[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4849-S4859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Inhofe amendment No. 605, to provide a complete substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SHELBY. I yield to my colleague from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to follow the Senator from Alabama, after he completes his 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak in support of the 
Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005. We know it as the 
Transportation bill. This bill was marked up in the committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on March 17 and reported out with a 
unanimous vote.
  I am proud of this legislation which was crafted on a bipartisan 
basis with cooperation from the distinguished Senator from Maryland, 
Mr. Sarbanes, the committee's ranking member and former chairman.
  The Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005 provides record growth 
for public transportation. The funding authorized in this bill will 
provide for significant improvements to and expansion of the Nation's 
transportation infrastructure. I am pleased to be working with my 
colleagues, Chairman Inhofe from the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, and Chairman Stevens from the Commerce, Science and 
Transportation Committee.
  I want to thank my friends from the Finance Committee, Senators 
Grassley and Baucus, for working so diligently to identify additional 
money for public transportation. Thanks to their efforts the Banking 
Committee's transit title provides record growth for transportation, 
$53.8 billion overhis is an increase in the share of transit funding 
over TEA-21 and I am confident that this money will be helpful in 
meeting surface transportation needs across the country.
  Public transportation services are often the only form of 
transportation available to many citizens. These services provide 
mobility to the millions of Americans who cannot, for various reasons, 
use an automobile. More than 80 million Americans cannot drive or do 
not have access to a car.
  Further, senior citizens are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. 
population. Many of them require access to public transportation in 
order to maintain their independence and to access vital healthcare 
services.
  Today, the American public transportation industry consists of nearly 
6,000 transit systems in both urban and rural areas. These 
transportation agencies operate a diverse array of vehicles, including 
subways, buses, light rail, commuter railroads, ferries, vans, cable 
cars, aerial tramways, and taxis.
  According to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2005 Urban Mobility 
Report, congestion costs over $63 billion, more than 3.7 billion hours 
of delay and 2.3 billion gallons of excess fuel annually. The average 
driver loses more than a week of work each year sitting in gridlock. 
The same report finds that without public transportation, there would 
be 1 billion more hours of delay. The report also finds that public 
transportation reduces the cost of congestion by about $20 billion per 
year.
  Public transportation investments help create employment and sustain 
economic health. The Department of Transportation has estimated that 
for every $1 billion in Federal highway and transit investment, 47,500 
jobs are created or sustained.
  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, expired 
on September 30, 2003, and has temporarily been extended through May 
31, 2005. The delay in providing a long-term authorization has had a 
significant impact on State and local governments which have been 
unable to develop long-term programs for funding. Public transportation 
represents an important part of the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure, which by its nature, requires long-term planning and 
project development. Delays in funding have resulted in project delays 
which ultimately increase costs and postpone the benefits which 
projects are designed to produce. The impact is particularly 
significant in States with short construction seasons since planning 
must be done well in advance of contracting for construction. 
Therefore, the committee has responded and taken action to reauthorize 
the public transportation title of TEA-21 in order to continue the 
Federal Government's critical role in public transit programs.
  This bill accomplishes three important policy goals. It creates 
funding flexibility, increases accountability, and improves the 
performance and efficiency of the transit programs in the United 
States.
  The bill creates several new formulas to better address growing 
transit needs. A ``rural low density'' formula is created to allow for 
transit services in sparsely populated areas where employment centers 
and health care are great distances apart. A ``growing states'' formula 
is created to allow communities with populations projected to grow 
significantly in the coming years to put in place needed transportation 
infrastructure. A ``transit intensive cities'' formula is created to 
address the needs of small communities where the level of transit 
service exceeds what their population-based formula would provide for. 
Finally, our bill also creates a ``high density'' formula to provide 
additional funding for States with transit needs that are particularly 
great because they have transit systems in extremely urban areas with 
high utilization rates.
  The bill increases the accountability within the transit program. It 
rewards transit agencies which deliver projects that are on time, on 
budget, and provide the benefits that they promised. Further, this bill 
allows communities to consider more cost-effective, flexible solutions 
to their transportation needs by opening up eligibility within the New 
Starts program to non-fixed guideway projects seeking less than $75 
million in New Starts funds. With this change, other solutions can be 
fostered, such as bus rapid transit, which is more flexible than rail 
at a fraction of the cost.
  Finally, the bill seeks to improve the performance and efficiency of 
transit

[[Page S4850]]

systems nationwide. It provides incentives for the coordination of 
human service transportation activities in order to eliminate 
duplication and overlap. It increases the focus on safety and security 
needs within transit systems to help insulate them against terrorist 
attacks. It also enhances the role of the private sector in providing 
public transportation in an effort to reduce cost and to improve 
service.
  The Federal Public Transportation Act is very good legislation. The 
funding made available by this bill and the policy initiatives 
contained in the bill will dramatically improve the public 
transportation program to help Americans with their mobility needs in 
both urban and rural areas nationwide.
  I commend this bill to the Senate and ask my colleagues for their 
support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join my able and distinguished 
colleague from Alabama, the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs Committee, in strong support of the Federal Public 
Transportation Act of 2005, which has been incorporated into the 
pending amendment which was offered yesterday by Senator Inhofe, the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  The Federal Public Transportation Act was reported out by the Banking 
Committee earlier this year, and, I might add, by a unanimous voice 
vote. Moreover, although the funding level provided in this bill is 
lower than in the one we passed last year, the program structure and 
policy decisions reflected in this bill are almost identical to those 
included in S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 
Transportation Act, SAFETEA, which passed the Senate last year with 
overwhelming bipartisan support.
  At the very outset, I express my appreciation to Chairman Shelby who 
worked tirelessly on the development of this legislation last year, 
reaching across the aisle in a cooperative manner to develop a transit 
bill that will begin to address the urgent needs faced by communities 
all across the country.
  I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords; 
and the Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, 
for their efforts to move this very important bill forward.
  As has already been observed in this debate, SAFETEA did not emerge 
from conference last year, regrettably, due in large part to the 
unwillingness of the administration to support the kind of significant 
investment needed to meet our pressing transit and highway needs. As a 
result, we have had to pass six short-term extensions of the previous 
transportation legislation, TEA-21. The uncertainty inherent in these 
short-term extensions hinders our State and local partners in their 
efforts to meet the daily challenges of maintaining our transportation 
infrastructure and planning for improvements.
  I want to express my appreciation to a number of colleagues who 
worked to provide additional resources for transportation beyond what 
was reported out by the various committees earlier this year. A higher 
level of investment is essential if we are to keep up with the 
increasing demand along our entire transportation network.
  I want to say a few words about the transit title, which was 
supported by every member of the Banking Committee. Over the last 
several years, the Banking Committee and its Housing and Transportation 
Subcommittee, under the leadership first of Senator Reed of Rhode 
Island and then more recently of Senator Allard of Colorado, has held a 
series of hearings on the Federal transit program and its contribution 
to reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and 
improving our quality of life.
  Over the course of those hearings, we heard testimony from dozens of 
witnesses, including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Federal 
Transit Administrator Jenna Dorn, representatives of transit agencies 
from around the country, mayors, business and labor leaders, 
environmentalists, economic development experts, and transit riders 
themselves. Virtually all of the witnesses agreed that the investment 
that had been made under TEA-21 contributed to a renaissance for 
transit in this country. In fact, transit ridership is up 23 percent 
since 1995, and is still increasing, even faster than the growth in 
highway use.
  Transit plays a critical role in our efforts to combat congestion. My 
able colleague, the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Shelby, made 
reference to a study released just this week by the Texas 
Transportation Institute, talking about the tremendous cost to the 
Nation in lost time and wasted fuel because of congestion--people 
simply stuck in traffic.
  We heard testimony at our hearings about many other important 
benefits of transit as well. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
testified that $1 billion of capital investment in transit creates 
almost 50,000 jobs. Moreover, the economic development benefits of 
transit are becoming more and more apparent as new systems come into 
service. For example, we heard testimony from one of the county 
commissioners in Dallas that over $1 billion had been invested in 
private development along Dallas's existing and future light rail 
lines, raising nearby property values and supporting thousands of jobs.
  We heard from a representative of BellSouth that his company had 
decided to relocate almost 10,000 employees from scattered sites in 
suburban Atlanta to three downtown buildings near the MARTA rail 
stations because, as he put it, transit ``saves employees time. It 
saves employees money. It saves wear and tear on the employees' 
spirit.''
  Transit benefits the economy in other ways as well. For example, 
transit investments in one community can have repercussions in many 
areas around the country. The president of the American Public 
Transportation Association, Bill Millar, who has testified before the 
Senate on a number of occasions, pointed out that when one locality 
builds a rail system or develops its bus system, the manufacturing or 
the assembly of those rail cars and buses may well be done in a 
different jurisdiction. So one has to keep in mind when considering the 
economic benefits of transit, it is not only the area that is upgrading 
its transit system that benefits. That area will invariably spend its 
money on a whole range of supplies and services which are produced 
elsewhere in the country. As Mr. Millar said:

       While the Federal money would appear to be going one place, 
     the impact of that money tends to go very far and wide.

  Of course, transit is about more than our economic life. It is also 
about our quality of life. During our hearings, we heard a great deal 
about the importance of transit to our senior citizens, our young 
people, the disabled, and others who rely on transit for their daily 
mobility needs. Several of our witnesses observed that the increased 
investment in transit and paratransit services under the previous bill 
provided the crucial link between home and a job, school, or a doctor's 
office, for millions of people who otherwise might not have been able 
to participate fully in the life of their community. Further, we saw 
after 9/11 how transit can be an important lifeline in other respects, 
as well. We had very moving testimony during our hearings about the 
efforts made by transit operators on that day to move tens of thousands 
of people quickly and safely out of our city centers.
  As a result of transit's many benefits, the demand for transit is 
continuing to increase all across the Nation. Small towns, rural areas, 
suburban jurisdictions, and large cities, are all struggling to keep up 
with the need to provide safe and reliable transit service for their 
citizens. The Department of Transportation has estimated that very 
significant sums will be needed to maintain the condition and 
performance of transit systems across the country.
  The transit title authorizes $53.8 billion in transit investment. I 
am frank to say I believe that the transit needs of the nation would 
justify even more, but I am pleased to say that under this bill transit 
will see a significant increase in funding over TEA-21. A strong 
transit program is essential to our efforts to improve our citizens' 
mobility and strengthen our national economy.

[[Page S4851]]

  I want to take just a moment or two to highlight some of the most 
important features of the amendment before us with respect to transit.
  The amendment provides for growth in both the urban and rural formula 
program, with added emphasis placed on the rural program. The committee 
was sensitive to the needs of the rural areas of our country, and the 
rural program will see significant growth in order to help States with 
large rural areas provide the services their residents need.
  The bill also provides increased funding in the Fixed Guideway 
Modernization Program. This funding is very important to helping cities 
with older rail systems, which in some cases were built almost a 
century ago, make the investments needed to preserve those highly 
successful systems, which literally move millions of people every 
working day.
  The New Starts program, which helps communities make their first 
major investment in transit as well as expand existing systems, also 
grows under this bill. The New Starts program will enable communities 
to address their mobility and development needs with transit investment 
and to gain the benefits of transit that exist elsewhere in the 
country.
  Furthermore, the amendment maintains the existing 80 percent Federal 
match on new starts transit projects, and thus continues the parity 
that has existed between the local match requirement for highway and 
transit projects. This is a very important factor in ensuring that the 
investment decision at the local level is not weighted in one direction 
or the other because of a more favorable local match requirement. Mayor 
McCory of Charlotte, NC, made this point in one of our hearings when he 
observed that:

       There's a strong need to keep the program 80-20, as we do 
     for other forms of transportation, including roads. That does 
     send a strong message that transit is as important as our 
     road network.

  The bill makes a significant change in the new starts program by 
allowing new starts funding to be used for the first time to fund 
transit projects that do not operate along a fixed guideway, as long as 
the project is seeking less than $75 million in Federal funds. There 
are only a few examples of such projects currently operating in the 
Nation, and I hope to work with the Federal Transit Administration to 
ensure that the FTA develops an appropriate quantitative methodology 
for evaluating the costs and benefits of such projects, particularly as 
they relate to land use and economic development impacts.
  As we begin to experiment with different forms of transit service, we 
must be careful not to adversely impact FTA's highly competitive and 
successful process for moving projects through the New Starts Program.
  While the bill preserves the general structure of TEA-21, several new 
formulas are included to target transit funds more directly to those 
States and cities with extraordinary transportation needs. The bill 
includes a new growth and density formula. The growth portion will 
distribute funds to all States based on their expected future 
population, and the density portion will provide funding to those 
States whose populations are above a certain density threshold.
  The bill also includes an incentive tier to reward small transit-
intensive cities, those cities with a population between 50,000 and 
200,000 which provide higher than average amounts of transit service. 
The funds distributed under these new formulas will help communities 
address their unique transportation needs.
  The bill includes a requirement that metropolitan planning 
organizations development a public participation plan to ensure that 
public transportation employees, affected community members, users of 
public transportation, freight shippers, private sector providers--all 
the interested parties concerned about the transportation 
infrastructure--have an opportunity to participate in the 
transportation plan approval process.
  Transportation investments are among the most important decisions 
made at the local level. I firmly believe all interested parties should 
have an opportunity to contribute to this process. Our transportation 
infrastructure is central to making our economy and, indeed, our 
society work day to day. That is why this is such a critical and 
important piece of legislation.
  Finally, I am pleased that the legislation includes a new Transit in 
Parks Program to help national parks and other public lands find 
alternative transportation solutions to the traffic problems they are 
now facing. This is a program the administration supports. It has very 
strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It is an effort to address the 
problem of overcrowding that has come with increased visitation to our 
national parks and other public lands. In some cases people must wait 
in long lines to get into a national park, or they get to the entrance 
and find they are turned back because the park's roads and parking lots 
are at capacity.
  TEA-21 required the Department of Transportation to conduct a study 
of alternative transportation needs in our national parks and other 
public lands, and that study confirmed that the parks are ready and 
willing to develop transit alternatives. This legislation will help the 
parks make investments in traditional public transit, such as shuttle 
buses or trolleys, or other types of public transportation appropriate 
to the park setting, such as waterborne transportation or bicycle and 
pedestrian facilities.
  In closing, let me note that there are a number of other provisions 
in the legislation that modify previous aspects of the transit 
programs, but for the most part the committee's intention was not to 
enact major changes to a program that has worked well.
  The committee put a great deal of effort into developing a package 
that would recognize the various types of transit needs across the 
Nation. Of course, as with any program with limited resources, no one 
gets as much as they would like. But given the framework within which 
the committee had to work, I think we have responded fairly and 
rationally to the needs that have been expressed to us. All in all, I 
think this is a balanced package, which I am pleased to commend to my 
colleagues.
  This bill provides essential support to our local and State partners 
in their efforts to combat congestion and pollution and to ensure that 
their citizens can access safe and reliable transit services. It is no 
exaggeration to say this is essential legislation for the future 
strength and vitality of our economy and of our society, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I would like to have the Senator add to his unanimous 
consent request that following his remarks we return to the bill H.R. 
3, as amended, for consideration of amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to discuss a transportation bill 
that has been several years and several congressional sessions in the 
making. For a very long time now, Senator Baucus and I have worked with 
the various authorizing committees to prudently fund the highway and 
transit programs. Of course, this has not been an easy process. But 
last year, we found a way to fund the programs in a way that enabled 
every State of the Union to bring home more money for needed 
transportation, particularly for highways. Let me repeat that because 
it is important. Every Member of the Senate, including those who 
complained about our funding mechanism, did better under our plan last 
year.
  This year we face a different set of challenges. There are conflicts 
that arose in last year's conference that are still with us. The 
conflicts spring from three principles that have proven very difficult 
to reconcile. I will lay out those conflicts.
  The first principle is to get a highway bill that is an improvement 
over current policy. That is where overwhelming majorities are in both 
the

[[Page S4852]]

House and the Senate. We need adequate funding for our transportation 
infrastructure. We need to do our best to meet the job, economic 
development, and transportation needs of the country. The authorizers 
say improved policy requires more trust fund money.
  The second principle from conference is deficit reduction. President 
Bush has rightly put deficit reduction as a key objective in general 
and applied it to the highway program in particular. Toward that end, 
the administration has pegged spending at $284 billion in spending over 
the applicable period.
  In conference, the House brought forward a third principle. They made 
it clear that they would not accept the use of general fund offsets to 
prevent deficit increases because of the highway bill.
  Over the last several years it has been frustrating to see some 
Members advance all these principles without acknowledging the inherent 
conflict. They say: Senator Grassley, we need more money for my State 
for roads or transit. At the same time, these same Members would say: 
Senator Grassley, why are you paying for it in this way or that way?
  So to any complainers, I issue the challenge that I issued last year: 
If you complain about the additional money that the Finance Committee 
has found for your State, explain to me how you would do it 
differently. Would you forgo that money for your State? If you have an 
alternative, explain to me how you would find the votes for your method 
of financing. I issued that challenge last year, and somehow I didn't 
get any takers. I expect complaints again this year despite the smaller 
numbers involved and don't expect anyone to take me up on the 
challenge.
  Whether folks want to admit it, as we begin floor debate and 
conference on this bill, it will become increasingly apparent that 
these three principles conflict. As one who has tried and continues to 
try to enact a highway bill into law, I have worked very hard to grow 
trust fund revenues in a way that doesn't increase the deficit or 
require general fund offsets. While we were able to devise a floor 
amendment that grows the trust fund without increasing the deficit, we 
were not able to do so without the use of any general fund offsets. We 
did get 40 percent of the way there using additional fuel fraud 
compliance measures. We are filling in most of the $5 billion gap with 
a small version of the refund proposal which the administration 
included in its fiscal year 2006 budget.
  Finance Committee investigations reveal that many of the refunds are 
based in fraud, and these steps will contribute to our efforts to close 
the tax gap. A very small amount of that gap is also bridged by changes 
to gas guzzler tax administration. We are still awaiting progress on 
additional fuel fraud measures and loophole closures and plan to fill 
in the $5 billion gap in conference. In the meantime, we are using 
other general fund offsets to do that.
  Almost none of these general fund offsets are new, as nearly all were 
included in the Senate-passed JOBS bill last year. Two notable 
provisions have been added. One of those provisions is intended to 
improve the administration of the Internal Revenue Service's offer-in-
compromise program. The second involves a leasing tax shelter abuse in 
the transportation sector that we refer to by the acronym SILOs. These 
were the schemes that allowed big corporations to claim tax deductions 
for bridges, pipelines, and subways that are paid for with taxpayer 
dollars but with no risk for the leasing company.
  Congress passed the JOBS bill last fall and outlawed these SILOs but 
not without concessions to the interests of shelter promoters. Under 
that bill, SILO shelter promoters got more than a year to get their 
deals-in-process approved by the Department of Transportation. And, of 
course, I believe that is an outrage. We exerted great effort in 
Congress to shut down this abuse, but the transition relief in the JOBS 
bill is a sop to shelter promoters and an insult to American taxpayers. 
This amendment will end that abuse now, not a year from now.

  In committee, we marked up in alignment with the President's $284 
billion figure. That was the deal the authorizing committees and this 
committee made with Leader Frist to get the bill to the floor. In our 
Finance Committee markup, I indicated my intent to work on the floor 
with Senator Baucus, the Senate leadership, and authorizers to grow the 
trust fund revenues in a manner that does not negatively impact the 
deficit. I believe we have incorporated a Finance Committee amendment 
that does just that.
  I also understand and agree with the House position that we should 
not mix general fund offsets and trust fund resources. To that end, I 
want the Senate to know that I commit to working further so that no 
general fund offsets are required to maintain a sufficient trust fund 
for the conference agreement.
  At the markup, I also asked and I continue to ask the administration 
to shift its focus away from the top-line $284 billion number and 
toward the principle of deficit reduction. The bill before the Senate, 
including our recently added amendment to grow trust fund receipts, is 
paid for in its entirety principally by cracking down abuse and closing 
loopholes. In fact, this bill, as currently drafted, actually 
contributes positively and substantially towards deficit reduction.
  I reemphasize that an exclusive focus on the top-line spending number 
viewed outside of a deficit reduction context will only lead to a 
repeat of last fall's conference gridlock. Gridlock in conference won't 
resolve the gridlock on our Nation's highways. So I ask all the key 
players at each end of Pennsylvania Avenue to focus on main street and 
work toward a fiscally responsible highway bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to make one comment. We are on the 
bill, and I compliment Senators Grassley and Baucus for the great work 
they have done. We have put together a good bill, and it is necessary 
to go out to the proper committee, the Finance Committee, to see what 
we can do to enhance this bill and make it a little bit more robust. 
They have done a great job, and I compliment them on that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join in offering the 
substitute amendment to this bill. This bill is called SAFETEA. It 
culminates many months of hard work. I commend the chairman, Chairman 
Inhofe, and Senator Bond, chairman of the transportation subcommittee, 
and especially the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, 
Senator Grassley and Senator Jeffords, for their hard work.
  I especially thank my good friend, Senator Grassley. He is a good 
man. He is good to work with. He is pragmatic, practical, he cares, he 
wants good solutions, and he wants to advance the ball. The people of 
Iowa are very lucky to have him as their Senator. Senator Harkin is 
another great Senator from Iowa, but I particularly enjoy working with 
Senator Grassley. We have a strong working relationship and it means a 
lot to me personally.
  This legislation is critical for Montana and also for the country as 
a whole. I cannot think of any other legislation that would have such a 
substantial effect on our Nation's economy. The current transportation 
program expired in September 2003. Since then, regrettably, Congress 
has had to enact extensions. We could not come up with a solid 6-year 
bill. We have had six extensions to the highway program--the most 
extensions in the history of the program.
  Frankly, in addition to all of the substantive good provisions of the 
bill, it is very important to enact a full 5-year bill rather than 
going down the road with more and more extensions. The current 
extension expires at the end of this month, about 3 weeks from now. If 
we fail to meet the deadline, the program lapses and States will no 
longer receive their funds. We should not let that happen. We can and 
should do our work right away. We have already seen an entire 
construction season go by without a long-term bill. In Montana, we have 
a very short construction season. Winter weather prevents us from 
working on our roads all year long. We cannot afford any more delays.
  Because Congress has not acted, States are letting fewer bids; it is 
that simple. Because Congress has not acted, contractors, suppliers, 
and other construction businesses have less business. Transportation 
projects are very complex. Any bumps along the way only compound them 
over time.

[[Page S4853]]

  Another extension is not a solution. We need to act; we need to act 
right away. We should act on this bill and head to conference. By 
approving the substitute amendment and adding funding to the bill, we 
can speed the process to complete the conference.
  While I supported reporting this bill out of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee because of a commitment made by others to the 
Republican leader, it was with the firm understanding I would offer an 
amendment to make substantial improvements to this bill, working in 
conjunction with other Senators.
  That is why we are here today offering this important amendment, 
which is part of the underlying bill, to increase the authorization and 
spending levels in this bill.
  Chairman Grassley and I have been working for 3 years to develop the 
financing for the Transportation bill. It is not a simple task. I am 
pleased to say the chairman and I have proposed a package that does 
several things.
  First, we shore up the highway trust fund to ensure solvency during 
the life of this bill by providing over $7 billion in additional 
receipts during the authorization period.
  Second, using these receipts, we increase investments in this 
Nation's infrastructure by $8.9 billion for the highway program and 
$2.3 billion for the transit program.
  Third, we fully pay for the additional highway spending in this 
amendment. Repeating that, we fully pay for highway spending in this 
amendment. We do so in a responsible manner.
  Let me take a couple moments to comment on the misperceptions and, 
frankly, outright distortions that I have heard about this amendment.
  First, we do not raise gas taxes in this amendment. I will repeat 
that. We do not raise gasoline taxes.
  We can increase resources to the highway trust fund without raising 
taxes. It is that simple. Don't be fooled by the hysteria of some who 
flatout oppose more funding for transportation and will say almost 
anything to defeat our efforts.
  I have also heard people say this amendment transfers general fund 
money to the highway trust fund. That, too, mischaracterizes our 
proposal.
  The other day, Secretary of Transportation Mineta made a very 
interesting statement. When he described our amendment to raise the 
investment in transportation, he said: ``There is a dark cloud looming 
on the horizon.''
  But when his own Department estimated the unmet transportation needs 
in this country, the Transportation Department said there are more than 
$325 billion in unmet needs. That figure grows each and every day that 
we forego maintenance of the transportation system.

  This amendment is no dark cloud. Rather, adopting this amendment will 
part the clouds that others have created over this bill and allow the 
sun to shine on this bill.
  Let me lay out the facts.
  The President's 2006 budget submission increased the funding proposed 
for this bill. While I believe that those levels are still artificially 
low, I want to acknowledge that effort.
  Two efforts by the Finance Committee made possible the President's 
increased funding in its February budget. The administration's reliance 
on these developments then makes its criticism of this amendment now 
ring hollow.
  The first reason the President was able to increase his highway 
funding request was the Finance Committee's work last year on fuel 
fraud and the ethanol credit.
  The President's budget proposal depends on the increased dollars from 
the fuel fraud provisions and the volumetric ethanol credit that 
Congress enacted as part of the JOBS Act last year.
  Over the years, the Senate spent many hours debating the merits of 
ethanol incentives. I believe the incentives are good agricultural 
policy and good energy policy.
  But whether you favor the incentives or not, last year, Congress 
broadly agreed that the highway trust fund should not bear the burden 
of that subsidy. The volumetric ethanol tax credit in the JOBS bill 
eliminated that problem, and we do so here again today.
  The Finance Committee also developed proposals to reduce fuel tax 
evasion. We tightened the rules for fuel transfers and increased 
penalties for noncompliance with the tax laws.
  When Senator Grassley and I first introduced the ethanol changes and 
fuel fraud provisions, we heard some of the same comments and 
criticisms we hear today.
  Yet enactment of these provisions has added more than $17 billion to 
the highway trust fund for the years 2005 through 2009. The President 
and the House could not have funded their current $284 billion 
proposals without those dollars.
  Second, the President's 2006 budget submission also included what 
some call ``the refund proposal.'' This provision relates to the amount 
currently refunded to States, cities, and schools that are exempt from 
paying the Federal gas tax.
  States, cities, and schools do not pay the Federal fuel tax. They are 
exempt. That is appropriate. They should be. Right now, when a State, 
city, or school fills its vehicle with taxed fuel, the organization is 
entitled to get a refund of the Federal excise tax. They get that 
refund.
  Currently, the general fund pays that refund. Then the highway trust 
fund repays the general fund. That doesn't make sense.
  All we are saying in this amendment is that the highway trust fund 
should not have to reimburse the general fund for the amount of the 
refund. It is that simple. Those are vehicles traveling on the 
highways. We do not raise taxes on State and local governments, not one 
penny.
  Vehicles used by State and local governments still cause the same 
wear and tear on our roads as vehicles owned by entities that pay 
Federal gas taxes. So the highway trust fund should not have to bear 
the burden of the exemption.
  Some in the administration, and others, call this an ``accounting 
gimmick.'' That is flatly not the case. The administration uses the 
same refund mechanism to pay for the President's Transportation bill.
  If it was not an ``accounting gimmick'' in February, when the 
President submitted his budget, then it is not an ``accounting 
gimmick'' for Congress to use the same mechanism now. It is not a 
gimmick anyway.
  In addition to the elements contained in the President's budget, let 
me briefly describe the other provisions that increase receipts in the 
highway trust fund.
  The amendment will increase collections of present-law fuel taxes. 
The amendment will improve tax compliance with respect to blend stocks 
used in gasoline.
  The proposal prevents the blending of untaxed chemicals with gasoline 
by imposing the Federal excise tax when blendstocks are removed from 
the bulk system.
  We make sure that kerosene used on the highways is taxed as diesel 
fuel, and we improve the rules for tax-free fuel purchases by requiring 
appropriate certification that an entity is exempt from the fuel taxes.
  The amendment also dedicates the gas-guzzler tax to the highway trust 
fund. Today this transportation excise tax goes to the general fund. 
That does not make any sense. It belongs in the highway trust fund. 
After all, these are vehicles that travel on the highways. It belongs 
in the highway trust fund with the rest of the Federal excise taxes 
that are imposed on vehicles and fuels. This proposal does not take 
current dollars out of the general fund, but when the guzzler tax is 
paid in the future, it will go to the highway trust fund.
  The amendment maintains the integrity of the highway trust fund. The 
highway program will be paid entirely by transportation excise taxes to 
the highway trust fund. But because more transportation taxes will now 
rightfully go to the highway trust fund, there will be a gap to fill in 
the general fund.
  We make the general fund whole by including revenue-raisers that are 
not related to highways. These are good policy loophole closers. 
Everybody would want to vote for these regardless, just standing alone. 
They are the sort of provisions the Senate has passed before.
  All in all, it is a win-win situation. This bill pays for highways 
legitimately and replenishes the general fund legitimately.

[[Page S4854]]

  On April 27, the majority leader stood on the Senate floor and said 
this about the Transportation bill:

       I am confident by working together we can get this done, 
     and we can demonstrate reasonable fiscal restraint.

  At the Finance Committee markup, I made that same statement that we 
would be responsible in this new funding amendment. We have done that. 
We have been responsible.
  I commend my colleagues who voted for the Talent-Wyden amendment to 
this year's budget resolution. That amendment firmly stated that new 
receipts to the highway trust fund should be available and spent in 
this bill. Eighty-one of us supported that amendment. That is an 
overwhelming majority of the Senate supporting additional 
transportation funding in this bill, all paid for.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, this amendment provides the 
funding they voted for in the budget resolution. Each of the 81 
Senators who supported the budget resolution amendment should support 
this new money.
  Why are we working so hard to increase the funding in this bill? Let 
me explain why we have not just given in and gone along.
  Every billion dollars in infrastructure investment creates nearly 
47,500 jobs--every billion dollars. That is important. Over the life of 
the bill, we will sustain more than 2 million good-paying jobs.
  Highway jobs are jobs that stay in the United States. You cannot 
export highway jobs. You cannot outsource highway jobs. They are not 
shipped overseas. This bill will affect all Americans whether they 
build the road or drive on the road.
  Our economy could sure use a boost, and one certain way is to produce 
jobs through this bill. It is a jobs bill.
  This bill is an economic engine for my State of Montana. The last 
Transportation bill, TEA-21, provided more than $1.2 billion in my 
State and helped sustain more than 11,000 jobs. With the increased 
funding in this substitute amendment, Montana and every other State in 
the country will receive a much needed increase in economic growth and 
development, all paid for.
  This amendment will also allow us to make some modest changes to the 
formulas in the SAFETEA bill. We made changes for both donor and donee 
States. For the donee States, we have increased the guaranteed funding 
from 110 percent of TEA-21 levels up to 115 percent each year of the 
bill--each and every year. From a 110-percent increase to a 115-percent 
increase--that is for the donee States.
  For the donor States, we have provided funding to bring every donor 
State to 91 cents on the dollar beginning in 2006, with an additional 
guarantee of 92 cents in 2009.
  I know this is not what everybody wanted, but we have limited funds. 
We cannot do everything for everyone. I hope that as this debate 
continues, my colleagues will understand the very difficult task of 
drafting a national formula. We must work together. Prior 
transportation bills have never been partisan fights. It is very 
important. There is no such thing as a Republican road or a Democratic 
road; they are American roads.
  I remember fondly working with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan on 
ISTEA in 1991. We had good debates on the future of transportation 
policy. He had such vision, and ISTEA reflected that vision.
  In 1998, I worked closely with two dear friends developing TEA-21--
the late Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island and Senator John Warner of 
Virginia. We worked side by side through many long nights and hours of 
discussions. Each of us brought a different perspective to the table. I 
represented the needs of rural and Western and Midwestern States, 
Senator Chafee represented the Northeastern States, and Senator Warner 
represented the donor States, generally Southern States. Each of us 
recognized that with a national transportation program, we had to 
balance the needs of each constituency. I believe we put together a 
good product in TEA-21. Was it perfect? Of course not, but it moved our 
country forward. Did I get everything I wanted for my State? No. We did 
not get to write legislation in a vacuum. We had to work together.

  The bill before us is balanced. We have worked hard to balance the 
needs of the various States, each with different interests but with a 
common purpose. We have worked hard to balance the needs of highways 
and transit. It is time for us to finish the job. We have substantial 
differences with the House. We need to get this bill to conference so 
we can iron those differences out.
  Legislating is the art of compromise. I have been fortunate to 
represent the people of Montana in this Capitol for the last 30 years. 
In that time, I have worked on hundreds of pieces of legislation that 
have become law. To craft these measures, I have worked with Members on 
both sides of the aisle--with Members on my side and Members of the 
other side--because, after all, we all are Senators. I have not 
received everything I wanted. I have had to give a little bit. That is 
what we all do around here. We are a nation of 50 States with different 
needs. I hope my colleagues will continue to work with us on the Senate 
floor with that in mind. There are small States, there are large 
States, there are urban States, there are rural States, there are donor 
States, and there are donee States. We have done our very best to 
balance the various needs.
  Our ability to address many of the outstanding issues depends on the 
added funding this amendment provides. We could not balance them 
without this added funding. Without additional funding in this bill, we 
cannot make further changes. It is that simple.
  To my friends who have come to me over these past weeks asking for 
more money for their States, I simply say: Now is the time to stand and 
be counted. Now is the time to complete action on this bill and invest 
in our future. Let us not allow gridlock in Congress to cause gridlock 
on the main streets of America. Let us adopt this amendment and provide 
the funding our transportation system needs. Let us move this bill to 
help get our economy moving.
  Mr. President, I again thank all those concerned. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know there are a number of my 
colleagues waiting to speak this evening. I assure them I will take a 
minute and then yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on 
the pending substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     substitute 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, James Inhofe, David Vitter, Thad Cochran, 
           Norm Coleman, Jim DeMint, Richard Shelby, Orrin Hatch, 
           Kit Bond, Chuck Grassley, Pete Domenici, Jim Talent, 
           Richard G. Lugar, John Thune, Bob Bennett, George 
           Allen, Mitch McConnell.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk 
on the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate 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, James Inhofe, David Vitter, Thad Cochran, 
           Norm Coleman, Jim DeMint, Richard Shelby, Orrin Hatch, 
           Kit Bond, Chuck Grassley, Pete Domenici, Jim Talent, 
           Richard G. Lugar, John Thune, Bob Bennett, George 
           Allen, Mitch McConnell.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to all of our colleagues that 
votes on these cloture motions will occur on Thursday. Before we 
adjourn tonight, there will be additional information on the balance of 
the schedule for the week.

[[Page S4855]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his 
comments and a very excellent explanation as to how the Finance 
Committee is coming up with some more money to try to make this a 
better bill.
  Senator Jeffords and I have been trying to get people to come down 
with amendments for several days now. We are pleased that Senator 
Hutchinson and Senator Nelson of Nebraska have an amendment. It is one 
to which we have agreed, but there may be others who want to be heard 
on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                 Amendment No. 617 to Amendment No. 605

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an 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 Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. Nelson of 
Nebraska, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Graham, proposes an 
amendment numbered 617.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 limit the number of facilities at which the Secretary may 
                collect tolls in the State of Virginia)

       On page 250, strike lines 17 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary may permit the collection 
     of tolls under this subsection on 1 facility in the State of 
     Virginia.'';
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is going to 
try to take away the right of States to put tolls on interstate 
highways that have already been paid for and built by the taxpayers of 
our country. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in expanding 
opportunities to toll our Nation's interstate highway system. The 
interstate system was conceived and built with Federal tax dollars, so 
tolling interstates amounts to double taxation.
  Today, I, along with Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Shelby, Burns, and 
Pryor, offer an amendment which simply repeals a provision from the 
previous highway bill, TEA-21, the Interstate System Reconstruction and 
Rehabilitation Pilot Program, which is known as the interstate tolling 
program, which is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers.
  I have said if local communities and States want to come together and 
build a toll road, they should be able to do it. In these situations, 
the taxpayers know what they are getting into. Many times a vote is 
required to issue bonds, but at any rate the taxpayers can hold the 
elected officials accountable. To allow unelected transportation 
officials to simply install a toll booth on facilities already paid for 
by Federal tax dollars is unacceptable.
  Tolling existing highways will also increase the number of drivers on 
the free roads, resulting in greater congestion and more accidents. 
Studies show that drivers will choose to bypass the tolls by driving on 
local, small roads. We also know that tolls on existing interstates 
will produce substantial diversion of truck traffic to other roads, and 
our rural roads are not equipped to handle significant truck traffic.
  In Ohio, traffic tripled on US-20 after toll increases on the Ohio 
Turnpike. Unfortunately, fatal accidents on US-20 are now 17 times more 
common than those on the turnpike. In response, Ohio's Department of 
Transportation decided to lower the tolls, even though the action did 
reduce the revenues for the State.
  A recent study predicted that a 25-cent-per-mile toll on an 
interstate would cause nearly half the trucks to divert to other 
routes. This is an understandable economic decision for trucking 
companies considering that truckers' profit margins average 2 to 4 
cents per mile and the rising price of gasoline has already affected 
profitability. Technology already exists to help truckers and other 
drivers evade tolls in a cost-effective manner. It does not make sense 
to invest in tolls that people will not pay.
  Tolling interstates would reduce the safety of nearby local roads, 
degrade the quality of life in neighboring areas, and hurt the economy. 
Eighty percent of the Nation's goods travel by truck, and they will 
travel more slowly and expensively if tolls are imposed on interstates.
  The Federal Government collects taxes to fund the Federal interstate 
highway system. The States should not have the right to come in and 
impose another tax via a toll. The idea of tolling Texas highways is 
more concerning to me because the Federal highway program has treated 
my home State pretty poorly. Texas is the single largest donor State 
over the program's 50 years of history. We have the most highway miles 
of any State and our drivers have contributed billions to other States 
to enable them to build their portion of the Federal highway network.
  In this bill, we will get a 91-cent return. It is better than the 
previous 5 years, but I am going to continue to work for parity. I have 
always defended States rights, but the flexibility to toll interstates 
has a clear effect on interstate commerce and fundamental fairness. If 
Arkansas, for example, decided to toll I-40, all deliveries coming into 
or out of Texas on I-40 would be subject to that toll. In effect, Texas 
businesses and citizens would be taxed for using that highway. As a 
donor State, our taxes have already helped to finance it. So it is 
clear from the studies that tolling an interstate will shift traffic to 
other roads and potentially to other States.
  These States would not share in the toll revenue but would bear the 
brunt of the costs for more accidents on their roads, more traffic, 
pollution, and added highway maintenance and expansion costs. I cannot 
support a program which could shift new traffic and related burdens to 
our State and others.
  The underlying SAFETEA bill establishes a commission to explore 
alternative sources of transportation revenue. The commission should be 
allowed to complete its work before we start experimenting with tolls 
or any other alternative.
  At the request of Senator Warner, we have modified the amendment to 
limit the interstate tolling program to the Commonwealth of Virginia. 
The senior Senator from Virginia and the State's congressional 
delegation have been working with Virginia's Department of 
Transportation for more than 3 years on the I-81 project. Virginia is 
the only State with an active application pending before the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. While I disagree with implementing this 
program, I am willing to defer to Senator Warner on the need to allow 
Virginia to finish its application and have therefore agreed to this 
modification.
  I am going to defer to the Senator from Nebraska, who is one of the 
cosponsors of the bill. I hope we will be able to pass this amendment. 
It is very important that the taxpayers of America know they are going 
to have the opportunity to use this interstate system their tax dollars 
for 50 years have gone to build.
  The purpose of having an interstate system was so we would have 
seamless transportation into all of our States and it is very important 
we keep those highways that have already been built free highways for 
the citizens who have already paid for them. I urge the support of my 
colleagues.
  I defer to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Texas, Senator Pryor, and others for supporting and cosponsoring this 
legislation, which I think is extremely important. There are several 
points that need to be made about it. One is to point out what it does 
not do. It does not prevent tolling. Tolling on new construction and on 
additional construction on existing highways will be continued to be 
permitted. What it does do, as a matter of fairness, is it stops the 
equivalent of double taxation on existing highways already paid for by 
the Federal gas tax and in many cases State gas tax dollars.
  What this will avoid having is an additional tax now put on those 
highways in the name and in the form of a toll, perhaps a little less 
ominous sounding than a tax. If one looks at the net effect of putting 
a toll on an already

[[Page S4856]]

paid-for stretch of highway, it amounts to an additional tax, in this 
case double taxation.
  The second point that is important to make about this bill is it is a 
matter of highway safety. All studies will indicate very clearly that 
if there is a choice between a toll road and a nontoll road, it is most 
likely that truckers and other drivers will seek to use that nontoll 
road. In many cases, that is not going to present a matter of safety, 
but in all too many cases it will redirect traffic and reroute traffic 
to older, smaller, and less capable roads of handling that additional 
traffic. That not only will be a burden for the roads and will 
deteriorate the roads at a faster rate than was originally planned in 
their construction, but it will also raise the amount of traffic in 
many cases on two-lane highways or smaller highways and will increase 
the safety factor. I think it is pretty clear that we would ordinarily 
not take away the right of a State to do this. But under these 
circumstances, where we are allowing tolling of existing lanes on the 
Interstate Highway System, that is bad policy and it is absolutely 
unfair.

  This amendment does not affect the State's ability to finance new 
construction using tolls, as perhaps some thought. But it does affect 
the right to do it in the case of existing highways.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We worked out the 
questions that have been raised with respect to the State of Virginia. 
We believe that has now been handled, and this legislation should pass 
as part of this important bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand there is no further debate on 
the amendment. I see the Senator from Texas wishing to urge the 
adoption of this amendment. We have no objection. It is a good 
amendment and I urge its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for being a 
cosponsor of the amendment. My colleague, Senator Nelson, signed on 
very early, as did Senator Burns. I really appreciate that.
  Mr. President, I urge the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 617) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as in 
morning business for the next 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burns and Mr. Baucus are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Safe 
Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Act of 2005 and the 
cloture motion that was filed this evening.
  First, I commend Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, Baucus, Grassley, 
Shelby, Sarbanes, Stevens and Inouye and their staffs for their hard 
work and strong leadership in putting together a bipartisan bill. As a 
member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to 
have been a part of this effort.
  In the last Congress, I was a conferee for the bill and we worked in 
a bipartisan fashion, but we were unable to get the bill across the 
finish line. To expedite the process this year, this bill is 
essentially the same language that the Senate passed the last time 
around with the support of 76 Senators. The only difference is the 
numbers have been adjusted to reflect a lower spending level.
  I call on the President and my colleagues in both the House and the 
Senate to work expeditiously to get this bill enacted into law as soon 
as possible.
  We have serious needs to our aging infrastructure. The deterioration 
of our Nation's transportation system is impacting our economy, the 
environment, and the welfare of the American people. Passage of a 
transportation bill cannot be delayed any further due to these needs 
and the numerous jobs it creates. It is simply too important to our 
Nation in terms of its benefits to our economy and environment and to a 
safe and equitable transportation system.
  A new substitute amendment was added to this bill yesterday which 
increases the total guaranteed Federal investment in highway and 
transit funds to $251 billion, about an $11 billion increase. I am 
pleased that the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senators 
Grassley and Baucus, was able to fully offset this increase so as not 
to increase the debt, as Senator Grassley spoke so eloquently about it 
earlier today.
  It is my understanding the bill remains budget neutral. I think it is 
important that everyone understand that. It is budget neutral because 
many of these offsets were included in the Senate-passed version of the 
JOBS bill last year. They passed the Senate but were taken out in the 
conference committee on the JOBS bill, so they are available to us as 
offsets in this bill.
  Second, offsets are included in the bill which go after the 
proliferation of abusive tax shelters used by individuals and 
corporations and include increased criminal fines and penalties for 
those committing those abuses.
  Additionally, these offsets include efforts to target fuel tax 
evasion schemes to ensure that additional money is available to 
properly fund the highway bill.
  In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, 
was enacted, increasing the Federal investment in highways and transit 
by nearly 40 percent. This bill increases funding over TEA-21 by about 
35 percent. Now, people will hear those numbers, and they will think: 
Wow, that is an enormous increase in spending. But listen to some of 
these facts.
  While the total funding is still well below what I and several of my 
colleagues think is appropriate and necessary, I support this bill 
because it represents a compromise between the Senate-passed bill last 
Congress and the level the President has requested. I commend the 
managers of the bill for their hard work in finding this middle ground.
  As I mentioned, this legislation is modest, given the need. It falls 
far short of the level that would improve and even maintain our 
Nation's highway system. Frankly, the bill that passed last Congress 
was not enough, either.
  According to the Federal Highway Administration's 2002 Conditions and 
Performance Report, $106.9 billion is needed every year through 2020. 
It is needed to maintain and improve our highways and bridges. And just 
to maintain the system, $75.9 billion is needed annually through 2020.
  This bill contains $199 billion in guaranteed funding for highways 
for 5 years. This is only an average of about $36.5 billion annually, 
which is $70.4 billion below what is needed to improve and $38.8 
billion below what is needed to maintain the system. So this is not 
some gigantic porkbarrel ripoff legislation. It is a modest attempt to 
meet the needs we have in our country.
  Additionally--and I will go into this more later--I would have liked 
donor States to get back more of each dollar they put in the highway 
trust fund. However, the inadequate funding pales in comparison to the 
need to pass a bill now. TEA-21 expired on September 30, 2003. That was 
19 months ago, and we are still trying to get a bill done. This program 
has been operating under a total of six short-term extensions, and the 
next extension expires at the end of this month.
  Our States and our workers cannot afford for us to simply pass 
another extension. We cannot pass another extension. State contract 
awards for the 2005 spring and summer construction season are going out 
to bid. If we fail to enact a bill by the end of this month, States 
will not know what to expect in Federal funding, potentially delaying 
many projects.
  According to a survey conducted by the American Association of State 
Highway Transportation Officials, another extension could mean the loss 
of over 90,000 jobs and $2.1 billion in project delays.

[[Page S4857]]

  This is the most significant jobs bill we will pass this Congress. We 
have an opportunity with this bill not only to improve and repair our 
crumbling highways and bridges but to create good-paying jobs at the 
same time.
  The transportation construction industry generates more than $200 
billion in economic activity and helps sustain 2.5 million jobs in the 
United States each year. According to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, every $1 billion invested in highway construction 
creates 47,500 jobs and generates more than $2 billion in economic 
activity. This economic activity includes $500 million in new orders 
for the manufacturing sector that is so desperately needed in my State.

  AASHTO estimates that over the next 5 years, the highway portion of 
this bill would create about 518,000 jobs nationally and 23,000 jobs in 
the State of Ohio. Perhaps even more importantly, let me reiterate that 
the failure to pass this bill could cause the loss of 90,000 jobs 
across the country.
  It is also estimated that every dollar invested in the Nation's 
highway system generates $5.70 in economic benefits, including reduced 
delays, improved safety, and reduced vehicle operating costs. This is a 
6-to-1 return on investment. It has a synergistic effect on so many 
parts of our economy.
  Ohio's ``just in time'' economy cannot afford any further delays in 
passing this bill, as transportation congestion seriously threatens our 
competitiveness. Our aging infrastructure is also impacting people in 
their pocketbooks. Nationwide, 162,000 bridges are structurally 
deficient or functionally obsolete, and 160,000 miles of highway 
pavement are in poor or mediocre condition. Americans pay $49 billion a 
year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs due to road 
conditions. This is an average of $255 per driver in the United States 
of America.
  Americans also pay due to increased congestion and poor road 
conditions. The average urban rush-hour driver spends almost 62 
additional hours a year stuck in traffic--62 additional hours a year 
stuck in traffic. Vehicles caught in stop-and-go traffic emit far more 
emissions than they do without frequent acceleration and breaking. 
Traffic congestion is also responsible for 5.7 billion gallons of 
wasted gasoline every year. Wasted fuel and lost productivity due to 
traffic congestion costs the U.S. economy nearly $70 billion annually. 
So this issue of highway construction, repair, and maintenance has a 
dramatic impact on the quality of life of our fellow Americans.
  It not only costs our economy and environment, but also lives. Nearly 
43,000 people were killed on America's roads in 2003. Poor road 
conditions were a factor in one-third of those fatalities. In Ohio, 
1,277 people were killed on roads in 2003, and the number increased to 
1,285 in 2004. The Federal Government predicts highway fatalities will 
grow to nearly 52,000 by 2009, absent any new Federal investment in 
highway safety. Studies report that every $1 billion invested in road 
improvements since 1950 has helped prevent 1,400 premature deaths and 
nearly 50,000 injuries, as well as helped save over $2 billion in 
health care, insurance, lost wages, and productivity costs.
  If we continue to ignore the upkeep and allow the deterioration of 
our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced 
protection for public safety, health, and the environment.
  This bill is extremely important to my State, which has one of the 
largest surface transportation networks in the country. There are 60 
public transit systems serving 58 of Ohio's 88 counties. This is a 
statistic that I am sure my fellow Ohioans are not aware of. In 2003, 
these systems made approximately 135 million trips. Ohio has the 
Nation's fourth largest rural transportation program, the fifth largest 
bus fleet, the ninth most transit vehicle miles traveled, and the tenth 
highest overall ridership in the Nation.
  The American Public Transportation Association estimates that for 
every $10 million spent, 310 jobs are created, and $30 million in 
business sales is generated. For transit, Ohio will receive $884 
million, which is about $220 million more, or a 33-percent increase 
over TEA-21.
  In terms of highways, Ohio has the Nation's seventh largest highway 
network, fifth highest volume of traffic, fourth largest interstate 
highway network, and the second largest inventory of bridges in the 
country.
  Under TEA-21, Ohio received a 23-percent increase in highway funding. 
This bill will provide Ohio with $7.7 billion, which is about $1.91 
billion more, or a 33-percent increase over TEA-21.
  Throughout my career, I have been working to ensure that Ohio 
receives its fair share of highway funding. Through the 1990s, we moved 
from receiving less than 80 percent of our contributions to the highway 
trust fund to 90.5 percent under TEA-21.
  This is, again, one of my top priorities for reauthorization.
  Early this year, along with 19 cosponsors, Senator Carl Levin and I 
introduced legislation, the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005, to 
increase donor States' minimum rate of return to 95 percent. It has 
been a pleasure to lead this effort on behalf of the SHARE--States' 
Highway Alliance for Real Equity--coalition in the Senate. This bill 
increases the guaranteed share for all donor States to 92 percent by 
2009. While it is not the 95 percent we sought, I recognize that it is 
a compromise, and the Ohio Department of Transportation has told me it 
is sufficient.
  First and foremost, ODOT has made it clear they need a bill with an 
increased level of investment signed into law as soon as possible. I 
hope all of my colleagues have the same kind of pressure being put on 
them by their respective DOT directors. The bill increases funding by 
35 percent over TEA-21. In order to get it enacted before the extension 
at the end of the month expires, the bill must be passed this week.
  Second, Ohio needs to no longer be penalized for consuming ethanol-
blended fuel. That is one of the issues we worked on during the last 
several years. Because we are a high ethanol user and because of the 
fact that money didn't go into the highway trust fund, we were losing 
about $140 million a year. I cosponsored language last Congress, 
written by Senator Grassley, to transfer 2.5 cents of the Federal tax 
on ethanol-blended fuel from the general fund of the Treasury to the 
highway account of the highway trust fund and to replace the 5.2 cents 
per gallon reduced tax rate for ethanol-blended fuel with a tax credit.
  Fortunately, we were able to make these changes last Congress in the 
JOBS bill which means $400 million in increased funding for Ohio over 
the life of this bill.
  Our Department of Transportation has informed me they need a 91-
percent rate of return to meet Ohio's transportation goals over the 
life of this bill. Again, this bill takes us to 92 percent. Because of 
this, our Ohio Department of Transportation will be able to move 
forward with their Jobs and Progress Plan, a $5 billion, 10-year Ohio 
construction program dedicated to Ohio's most pressing congestion, 
safety, and rural access needs. This plan is possible because Ohio 
approved a State motor vehicle fuel tax increase in 2003 to provide 
half of the funding. This new construction program in Ohio will employ 
approximately 3,950 construction workers directly and another 9,850 
indirect highway jobs. The citizens of Ohio should be proud of the fact 
that they reached into their pockets to increase their gas tax so Ohio 
will be a leader in this country in responding to its highway needs.
  The Ohio Jobs in Progress Plan is going to help finance several major 
projects throughout the State, including a $350 million project to 
rebuild I-75 in Dayton, a $400 million project to begin rebuilding the 
central viaduct or, as we in Cleveland call it, ``dead man's curve,'' 
and a $600 million project to improve the I-70/I-71 split in Columbus. 
It also includes investments in high crash locations and the freight 
corridors such as U.S. 24 and U.S. 30 in northwest Ohio.
  In addition, the bill provides funding for $202 million worth of 
projects that ODOT has ready to go but no funding. The 128 projects on 
the shelf range from major reconstruction to traffic signals.
  Finally, I have a few comments about the environmental planning and 
project delivery provisions of this bill. As chairman of the Clean Air, 
Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, and the past chairman 
of

[[Page S4858]]

the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I understand full 
well the importance and significance of the overlap between highway 
planning and air quality.
  As requested by Federal, State, and local officials, this bill makes 
important improvements to the conformity process by synchronizing 
planning and conformity timelines and requirements. It also modifies 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, called 
CMAQ, to include nonattainment areas for the new ozone and particulate 
matter standards. EPA has designated about 500 counties in this Nation 
as in nonattainment, including 33 counties in Ohio. These areas will 
need all the help they can get to attain the new standards, and the 
CMAQ Program will help to pay for those things that need to be done.
  While these are two areas in which I believe we made progress, I 
believe we could have done more with the metropolitan and statewide 
planning and transportation project delivery provisions in this bill. 
As a former Governor, I was frustrated at how long it took to do a 
highway project from the beginning to the end. As Senator, I have 
wanted to do something meaningful on this issue since I was chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. While I was 
chairman, I held a number of oversight hearings on the implementation 
of the streamlining provisions included in TEA-21. Although I have not 
introduced any amendments on this matter, I look forward to continuing 
to work with my colleagues on this issue as this bill moves forward. It 
takes too long to build a highway in the United States.

  I do want to mention an area where I think we have made good 
progress. This is with the section 4(f) provisions of the bill. Last 
Congress, I proposed an amendment on this after working with a 
bipartisan and diverse group to develop a compromise such as the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials. I am pleased these 
provisions are included in this bill as the process has caused more 
delay in my State than any other planning or environmental review 
requirement. This is a requirement of Federal law in terms of where you 
can put a highway, in terms of areas that involve historical places or 
parks and so forth. As a result of that, it has slowed down our ability 
to move forward with highway construction.
  As I mentioned, the 4(f) reforms are a true compromise--not far 
enough for some and perhaps too far for others. I have numerous 
examples of this cumbersome process. I will not go into them tonight.
  I urge my colleagues who have concerns with these provisions to 
contact me so I can discuss the problem and how we reach a balanced 
solution.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill and the cloture motion filed 
on it. The current surface transportation authorization expires at the 
end of the month. We have to get this bill out of the Senate now. I 
urge my colleagues to work to achieve that, get it into conference, get 
it done, get it passed, get the President to sign it, and let's make 
sure that what APTA predicts doesn't happen, and that is, if we don't 
get this bill passed, we are going to lose 90,000 jobs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes 
today to talk about the Transportation reauthorization bill before us 
and why I believe it is necessary to pass a transportation bill before 
the authorization ends on May 31, 2005.
  The Transportation reauthorization bill is a jobs bill. According to 
the U.S. Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new 
infrastructure investment creates 47,500 new jobs: 26,500 of 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.
  Improving our transportation infrastructure is one of the critical 
things we can do to create jobs.
  My State, California, needs a robust transportation bill to help 
clean the air, ease congestion on the roads, and create jobs. However, 
I do have some concerns about this bill.
  As a representative of a donor State, I am extremely disappointed 
that so many States are still being asked to give more than they 
receive in Federal transportation dollars. I believe that this bill 
does not adequately address the problems of donor States like my State 
of California.
  California currently has a 90.5 percent rate of return. In other 
words, for every dollar California sends to Washington, it gets back 
only 90 \1/2\ cents for maintenance and improvement of our highways.
  Transportation is the backbone of California's economy. Our seaports 
handle about half of all cargo that comes into the United States, and 
the State is also home to two of the nation's busiest ports--Los 
Angeles/Long Beach and Oakland.
  Three-quarters of all goods shipped from California's ports are now 
transported by truck along California's roads.
  We need our roads to be equipped to handle the flow of these goods 
and the truck traffic that comes with it.
  Regrettably, these roads are in desperate need of repair. More than 
70 percent of California's major local and State road miles are rated 
in poor or mediocre condition-compared with a national average of 28 
percent--and 38 percent of the State's overpasses and bridges are 
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
  As a result, California's 21 million motorists pay an average of $555 
each, or a total of $12 billion, in extra vehicle operating costs 
annually. These costs include wasted fuel, pothole damage, and 
shortened vehicle lifespan.
  At the same time, travel on California's roads nearly doubled between 
1980 and 2000, while the population increased only 42 percent.
  We are all familiar with pictures of California's gridlock--cars 
sitting on our freeways, moving at a snail's pace.
  The facts bear out the images. Out of the top five congested urban 
areas in the Nation, California has three. Los Angeles is the most 
congested, followed by San Francisco-Oakland. San Diego is the fifth 
most congested area in the country.
  In LA County, 85 percent of freeway lane miles are congested, and Los 
Angeles motorists waste 177 hours a year per driver.
  Traffic congestion in California costs motorists $20.7 billion 
annually in lost time and fuel. And with rising fuel costs, that total 
is only going to increase.
  I am also concerned with the Senate bill's changes to the Congestion 
Management and Air Quality Improvement Program, or CMAQ. The CMAQ 
formula currently apportions funds to states based on the severity of 
ozone and carbon monoxide pollution. The Senate bill proposes to change 
the formula so that CMAQ awards to areas with ozone pollution, 
regardless of the severity of that pollution.
  The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority--LAMTA--estimates that 
this ``one-size fits all'' approach could cost California as much as 
$160 million in CMAQ grants over 4 years.
  This change is a huge problem for California. California has six non-
attainment areas for air quality, and 70 percent of the State in the 
reformulated gasoline program because our air is so dirty.
  In addition, according to a study by the American Lung Association in 
2004, nine of the twenty smoggiest cities in the United States are 
located in my home State, California.
  California needs the CMAQ funds to pay for highway enhancements to 
ease the flow of traffic and reduce the amount of time trucks and cars 
are idling and spewing pollution into the air.
  California also relies heavily on public transportation, and the bill 
needs to adequately fund mass transit programs.
  California has some of the largest regional transportation systems in 
the country including Bay Area Rapid Transit--BART, CalTrain--the rail 
service between San Francisco and San Jose, and Metrolink--Southern 
California's regional transit system.
  These programs help reduce the number of cars on the road, which in 
turn, reduces air pollution, and decreases the amount of time my 
constituents have to spend commuting every day.
  Californians are facing a serious dilemma. Without adequate Federal 
highway dollars, local communities will not be able to eliminate 
bottlenecks on highways and make necessary air quality improvements. As 
a result,

[[Page S4859]]

they will remain out of conformity with Federal air quality 
regulations, and will lose even more Federal highway dollars. This is a 
never-ending cycle and has failed to make any strides in helping reduce 
our air pollution.
  That is why I support toll roads as an option to provide the needed 
revenue to make improvements to our roads. I am pleased that the Senate 
bill includes a toll road pilot program and hope that the program is 
flexible enough to allow the State to use the tolls to meet its goods 
movement infrastructure needs.
  I would also ask the Environment and Public Works Committee to 
consider an amendment that would allow tolling revenue in extreme non-
attainment areas to be used to mitigate air quality impacts that are 
imposed upon those communities by heavy duty trucks moving goods from 
California's ports to areas throughout the country.
  I am also pleased that the bill will allow hybrid vehicles access to 
high occupancy vehicle--HOV--lanes. Without this authorization, 
California and other States, such as Arizona, Virginia, Colorado, and 
Georgia will lose their Federal highway dollars by implementing their 
own State laws to allow hybrids to access these lanes.
  This provision would increase traffic mobility and also serves as an 
important incentive to get more hybrids on the road, an innovative 
solution to reduce our dependence on oil.
  I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for including language 
in the bill that would require the Department of Transportation to 
conduct a study of predatory towing practices. Tow truck companies act 
without any local, State or Federal regulation. While most are good 
actors, there are a few that have taken advantage of the lack of 
regulation to prey on consumers. This has become a huge problem 
throughout California, and in other areas including Virginia and 
Arizona. This study will determine the impact of predatory towing 
practices and propose potential remedies to dealing with them.
  While I have concerns about the fairness of the funding formulas, I 
also realize that without a transportation bill, California's 
communities will lack the money they need to plan major infrastructure 
projects. As a result, I plan to support this bill and hope that the 
conferees will keep in mind the needs of the donor States such as 
California.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like the Record to indicate that 
yesterday I was necessarily absent for the vote on the Talent amendment 
to the Highway bill, but had I been present I would have voted in favor 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________