered by the Senate recognizes for the
first time these unique challenges in constructing a financing
mechanism that will grow rural transit and enhance service. The transit
title recognizes the special challenges facing low density states by
creating a new rural density program for rural transit and elderly and
disabled transit. By calculating the population density of a State
along with the size of the State, the program ensures that rural States
with demonstrated transit needs will receive a fair share of the
billions of dollars in new transit spending over the next 6 years.
As a proponent of the new rural program it is necessary to recognize
the indispensable role of Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes toward
ensuring that this program was included in the transit mark. Senators
from both sides of the aisle worked in a constructive and bipartisan
manner that produced a product that was unanimously supported by the
Banking Committee. The consequences of our actions mean that transit
providers in Pierre, Huron, Aberdeen, and other South Dakota
communities will be able to expand service at a time when the demand
for rural bus service is increasing. Connecting people in rural America
to medical care, jobs, and family and friends is the legacy of this
bill.
Therefore, it is vitally important that the Senate pass a
transportation bill and incorporate the transit title into the broader
transportation and road safety legislation pending before the Senate.
As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am pleased that the
various committees constructing this bill did so within the budget
framework this body adopted last year. The Senate-passed Fiscal Year
2004 Budget Resolution called for a 6-year transit program totaling
$56.5 billion. The Senate Finance and Banking Committees have worked
diligently to construct a comprehensive and forward-looking bill that
stays within the budget while addressing the crucial bus and transit
infrastructure demands facing our country.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003,
SAFETEA, S. 1072. I support this legislation. I believe it is a good
first step toward funding our Nation's transportation infrastructure
and creating jobs.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the benefits of this
legislation for my home State of Illinois.
The Federal transportation bill, S. 1072, would make the largest
investment to date in our Nation's aging infrastructure, $318 billion
over the next 6 years. In short, this legislation would increase the
State of Illinois's total Federal transportation dollars and provide
greater flexibility. It would help improve the condition of Illinois's
roads and bridges, improve funding for mass transit in Chicago and down
State, reduce traffic congestion, and address highway safety and
protection of our environment.
The bill would provide $255 billion over 6 years for highways and
other surface transportation programs. Illinois has the third largest
Interstate System in the country; however, its roads and bridges are
rated among the worst in the Nation. The State can expect to receive
more than $7.6 billion over 6 years from the highway formula contained
in the Senate bill. That is a 37-percent increase or $2 billion more
than the last transportation bill, TEA-21.
With these additional funds, the Illinois Department of
Transportation will be able to move forward on major reconstruction and
rehabilitation projects throughout the State.
Mass transit funding is vitally important to the Chicago metropolitan
area as well as to many downstate communities. It helps alleviate
traffic congestion, lessen air emissions, and provides access for
thousands of Illinoisans every day. S. 1072 includes $56 billion over 6
years for mass transit. Illinois would receive about $2.9 billion over
6 years under the Senate bill, an increase of $500 million or 21
percent more than the last transportation bill.
This legislation also preserves some important environmental and
enhancement programs, including the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality, CMAQ, Program. CMAQ's goal is to help States meet their air
quality conformity requirements as prescribed by the Clean Air Act. The
Senate bill would increase funding for CMAQ from $8 billion to $13
billion--an increase of 62.5 percent. Illinois received more than $460
million in CMAQ funds in TEA-21; the State is expected to receive an
increase in CMAQ funding under the Senate bill.
With regard to highway safety, Illinois is one of 20 States that has
enacted a primary seatbelt law. S. 1072 would enable the State of
Illinois and other States that have passed primary seatbelt laws to
obtain Federal funds to implement this program and further improve
highway safety.
I know this legislation is not a perfect document. Illinois's highway
formula will be improved by this Senate bill, and I hope our House
colleagues can add to our effort. Amtrak reauthorization and rail
freight transportation funding are noticeably absent. And important
road and transit projects from around my home State have not yet been
included. I will work with my Illinois colleagues in the House to
ensure that Illinois receives a fair share of transportation funds--
highway, transit, and highway safety--in the final conference report.
With the passage of this legislation, the Senate has upheld its
obligation to reauthorize and improve our Nation's important
transportation programs.
I urge my colleagues in the House to move quickly to resolve their
differences. This bill should have been

[[Page S1247]]

passed last year. Any further delay at this point could jeopardize
construction and the jobs we so desperately need in Illinois.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the managers
of the bill for their hard and tireless work on one of the most
complicated pieces of legislation we will consider--second, perhaps,
only to the Energy bill.
In this Senator's opinion, this bill, known as the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, or SAFETEA,
represents a tremendous step forward in the life of our country's
transportation policy. While this is by no means a perfect bill and,
quite frankly, I don't think such a thing exists, I believe this is a
good bill. I am convinced that the Chairman and Ranking Member have put
together a bill that treats our many States and varied interests as
fairly as is possible.
With respect to my own State of New Mexico, this is a bill that will
provide immeasurable economic benefit to our State. The most visible
economic impact is on jobs. Thousands of New Mexicans will go to work
as a direct result of this legislation. We have repeatedly been told
that for every $1 billion spent on roads, more than 40,000 jobs are
created. Over the 6-year span of this reauthorization, we will spend
over $2 billion in the State of New Mexico. Quick math tells me that
this will mean that over 80,000 jobs will be created in New Mexico
alone in the next six years.
New Mexico is the fifth largest State geographically and has a
predominantly rural population. This means that our population is very
dependent on roads to keep us connected. Better roads will mean that
people and goods will be able to move throughout our State in a safer,
more efficient manner. Commerce will certainly benefit, bringing
additional economic benefit to New Mexico.
Additionally, passage of SAFETEA will ensure that our State continues
the improvements to our roads and rails begun under TEA-21. New Mexico
roads will be safer for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. Safer
roads mean fewer accidents, fewer emergency road visits for victims of
accidents, fewer lost days of work and productivity as a result of
accidents. Aside from the much more important physical and emotional
benefits, prevention of these accidents will bring on economic benefits
as well.
While New Mexicans are primarily road-travelers, there is also a
significant need for public transportation, both by bus and by rail. I
am pleased with work done by the Banking Committee on the Transit
portion of this transportation reauthorization bill. New Mexico will be
a better place become of this portion of this bill.
Some of you know that I worked with the Native American leaders in
New Mexico and throughout the country to create the Indian Reservation
Roads program over 20 years ago. Each time we have reauthorized our
transportation programs, I have worked to ensure that this program is
taken care of. This year is no different. While the Environment and
Public Works Committee was not able to accept all of my
recommendations, or all of the Indian Affairs Committee's, I am pleased
that the Chairmen and Ranking Members were willing to work with us to
improve the program on the floor.
Now I know that the Statement of Administration Policy indicates that
the President's advisors will recommend that he veto the bill if it
remains at the current funding level. It is my great hope that we will
be able to work with the White House and at the House of
Representatives when this bill gets to Conference to find a way to
provide adequate funding for our Nation's transportation needs. This
country needs the certainty of a six-year reauthorization in order to
plan for multi-year projects. I believe we are taking an imporant step
toward providing that certainty today by sending this bill to a
Conference Committee. I look forward to working with the Conferees to
make this bill even better.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this reauthorization of the highway and
transit program is one of the most important pieces of legislation that
we will consider in this Congress. Its enactment will help restore the
federal commitment to our surface transportation infrastructure--the
lifeblood for our economy as well as our quality of life.
Ensuring that our Nation has a modern, safe and efficient
transportation network has been one of my highest priorities in the
United States Senate. As ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over our
nation's transit programs, and as a member of the Senate Budget
Committee, I have fought vigorously to bolster federal investment in
transportation infrastructure and to put in place a sensible, balanced
framework in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) to enable the nation to sustain its economic growth and
enhance the quality of life of our citizens.
The reauthorization bill, known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, or SAFETEA, that is
before the Senate authorizes $318 billion in funding over the next six
years for maintaining and improving our Nation's and States' highways,
bridges and transit systems and addressing safety issues.
There is a huge backlog of needed repairs, replacements and upgrades
to bring our transportation network--our roads, bridges, transit
systems and railroads--up to standards. The Department of
Transportation's Conditions and Performance Report estimates that an
average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to
maintain and improve the condition of these systems. Other estimates
show an even greater need. This backlog constrains our Nation's
economic competitiveness, leaves more and more Americans stuck in
traffic, contributes to air pollution and results in unnecessary
fatalities. In my judgment, we must make prudent investments in our
transportation systems not only to prevent further deterioration of the
network--but to improve the system, relieve congestion and save lives.
These investments will also boost our economy and create jobs--at a
time when new jobs and a boost to the economy are desperately needed.
The United States Chamber of Commerce has estimated that each $1
billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,000 direct
jobs and there are indirect impacts as well. The Texas Transportation
Institute has estimated that in 2001, Americans in 75 urban areas spent
3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the
nation of $69.5 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. As these figures
show, congestion has a real economic cost, in addition to the
psychological and social costs of spending hours each day sitting in
traffic. We cannot afford to let these costs of congestion grow any
further. The investments made under this bill will help us make
progress in our efforts to combat traffic congestion and deteriorating
conditions on our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems.
For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this legislation authorizes an
average increase of nearly 36 percent in funding to enable states and
localities to make desperately needed repairs and improvements.
Maryland's share of highway funding will grow by 40 percent over the
next 6 years compared to the level provided in TEA-21--more than a $1
billion increase to help upgrade our highway infrastructure.
As a small ``bridge'' State with criss-crossing interstate routes, a
State with high population density and with high traffic congestion,
Maryland has tremendous highway infrastructure needs. Maryland is the
fifth most densely populated State in the Nation. Maryland roads,
including both State highways and other roads, now serve almost 54
billion vehicle miles of travel annually. Our State has the second
largest urban interstate traffic density and the sixth largest
percentage of roads in urban areas in the United States. As part of the
northeast corridor Maryland experiences an extremely high volume of
through traffic, especially on roadways such as I-95. Maryland is one
of the few States in the Nation with two major metropolitan areas,
Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, and two major beltways with some of the
highest traffic volumes in the country--in excess of 150,000 average
daily traffic--within 30 miles of each other. Our state has the

[[Page S1248]]

sixth highest congestion cost in the nation, and these congestion costs
continue to rise. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, from
2000 to 2001, the annual cost in Washington, DC is up from $631 to
$667/year. In the Baltimore Region, the annual cost went up from nearly
$400/year to $455/year. In the Washington metropolitan area we have the
second longest average commute time in the Nation.
In the next 20 years, Maryland's driving age population is expected
to increase by nearly 20 percent, the number of licensed drivers by 25
percent, and the number of registered vehicles by 29 percent and this
will mean significantly more traffic on our roads and pressures on our
transit systems. Maryland's Department of Transportation is at a
crossroads, facing deficient roads and bridges as well as key gaps and
bottlenecks within the State's transportation system that are known to
cause delay and congestion. Maryland has an estimated unfunded capital
need for more than $13.2 billion in highway maintenance, construction
and reconstruction over the next ten years. Clearly, Maryland must have
adequate funding to address these transportation challenges and to
facilitate overall mobility and the funds made available under this
measure will be a significant help in this regard.
Importantly, the measure preserves the dedicated funding for the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, CMAQ, program which helps States
and local governments improve air quality in non-attainment areas under
the Clean Air Act; the Transportation Enhancement set-aside provisions
which support bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other community
based projects, as well as the other core TEA-21 programs--Interstate
maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge and the Surface
Transportation Program. Likewise, TEA-21's basic principles of
flexibility, intermodalism, strategic infrastructure investment, and
commitment to safety are retained.
I am especially pleased that the legislation includes a provision
which sets aside 2 percent of a State's Surface Transportation Program
for stormwater runoff mitigation. According to the Environmental
Protection Agency, polluted stormwater from impervious surfaces such as
roads is a leading cause of impairment for nearly 40 percent of U.S.
waterways not meeting water quality standards. In the Chesapeake Bay
region, it is estimated that runoff from highways contributes nearly 7
million pounds of nitrogen, 1 million pounds of phosphorous and 167,000
tons of sediment annually to the Bay. In Maryland alone, the Center for
Watershed Protection estimates that the 7500 miles of Federal-aid
highways generate yearly loads of 1.2 million pounds of nitrogen,
127,000 pounds of phosphorous and 25,000 pounds of sediment into
Maryland waterways and eventually into Chesapeake Bay each year. The
stormwater provision will provide more than $73 million for the Bay
States and local governments for stormwater abatement of which $15
million would be available for Maryland.
For our Nation's transit systems, the legislation authorizes $56.5
million--$15.5 billion more than provided in TEA-21--to modernize and
expand our transit facilities. These funds will go a long way to
meeting the growing demand for transit in cities, towns, rural areas,
and suburban jurisdictions across the country. Maryland's formula share
of transit funding will grow by nearly 60 percent over the next 6 years
from $572 million to $907 million. These funds are absolutely critical
to Maryland's efforts to maintain and upgrade the Baltimore and
Washington Metro systems, the MARC commuter rail system serving
Baltimore, Washington, DC, Frederick and Brunswick, and the Baltimore
Light Rail system. Bus systems and para-transit systems for elderly and
disabled people throughout Maryland will also receive a big boost in
funding.
I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes the Transit
in Parks Act or TRIP which I introduced. This new Federal transit grant
initiative will support the development of alternative transportation
services--everything from rail or clean fuel bus projects to pedestrian
and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national
parks and other public lands. It will give our Federal land management
agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access.
Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to
moving large numbers of people in our national parks--quickly,
efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact.
I especially thank the staff of the Banking Committee for the fine
work done on the transit title of the bill. First, I commend Chairman
Shelby and his staff, including Sherry Little, Rich Steinmann, Peggy
Kuhn, and of course, Doug Nappi and Kathy Casey. I also compliment my
own staff, who did a superb job, providing needed additional resources
to meet the transit needs of all Americans. My transit team was most
ably led by Sarah Kline, and I also thank Aaron Klein, Charlie Stek,
and Kate Mattice. Let me also acknowledge the major contribution made
by the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation and the staff of
Subcommittee Chairman Allard, Tewana Wilkerson, and Ranking Member
Reed, Neil Campbell.
Like any other complex and comprehensive piece of legislation, this
bill has its share of imperfections. But if we are to ensure not only
the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services, but also
the future competitiveness and productivity of our economy, we must
make these investments, and move forward with this legislation. I urge
my colleagues to join me in approving this measure.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the
amendment submitted by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr.
Talent. I, like him, have been inundated with phone calls and letters
by small business owners throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia
expressing great concern with the moving provisions included in the
Safety Title of the TEA-21 reauthorization legislation.
I believe the intentions for mandating these changes to current
regulations governing the moving industry are well-intentioned. We have
all heard horror stories about families having their belongings held
hostage by a rogue moving company attempting to extort further
revenues. This is a serious problem and the Federal Government needs to
make sure regulations are in place to protect consumers and the vast
majority of moving companies that act in good faith and provide a
valuable service to millions of American families.
My constituents that move Virginia families from their old homes to
their new ones have expressed their belief that these moving provisions
go too far to try and reform an industry that is largely composed of
law-abiding small businesses. By crafting broad language to target the
small minority of ``bad actors'' in the moving industry, the Safety
Title will unnecessarily and significantly burden those that follow
existing regulations and go to great lengths to ensure consumers are
satisfied with the outcome of their move.
We cannot ask small businesses, which often cannot absorb large
additional costs in the services they provide, to have no recourse when
a consumer inaccurately describes the services required. A small moving
company cannot provide additional and often labor-intense services
without appropriate recourse to collect for those services. By forcing
movers to relinquish shipments for the initial price quoted provides no
effective recourse to seek payment when other services are requested or
required. This amendment would allow movers to collect any added
expenses at the time of the delivery, or if there is disagreement about
those charges, allow movers to recoup expensive attorneys' fees if it
is determined that the mover was correct in assessing the additional
charges.
Additionally, we should carefully consider the language we include
with regard to providing States the authority to enforce Federal
regulations. I understand that the moving industry is fully supportive
of permitting State attorney generals to hold rogue movers accountable
for consumer protection violations. However, it may be ill-advised to
leave open the possibility that issues beyond consumer protection will
be interpreted in varying ways by the States. If a moving company
cannot be confident that there is a consistent application of these
regulations, it will make it difficult for them to implement uniform
practices.

[[Page S1249]]

As we consider the highway bill and continue to refer to it as a jobs
measure, I believe we must make sure all provisions are appropriately
measured and do not injure legitimate small businesses. Rogue movers
are no more likely to adhere to the rules outlined in this legislation
because they do not adhere to current statutes regarding the shipment
of citizens belongings. I will state again, I believe the vast majority
of U.S. movers abide by our laws and go to great lengths to ensure that
they provide a quality service to consumers. The Safety Title
legislation was crafted with a noble purpose, but I believe it would
unduly hurt legitimate small businesses and I hope my colleagues will
join me in supporting this amendment, which provides a more measured
and even-handed response to a small, but high-profile problem of
unscrupulous movers.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have been in a difficult
parliamentary situation which has precluded my offering my amendment,
but had I offered it, it would have accomplished the following.
My amendment would keep intact long standing provisions that protect
public health, the environment, and the rights of citizens and states
to have meaningful participation in transportation decisions.
While I know the authors have worked very hard to strike a balance on
the provisions in this bill, I believe their language to ``streamline''
transportation planning processes is ill-advised and will have severe
and unintended consequences.
No one can argue with the theory behind ``streamlining''
transportation projects.
No public official wants to slow and encumber its State's transit,
highway, bridge, rail, or other major construction projects.
Unfortunately, the assumption behind the streamlining in this bill is
that crucial tools to protect the environment, such as performing
``environmental impact statements,'' are the reason behind the long,
protracted projects that go on for years. That is patently incorrect
and this misconception must be put to rest.
In 2000, the Federal Highway Administration queried its divisions in
all States, asking for a list of all projects requiring an
``Environmental Impact Statement'' that had been in preparation for
over 5 years.
What they learned should inform this body as it seeks to address the
problem of delay.
The Highway Administration found that a 70 percent--a large majority
of the delays, were due to five issues--all unrelated to the
environment.
They were: one, lack of funding; two, low project priority; three,
local controversies; four, project complexity; and five, late changes
made in the scope of a project.
If our purpose is really to bring greater efficiency to
transportation planning, we must address the primary reasons for
delay--those which are listed here.
The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA--which this bill seeks to
weaken--was signed by President Nixon for very good reasons. When
citizens and all relevant agencies are given the opportunity for
meaningful participation in project planning, any needed adjustments
can be made early in the process, saving states time and money.
The approach outlined in this bill would essentially allow the U.S.
Department of Transportation to waive the NEPA process if it so
desired. That would be like a manufacturer that waits until its product
is already designed before checking to see if it even serves the needs
of consumers. Clearly, such an approach is clumsy, inefficient, and far
more expensive in the long run if design changes are needed.
As written, the language in the substitute amendment is confusing and
even contradictory.
It first states that despite NEPA or ``any other law'' that agencies
are accountable for, the Department of Transportation is given the
authority to make the final decision on the need for, and purpose of, a
transportation project.
At the same time, the bill contains a standard ``savings clause''
which states that no other law--such as NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and
the Clean Water Act--will be preempted by this very language.
This is inherently ambiguous and you can bet it will lead to more
litigation. It will without doubt slow the progress on transportation
projects--the very outcome this so-called ``streamlining'' language
seeks to remedy.
Instead of just handing final decisionmaking authority over to the
U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT my amendment outlines a simple,
traditional process that will allow all relevant agencies to resolve
conflicts which can arise. DOT has neither the expertise nor the
statutory authority to make pivotal decisions on matters of public
health and the environment.
Overarching decisionmaking authority should not be handed off to DOT.
This amendment restores the balance of authority that has
historically existed across all relevant agencies and departments--both
State and Federal--to facilitate thorough, responsible project
planning.
My home State of New jersey perfectly illustrates the crucial role of
our health and environmental agencies in making transportation planning
decisions.
For years, New Jersey has implemented responsible, aggressive
environmental law enforcement policies.
Yet because of up-wind pollution and large metropolitan areas, health
standards for ozone are being violated in every county in New Jersey--
which has some nine million residents.
According to New Jersey's department of environmental protection, 45
percent of our ozone pollution is caused by motor vehicle exhaust.
The group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, reports that
nationwide about 15 million Americans suffer from asthma, which is
triggered and exacerbated by ozone. In the last 20 years, the
prevalence of asthma has risen over 60 percent.
An analysis performed a few years ago estimated that for just one
pollutant, particulate matter, 2,300 to 5,400 people die prematurely
every year in New Jersey. Mobile sources account for about 30 percent
of the particulate matter emitted into the air. Nationally, some 20,000
American citizens die prematurely from this pollutant.
Think about that. America grieves for the 536 American soldiers we
have lost in Iraq since March of last year, and rightly so. Yet in that
same 1-year period 20,000 Americans died unnecessarily from just one
air pollutant--particulate matter.
Consider toxic air pollutants. Seventeen of New Jersey's 21 counties
rank among the 100 most polluted counties in the Nation and the risk of
cancer in four of our counties is up to 3000 times higher than EPA's
health threshold. A primary cause of these toxic emissions is mobile
sources.
My point is that with such serious health threats related to
transportation on the increase throughout the country, now is not the
time to pare back the role of our public health and environmental
protection agencies in decisionmaking on Transportation projects. The
meaningful participation of these agencies is needed more today than
ever before.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is simply not equipped or
qualified to make the ultimate decisions with regard to public health
and the environment. The stakes are too high.
I urge my colleagues to support public participation. I urge them to
support agency cooperation that protects public health and the
environment. And I urge them to support my amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, my distracted driving amendment addresses
one of the most serious highway safety problems in our Nation:
distracted and fatigued driving.
When drivers talk on their cell phones, change radio stations, eat,
or otherwise fail to devote their full attention to driving, they pose
a threat not only to themselves, but to others. Drivers who are drowsy
or tired pose a similar threat.
I am particularly concerned about the use of hand-held cell phones
while driving, which the California Highway Patrol recently reported
was the number one cause of distracted driver accidents in their State.
According to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, ``the use
of cell phones by drivers may result in approximately 2,600 deaths,
330,000 moderate to critical injuries and 1.5 million instances

[[Page S1250]]

of property damage in America per year.'' Other studies have reached
similar conclusions. One, published in the New England Journal of
Medicine in 1997, concluded that the ``use of cellular telephones in
motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risks of a
collision during the brief period of a call.'' That study went on to
say ``this relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with
driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit.''
States, counties and municipalities around the country have
considered legislation affecting the use of hand-held cell phones while
driving. New York enacted a ban against the use of hand-held cell
phones while driving in 2001. A number of municipalities in my own
State of New Jersey have also chosen to enforce bans within their
borders, including Marlboro, Carteret and Nutley. New Jersey itself has
enacted a law that imposes additional penalties on those driving
infractions where cell-phone use has been determined to be a factor.
This patchwork of laws, however, does not take the place of a
consistent, Nation-wide ban. That is why I introduced the Mobile
Telephone Driving Safety Act last year. That bill would provide
incentives for States to adopt bans on hand-held cell phones, and I
hope that we can build more support for this legislation in the future.
However, this amendment proposes a more modest first step that I have
worked out with the managers of the bill from the Commerce Committee,
Senators McCain and Hollings.
The main provision in the amendment would provide Federal funds for
States to implement programs designed to address distracted and
fatigued driving, by making such programs an eligible use of funds
under the Section 402 highway safety program. These programs might
include public education campaigns, additional training for law
enforcement, and implementation of laws that specifically address
fatigued or distracted driving.
The amendment also calls for several demonstration projects to
specifically test ways of combating distracted driving. And it directs
States to work with local law enforcement officials to find ways to
collect more accurate data about how the use of electronic devices in
vehicles affects traffic safety.
In sum, this amendment helps address some of the most important
highway safety issues we confront. And it does so without requiring any
new funds, or putting any additional burdens on the States. I want to
thank Senators McCain and Hollings for their cooperation on this
matter, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment to
continue an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a
unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest
Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program,
Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by
frequently impassable roads are now traveling safely to and from their
schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation. I believe it
must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.
The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian Reservation,
covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in
three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes
anywhere close to the size of Navajo. The State of West Virginia is
about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than
the Navajo reservation.
The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation
must maintain the roads used by county school buses but receive no
Federal or local tax funds to maintain the roads. Nearly all of the
land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction. As
I understand it, counties in States with large reservations are not
required to maintain roads on the reservation. Of course, no other
reservation is anywhere close to the size of the Navajo reservation.
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of
public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-fifth of these
roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, 78 percent, are dirt roads.
Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport
Navajo children to and from school.
In response to this unique situation, I authored a provision in TEA-
21 to provide annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo
reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to
and from their public schools. Under section 1214(d) of TEA-21, $1.5
million is made available each year to be shared equally among the
three states that contain the Navajo reservation. These Federal funds
can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the
reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and
that serve as school bus routes.
For the last 6 years, the counties have used the annual funding to
help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to
school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. The
amendment provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program,
with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and
for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States.
Continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because
of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's
largest. I do believe the unique nature of this situation can only be
dealt with effectively by the Federal Government. I am pleased to have
my colleague, Senator Domenici, as a cosponsor, and I hope all Senators
will support our amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that several letters supporting this
amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

San Juan County Commission,

Monticello, UT, January 6, 2003.

Re: Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of
2003

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: San Juan County, Utah wants to
express our appreciation to you for your efforts to secure
funding to improve the Indian School Bus Routes. San Juan
County has approximately 25% of the total land area on the
Utah portion of the Navajo Nation.
The County is currently maintaining 611 miles of roads on
the Navajo Nation. 357 miles are natural surface, 164 miles
are of a gravel surface and 90 miles are paved. Most of these
roads are used by school bus in the transportation of
students to and from the different schools.
The County has three high schools that are operated by the
San Juan School District on the Utah portion of the Navajo
Nation (Whitehorse High School in Montezuma Creek, Monument
Valley High School in Monument Valley and Navajo Mountain
High School in Navajo Mountain). In addition, the school
district has two elementary schools located in Halchita, near
Mexican Hat and in Montezuma Creek. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs has two boarding schools that also operate within the
County boundaries at Aneth and Navajo Mountain. In addition
there are pre-schools that are located in Monument Valley,
Halchita, Toda, and Montezuma Creek.
One major example of the funds that have been previously
used was to pave the nearly six miles section of road in the
Navajo Mountain area. Navajo Mountain is an isolated
community located in the southwestern corner of San Juan
County. There is a single highway in and out of the
community, with the nearest community located over seventeen
miles to the south in Arizona. The road still is dirt for ten
miles south of the Utah boundary, but the County was able to
pave the road on the Utah side this past year making the road
passable year round and greatly improving the safety for the
students and residents.
We would strongly encourage the re-authorization of these
funds for this important need.
Very truly,
Ty Lewis,
Commissioner.
Manuel Morgan,
Commissioner.
Lynn H. Stevens,
Commissioner.
____

Board of Supervisors

of Apache County,

St. Johns, AZ, March 1, 2000.
Hon. Senator Jeff Bingaman,
Hart Senate Office Building.
Washington, DC.
Senator Bingaman: I strongly express my appreciation for
your effort for the passage of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The TEA-21 funds were utilized
to purchase some gravel for school bus routes within the
Apache County, District II, on the Navajo reservation where
it was badly needed.
Without your effort and other members of Congress, such
road improvements would have never been possible on the
Navajo reservation.

[[Page S1251]]

Please accept the enclosed information on the Apache
County, District II plus the resolutions of the local Navajo
community chapters as our thanks.
Again, thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom M. White, Jr,
County Supervisor, Ganado District II.
Enclosure.
____

Navajo County Board

of Supervisors,

Holbrook, AZ, December 18, 2002.
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: TEA-21 Funding for Maintenance of School Bus Routes
Dear Senator Bingaman: Navajo County has used the TEA-21
funding since its inception to maintain school bus routes
located on reservation lands within the county. In order to
best use these funds, we have entered into agreements with
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and various established school
districts. These agreements allow us to expand the budgets
for roads in the school districts and receive maximum benefit
for funds spent.
The funding to date has been spent as follows: Funding of
road worker salaries, $63,226; purchase of road working
equipment, $215,651; purchase of road building materials,
$173,313.
This material, labor and equipment helps to maintain over
1,300 miles of school bus routes. Even though these funds are
extremely helpful, the current amount of funding is
inadequate to meet the needs that are encountered in these
remote lands.
Navajo County fully supports your efforts to not only
continue the present funding, but also the efforts to
increase the annual amount. If this funding was not
available, the school children on the reservation would be
the ones who suffer.
Please continue your efforts to enhance the TEA-21 funds.
If you need further information, please call me at (928) 524-
4053.
Sincerely,
Jesse Thompson,
Supervisor.
____

Operations Department,

Kayenta, AZ, January 20, 2004.
Re: Letter of Support

Senator Jeff Bingaman,
Attn: Denial J. Alpert, Legislative Assistant,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Kayenta Unified
School District (KUSD) and Navajo County Board of
Supervisors, I write in support of the TEA-21 grant that the
federal government allocates to the State of Arizona and
distributes to the Navajo County Board of Supervisors. The
TEA-21 Grant greatly impacts the Kayenta Unified School
District and the surrounding communities it serves on the
Navajo Reservation.
For example, during the 2002-2003 school year, Kayenta
Unified School District graduated 188 students from Monument
Valley High School, and out of the 188 students, 120 students
were bused to and form school daily and many of these
students live off paved roads. The district buses travel over
350,000 mile on an off unpaved roads and transports 2,105
students a day. The overall enrollment at Kayenta Unified
School District is 2,600 students.
The district is allocated $30,000.00 from the TEA-21 grant
annually to support the salary of a heavy equipment operator.
Currently, the district has 35 bus routes, and 25 of these
routes are on unpaved roads. The heavy equipment operator
grades all unpaved roads and with assistance from the TEA-21
grant, we are able to maintain these roads adequately. Most
of all, the unpaved roads need to be safe for student
transportation, and it is important that we maintain these
bus routes, so KUSD is requesting that your office continues
to financially support this funding for all Indian
reservations, but more importantly, to ensure safe
transportation for our students.
Furthermore the TEA-21 grant should be equally distributed
among the three states that receive this grant. The purpose
of the grant is to improve or maintain unpaved roads on the
Indian Reservations, especially when inclement weather sets
in. With many unpaved roads, the assistance from the TEA-21
grant has made it possible for our students who live in
remote areas to continue to remain home and attend school.
Otherwise these students would have to go to a boarding
school and live away from home. Navajo families in our
surrounding areas and Kayenta Unified School District greatly
benefit from the TEA-21 grant.
Your continuous support and allocation in awarding Kayenta
Unified School District is greatly appreciated.
If there are any questions please contact me at (928) 697-
2130.
Sincerely,
Julius Young II,
KUSD/Operations Director.
____

Fort Defiance Community Chapter,

Fort Defiance, AZ.

Resolution of the Fort Defiance Chapter Expressing an Appreciation to
Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman and Other Members of the U.S.
Congress for Their Efforts and Support of Funds Allocation to Apache
County and Other Counties Within the Navajo Nation for Road Maintenance

Whereas:
1. The Fort Defiance Community Chapter of Arizona is a
certified Navajo chapter government pursuant to 26 N.N.C. is
delegated governmental authority with respect to local
matters consistent with Navajo laws, including custom,
traditions and fiscal matter; and
2. The Fort Defiance Community Chapter population of 5,581
people have at least (800+) miles of excess dirt roads and
the Apache County, District II maintains seven (7) miles of
dirt road; and
3. The Fort Defiance Community Chapter realized that in the
past, the Apache County was unable to defray the cost of
gravel for the dirt roads; however, this past year, the
Apache County was able to gravel two (2) miles of school bus
routes in Fort Defiance area; and
4. The Fort Defiance Community Chapter knows that the
Apache County, District II lobbied for its funds such as the
TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) and
was funded to gravel some of the county routes which are bus
routes; and
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved That:
1. The Fort Defiance Chapter sincerely expresses an
appreciation to Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman and
other members of the U.S. Congress for their efforts and
support of funds allocation, especially the TEA-21
(Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) to Apache
County and other counties within the Navajo Nation for road
maintenance of school bus routes.
2. The Fort Defiance Chapter further supports that the
gravel of dirt roads continue so that all motorists and
school busses travel safely in all types of weather.

CERTIFICATION

We hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
considered by the Fort Defiance Community Chapter at a duly
called meeting at which a quorum was present and that same
was Motioned by: Larry Anderson and Seconded by: Louva
Dahozy, and passed by a vote of 26 in favor and 0 opposed and
1 abstained, this 28th day of February, 2000.
Albert Deschine,
President.
Rena C. Williams,
Vice President.
Laurita Begay,
Secretary-Treasurer.
Elmer L. Milford,
Council Delegate.
Harold Wauneka,
Council Delegate.
Rodger Dahozy,
Grazing Officer.
____

San Juan County,

Aztec, NM, January 9, 2003.
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Senator Bingaman: We are aware that Congress will be
considering bills to reauthorize the TEA-21 funding for local
roads that provide access to the Navajo Reservation. These
funds are of special significance to San Juan County.
The Public Works Department of San Juan County regularly
maintains over 400 miles of roads that are adjacent to or
provide access to the Navajo Reservation. These roads are
critical to the population in the service areas. School buses
depend on our County workers to keep the roads maintained and
to provide other essential services.
Over the past five years, we have received $953,688 from
the TEA-21 program for the maintenance of roads and bridges
in these areas. The assistance received under this program
will be crucial if we wish to continue to provide these much
needed services to the residents on the Navajo Reservation
and their visitors.
I would like to thank you for your hard work on behalf of
the citizens on San Juan County and urge you to support
legislation that would extend the TEA-21 Program.
Sincerely,
Tony Atkinson,
County Manager.
____

Gallup-McKinley County

Public Schools,

Gallup, NM, December 19, 2002.
Hon. Senator Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: Regarding the reauthorization of
TEA-21 legislation, I would like to be up front in support of
this bill. Our Gallup-McKinley County School District cannot
function without a decent roads maintenance program. Our
school district has established a good partnership with the
McKinley County Commissioners' Office. Mr. Irvin Harrison,
McKinley County Manager, is very instrumental in addressing
the many roads maintenance issues. Of course, the money to do
the actual maintenance work comes from the Indian School Bus
Route Safety Reauthorization Act.
Let me explain why the Gallup-McKinley County Schools
consider TEA-21 is practically indispensable. Our district
daily transports 9,089 students and covers 16,070 miles. The
9,089 students are almost all Native Americans residing on
Indian reservation land or checker Board Areas. The majority
of the roads are dirt or unimproved. Our bus fleet totals 146
and 27 buses are equipped with lifts. Senator, you can
imagine how delicate it is to make sure the roads are safe
and all-weather condition. On an annual basis, our miles
driven exceed 3,047,269. Without the county's roads
maintenance program, our buses would deteriorate as quickly
as we buy them and absenteeism would climb astronomically.
What is so

[[Page S1252]]

unique about our district is, its 5000 square miles size and
reported unpaved road transportation nears 400,000 miles.
What the McKinley County Roads Department maintains include
grading, placing gravel with some degree of compaction,
repair work on drainage appurtenances and providing drainage
solutions to rain damaged areas. Gallup-McKinley County
School District is still expanding. A new high school is
under design in Pueblo Pintado. A safe bridge is absolutely
essential right next to the new school site.
Senator, I recall 3 years ago that you took a ride in one
of our buses west of Gallup. I understand you enjoyed the
rough ride. I thank you for taking the time from your busy
schedule to visit our school district.
I am confident that the reauthorization of TEA-21 will be
an historic event because this piece of legislation indeed
relates to the No Child Left Behind initiative. All weather
and safe roads provide the means to get the children to
school on time. Absentees and tardiness are discouraged with
a reliable transportation to school. I urge your colleagues
to jump on the bandwagon and support the Indian School Bus
Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003. Please call me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Karen S. White,
Acting Superintendent.
____

Gallup McKinley County

Public Schools,

Gallup, NM.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Hon. Jeff Bingaman: The Gallup McKinley County Schools
serve over 15 thousands students, of which over 10 thousand
are bussed daily. Our District's school buses travel 9,250
miles daily, one way. Several miles of these roads are
primitive dirt roads with poor or no drainage. Several do not
have guard rails and some are not maintained by any entity.
The inability to safely negotiate school buses over these
roads during wet, muddy and snowy conditions greatly
restricts our ability to provide adequate services for
families living along these particular roadways. Funding for
school bus route road maintenance is vital to providing safe
and efficient transportation for thousands of students
throughout our County.
The School bus route maintenance programs have helped
tremendously. Our County Roads Division (McKinley County) has
been extremely helpful in maintaining hundreds of miles of
bus route roads. The route improvements completed recently in
the North Coyote Canyon, Mexican Springs, Johnson loop,
Tohlakai, CR-1, Crestview, Lyanbito and Bluewell have
provided us with the ability to safely negotiate these areas
and transport hundreds of students to various schools.
The School bus route program is a very important program.
Our County Roads division worked diligently to provide safe
access and passage for our school districts 160 school buses.
Without the school bus route program, it would be impossible
to maintain safe conditions on these roads. To insure the
safety of our school children and families, it is imperative
that the reauthorization of the TEA-21 Bill be realized.
Your help in sponsoring bills, which address the unique
situations with respect to school bus route roads, have been
greatly appreciated. Your continuing support of the school
bus route program (TEA-21 Bill) will enable us to continue to
safely and efficiently transport our students. It is through
these cooperative efforts that we are able to serve the
hundreds of families living in our County. Thank you for your
continued efforts.
Sincerely,
Ben Chavez,
Support Services Director.
____

The Navajo Nation,

Rock Springs Chapter,

Yah-Ta-Hey, NM.

Resolution of Rock Springs Chapter, Eastern Navajo Agency--District 16

Requesting and Recommending to the United States Senators,
Honorable Jeff Bingaman and Honorable Pete Dominci to
Reauthorize the TEA-21 Bill for Continued Funding to the
County of McKinley, State of New Mexico for Improvement of
School Bus Routes Leading to and within the Navajo Indian
Reservation which is Supported by Rock Springs Chapter
Community.
Whereas:
1. The Rock Springs Chapter is a certified chapter and
recognized by the Navajo Nation Council, pursuant to CAP-34-
98, the Navajo Nation Council adopted the Navajo Local
governance act (LGA) which directs local chapters to promote
all matters that affect the local community members and to
make appropriate decisions, recommendation and advocate on
their behalf, and;
2. The Rock Springs Chapter is requesting and recommending
to the United States Senators, Honorable Jeff Bingaman and
Honorable Pete Dominci to Re-authorize the TEA-21 Bill for
Continued funding to the County of McKinley, State of New
Mexico for improvement of school bus routes leading to and
within the Navajo Indian Reservation which is supported by
Rock Springs Chapter Community, and;
3. The Rock Springs Chapter is established to plan,
promote, and coordinate the community, economic, and social
development for the community, including an oversight of
coordinator and support for federal, state, tribal, and other
programs and entities; and
4. The Rock Springs Chapter Community are highly concerned
of their students attendance due to poor road conditions,
lack of improving and maintaining bus routes and how it
effects the daily transports of students as well as daily
travel for community members, and:
5. There are vest miles of (dirt roads) school bus routes
that still require improvement. Poor roads contribute to poor
education, health issues, economic growth, unemployment, and
fatalities in our rural (community) county.
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved:
1. The Rock Springs Chapter strongly supports the foregoing
resolution to the United States Senators, Honorable Jeff
Bingaman and Honorable Pete Dominici to Re-authorize TEA-21
Bill for Continued funding to the County of McKinley, State
of New Mexico for improvement of school bus routes leading to
and within the Navajo Indian Reservation.
2. The Rock Springs Chapter Community hereby supports the
continuation of improving and upgrading the vast miles of
dirt roads school bus routes.

certification

We, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
presented and considered by the Rock Springs Chapter at duly
called chapter meeting at Rock Springs Chapter, New Mexico
(Navajo Nation) at which a quorum was present and the same
was passed with a vote of 33 in favor, 00 opposed and 00
abstained on this 18th of February, 2003.
Motion: Ted Billy.
Second: Rose Mark.
Raymond Emerson,
Chapter President.
Harriett K. Becenti,
Council Delegate.
Lucinda Roanhorse,
Acting Community Services Coordinator.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment which
addresses the serious national problem of drunk driving by helping to
ensure that when drunken drivers are arrested, they can't simply get
back into their car and put the lives of others in jeopardy. The
amendment is based on legislation known as ``John's Law'' that I have
introduced in the Senate and that has already been enacted at the State
level in New Jersey.
On July 22, 2000, Navy Ensign John Elliott was driving home from the
United States Naval Academy in Annapolis for his mother's birthday when
his car was struck by another car. Both Ensign Elliott and the driver
of that car were killed. The driver of the car that caused the
collision had a blood alcohol level that exceeded twice the legal
limit.
What makes this tragedy especially distressing is that this same
driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence
of alcohol, DUI, just 3 hours before the crash. After being processed
for that offense, he had been released into the custody of a friend who
drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel, with
tragic results.
We need to ensure that drunken drivers do not get back behind the
wheel before they sober up. With this amendment, States would be
allowed to use some of their drunk driver prevention grant money from
the Federal Government to impound the vehicles of drunk drivers for no
less than 12 hours. This would help ensure that a drunk driver cannot
get back behind the wheel until he is sober. And that would make our
roads safer, and prevent the loss of many innocent lives.
I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense measure. And I
want to express my appreciation to Senators McCain and Hollings for
their cooperation on this matter.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
explain my objections to the transportation reauthorization bill. I
want to make it clear to everyone in this chamber, and more
importantly, to the people of Wisconsin, the reasoning behind my vote
today. This legislation is important to me; I wholly support a 6-year
transportation reauthorization bill. I understand the need, on so many
levels, for long term transportation funding. This is especially true
in Wisconsin, where the harsh winters make transportation planning
critical. And across the Nation, I know that investment in our
transportation infrastructure is vital to our safety and our economy. I
know how a 6-year bill affects planning for cities and States, affects
jobs across the country, and the overall impact that a 6-year
authorization has on the economy. I have heard the statistics, read the
data and seen the charts. But

[[Page S1253]]

most importantly, I know that if I were to support this bill today, I
would not be doing my best to represent the people of Wisconsin.
Every time Congress has faced reauthorizing a transportation funding
bill, I have had to fight for Wisconsin's fair share. And under TEA-21,
Wisconsin received the best possible return over the course of the
bill. Under TEA-21, Wisconsin received an average rate of return of
approximately $1.02 to every dollar the State contributed to the
highway trust fund. This fair return did not come without a fight,
however, and prior to TEA-21's passage, I worked diligently to ensure
that Wisconsin saw its fair share of transportation dollars.
This bill, however, throws those hard-won and well-earned returns
away. By the second year of the bill, Wisconsin's rate of return will
drop from almost $1.03 to $.95. According to preliminary estimates from
my State's Department of Transportation, Wisconsin stands to lose an
average of $80 million every year for the 6-year life of the bill under
a 95 percent rate of return. In other words, the difference between a
hundred percent and 95 percent rate of return results in millions of
dollars lost for Wisconsin. How can I support that?
That is why I sought to offer an amendment, which would have helped
Wisconsin recoup some of the loss under this bill. My amendment would
correct one of the largest problems that midwestern States have faced
over the past several years. Midwestern States account for almost 70
percent of the loss of funds that is associated with the ethanol tax
exemption. Wisconsin's loss has more than tripled within the last 3
years alone. My amendment would change States' TEA-21 average by adding
the ethanol losses that occurred between 1996 and 2001. By applying the
revised averages to the portion of the bill that calculates the minimum
a State can receive, Wisconsin would stand to gain in the range of $50
million every year of the bill. This would help the State gain back the
losses that we faced due to ethanol.
Unfortunately, because of the rush of leadership on both sides of the
aisle to finish the transportation bill, efforts to offer amendments
improving the bill were procedurally blocked. I am very disappointed
that so many of my colleagues--so many whose States do well under this
bill--have shut out the rest of us who want to debate our ideas for
making the bill fairer and better. This is politics at its worst. And
the result will be a huge amount of public resources divvied up by a
formula crafted in secret, unimproved with the ideas from--unresponsive
to the needs of--too many States like Wisconsin.

Fortunately for Wisconsin and these other States, this bill is far
from law despite our work this week. The White House is insisting on
bringing the cost of the bill down by billions before the President
will sign it. The House is developing a bill including an increase in
the gas tax that has little support in the Senate. If a 6-year
authorization does become law this year, it will not look anything like
the behemoth we have voted on today.
And for all these reasons, I could not vote for this legislation--
vote to pass the losses contained in this legislation to my State. I
will not be part of a process that puts the Senate stamp of approval on
an embarrassing backroom deal that has a lot more to do with log
rolling than road building. I will not push through legislation that
does not give Wisconsin drivers and Wisconsin taxpayers their fair
share.
A safe and secure transportation network is important to the people
in my State. The Wisconsin highway system requires constant attention
and repair, to offset the damage caused by harsh winters and hot
summers. Every year during the appropriations process, I have worked to
secure funding for on-going projects critical to ensuring safe roads
and a stable economy. I support the Senate's decision to pass a 6-year
authorization. But not this bill. I cannot in good conscience support
this bill, which represents an embarrassment to the Senate and a
serious loss to my State.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this difficult bill
for the hours and days of work that have gone into this bill. This
legislation is the most difficult the Senate will deal with this year.
It goes without saying that there are more moving parts of this bill
and that's what makes it so difficult. It affects every State in the
Union in important ways: infrastructure and jobs. Every Senator in this
body knows and understands that. All of us here are in need of both and
it affects rural and urban areas alike.
If I have learned anything during my tenure here, it is this: It is
impossible to out build America's love for the automobile.
The Subcommittee on Communications of the Commerce Committee has
looked at this along with the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
We have spent hours discussing safety and efficiency. We have passed
legislation in telecommunications making it easier to telecommute. The
deployment of broadband Internet services is lagging due to several
reasons, but it becomes vital to the easing of congestion found in our
morning and evening commutes--labor and consulting laws to deal with
the one who stays home two of the five working days and uses either the
telephone or Internet to correspond and perform his or her office
responsibilities. It is being done in Washington, D.C. as we speak.
Great strides have been made in telemedicine and distance learning
using these new and exciting communications tools. What I am trying to
say is simple. It is not just a highway bill to move people but to move
people and commerce. It is just one more item that is the
infrastructure to do many things. The Internet has allowed Montana to
move closer to downtown Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, Seattle, Denver,
or San Francisco. For that matter, it has opened up the world and world
markets to us in rural areas as never before.
Now why do you ask why Montana has a huge interest in our roads and
highways? We still depend on our farm-to-market roads. We are at the
end of the line for product and the head of the line for the natural
resources that are in high demand in every corner of the Nation.
Here is the problem. It is a problem that has been dealt with by so
many Senators and Congressmen in a fair way. Montana has only 28 people
per lane mile on our Federal aid highways when the national average is
124. That is on Federal aid highways. In another area, our per capita
income is below the national average. If that is not enough, rural
Montana has long stretches, fewer people with smaller incomes. In fact,
you have heard me use this expression a lot: ``We have a lot of dirt
between light bulbs.'' We also have ways of financing the modern day
needs for modern day roads. We have huge holdings of federally owned
lands--federally owned national parks, national forest lands, Indian
reservations, and public lands. They all have transportation needs that
are unique to their areas. That limits our tax base, thus the need for
some assistance in fulfilling the transportation needs for the entire
country.
Overall, I am very supportive of the bill before us today, but I do
have some concerns and issues I wish we had more time to deal with.
As the bill is written now, Montana would not receive funds under the
impaired driving or occupant protection sections of this bill. I have
two amendments that create a minimum guarantee to States such as mine
that desperately need assistance is these areas. If it is a national
program, then everyone should be able to access those funds. I
understand the incentive-based approach my colleagues have written but
creating programs that exclude some States is not the right direction.
Senator Shelby did a great job, and I thank him for his work and
assistance on rural transit. Even though Montana receives a 169 percent
increase from TEA-21, it translates into modest dollars. Now here is my
problem. We have an aging rural population. I have 14 counties that do
not have a local physician. So routes taken in Montana must traverse
these areas where we have modest ridership and long travel distances.
These new transit funds will help us meet those needs.
While we are on the subject of mass transit, it is time to face the
situation of Amtrak.
Let me state at this point that I have been and continue to be a
supporter of Amtrak. With all its problems, all the bumps, scars, and
warts, Congress has listened to our folks at home, and it is clear they
want a national passenger

[[Page S1254]]

system. It is costly. There are all kinds of studies and reports that
one can draw from to deal with Amtrak, and I have yet to see any change
in how it does business. We demagog the issue a lot and sometimes we
see some attempt to change it but nothing that would change it
drastically. We all demagog well, but we have shown no political will
to change it. Regional needs and issues come front and center when we
try.
There are those who think of Amtrak as a light rail commuter system,
so the interest and money flows in that direction. It is the only
national passenger railway system this country has. Let me repeat--it
is the only national passenger system we have. If it takes money from
the Federal Treasury to subsidize, then so be it. But if there are
areas where it is being used as a local commuter service, then are the
taxpayers of the Nation subsidizing a local problem?
Amtrak is just one of many important rail issues we should discuss
today. When looking at rail policy, I believe it is important to
consider the outlook of the rail customers along side that of the
railroads, and those views are quite different.
In my State and many others across the Nation, we have the issue of
captive shippers, and the economic impact to our States is no small
item.
We have heard from more and more shippers about decreased
transportation competitiveness and, as a result, increased
transportation rates.
Let me give a quick description of what has happened in this country
the last 20 or so years. In 1980, there were 40 class I railroads in
this country. As a result, Congress passed the Staggers Act that year
with the intent that regulation would be eased and competition would
endure and drive the marketplace ensuring rail rates would remain
reasonable. Through regulatory involvement and a stifling amount of
consolidation, we find ourselves with essentially four class I
railroads today, two in the east and two in the west.

Together with Senators Dorgan and Rockefeller, I introduced S. 919,
the Railroad Competition Act of 2003 which is represented in several
amendments before us today. Our intent is to correct the model and the
economic structure that allows monopolistic behavior in the freight
rail industry. Contrary to what you have heard from the railroads,
there are no provisions in our amendments that are re-regulatory. The
bill restates the original intent of the Staggers Act of 1980 which has
been eroded by mergers and regulatory interpretation.
Our amendments will not penalize the railroads or create an
environment where railroads cannot compete with other transportation
modes. In fact, our amendments will create competition among our
railroads improving transportation efficiencies in our economy. I am
the last Member of Congress who would introduce a measure that would
drive a railroad out of a local economy, simply due to the fact that my
State of Montana is nearly entirely captive to one railroad.
The bottom line is the railroad industry in this country is allowed
to legally operate in a business model that breeds monopolistic
behavior.
Montana is a classic case of what happens to rail customers when you
eliminate competitive transportation alternatives. Our rail rates are
some the highest in the Nation and my shippers end up subsidizing rail
rates in regions where competition is present. Our rail customers pay
more for less service. The rail customers in regions with competitive
alternative pay less and receive more service.
American agricultural shippers are the most vulnerable to predatory
marketing by monopolistic practices of railroads. The farm producer,
unlike every other industry in America, cannot pass the freight costs
onto anyone else. They must simply eat the cost.
It has been 24 years since the enactment of the Stagger Act, and
neither the marketplace nor the Surface Transportation Board has
corrected the obvious monopolistic behavior of our railroads. I ask
that my colleagues seriously consider the rail customer issues we have
in this country.
Finally, I appreciate the hard work of the managers of this bill and
their consideration for rural America. It is my hope we begin to move
forward on the highway bill and I look forward to its timely passage.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I take a few minutes today to talk
about the transportation reauthorization bill before the Senate and why
it is so important that we deliver a strong, well-rounded bill to our
States.
This bill authorizes the largest increase of funds for California
over 6 years since I have been in the Senate. That increase is $6
billion for California roads over the next 6 years.
As a donor State, California sends more tax dollars to Washington,
DC, than we receive back. This bill over the next 6 years would greatly
improve that status.
For the first time, this bill brings California, and all donor
States, to a 95 percent rate of return. California is currently at a 90
percent rate of return. In other words, for every dollar California
sends to Washington, it gets back only 90 cents for maintenance and
improvement of our highways. This bill would allow California to
receive 95 cents back on the dollar in the sixth year of the
authorization of the transportation bill.
While that increase does not happen as quickly as I would like, this
bill provides California with an overall $6 billion increase for
important highway programs.
As a Californian, transportation is the backbone of our economy.
California has two of the Nation's busiest ports--Los Angeles/Long
Beach and Oakland, and California ports handle half of all cargo coming
into the United States.
We need roads that are equipped to handle the flow of goods and the
truck traffic that comes with it.
Mr. President, three-quarters of all goods shipped from California
ports are now transported by truck along California roads. Roads that
are in desperate need of repair. Thirty-seven percent of California
road conditions are rated ``poor.'' Only 11 percent of roads nationwide
have that same rating. On the other hand, only 13 percent of roads in
California have a ``good'' rating while 46 percent of roads nationwide
have the same classification.
At the same time, travel on California roads increased 97 percent
between 1980 and 2000, while population increased 42 percent in the
same period.
We are all familiar with pictures of California gridlock. Cars
sitting on our freeways, moving at a snail's pace.
The facts bear out the images. Los Angeles has had the worst traffic
in the nation for 16 years in a row. San Francisco and Oakland are tied
with Atlanta and Washington for second place. San Diego ranked sixth.
Traffic congestion in California costs motorists $20.4 billion
annually in lost time and fuel.
All this in a State that has six non-attainment air quality areas,
with 70 percent of the State in the reformulated gasoline program
because our air is so dirty.
California needs an infusion of cash to pay for highway enhancements
to allow an easier flow of traffic to reduce the amount of time trucks
and cars are idling, increasing air pollution. That is just one step we
can take to allow communities in my State to reach air quality
attainment.
We also need money for public transit to reduce the amount of cars on
the road, reducing air pollution, and decreasing the amount of time my
constituents have to spend commuting every day.
California has some of the largest regional transportation systems in
the country including the Bay Area Rapid Transit, BART, CalTrain, the
rail service between San Francisco and San Jose, and Metrolink,
Southern California's regional transit system.
My State is facing a crisis. Without Federal highway dollars my local
communities will not be able to eliminate bottlenecks on our highways
to improve air quality. As a result, they will be out of conformity
with Federal air quality regulations, and will lose even more Federal
highway dollars. This will become a never-ending cycle. Without money
they can't conform, and without conforming they can't get money.
California also needs this bill for economic reasons. According to
the Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new infrastructure
investment creates 47,500 new jobs: 26,500 of

[[Page S1255]]

these are directly related to construction, engineering, contracting,
and other on-site employees, and 21,000 are indirect jobs resulting
from the spending associated with the investment.
We would not have to wait long to feel the benefits of this
transportation bill. Transportation construction contractors hire
employees within a few weeks of obtaining a project contract. These
employees begin receiving paychecks within 2 weeks of hiring. In other
words, if the bill is passed tomorrow, three weeks from now
construction sites would be bustling with activity. We can't afford to
delay.
In an economic recovery that has so far been jobless, the Federal
Government must do what it can to create jobs.
Improving our transportation infrastructure is one of the critical
things we can do to create all sorts of jobs.
According to the California Employment Development Department, job
growth in the coming year in California will be a dismal 1 percent
about 142,000 jobs in all--barely more than half the 10 year average.
California needs a robust transportation bill to help clean the air,
ease congestion on the roads, and create jobs.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the final
passage of S. 1072, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act of 2003, SAFETEA.'' However, this vote does
not come without great difficulty, because I understand how vital this
legislative package is to the transportation infrastructure of Georgia
and the country as a whole.
I understand that the future growth of my state largely depends on a
robust transportation program, particularly in Atlanta and its
surrounding counties. Georgia's commuters are suffering from some of
the most notorious congestion in the country and without the crucial
funds from the reauthorization of the highway funding bill, the time
they spend commuting will only get worse. I also clearly understand
that the funding from this bill will be used for highway and transit
projects that would greatly enhance the vast transportation
infrastructure in Georgia. However, I believe that these improvements
can be made in conjunction with sound fiscal policy.
Last year, in a vote that I did not support, the Senate moved to
increase the contract authority in the budget resolution for
transportation spending to $272 billion. The SAFETEA bill on the floor
of the Senate today breaks this unprecedented level by further
increasing the contract authority by $36 billion, this being an
increase of 46 percent over the previous level. In other words, to pass
the Senate's version of the SAFETEA legislation, the Senate will have
to vote to set aside its own budget resolution. In addition, the
legislation contains a significant funding gap between the desired
spending levels and the anticipated transportation-related excise tax
receipts. Simply put, the gas tax receipts used to finance most federal
surface transportation projects will not keep pace with government
spending. Over the next 6 years, the Congressional Budget Office
projects that the gas tax receipts for highways and transit will
generate roughly $233 billion--about $80 billion less than the contract
authority provided in the SAFETEA legislation on the floor of the
Senate. The Finance Committee has produced a plan to make up the
difference in a series of revenue boosting maneuvers that simply move
revenue generators out of general revenues into the Highway Trust Fund.
However, at the end of the day when we realize that there just isn't
enough money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for this bill,
inevitably, the burden will fall on the General Fund to make up the
difference. The deficit will continue to grow and that is an option
that I cannot support.
In this time of soaring budget deficits, we must hold the line on
spending. We must draw a line in the sand and say that we will not
continue to lay the burden of these ever increasing deficits on the
shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, because they will pay
the price of Congress's profuse spending habits. It is up to us to
monitor ourselves and if we do not start by limiting the spending
contained within this bill, the deficit will only increase. I am not
willing to leave these problems to be dealt with by future generations.
Our President has given us an amount that he would support for the cost
of this highway bill. He has requested that we limit our spending to
$256 billion to work with over the next 6 years. Even with this
limitation, this figure represents a 21 percent increase over the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted in
1998. I believe that this rational increase would still have a positive
effect on Georgia's transportation infrastructure, while doing
significantly less damage to our Nation's economy.
I urge my colleagues who will be Senate conferees when this
legislation moves to conference to pursue fiscal responsibility and
work to reduce the total cost of this bill before the conference report
returns to the Senate floor for final passage.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Michigan is a long time donor State that
for 50 years or so has sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust
Fund in Washington than are returned back in transportation
infrastructure spending.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2004, SAFETEA, addresses this inequity by returning more money
to donor States which for years have seen a portion of their highway
trust fund contributions shifted to ``donee'' States. These ``donee''
States have benefitted from antiquated Federal highway formulas which
give them more Federal highway funding than they paid into the highway
trust fund.
I have been fighting to correct the inequity faced by donor States
like Michigan for decades. We have made some progress, but we won't be
satisfied until we get the full return on our gas tax dollars after the
costs of administering the program are allocated. For instance, in
1978, Michigan was getting somewhere around 75 cents on our gas tax
dollar. The 1991 ISTEA bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per
dollar and the 1998 TEA-21 bill guaranteed a 90.5 cent minimum return
for each State.
SAFETEA moves us in the right direction toward correcting the
inequity in the distribution of highway funding. I cosponsored an
amendment that would have, if adopted, provided additional funding to
donor states to bring them more quickly to equity. While the inequity
should be corrected immediately rather than gradually over the life of
the 6-year bill, it is an important step forward that donor States will
all achieve a 95 cent return by the sixth year of this bill, a level
that is much better than in prior bills.
Under this legislation, Michigan will get more than $2.1 billion
additional dollars over 6 years to pay for badly needed transportation
infrastructure improvements. In all, under the formula portion of this
bill, Michigan will get over $7.4 billion over 6 years which represents
more than a 40 percent increase over TEA-21, plus additional funds from
other sections of the bill.
Our Nation has significant infrastructure improvement needs. For
instance, according to the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA,
congestion at border crossings can lead to delays of over 80 minutes.
The lost productivity from this congestion has a negative impact on the
Nation's economy. It also causes environmental problems in the border
regions. We need to get trucks and people across the borders more
quickly and with greater safety.
I am pleased the bill managers have accepted my proposal to
distribute funding for the bill's enhanced and expanded Border
Planning, Operations, and Technology Program based on documented usage
and trade flows at individual border crossings. Under my proposal,
border infrastructure funding would be distributed using criteria that
is based on the cargo weight, trade value and the number of commercial
and passenger vehicles crossing the particular border. This means our
Nation's busiest border crossings will get the Federal funding needed
to improve this important economic infrastructure. Distributing the
funds by this formula gives border projects more stability and
predictability and is good public policy. It will also enhance U.S.
economic activity and growth by facilitating the more efficient flow of
goods, services and people at U.S. border crossings. Michigan, home to
our Nation's top two commercial vehicle

[[Page S1256]]

crossings on the northern border, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit and
the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, would receive approximately $204.5
million from this account over 6 years to improve its border
infrastructure.
SAFETEA also makes an important change to the ethanol tax subsidy
that will benefit my State of Michigan. At issue is the fact that the
current ethanol subsidy comes at the expense of the highway trust fund
and those States such as Michigan and Ohio that consume ethanol. Under
current law, ethanol consuming States end up, under the formula,
getting less back in federal highway funds. The Michigan Department of
Transportation estimates that Michigan's annual revenue loss is $37
million a year in Federal aid because of the way the taxes on ethanol
are credited.
To fix this, this bill shifts the cost of the ethanol tax subsidy
from the highway trust fund to the general fund. Once ethanol taxes are
credited at the same rate as gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon compared to
the current 13.2 cents a gallon on ethanol, for the purposes of
calculating inputs into the highway trust fund, the highway trust fund
will grow. So, too, will the size of Michigan's and other ethanol
consuming States' contributions credited to the trust fund. The bottom
line is with the ethanol fix, Michigan will receive more Federal
highway dollars over the life of the 6-year bill.
This legislation provides $56 billion for mass transit over 6 years,
a significant increase over the prior reauthorization bill. Under the
transit title, Michigan would get $656 million over 6 years, an
increase of $230 million or 53 percent over TEA-21. This moves us in
the right direction on mass transit.
There are few Federal investments that will have such a large and
immediate impact on job creation and economic growth than investments
in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The efficient
functioning of our economy depends on a reliable multimodal interstate
system that is made up of highway, bus, rail, shipping and air
transportation. We need to maintain and improve these systems and we
need to address the costs and frustration of increased traffic
congestion. This bill goes a long way to improve the operation of our
transportation system and to keep us competitive in a global
marketplace.
The Federal infrastructure investment of $318 billion contained in
this bill, while increasing the efficiency of our transportation
system, will also spur the creation of thousands of jobs in every State
across this Nation. The Department of Transportation estimates that
every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates more than 47,500
jobs. With Michigan standing to gain over $7.4 billion dollars over the
6-year bill, an increase of more than $2.1 billion over the last 6
years, this bill would mean almost 100,000 new jobs in Michigan and the
retention of almost 250,000 jobs. These are good paying jobs and jobs
that Michigan needs for economic recovery and to replace some of the
jobs we have lost in manufacturing. These are jobs that we need in
Michigan and throughout our country.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wish to express my view regarding the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of
2004, SAFETEA, S. 1072.
This legislation reauthorizes our Nation's surface transportation,
freight, and mass transit programs, which are so vital to the
infrastructure of my State of Idaho and to the Nation. Idaho is
considered a ``donee'' State, one that receives more Federal dollars
from the Highway Trust Fund, HTF, than we contribute. This is due to
the low population density, reduced tax base, and several miles of
interstate that run throughout the State.
Thanks to the hard and careful work of my colleague, Senator Crapo,
who serves on both the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee
and the Environment and Public Works committee, I believe Idaho has
received fair and equitable treatment in this bill. I applaud the
committee and especially Senator Crapo for recognizing that large,
rural States have to maintain the infrastructure that our farmers,
long-haul truckers, tourists--and most important, our citizens--use
every day.
However, Mr. President, I would like to voice my concern with the
legislation now before us.
Last year the President proposed his version of SAFETEA to Congress.
Both House and Senate committees of jurisdiction quickly began their
work to forge a bill that addresses our Nation's needs. Although
neither was successful in bringing the bill to the floor, after a year
of work, the Senate will vote on our version of the bill today.
As I have seen it, the President's proposal would authorize $256
billion in highway and transit funding over 6 years. This is a $45
billion, or 21 percent increase from the 1998 reauthorization referred
to as ``TEA-21.'' The legislation before the Senate is calculated at a
total cost of $318 billion, with $311 billion of the total amount under
contract authority.
For obvious reasons, my concern is that this legislation sends the
wrong signal to the American taxpayers. Before I go further, I must say
that I strongly support the need to maintain and improve the
infrastructure of this Nation. I also understand the impact this
legislation has on creating jobs and its role in strengthening our
economy, which continues to grow and expand.
The benefits of this bill are many, but I cannot support the funding
levels proposed in this bill. Recently the Congressional Budget Office,
CBO, predicted that the federal deficit will reach $477 billion this
year. These figures are sure to fluctuate, but I think Congress must
act responsibly by keeping spending under control.
The bill before the Senate is roughly $62 billion above the
administration's request, and $24 billion over budget. We have already
faced a motion to waive the budget today, which directly undermines the
budget we all agreed to last year for FY2004.
It is a tough choice for me to oppose this bill. Thanks to the bill's
managers, Idaho will greatly benefit from the formula's allocation for
both our highway system and our transit needs. However, I cannot allow
for future generations of Americans to pay for the fiscal
irresponsibility of our actions now.
It is my hope that when this legislation is placed before a
conference of the House and Senate, that common sense and fiscal
responsibility prevails, and I will be able to cast a vote in favor of
a final conference report.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will respond to some criticisms of the
Finance Committee package.
There is an allegation that the Finance Committee did not pay for
this bill. Let me be clear. The Finance Committee adhered to the
following principles in carrying out its responsibilities:
The Finance Committee funded the trust fund by increasing the amount
of excise tax receipts retained by the trust fund.
The Finance Committee funded the bill at the outlay number--that is
the cash flow impact on the trust fund. Some have pointed to
obligations and contract authority numbers. Those numbers were not and
are not relevant to the Finance Committee role. It is unfair to compare
numbers for contract authority or obligation with receipts. That is
apples and oranges. The Finance Committee matched receipts and outlays.
In accordance with Finance Committee members' desires, the deficit
impact of matching receipts and outlays was offset with general fund
revenue raisers. Those numbers match up.
That is the bottom line. The Finance Committee did its job.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary of
the Finance Committees funding title for the highway bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Summary of Finance Committee Funding Title

Finance Committee jurisdiction extends to the highway use-
related excise taxes, the highway trust fund, and the
expenditure authority of the highway trust fund. The Finance
Committee acted primarily on the cash flow into and out of
the trust fund. Cash flow into the trust fund is represented
by trust fund excise tax receipts. Cash flow out of the trust
fund is represented by trust fund outlays. Matters involving
contract authority and obligation limits are not Finance
Committee subject matter and the committee did not speak to
them.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, current
law trust fund receipts will total $227.8 billion over the
six year period. CBO projects $196 billion in highway account
receipts and $31.8 billion in mass transit account receipts.

[[Page S1257]]

The authorizing committees' actions placed demands on the
trust fund of $231 billion for highways and $36.6 billion for
transit for the six year authorization period. That means a
total of $267.6 billion in demands on the trust fund.
Prior to Finance Committee action, demands on the trust
fund exceeded receipts by $39.8 billion over the 6-year
period. To make up this funding gap, the Finance Committee
developed two categories of proposals. The first category
increased trust fund receipts by tightening compliance. The
second category included accounting changes that raised trust
fund receipts.
The compliance changes raised trust fund receipts by $5.6
billion over the authorization period. These changes were
also scored as revenue raisers by the Joint Committee on
Taxation. These proposals have no impact on the budget
deficit.
The budget resolution assumes that 2.5 cents per gallon of
gasohol receipts, currently held by the general fund, will be
transferred to the trust fund. That transfer raises trust
fund receipts by $5 billion over the authorization period.
The Finance Committee also assumed that trust fund balances
would be spent down by $7.5 billion over the authorization
period. Adding all of these changes together with the
compliance changes, the Finance Committee closed the gap by
$18.1 billion over the authorization period. That left a
funding gap of $21.7 billion.
The Finance Committee proposed to close this gap with a
group of trust fund accounting changes. These proposals raise
trust fund receipts by shifting the burden of tax policies
from the trust fund to the general fund. In the view of
Finance Committee, these tax policy benefits have nothing to
do with highway use and should not burden the trust fund.
Included in these proposals is a repeal of the partial
exemption for ethanol-blended fuels. The tax benefit for
ethanol, like nearly all energy production incentives, is
transferred to the general fund through a tax credit. The
same effect is applied to refunds for special categories of
users such as state and local governments. Finally, the
highway trust fund will earn interest on its balance, so that
the highway and transit programs are not prejudiced. This
second category of proposals closed the funding gap, but,
without revenue offsets, would have increased the budget
deficit by $21.7 billion.
Finance Committee members decided that this second category
of proposals should not have a deficit impact. To this end,
the Finance Committee title includes a group of loophole
closers previously approved by the committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record a copy of Finance Committee staff prepared analysis. This
analysis reconciles trust receipts and outlays. It also reconciles the
deficit impact of the proposal with general fund revenue raisers.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

TEA 21 Reauthorization bill funding projections, February 2, 2004

[In billions]

Highways:
Contract Authority..............................................255.0
Obligation Limitation...........................................238.0
Commerce Obligation...............................................6.5
Outlays.........................................................231.0
========

Amount needed to Fund EPW/Commerce Spending.......................231.0
Gas Tax Baseline--Projected Gas Tax Receipts......................196.0
________

Additional Funding Needed..........................................35.0
========

Revenues additions to Highway Trust Fund:
Fuel Fraud Compliance and Mobile Machinery........................5.0
2.5 gasohol.......................................................5.0
**5.2 Gasohol.....................................................9.0
**Interest on Trust Fund balance..................................2.0
**Gas Guzzlers....................................................0.5
**Amend Fuel refund mechanism in IRC..............................8.0
Spend down partial Trust Fund balance.............................5.5
________

Additional Revenue for Highway Trust Fund....................35.0
========

Transit:
Baseline 2.86 cents from each gallon taxed.......................31.8
Spenddown of partial MTA balance..................................2.0
Fuel Fraud........................................................0.6
**Interest on MTA.................................................2.2
________

Total Transit from Trust Fund................................36.6
========

**Revenue Offsets:
Expansion of limitation on depreciation of autos.................0.03
Tax Shelters/Corporate Governance................................15.8
Enrol Tax Shelters................................................3.2
Expatriation......................................................3.3
________

Total Offsets................................................22.3

Mr. GRASSLEY. There has also been some mention of the use of a
provision accelerating the payment of corporate estimated taxes. The
provision has been attacked as a ``gimmick.'' It has been attacked as
``funny money.'' The provision is fairly straight forward. It increases
the payment of the third quarter corporate estimated tax deposits by
119% for 2009. This measure has the effect of shifting $11.4 billion
from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010. It makes sure the bill will
be offset for the five- and six-year periods.
Let the record reflect, Mr. President, that this technique and
variations on it have been used frequently over the past decade. Most
of the time these things were done without complaints from either side.
Sometimes complaints were raised by those opposed to a particular bill
on other substantive grounds.
Let's look at the history of enacted tax laws that contained these
shifts.
In 1994, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, that is, the landmark
general agreement on tariffs and trade legislation contained several
changes in payment dates for excise taxes. Check it out in section 712
of Public Law 103-415 of December 8, 1994. That legislation was
overwhelmingly supported by both sides of the aisle.
In 1997, the Tax Relief Act of 1997 contained a change in the
percentage for the ``safe harbor'' for payment of individual estimated
taxes for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Check it out in section
1091 of Public Law 105-34 of August 5, 1997.
In 1998, the Trade and Tax Relief Extension Act of 1998 contained a
change for the safe harbor for payment of individual estimated taxes.
Check it out in section 2003 of Public Law 105-277 of October 21, 1998.
In 2001, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001, contained the much-criticized shift in corporate estimated tax
payments. Check it out in section 801 of Public Law 107-16 of June 7,
2001.
In 2003, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
also contained the much-criticized shift in corporate estimated tax
payments. Check it out in section 501 of Public Law 108-27 of May 28,
2003.
All of the laws mentioned above are major pieces of legislation. They
were all bipartisan measures. All of them contained shifts in dates of
payment of excise taxes, corporate taxes, or individual income taxes.
Members should also be aware that these devices or similar devices were
used in partisan bills by each side that did not become law. For
example, the patients bill of rights legislation considered in the
summer of 2001, contained a one day shift in Medicare provider
payments. Some of the harshest critics of the corporate estimated tax
shift were lead sponsors of that legislation.
Now, even though the corporate shift in this bill is a conventional
practice, Senator Baucus and I agreed to delete it before this bill
left the Senate floor. Our agreement is with Senators Nickles and
Conrad. We will attempt to carry out our agreement but are subject to
the cooperation of our colleagues.
Part of the legislative process is compliance with our budget rules.
The Finance Committee offset its title over the five, six, and ten year
period of the bill. Contrary to the critics' assertions, the corporate
shift moved real money, corporate tax receipts, from one period to the
other. I ask unanimous consent that a revenue table, prepared by the
Joint Committee on Taxation, on the Finance Committee financing title,
be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S1258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS12FE04.001

[[Page S1259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS12FE04.002

[[Page S1260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS12FE04.003

[[Page S1261]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS12FE04.004

[[Page S1262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS12FE04.005

[[Page S1263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS12FE04.006

[[Page S1264]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS12FE04.007

[[Page S1265]]

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, section 4(f) of the highway bill
provides important protections for historic sites, parks, recreation
areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges throughout the country. With
the increasing demand for transportation projects, it is important that
we not lose sight of our natural treasures. We need to balance the
growing need for transportation with responsible stewardship of our
history and natural resources.
In my State of Vermont, we have a wealth of history and natural
beauty. To see the wildlife that populate the Missisquoi Wildlife
Refuge or the covered bridges used by our forefathers is to experience
a heritage that we all want preserved for future generations.
Section 4(f) has helped preserve these treasures. The Revolutionary
War site at Fort Vehemence on Route 7 in Pittsford, Vermont, was
avoided as a result of 4(f).
An excellent collection of historic metal truss bridges across the
Connecticut River were rehabilitated, not replaced, as a result of
4(f).
A road in the Danville Historic District was narrowed in order to
keep the historic characteristics of the historic village because of
4(f).
While constructing a new highway in Vermont, we have discovered a
significant archeological site containing artifacts from Native
Americans, providing us with a piece of history that until now was not
known. By documenting this site, we will expand our knowledge of
Vermont's Native Americans. Also, because of 4(f) protections.
An amendment to 4(f) is included in this legislation. The objective
of this amendment is to allow transportation projects and programs to
move forward more quickly, while maintaining the protections of 4(f).
Those protections assure that there will be public notice and
opportunity for public review and comment on proposed de minimis
determinations for transportation projects, and that affected agencies
will concur in the decision of the Secretary of Transportation that
there will be no adverse impact on a historic site, recreation area,
park, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
The amendment would require the Secretary of Transportation, when
making a finding that a transportation project or program will have a
de minimis impact, to consider all avoidance, minimization, mitigation,
and enhancement measures that have been incorporated into the project.
This provision allows project sponsors to incorporate environmentally
protective measures into the project from the beginning, in order to
support a finding of de minimis impact. These mitigation measures must
be backed by enforceable agreements and post-construction monitoring
of the effectiveness of these impact mitigation measures, with
identified contingency measures to backstop the primary mitigation
measures. In other words, the mitigation measures must be carried and
be shown to have the intended impact. If they are not having the
intended impact, other measures must be used to ensure no adverse
impact.

In addition to the 4(f) provisions, this contains some modest,
common-sense provisions to assure the transportation planners will
consider the location of important habitat, wetlands and other natural
resources at the earliest stages of planning for new roads.
These provisions will make project delivery faster and more
efficient. Currently, transportation projects are often planned without
detailed information on core conservation areas, sensitive resources or
important habitat that might lie within the selected corridor. These
conflicts do not come to light until the environmental review process,
which then becomes more expensive and time-consuming as transportation
and resource officials try to reconcile infrastructure and conservation
activities.
These provisions will help transportation planners in avoiding
unnecessary impacts on wildlife habitat and in mitigating for
unavoidable impacts of a project.
These provisions encourage States to utilize available wildlife
habitat data and maps to inform the long range transportation planning
process. Planners would be able to identify potential concerns at the
earliest stage of planning, when options for minimizing impacts are
greatest and costs of doing so are lowest.
Over 200 Americans die each year in wildlife-vehicle collisions, many
more are injured and more than 1 million animals are killed on our
roadways everyday.
State and Federal agencies spend considerable time and money both
protecting natural areas and building transportation infrastructure.
Unfortunately, conservation and growth efforts often happen
independently and then come into conflict during the permitting and
construction phases of a transportation project. These investments need
to be coordinated. If conservation efforts are taken into account at
the earliest stages of transportation planning, both priorities can be
realized, in less time and at less cost.
The most significant threat to the biodiversity of this country is
habitat loss. However, thoughtful, forward-looking transportation
planning can go a long way towards reducing negative impacts and
mitigating for unavoidable impacts.
Over the next few decades, the decisions we make regarding highways
and the ensuring loss of habitat will determine the fate of species and
America's biodiversity. These provisions are aimed at helping to
preserve that biodiversity through coordinated planning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I congratulate the managers for their hard
work and efforts. Following the vote, there will be no further votes
until after the Presidents Day recess. Therefore, the next vote will
occur on Tuesday, February 24. I will have more to say on the schedule
before we close this evening. I do thank all Members for their
cooperation over the last 2 weeks.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill, as amended, pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson)
would each vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 21, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

YEAS--76

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--21

Alexander
Brownback
Chambliss
Craig
Ensign
Feingold
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Gregg
Hagel
Hutchison
Kohl
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Specter
Sununu

NOT VOTING--3

Edwards
Kerry
Nelson (NE)
The bill (S. 1072), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S1266]]

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to make this very brief, but I
do want to make a comment. This bill that we passed is a good bill. We
heard all kinds of criticism. It is always difficult when you are
dealing with formulas, but this is the first time in the history of
this process that we have done it without going into something such as
a minimum guarantee program that is purely political. I would like to
have had all the States get up to 95 percent sooner. We just could not
make it happen.
We have a safety portion of this bill that we never had before. We
have environmental streamlining. I would have liked to have gone a lot
further on that issue. Hopefully, we will be able to do it. Maybe we
can do some good in conference. Nonetheless, we will get a lot more
miles, literally, for the dollar than we ever have before.
I thank, one more time, Senator Reid, Senator Jeffords, and Senator
Bond. We worked very closely together. This certainly was not a
partisan effort.
I thank our staffs, too. I am going to name my staff: staff director,
Andy Wheeler; Ruth Van Mark; Marty Hall; James O'Keeffe; Nathan
Richmond; Greg Murrill; Mitch Surrett; Laura Berry; Genevieve Erny;
Frank Fannon, Angie Giancarlo; Loyed Gill; Ryan Jackson; Michele
Nellenbach; John Shanahan; Jonathan Tolman; Brydon Ross; and Cori
Lucero.
I say this very sincerely. I know it sounds mundane, but the public
should know the hours people work up here on something like this. I am
talking about all night long, several nights, and I just applaud them
for doing it. I know other staff and Members have worked equally hard,
so let me thank all of them for their dedication and the effort. I
think we made history in terms of the length of time in which we were
able to get a bill of this magnitude passed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I want to commend my good friend
from Oklahoma for all of the effort he put into this bill. I know,
having been in the position of being the chairman at one time, the
incredible effort that goes into the production of a bill of this size.
I know what his staff did, and I will give my commendation to the staff
as well.
I emphasize also the importance to the Nation. This is a jobs bill.
In fact, there is no other jobs bill that will do so much for different
workers of this Nation. Everyone benefits. Those who are in the
manufacturing area of all the tools and equipment that are necessary to
provide the work all benefit by the tremendous effort that goes into
improving roads throughout this Nation. Also, there is a tremendous
effort put into it which requires machinery. Therefore, the companies
that make the machinery benefit with increased production, increased
utilization of workers, right on down through to the people who do the
minimal things which are also so very important.
As far as the staffs goes, I would like to thank the staff of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, on both sides of the aisle, for
their efforts.
From my staff, I thank Ken Connolly, Ed Barron, Jeff Squires, Erik
Steavens, Liz Ryan, Alison Taylor, and Carolyn Dupree; Catharine
Ransom, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and J.C. Sandberg with Senator Reid's staff.
Chairman Inhofe's staff, I would like to acknowledge and recognize Andy
Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Marty Hall and James O'Keefe; from Senator
Bond's staff, Ellen Stein and Trevor Blackann.
These staffers have made tremendous sacrifices, working long hours
and many days, to bring about the fruition of this bill. We are all
proud of it, and the country is going to be proud of it. The more they
see of it, the more they will like it, and the more people will benefit
from having better jobs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join in the commendations particularly to
Chairman Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the
ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and my cohort on the Transportation
Subcommittee, Senator Reid, who also had the double pleasure of being
the floor manager and probably deserves a day off before he sees his
new granddaughter.
I join also in thanking all of the staff, and I will submit their
names for the Record. I want my colleagues to know I had a tremendous
staff working with me, Trevor Blackann, Ellen Stein, Heideh Shahmoradi,
Kent Van Landuyt, and John Stoody. It was a major effort. I think we
have crafted a good bill. This was a group effort. I thank each for
their very hard work and dedication.
Senator Inhofe's staff: Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keefe, Gregory
Murrill, Andy Wheeler, Nathan Richmond, Mitch Surrett, Angie Giancarlo,
Marty Hall, Michelle Nellenbach, Laura Berry, Brydon Ross, Cori Lucero,
and John Shananhan.
Senator Jeffords' and Senator Reid's staff: Ed Barron, J.C. Sandberg,
Jeff Squires, Erik Steavens, Elizabeth Ryan, Ken Connolly, Jo-Ellen
Darcy, Chris Miller, and Alison Taylor.
There are many provisions in this bill that make me proud to have
been a part of drafting SAFETEA. Some of which include:
Safety. For the first time in our recent transportation legislation
history, safety is given a prominent position, being elevated to a core
program. We have accomplished this by providing much needed funding to
reduce highway injuries and fatalities. I am pleased to say we have
accomplished this without the use of mandates.
We have heard numerous testimony from the administration that nearly
43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last year. I am
glad that the bill reflects the continued commitment to making not only
investments in our infrastructure, but also to the general safety and
welfare of our constituents.
Equity. Our bill moves to carefully balance the needs of the donor
States while also recognizing the needs of donee States. While many
people did not think it was possible to achieve, all donor States will
receive a 95 cent rate of return at least by 2009. I am anxious to
return to my home State of Missouri and report that we will now receive
95 cents back on every dollar, each year of this Act.
Like many of the donor States, Missouri has some of the worst roads
in the Nation and the second worst bridges in the Nation. This bill
will allow Missouri, as well as the other States, to address many of
the Nation's major transportation infrastructure needs.
Furthermore, I am proud to announce that all States will grow at not
less than 10 percent over TEA-21.
I am very pleased to report that this bill follows the Bond/Reid
amendment by providing a 31 percent increase in funding over TEA-21.
This bill also addresses several environmental issues by providing
the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during
the environmental review stage. Projects more sensitive to
environmental concerns will move through a more structured
environmental review process more efficiently and with fewer delays.
And most importantly, our comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion
will sustain over 2 million new jobs. These funds will support the
much-needed jobs and economic stimulus that our nation currently needs.
In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Senators Inhofe,
Jeffords, and Reid for their leadership and support in moving this
vital piece of legislation that is focused on the needs of our Nation's
transportation system. I also want to thank the other Members of the
Senate for their overwhelming bipartisan support and helping move this
bill forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know the distinguished
Senator from Georgia wishes to speak. We have spoken on the floor at
some length over the last 2 weeks about the cooperation that bound the
four of us together. It really has been one where we have grown closer
as friends and Senators.
We have a lot more work to do on this bill. I want to again express
my appreciation to the Senator from Oklahoma. We have both served in
the House. We have been in the Senate for a long time. During the past
year, I have gotten to know the distinguished junior Senator from
Oklahoma and

[[Page S1267]]

have developed a great deal of respect I did not have. The reason is
that even though there are only 100 of us, on most occasions we do not
work on a very close basis. We come through and vote, have committee
hearings, and hear each other talk, but here we had no alternative but
to sit down in the trenches and try to work out tremendous differences
that we began with. We were able to do that.
Legislation is the art of compromise. Had Senator Inhofe stuck to his
guns and I stuck to my guns, we would not have a bill. That is nothing
bad. That is what legislation is all about, consensus building. I
deeply appreciate the ability I have had to get to know my friend from
Oklahoma much better.
I express my appreciation, of course, to my counterpart on the
subcommittee, Senator Bond. I appreciate his good work. They both have
excellent staffs. I have gotten to know them also.
Of course, Senator Jeffords and I, everyone knows of our close and
longstanding relationship and how much we care about each other. I
appreciate very much his work on this bill and his allowing me a little
bit of freedom on a bill that normally but for the closeness of our
relationship would not have occurred.
The other Senators have spoken about their staffs and how much they
appreciate them and that they would submit the names for the Record and
they ran off a lot of names. I have one staff person. No one knows this
bill better than he does. No one knows the numbers better than he does.
I am so well served by J.C. Sandberg. I appreciate so much the tireless
efforts on his behalf. He was up until 3 in the morning this morning,
last night, and many nights during the past 6 months. He has worked
very long hours. I wish I could rattle off the names of lots of other
people who worked with me on this bill, but the only person who did
great work on my staff was J.C. Sandberg, which was exemplary. Not only
has he rendered great service to me and the people of the State of
Nevada, but I believe this entire country.
Also, my legislative director, Lisa Moore, has done good work. She
has been around all the time helping J.C. and helping me, and I want
her to know how much I appreciate her good work.

____________________