[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 42 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3484-S3486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. DeWine, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Alexander, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. Dole, Mr. 
        Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Lugar, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lott, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Chambliss, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 762. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to increase the 
minimum allocation provided to states for use in carrying out certain 
highway programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway 
Funding Equity Act of 2005. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by 
Senators Levin, DeWine, Stabenow, Cornyn, Alexander, DeMint, Dole, 
Vitter, Martinez, Isakson, Nelson of Florida, Lugar, Burr, Cochran, 
Lott, Hutchison, Chambliss, Bayh, Allen, and Landrieu.
  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21 authorized 
more than $218 billion for transportation programs and expired in 
September 2003, but has been extended through May 2005. TEA-21 requires 
certain States, known as donor States, to transfer to other States a 
percentage of the revenue from federal highway user fees. Several of 
these donor States transfer more than 10 percent of every federal 
highway user fee dollar to other States. As a result, donor States 
receive a significantly lower rate-of-return on their transportation 
tax dollars being sent to Washington. Currently, over 25 States, 
including my State of Ohio, contribute more money to the Highway Trust 
Fund than they receive back.
  My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the 
5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway 
network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio 
is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of 50 percent of 
the population of North America. The interstate highways throughout 
Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to suppliers, 
manufacturers, distributors, and--consumers.
  Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a 
robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of federal highway dollars 
has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became 
Governor 14 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79 
percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as chairman of the 
National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the 
minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding 
Equity Act of 2005 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return 
to 95 percent.
  The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005 has two components. First, the 
bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21 
from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway 
Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes 
all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National 
Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails, 
and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.
  Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of 
Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50 
people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95 
percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This 
provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the 
quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic 
prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision 
would benefit 15 States: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, 
Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

  Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more 
than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The 
interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and 
traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally 
obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over 
capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical 
roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future 
traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70

[[Page S3485]]

percent in the next 20 years. Like all the donor states, we need these 
funds in Ohio.
  States can no longer afford to support others that are already self-
sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total 
available funding, especially in light of the so called ``mega 
projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence 
Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into 
Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost 
of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the 
total project could cost close to $1 billion.
  The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on 
donor States' dollars to guarantee that Federal highway program funding 
is more equitable for all States. Donor States seek only their fair 
share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve 
highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation 
reauthorization process. I am pleased with the strong bipartisan 
support this legislation has received. In addition, I am hopeful that 
the highway bill will be brought to the Senate floor quickly, so that 
we can move to a conference. It is vital that our Nation's highway 
infrastructure needs be properly addressed to ensure continued economic 
growth.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 762

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Funding Equity Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM GUARANTEE.

       Section 105 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and subsections (c) through 
     (f);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (e);
       (3) by inserting after the section heading the following:
       ``(a) Guarantee.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009, the Secretary shall allocate among the States amounts 
     sufficient to ensure that the percentage for each State of 
     the total apportionments for the fiscal year for the National 
     Highway System under section 103(b), the high priority 
     projects program under section 117, the Interstate 
     maintenance program under section 119, the surface 
     transportation program under section 133, metropolitan 
     planning under section 134, the highway bridge replacement 
     and rehabilitation program under section 144, the congestion 
     mitigation and air quality improvement program under section 
     149, the recreational trails program under section 206, the 
     Appalachian development highway system under subtitle IV of 
     title 40, and the minimum guarantee under this paragraph, 
     equals or exceeds the percentage determined for the State 
     under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) State percentages.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the percentage for each State referred to in paragraph (1) is 
     the percentage that is equal to 95 percent of the ratio 
     that--
       ``(i) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway 
     users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year 
     for which data are available; bears to
       ``(ii) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway 
     users in all States paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year 
     for which data are available.
       ``(B) Exception.--In the case of a State having a 
     population density of less than 50 individuals per square 
     mile according to the 2000 decennial census, the percentage 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the greater of--
       ``(i) the percentage determined under subparagraph (A); or
       ``(ii) the percentage specified in subsection (e).
       ``(b) Treatment of Funds.--
       ``(1) Programmatic distribution.--The Secretary shall 
     apportion the amounts made available under this section that 
     exceed $2,800,000,000 so that the amount apportioned to each 
     State under this paragraph for each program referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) (other than the high priority projects 
     program, metropolitan planning, the recreational trails 
     program, the Appalachian development highway system, and the 
     minimum guarantee under subsection (a)) is equal to the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(A) the amount to be apportioned under this paragraph; 
     and
       ``(B) the ratio that--
       ``(i) the amount of funds apportioned to the State for each 
     program referred to in subsection (a)(1) (other than the high 
     priority projects program, metropolitan planning, the 
     recreational trails program, the Appalachian development 
     highway system, and the minimum guarantee under subsection 
     (a)) for a fiscal year; bears to
       ``(ii) the total amount of funds apportioned to the State 
     for that program for the fiscal year.
       ``(2) Remaining distribution.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall apportion the remainder of funds made 
     available under this section to the States, and administer 
     those funds, in accordance with section 104(b)(3).
       ``(B) Inapplicable requirements.--Paragraphs (1), (2), and 
     (3) of section 133(d) shall not apply to amounts apportioned 
     in accordance with this paragraph.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009.
       ``(d) Guarantee of 95 Percent Return.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009, before making any apportionment under this title, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) determine whether the sum of the percentages 
     determined under subsection (a)(2) for the fiscal year 
     exceeds 100 percent; and
       ``(B) if the sum of the percentages exceeds 100 percent, 
     proportionately adjust the percentages specified in the table 
     contained in subsection (e) to ensure that the sum of the 
     percentages determined under subsection (a)(1)(B) for the 
     fiscal year equals 100 percent.
       ``(2) Eligibility threshold for adjustment.--The Secretary 
     may make an adjustment under paragraph (1) for a State for a 
     fiscal year only if the percentage for the State in the table 
     contained in subsection (e) is equal to or exceeds 95 percent 
     of the ratio determined for the State under subsection 
     (a)(1)(B)(i) for the fiscal year.
       ``(3) Limitation on adjustments.--Adjustments of the 
     percentages in the table contained in subsection (e) in 
     accordance with this subsection shall not result in a total 
     of the percentages determined under subsection (a)(2) that 
     exceeds 100 percent.''; and
       (4) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsections 
     (a)(2)(B)(ii) and (d)''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in 
introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005.
  Our bill will allow States to get back a fairer share of what they 
contribute in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by 
increasing the Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways to 
95 percent from the current 90.5 percent of a State's share of 
contributions made to the Federal Highway Trust Fund in gas tax 
payments.
  Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one 
step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal 
highway funds to States.
  Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor'' 
States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in 
Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure 
spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have 
received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway 
Trust Fund.
  This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large 
Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute 
Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining 
States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit 
from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously 
defended it.
  At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low-
population predominately Western States getting more funds than they 
contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate 
highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to 
those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that. 
However, there is no justification for any State getting more than its 
fair share.
  Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have 
traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have 
fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long 
struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some 
progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting 
around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to 
approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5 
cent minimum return for each State.

[[Page S3486]]

  We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and 
other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At 
stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to 
pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan alone and 
the jobs that go with it. Based on FHWA data, we calculate that 
Michigan would have received over $55 million in additional funds in FY 
2004 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill. 
That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The 
same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions 
more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States. 
There's no logical reason for some States to be forced to continue to 
send that money to other states to subsidize their road and bridge 
projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair and 
unjustifiable.
  With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to 
determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are 
antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or 
contributions are.
  The Voinovich-Levin bill is a consensus bill developed with the help 
of donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their 
coalition working group. This legislation would increase the minimum 
guarantee from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. With this 
legislation, we intend to send a strong message to our colleagues and 
the authorizing Committee about the need to address the equity issue in 
the highway reauthorization bill. We are determined to make progress in 
this bill to distribute the highway funds in a more equitable manner so 
that every State gets its fair share.
  This is simply an issue of fairness and we will not be satisfied 
until we achieve it.
                                 ______