[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.
____________________