[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4230-S4235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT; A LEGACY FOR USERS--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3, which the
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill (H.R. 3)
to authorize funds for Federal aid highways, highway safety
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60
minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am glad this day is here and that we are
proceeding. I certainly encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion
to proceed. I have every expectation that it will pass overwhelmingly.
It seems as though we are always in a lot of controversy when we talk
about a highway reauthorization bill. It doesn't come along very
often--about every 6 years. In my tenure here, I have been involved in
four of them. This is the fourth, and it is very significant.
It is interesting that even though there is a lot of criticism, when
it gets down to the vote, the vote is always overwhelming. I remind my
colleagues that last year's bill was at $318 billion--that was contract
authority--and there was about $303 billion in guaranteed spending. It
passed by a margin of 76 to 21. It is something I know people are
interested in, but there are always problems. First of all, let me just
say how this is bipartisan. My good friend, the ranking member of the
committee, Senator Jeffords--back when the Democrats were in the
majority, he was chairman--and I always agreed on these highway issues.
It is kind of interesting that those of us who are conservatives really
believe this is something we are supposed to be doing here--building
infrastructure, building roads. I am particularly concerned that our
State Of Oklahoma has not had its fair share. We have been ranked as
having the worst bridges in the Nation.
Anyway, we have the bill up. It is going to be essentially the same
bill as we had last year. We passed it out of committee. There is
always a problem. Let me mention this because it needs to come out in
the beginning. There are two different ways to have a highway program.
One is to do it--and essentially the other body does it more this way--
by taking projects and adding them, and you pass this, so you know what
projects will be there for the next 6 years. If you do that, then the
people who are on the inside track would have the best opportunity to
have theirs, and there is always an accusation of there being pork and
having special projects.
In the Senate, we do it the hard way. We have a formula. When you
have a formula, it takes into consideration so many different aspects.
There is not one State that could not stand and say, my State is not
being treated fairly because of this factor or the other factor. If you
look at the formula factors, you have so many factors, such as
interstate lane miles, vehicle miles traveled on interstates,
contributions to the highway trust fund, the lane miles, principal
arteries, VMT on principal arteries, diesel fuel, donee status, donor
status, and low-income States. Oklahoma is a low-income State. That
should be a consideration. You have a low-population State, such as the
one of Senator Baucus, who has been in the leadership working on this
issue. They still have to be able to drive even though they don't have
a large population from which to get the funds. You have the high-
fatality-rate States. You have a factor for the guaranteed minimum
growth and the guaranteed minimum rate of return for donor States.
Oklahoma has been a donor State for as long as I can remember. I
remember when we had written into the law we would get back 75 percent
of what we have paid in. Now it is up to 90.5 percent. If we passed the
bill last year at that funding level, it would be 95 percent. It looks
like with the figure that we passed out of the committee on the floor
that we will be considering today is one that will allow us to get to
92 percent.
I know the formula is not perfect. There are a lot of donor States
that think they are not getting enough. A lot of donee States think
they are not getting enough. The unhappy donee States complain about
the growth rate, but they are ignoring the high rate of return. The
unhappy donor States are complaining about the rate of return, but they
are ignoring the high growth rates. I have seen unhappy donors trying
to rewrite formulas. You cannot do that in a vacuum. I am sympathetic
with unhappy States; however, they cannot change the formula in a
vacuum and not affect every other State. One of the States is trying to
do that right now, and that would adversely affect the rest of the
States. It is something that is difficult to deal with. When we get to
conference, there are things we can do that we cannot do on the Senate
floor. Perhaps some of these things will be done.
With that, I will yield to Senator Jeffords, the ranking member on
our Environment and Public Works Committee, for his comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those
calling for the approval of the motion to proceed that we will soon
vote on.
For more than 3 years Congress has been trying to pass a highway
bill. Today we are taking one more step in the long road toward passage
of this important legislation.
Mr. President, our Nation needs this bill. We need this bill because
it will make our roads and transit systems more efficient and safer.
This year it is estimated that 33 percent of America's major roads
are in poor or mediocre condition; 27 percent of America's bridges are
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; 37 percent of
America's major urban roads are congested; and 42,000 Americans will
die in traffic accidents.
We need this bill because a fully funded bill is good for the
economy.
The Department of Transportation says that for every $1 billion of
Federal spending on highway construction nationwide, 47,500 jobs are
generated annually; and that every dollar invested in the Nation's
highway system yields $5.40 in economic benefits because of reduced
delays, improved safety and reduced vehicle operating costs.
We need this bill to maintain our current highways and bridges than
ever before, while demand for our roadways only increases.
The Federal Highway Administration says that 52 percent of highway
funds spent by States went to preserving highway systems while just 19
percent went to building new roads and bridges.
At the same time, traffic congestion costs American motorists $69.5
billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs and we spend an additional
3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic.
This bill isn't perfect. In fact, I think it needs additional
funding. The White House has suggested an overall funding level for
surface transportation of $284 billion over 6 years.
This despite the President's own Transportation Department saying we
need at least $300 billion to simply maintain the status quo, and
something well above that level to make progress on conditions and
performance.
Thankfully, calls for increased funding have come from Republicans,
Democrats and Independents; Members of the House and Senate, Governors
and Mayors. But we will address the funding issue in due time.
Today we must get cloture on this bill and move forward.
Once again, I would like to thank the Senate leadership on both sides
for their support of this bill.
I would also like to pay tribute to Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond
and Baucus for their support and cooperation in helping get us to where
we are today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
[[Page S4231]]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his
comments. At this time, I would like to recognize that we have four of
the real star freshmen, the new Members of this body, on our committee.
One, of course, is the presiding officer from Louisiana who made very
clear to us the problem of beach erosion in the State of Louisiana. I
appreciate his calling that to our attention. Then, of course, we have
the new Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. Senator Thune is also on
the committee, and we yield to him at this time.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I also rise today to speak in support of
moving forward with debate on reauthorization of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century. As many of my colleagues know,
enactment of a long-term, robust Transportation bill is long overdue. I
credit the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, and the ranking member,
Senator Jeffords, for their good work in bringing this to the floor.
It is important work that we are about to undertake. We are in the
sixth extension of the current bill. We have another construction
season that is going to be lost in the Northern States if we do not get
a long-term bill put into place.
I appreciate very much the chairman's work in taking a very fair and
evenhanded approach in how he has tried to distribute a certain amount
of finite funding for this bill. As he mentioned in his remarks, this
is a balance that must be struck between the large States and the small
States. Frankly, passage of this legislation is critical not only to my
home State, but to the Nation as a whole.
Since my service in the House of Representatives, I have long been a
supporter of a strong federal role when it comes to transportation
infrastructure funding. In fact, I believe the transportation
infrastructure is one of the primary responsibilities of the federal
government. After all, an adequate transportation infrastructure that
is safe and affordable helps facilitate the movement of the goods and
services on which our economy relies. Additionally, investing in our
transportation infrastructure is a proven way to ease congestion and
improve the safety of our highway system.
If we look at the economic impact of what we are talking about today,
it is profound. For every $1 billion invested in federal highway and
transit spending, 47,500 jobs and job opportunities are created or
sustained. For every $1 billion in highway and transit expenditures,
gross domestic product, GDP, will increase by $1.75 billion, a
multiplier effect of 1.75.
So this is important to our economy in terms of the jobs it will
create, the growth it will bring about in our Nation's economy, and it
is critical that this legislation, which has been held up since the
last Congress, move forward. It is one of the most important measures
the House and Senate must resolve this year. And it is incredibly time
sensitive as we look at the sixth extension we are operating with today
and the need to get a permanent bill in place so this construction
season will not be lost on many of those transportation departments in
the Northern States.
I have heard regularly from officials from the South Dakota
Department of Transportation who are concerned about the tremendous
uncertainty they face as a result of not having a long-term bill. The
business community, local officials, tribal leaders, and constituents
across South Dakota continue to ask me why critical transportation
projects are delayed from getting off the ground. I recognize that a
handful of my colleagues from donor States are concerned that the bill,
as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, does not go
far enough to boost their overall rate of return. But the bill the
Environment and Public Works Committee reported out last month, S. 732,
does more to address the donor issue than the administration's
reauthorization proposal or the bill as passed by the House of
Representatives last month.
The clearest way to address the underlying concern that donor States
have raised is to add more funding to this bill. In fact, I plan to
support the amendment I understand Finance Committee Chairman Grassley
and Ranking Member Baucus intend to offer because boosting this bill's
overall funding level is the straightforward way to increase the
minimum guarantee donor States seek without unfairly reducing the
funding for donee States, such as South Dakota.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the chairmen
and the ranking members from the various Senate committees responsible
for this legislation.
As I said earlier, time is of the essence. It is important we work
together to pass this bill so that conference negotiations between the
House and the Senate can get underway, especially in light of the
extension that is slated to expire on May 31.
I again commend the leadership of our committee, and the leadership
on both sides in the Senate for their desire to bring this bill to the
floor to ensure we are taking the steps necessary, when this current
extension expires at the end of May, to have a new permanent bill in
place that will address the critical infrastructure needs of our Nation
as we move into the future. Many of the highways, interstates, and
roads across this country are in poor or mediocre condition. Mr.
President, 27 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete. It is important we get to work on this
legislation in the Senate so we can get to conference with the House,
resolve any differences that exist, and get a permanent funding
solution put in place for the States, the cities, the business
community, and all the jobs and economic development that go with it.
Mr. President, I again urge my colleagues to support this motion to
proceed to the legislation. I thank the chairman and the ranking member
for their good work. I see Senator Bond, from Missouri, who has also
been instrumental in crafting this legislation. I appreciate the
leadership and work this committee has put in to get the bill to the
floor. It is time we get it voted on and signed into law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if there is time during the course of this
debate, even though we are operating under 1 hour equally divided, I
want to go over, so everybody understands, why it is necessary to pass
this bill instead of going with another extension because we do not get
all the reforms we need without passing this bill.
I have to agree with the Senator from South Dakota that in order to
get up to a higher figure in terms of the donor States--and there are a
lot of donee States that are supporting us in this effort--it is
necessary to have a more robust bill. I am sure we will have an
opportunity to debate that and get to conference and see what we can
work out.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation has been such a
strong, hard worker. The Senator from Missouri has been there every
step of the way and has been a part of this great bipartisan effort. So
we yield to him at this time for whatever time he wishes to use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to the chairman of the
committee, Senator Inhofe; to the ranking member, Senator Jeffords; and
my colleague, the ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Baucus.
This is a job well done under the constraints we face. We have worked
long and hard to get to this point, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of proceeding.
The bill, S. 732, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act, is long overdue, 2 years past due. Our roads
are deteriorating and safety is deteriorating unless and until we can
get this bill up. My thanks to the leader for allowing us to call up
the bill. It has a lot of moving parts. Every time you move one part,
you make somebody slightly happy and several more very unhappy. But I
believe it is a good step forward in attempting to meet our goal of
completion prior to expiration of the current extension of the
authorization on May 31. If we do not proceed to move to this debate,
Senators should be aware we may not be able to pass a seventh
extension, and our States may cease to let additional contracts, and
thousands of jobs may be at stake.
[[Page S4232]]
We called up S. 1072 a little over a year ago, and final passage of
that bill last year was 76 to 21. Today's bill, S. 732, is nearly
identical to last year's bill, with one major problem: To comply with
the President's budget request of $284 billion, we have taken a
proportional cut across the board of approximately 10.7 percent.
During conference last year, we were presented with $299 billion in
contract authority and $284 billion in guaranteed spending. Today, our
obligation limit and contract authority numbers are both the same, at
$284 billion. I do not think that will work.
Last year, $284 billion was not sufficient to meet the transportation
and safety needs in my State and, I think, many other States. I thought
then, and continue to believe, more money is necessary. I understand
the Finance Committee will be offering an amendment which we on the
Environment and Public Works Committee will be supporting. During the
budget resolution debate, my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent,
along with the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, offered an
amendment that any revenue that does not add to the deficit should be
spent. It passed with more than 80 Senators supporting it. I think the
Senate will have a similar position when we provide for additional
revenues with defendable efforts.
The bill we are bringing to the floor has several major goals.
First, equity. While previous authorizations have talked about
equity, our bill carefully balances the needs of the donor States,
while also recognizing the needs of the donee States. There are many
sections of the bill I am proud of supporting, such as the fact that
all donor States will receive, at the minimum, a 92-percent rate of
return by the end of the authorization.
My State of Missouri is a donor State which essentially means that
for every dollar we spend on transportation, we receive less than a
dollar in return. In 2004, it was 92 cents.
There are many States that fall under the $1 rate of return--
unfortunately, only about 20 of them, which means there were 30 votes
for the donee States that got back more than a dollar, and that is
where our problem was.
Last year, with the more robust funding, we were able to get all
States up to 95 cents, but we were unable to achieve this rate of
return as a result of going from $318 billion down to $284 billion.
Donor States that support additional revenue above $284 billion can
expect an increase in their rate of return to bring the bill more in
line with last year's bill, but I do not think anybody is talking about
$318 billion anymore.
I worked diligently with Chairman Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and
Senator Baucus to ensure the bill remains as fair and equitable as
possible among all States. I am aware some of the donor States, which
we commonly refer to as superdonors--it is nice when you get to select
the epithet by which you are called. I wish I had thought of being
called a superdonor or a deserving donor. Senator Inhofe and I come
from deserving donor States. We will add Senator Thune into the
deserving donor States. But superdonors are concerned they hit the
growth caps and do not achieve a 92-cent return right away. But the
average rate of growth from the highway trust fund for all States is
about 24.38 percent. The average rate of growth of Texas and Arizona is
31.79 percent. Senators from States that are growing below average are
the ones who, it seems to me, should be complaining. We were unable to
bring up donor States as early as we might have wished due to budget
constraints, as well as balancing the needs of the donor States with
the needs of the donee States.
For this reason, as most donor States grow, the donee States see a
gradual decline to bring greater equity between the States.
Nevertheless, all States will grow at not less than 10 percent over the
previous bill, TEA-21. We are hopeful that with additional revenue, we
will be able to raise that floor.
Safety is another key feature. We will go a long way toward saving
lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous
locations, sections, and elements.
Safety in this authorization is, for the first time, being elevated
to a core program. Our bill mirrors the administration's proposal,
continuing our commitment to our motoring public's safety. This is
accomplished by providing much needed funding to reduce highway
injuries and fatalities, all without the use of mandates.
In my State of Missouri, we know inadequate roads not only lead to
congestion, pollution, lack of economic growth, and they delay, deny,
and derail economic opportunity, but they also kill people. We have
averaged more than three deaths a day on Missouri highways and probably
close to 40 percent, if not more, can be attributable to inadequate
roads.
I have driven all the Federal highways and all the State highways and
a lot of the county roads in Missouri, and I can tell you we have
Federal highways which are two-lane highways which have traffic that
everybody agrees should be on four lanes. What happens? We have rear-
end collisions, passing on blind curves and hills, and we have
fatalities.
My home State of Missouri, as many other donor States, has some of
the worst roads in the Nation. We are among, unfortunately, that
distinguished group that has the highest fatalities per million miles
driven on the roads.
That is a distinction we do not like. Recent reports say we have the
fifth worst roads in the Nation, with 65 percent of our major roads in
fair to poor condition requiring immediate attention. We also rank
fourth from the bottom in deficient bridges in the Nation.
Our committee has heard voluminous testimony from the administration
that nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last
year alone. I am glad this bill reflects a continued commitment making
not only investments in infrastructure but for the general safety and
welfare of our constituents.
The bill addresses several environmental issues, such as easing the
transition under new air quality standards. The conformity process is
better aligned with air quality planning, as well as streamlining the
project delivery process by providing the necessary tools to reduce or
eliminate unnecessary delays during environmental reviews.
Another accomplishment of our package will ensure transportation
projects are built more quickly because environmental stakeholders will
be brought to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised
earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape
projects.
Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a
more structured environmental review process, more efficiently, with
fewer delays. The bill also ensures that transportation projects will
not make air worse in areas with poor air quality while giving local
transportation planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal
air quality responsibilities.
The bill will put transportation planning on a regular 4-year cycle,
require air quality checks with projects large enough to be regionally
significant, and reduce current barriers that local officials face in
adopting projects that improve air quality.
The final goal is jobs. The Department of Transportation estimates
that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates 47,500 jobs. To
the Associated General Contractors, the same $1 billion investment
yields half of that in new orders from manufacturing and half of that
spread through other sectors of the economy. Construction pay averages
$19 per hour, 23 percent higher than the private sector average.
This comprehensive package is a good step forward to creating jobs,
but as a Governor of the State where we placed a high emphasis on
economic development, it is not only the jobs that are created in
construction, it is the jobs that are created by the existence of
adequate, safe transportation that assures continued growth.
We have spent a lot of time in this body talking about how we get our
economy to grow, how we create jobs. Passing this bill to create jobs
now and facilitate the creation of jobs in the future is the best thing
we can do. I am hopeful our colleagues in the Senate will agree to move
this bill quickly in order to pass this legislation prior to the
current May 31 expiration date.
I thank the Chair and I reserve the remainder of the time for the
leader on this side.
[[Page S4233]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first I thank the senior Senator from
Missouri, Mr. Bond, for his hard work and for being so articulate. It
is interesting that we have heard from Senator Thune from South Dakota,
a donee State, and Senator Bond from a donor State, and they are both
equally enthusiastic about the fact that we have something that should
work, and yet we know that any change in any part of a formula is going
to have an effect on all the rest of the States. It does not happen in
a vacuum.
I will yield the floor to Senator Bond to respond to a question. I
ask the Senator, would he enlighten this body as to, according to HAWA,
which two States in America have the worst bridges in terms of their
state of disrepair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Missouri will be permitted to answer the question.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there have been some new factors that have
come out. In the interest of full disclosure, Missouri has moved up to
fifth worst in roads and fourth worst in bridges. As I understand,
Oklahoma still occupies a place of dishonor with even worse roads and
bridges.
I was hoping those new studies would not come out that we are still
right at the bottom. As two States that are in the heart of the Nation
with major interstates crossing our States and traffic going east,
west, southwest, and northeast through our States we are essential
arteries for transportation for the Nation.
Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield for another question, he is a
former Governor of the State of Missouri. He knows a little bit about
how the construction season goes. What kind of problems would he see--
as Senator Thune mentioned, we are in our sixth extension right now--if
we were merely to extend this rather than to pass this bill, from a
State perspective?
Mr. BOND. Well, the States are absolutely frustrated beyond all means
that we have not been able to reauthorize the bill. Merely extending
the bill does not enable us to go forward with major planning. The
extensions keep existing projects in line and allow the Department of
Transportation to continue to operate, but if we have another extension
it means the money that this bill would make available will now not be
made available until the construction season. For most of the United
States, the construction season is spring, summer, and fall. Not a lot
of work can be done in the winter.
So with the necessary contract times, 90 days to let contracts, if we
do not make the May 31 deadline with new authorization, we are going to
lose a tremendous amount of road construction necessary for economic
development and safety.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, one of the comments was made by I believe
it was Senator Thune about the extensions. Let me make sure we all
understand because this is very significant. We have been operating on
extensions, and when we operate on extensions we cannot plan in
advance. This bill has more provisions in it affecting safety,
streamlining, and other factors than any bill of the four that I have
been exposed to in reauthorization.
In the event we were to have to go ahead on another extension, there
would be no chance of improvement on the donor State of return. In
other words, donor State of return is going to stay at 90.5. It is not
going to improve. If we were going on an extension as opposed to
passing this new authorization bill, there would be no new safety core
program to help the States respond to the thousands of deaths each year
on our roadways.
I would say to the Senator from Vermont, this is a life-or-death type
of a bill before us because more people are going to die if we do not
pass the bill, if we just operate on extensions.
If we just do the extensions, there will be no real streamlining of
environmental reviews, so critical projects will still be subject to
avoidable delay. We see events that do not make any common sense in
terms of how many miles can be paved per dollar. We have obstacles that
are in the way. We have addressed those obstacles, and it has not been
easy.
The Democrats and Republicans on this committee had to give and take.
Frankly, there are some provisions in this bill I do not like too well,
and I suggest to the Senator from Vermont there are a few he does not
like, but one of the major things I think has to be done before we
start any meaningful construction in America is to have these
streamlining provisions. If we do not have a bill, if we go on with
extensions, there will be no increased ability to use the innovative
financing, thereby giving States more tools to advance. We are talking
about public and private partnerships. We have been building roads the
same way now for many years.
I have been notified that the time on our side has expired, and I ask
unanimous consent that we be given an opportunity to share the minority
time to whatever extent the Senator would like to give us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the chairman such time as he desires from
the time on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I say to the Senator from Vermont, with that very
generous offer, as soon as he has someone coming and they want time, I
will cease on this side so they can be heard.
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is fair.
Mr. INHOFE. The bill offers an increased ability to use innovative
financing methods. Out in California and in Texas, they have been able
to do some things where they have convinced us they get many more miles
and much more local participation by the public-private partnership, by
the TIFIA rule, and it is something that we would not be able to do
nationwide if we do not get this bill and we just operate on an
extension.
There are a lot of people who are very concerned about a provision in
our bill that is called the Safe Routes to School. I know the Senator
from Vermont has been interested in that. This is something where we
would be talking about saving young lives. Right now, the provision is
not there. So if we have an extension, it is merely an extension of
TEA-21, the one that we have been operating under for the last 7 years.
If we are not able to pass this bill, then the States will continue
to have uncertainty in planning, thereby delaying projects and
negatively impacting jobs.
The Senator from Missouri commented that for each $1 billion spent,
it provides 47,000 new jobs. So this would easily be the biggest jobs
bill probably in the history of America. But if we operate on an
extension, there can be no planning. There is not going to be the
construction.
The Senator from Missouri is from a northern State and so is the
Senator from Vermont. In Oklahoma, though, our construction time is
longer than it is in Vermont, and it is actually longer than it is in
the State of Missouri. It is something that has to be considered
because if we have those delays and they cannot plan in advance, we are
not going to have the construction. We are not going to be able to
correct these problems.
That is why I asked the question of the Senator from Missouri, who is
a former Governor of the State. We need to have certainty in planning.
I hear every day from Gary Ridley in our Department of Transportation
in Oklahoma that we have things we need to do and we need to be
planning right now. We can get so much more for each dollar if we do
that, and I suggest that other States have the same situation.
If we do not have a new bill and we just operate on an extension,
there is no new border program for border States to deal with NAFTA and
other traffic. We hear a lot from the border States--California,
Arizona, Texas, and Florida--that they like the borders and corridors
program. We have a borders and corridors provision in this bill that
will give consideration to the fact that through no fault of their own
many border States have a lot of traffic that comes up through Mexico
and other places that is all in conjunction with NAFTA.
I can recall 10 years ago when NAFTA was voted on I happened to have
been the only member of the
[[Page S4234]]
Oklahoma delegation that voted against NAFTA. I think I was right and
they were wrong, but nonetheless when we look at what we are able to do
with the borders and corridors program, it is something that is very
critical for those States.
My State of Oklahoma is also affected by that because those corridors
come through the State of Oklahoma. If we do not have the bill, we just
have an extension, there is going to be a delay in the establishment of
the national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the
future. As motor vehicles become more fuel efficient, a tax collection
system based solely on gas consumption becomes less practical. Right
now the greatest problem we have is the cost of fuel. We have been very
much concerned about that. If our taxes were based on a percentage as
opposed to a number of cents or dollars, then we would not have that
problem. But in Oklahoma if we are paying $2.20 a gallon for gas
instead of what it was a short while ago, about $1.40, then people are
not going to drive as far. When they do not drive as far, that means
the tax revenues are going to come down.
There is no reason we have to continue to do business as we have done
business for the last 50, 60, 70 years and not come up with new and
innovative ways to pay for our system.
In this bill we have a provision for a national commission to look at
different transportation funding in the future. One of my complaints
when we talk about the highway trust fund is about how we should or
should not pay for it. Every time this body has a new idea to encourage
people to use fuel-efficient automobiles, either hybrid or electric
cars, that ends up with less gallons of gas produced. Yet those cars
still damage the highways with the wear and tear that another car does.
I have complained if we are going to have a policy, it should not be
paid for on the backs of the highway trust fund.
Anyway, those are issues they can look at. They can look at new ways
of financing roads and new partnerships. This commission will come
together and will perform for us.
If we do not have a new bill and we have an extension, there will be
no increased opportunity to address chokepoints and intermodal
connectors. This is not simply a highway bill but an intermodal bill,
talking about how the highways, railroads, and airlines come together.
It is a complicated transportation system.
There was a time in the beginning during the Eisenhower
administration when we wanted to have a national highway system. I will
share with my friend from Vermont, when President Eisenhower, during
the war, was a major, Major Eisenhower, he was the one who realized our
traffic system, our road system, our network, was not a transportation
issue as much as a national security issue. He was trying to move his
troops around from one place to another. So when he became President,
one of the first things he wanted to do was set up the national
transportation system. We have had it since that time. At that time we
were looking at miles of paved roads in America. Now we are looking at
the intermodal system that covers all transportation and brings all
transportation together. But we won't be able to do that if we extend
what we have today because those portions of the bill will not become
law.
There are many other provisions we would lose if we do not pass a
bill, if we only have an extension. The firewall protection of the
highway trust fund would not be continued, thereby making the trust
fund vulnerable to raids in order to pay for other programs.
One of the things we run into in Government I can relate to in the
State of Oklahoma. In the State of Oklahoma we have had people, when
you are looking the other way, come in and raid a trust fund. The
impact aid is a good example. Impact aid was started way back in the
1950s. The idea was if Government comes along and takes the land off
the tax rolls, you still have to educate those kids living there, so
they are supposed to replenish that particular subdivision to the
amount of money they lost in revenue. That was a good program. We all
supported it.
In the 1960s, people realized there was a fund and no one was
looking, so they took the money out of it. This has happened to other
trust funds. This has happened to the highway trust fund. I see that as
a moral issue.
In fact, when we had our bill out last year, we looked at it as if
this is something we can afford to do because it was paid for almost
entirely out of user taxes. Now, if you go to the pump and you pay a
Federal tax on the gasoline you buy, you assume that will go to
building roads and maintaining roads and people do not complain about
it. I have never complained about it. I complain about every other tax,
but I don't complain about the highway taxes because I know that is how
we will pay for it. They have been diverting money out of the trust
fund and putting it into other projects.
What we did in last year's bill, and it is in this year's bill also,
is restore that so money will have to go to repairing roads that go
into the highway system. If we do not pass this bill, it is not going
to happen.
To reiterate, regarding the pending bill, 76 Senators voted for it
last year. Very few changes have been made. We produced a solid project
last year to go to conference with the House. I suggest that given a
few changes we would have made, we would have been able to move it out
and we would not be here today. This should have happened a year ago.
This should not be happening now.
The bill managers are ready and willing to discuss Members'
amendments. We want to work with you on your concerns. We hope you will
come down and offer amendments. We will have this vote in 9 minutes.
How quickly time flies when you are having fun. When we have this vote,
I anticipate it will be a successful vote and we will be able to get on
the bill and start with amendments. When that happens, I certainly hope
all those individuals who have said negative things about this bill--
they didn't like part of the formula, they didn't think they were
treated fairly, they thought they were bumping up to the caps for
States--come down and offer amendments.
I don't think any of us in terms of Senator Jeffords, myself, Senator
Baucus, and Senator Bond, are going to complain. We may not like the
amendments, but we want to have the amendments offered, if for no other
reason than it is important so people realize you cannot make one
change in a bill without affecting everyone else. I know formulas are
different.
It would be easier if we had done the easy thing. That is, Senator
Jeffords and I could go to 60 Members of this 100-Member body and make
them sweetheart deals, give them what they wanted to get their vote,
buy their votes, get 60 votes, and tell the rest of them, it is your
problem. And we would have a bill today. That is not how we want to do
business. We feel we can do it being fair to our colleagues and do it
on the basis of a formula.
We had Members who were going to be heard on the motion to proceed
and they have not arrived. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support
invoking cloture on this important legislation.
I had a meeting yesterday morning with highway contractors in my
State. They once again impressed upon me the urgency of passing new
highway legislation.
In my part of the country--I represent North Dakota--our construction
season is a short one. We urgently need action. There are contracts
that are being held up, actions that need to be taken to improve the
road network in my State that are being held because there is no new
highway legislation passed.
We keep passing extenders. But that does not make adjustments for the
increased needs across the country. We know much of our bridge system
is deficient and in serious need of repair. We know many of the roads
in our country need repair. New highways need to be constructed. Much
of that activity will not occur unless new highway legislation passes
the Congress.
[[Page S4235]]
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the extraordinary
efforts they have made to advance this legislation. We are being held
up here because some are unhappy, some are not getting all they would
like to get. That is pretty much the norm around here. None of us get
quite what we would like. I would like much more for my State. But I
know the reality we confront. I know the urgency of the need to act.
I ask my colleagues, please, let's invoke cloture. Let's proceed. We
will still have opportunities to amend this bill. Members can come
before the Senate and offer amendments to change this legislation. They
can either prevail or lose, but they will have had their chance. I hope
my colleagues will support the move to invoke cloture on this
legislation so we can proceed, so the American people can know the
important business of highway construction, highway repair, bridge
construction, and bridge repair can move forward.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his good words.
I hope the Senators viewing this will join so we can expedite passage
of this bill.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, again I thank the ranking member, Senator
Jeffords, who has put so much time and effort into this legislation so
that all at the table are fairly represented. I thank the chairman, as
well. The chairman has strived valiantly over an extended period of
time. I remember last year as we moved, we hoped, toward conclusion,
our House colleagues had a different point of view than the Senate. I
thank the chairman and ranking member for their exceptional efforts.
Now we have a chance to do it, to move forward. We need this cloture
vote to proceed.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. It is not as great
a problem in Oklahoma as the problem in North Dakota because your
construction season is shorter than ours. Right now one of our major
concerns is that we can get in there and get the contracts in a timely
fashion so we can get under construction and do the work we are
supposed to be doing.
Also, before the Senator from North Dakota came in, we commented this
is somewhat of a life-and-death situation. Last year, nearly 43,000
people died on our Nation's highways. This represents the single
greatest cause of accidental death in Americans ages 2 to 33.
The core safety programs will be corrected. According to the
Department of Transportation, time in congestion increased from 31.7
percent in 1992 to 33 percent in 2000. We had several discussions
yesterday about the cost of fuel and the fact that if you have all this
congestion--certainly we know what this is in Washington, DC--the cars
are out there idling, burning fuel, not getting anywhere. We need to
get this country moving.
I appreciate the comments of the Senator from North Dakota.
We are at the time designated to have the vote. This could be one of
the maybe two or three most significant votes we have this year. It
will allow us to do all that we have been talking about for the last
hour. It is rather refreshing during this time we did not have anyone
coming down and opposing this motion to proceed.
The Senator from North Dakota is exactly right. We want to encourage
people who have a problem to come down. Maybe we can make them better.
We want to consider amendments. We want to get this done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Cloture Motion
Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 69, H.R. 3, a bill to authorize funds
for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and
transit programs, and for other purposes.
Bill Frist, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, Craig Thomas,
Mike DeWine, Richard Burr, Susan Collins, Johnny
Isakson, James Inhofe, Gordon Smith, Pete Domenici,
Thad Cochran, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley,
David Vitter, Mitch McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that
debate on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy For Users, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays
are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--6
Cornyn
Gregg
Hutchison
Kyl
McCain
Sununu
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 6.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7
minutes on the topic of the 15th anniversary of the Hubble telescope.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________