[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5265-S5282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now going to 
the Sessions amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there is a unanimous 
consent to have 2 minutes, 1 minute on each side. I prefer to have 
more. I ask unanimous consent we have 3 minutes on each side.
  Mr. INHOFE. I object. Two minutes on each side.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Two minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I offer Senator Lautenberg a moment to 
make a statement. He has been working with us on his amendment. It has 
been withdrawn.
  I certainly yield to Senator Lautenberg for no more than 5 minutes.


                     Amendment No. 619, as Modified

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the recognition. I will 
talk about my amendment No. 619 to crack down on our most dangerous, 
highest risk drunk drivers--repeat-offender, high-blood-alcohol-content 
drivers, drivers who have had so much to drink they have nearly double 
the legal limit of alcohol in their system.
  I am proud to have the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, as a cosponsor 
of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent Senator Corzine be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Our amendment updates the current Federal repeat 
offender law so that it can be based on measures that have been proven 
to be effective in preventing drunk driving. It requires alcoholism 
assessments and treatment when necessary. It would require a 1-year 
license suspension with at least 45 days of no driving. The rest 
requires the use of an ignition interlock, a device that only lets the 
car operate when you blow into it and no alcohol is detected.
  As for repeat offenders, it keeps current requirements for short-term 
jail time, closes a loophole for community service. The National 
Transportation Safety Board states that from 1983 through 1998 at least 
137,000 people died in crashes nationwide involving higher risk drunk 
drivers. The research funded by the alcohol industry itself showed that 
58 percent of alcohol-related deaths in 2000 involved drivers with BAC 
levels of .15 or above. That is outrageous. That person is totally 
without ability to function properly. This is consistent with 
government research that shows for drivers 35 and over, those with a 
.15 BAC or higher, they are 382 times more likely to be involved in a 
fatal crash than a sober driver.
  It is important to note that our amendment does not create any new 
penalties for States. It merely updates the current program.
  Our amendment does not affect a social drinker and is aimed squarely 
at higher risk drivers who are the core of the drunk-driving problem in 
this country. The National Transportation Safety Board, the Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving, and even groups funded by the alcohol industry, 
all agree we need to do more when it comes to repeat offenders and 
drivers with blood alcohol content levels twice the legal limit.
  I understand the managers of the bill have agreed to accept the 
amendment as modified. I am grateful. I thank the managers, Senator 
Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and Senator Baucus, for working 
with Senator DeWine and me. The amendment will make a meaningful 
difference in the number of lives we save each year from the epidemic 
of drunk driving.
  In my early days in the Senate when President Reagan was in office, 
when Senator Dole was then-Secretary of Transportation, we put in a 
restriction on age and driving, age on alcohol and driving. We have 
saved 1,000 young people from dying on the highways every year for more 
than 20 years.
  What a wonderful thing it is for a family not having to mourn the 
loss of a child, not having to see a policeman at the door in the dark 
of night.

[[Page S5266]]

  MADD has been a stalwart ally. Together we will continue to save 
lives. I am very grateful to Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and the 
committee for their support on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the distinguished junior Senator from 
Alabama, one of my closest friends, made a very reasonable request for 
6 minutes equally divided. If he wants to restate the request, it is 
without objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 6 minutes to 
be equally divided for debate before this vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 646, as Modified

  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished chairman. He is one of my 
favorite Senators. There is no one I respect more. He has worked hard, 
and so has the committee, to maximize what we can do to improve 
transportation infrastructure in this country. I respect that.
  The problem is, we have passed a budget. The facts are that in 
pumping more money into highways--which all Members want to see, as 
this bill does--we have created a $10.7 billion shortfall. The offsets 
are revenue enhancements or tax increases that have been proposed 
either are unlikely to reach that $10.7 billion and/or will not be 
approved by the House of Representatives. That is a pretty well-known 
fact.
  In addition, the President has stated he is not going to sign the 
bill. He started out at $256 billion. He went to $283 billion, and that 
is where he is going to stay.
  What can we do to improve funding for highways, which affect every 
State, every corner of this country, not just certain areas? I proposed 
an amendment that I believe does the right thing. It does what our 
constituents pay us to do, and that is to make choices, make decisions.
  I have proposed where the bill has a 31-percent increase in spending, 
we alter that; that we reduce the increased level of spending for 
matters not critical to our infrastructure; that we reduce the mass 
transit part of the bill by about $5 billion, still leaving an increase 
in mass transit spending.
  We can get there. We can be sure the money we spent for highways will 
be sufficient, the President will sign the bill, and we will be 
fiscally responsible and be within our budget.
  We are spending almost $300 billion. Can't we stay within the budget? 
Can't we be fiscally responsible and tight in how we spend this money?
  My amendment reduces some of the increases in the other accounts, 
including mass transit. By the way, 46 percent of the mass transit 
funds are spent on four States in this country alone, and that does not 
count $8 billion in bureaucracy and overhead that goes with that in 
research. This would be the right approach.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Inhofe, for his work on the bill. I 
know he has tried to do the impossible, which is to get more and more 
for our highways without having to bust the budget. I am afraid that is 
what we are doing. If we do this, we will fund highways for every State 
in the country. We will put the money where we need to, in concrete, so 
that every citizen can use for 100 years from now. The result is good 
for our budget and our integrity as we go through this process.
  This is the first big bill that deals with a budget conflict. We do 
not need to fail a test on the first piece of legislation.
  I thank Senator Inhofe for allowing me the additional time. I believe 
this is an important amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote fiscally 
responsibly, to affirm the budget, and pass legislation that will give 
us highway spending levels that we want and that the President will 
sign.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, several days ago, 76 Members of this 
body voted to support additional investment in this Nation's surface 
transportation program.
  They did not vote for an extravagant increase, instead they voted for 
a modest 4 percent increase over the President's request. With this 
modest increase, we will barely be able to keep pace with the enormous 
maintenance needs facing our surface transportation system with little 
left over for improvement.
  Now the junior Senator from Alabama asks to return to an inadequate 
level of investment.
  He asks the American family to waste additional time and money stuck 
in traffic. He asks us to vote to let more of our Nation's roads and 
bridges fall into a state of disrepair--all over a modest 4 percent 
increase.
  I will vote against the Sessions amendment and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have a unanimous consent request to make. I ask 
unanimous consent that Lautenberg amendment No. 619 be modified with 
the changes at the desk and be accepted. Further, I ask that upon 
disposition of the Sessions amendment, the Inhofe substitute amendment, 
as amended, be agreed to, all without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 619), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       Strike section 1403 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1403. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR HIGHER-RISK DRIVERS 
                   DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED OR DRIVING UNDER THE 
                   INFLUENCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 164 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 164. Increased penalties for higher-risk drivers 
       driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Blood alcohol concentration.--The term `blood alcohol 
     concentration' means grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of 
     blood or the equivalent grams of alcohol per 210 liters of 
     breath.
       ``(2) Driving while intoxicated; driving under the 
     influence.--The terms `driving while intoxicated' and 
     `driving under the influence' mean driving or being in actual 
     physical control of a motor vehicle while having a blood 
     alcohol concentration above the permitted limit as 
     established by each State.
       ``(3) Higher-risk impaired driver law.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `higher-risk impaired driver 
     law' means a State law that provides, as a minimum penalty, 
     that--
       ``(i) an individual described in subparagraph (B) shall--

       ``(I) receive a driver's license suspension;
       ``(II)(aa) have the motor vehicle driven at the time of 
     arrest impounded or immobilized for not less than 45 days; 
     and
       ``(bb) for the remainder of the license suspension period, 
     be required to install a certified alcohol ignition interlock 
     device on the vehicle;
       ``(III)(aa) be subject to an assessment by a certified 
     substance abuse official of the State that assesses the 
     degree of abuse of alcohol by the individual; and
       ``(bb) be assigned to a treatment program or impaired 
     driving education program, as determined by the assessment 
     and paid for by the individual; and
       ``(IV) be imprisoned for not less than 10 days, or have an 
     electronic monitoring device for not less than 100 days; and

       ``(ii) an individual who is convicted of driving while 
     intoxicated or driving under the influence with a blood 
     alcohol concentration level of 0.15 percent or greater 
     shall--

       ``(I) receive a driver's license suspension; and
       ``(II)(aa) be subject to an assessment by a certified 
     substance abuse official of the State that assesses the 
     degree of abuse of alcohol by the individual; and
       ``(bb) be assigned to a treatment program or impaired 
     driving education program, as determined by the assessment 
     and paid for by the individual.

       ``(B) Covered individuals.--An individual referred to in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) is an individual who--
       ``(i) is convicted of a second or subsequent offense for 
     driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence 
     within a period of 7 consecutive years; or
       ``(ii) is convicted of a driving-while-suspended offense, 
     if the suspension was the result of a conviction for driving 
     under the influence.
       ``(4) License suspension.--The term `license suspension' 
     means, for a period of not less than 1 year--
       ``(A) the suspension of all driving privileges of an 
     individual for the duration of the suspension period; or
       ``(B) a combination of suspension of all driving privileges 
     of an individual for the first 45 days of the suspension 
     period, followed by reinstatement of limited driving 
     privileges requiring the individual to operate only motor 
     vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock system or other 
     device approved by the Secretary during the remainder of the 
     suspension period.
       ``(5) Motor vehicle.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `motor vehicle' means a vehicle 
     driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways.

[[Page S5267]]

       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `motor vehicle' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) a vehicle operated solely on a rail line; or
       ``(ii) a commercial vehicle.
       ``(b) Transfer of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), on 
     October 1, 2008, and each October 1 thereafter, if a State 
     has not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired 
     driver law, the Secretary shall transfer an amount equal to 3 
     percent of the funds apportioned to the State on that date 
     under paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) to the 
     apportionment of the State under section 402 to be used in 
     accordance with section 402(a)(3) only to carry out impaired 
     driving programs.
       ``(2) Nationwide traffic safety campaigns.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) reserve 25 percent of the funds that would otherwise 
     be transferred to States for a fiscal year under paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) use the reserved funds to make law enforcement 
     grants, in connection with nationwide traffic safety 
     campaigns, to be used in accordance with section 
     402(a)(3).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 164 and inserting the 
     following:

``164. Increased penalties for higher-risk drivers driving while 
              intoxicated or driving under the influence.''.

  The amendment (No. 605), as amended, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 646, as modified

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in these 2 minutes, let me suggest two 
things I don't want to happen. I don't want my good friends who are 
conservatives on the Republican side to vote for this Sessions 
amendment with the idea that this is a conservative amendment. If you 
want to prove yourself and your conservative credentials as this being 
the way to do it, it is not.
  I am looking at the current rating of the American Conservative 
Union. I am very proud of Senator Sessions because he is the ninth most 
conservative Member of this Senate. But guess who the No. 1 most 
conservative is. It is me. I stand here opposing--though I hate to do 
it--this amendment for that one reason.
  The second reason is, this is very important. Inadvertently, I know 
it was not the intent of the Senator from Alabama, they omitted the 
wrong sections. So the sections of title I they amended are section 
1101 and 1103 and nothing in title III. If you want to give guaranteed 
spending, you have to get to title III or section 102 of title I. That 
is where it is.
  So all we have done with this amendment is attempt to reduce the 
contract authority which does not make any difference in terms of how 
much money is going to be spent. It is very important for people to 
understand that because I would not want them to be thinking you will 
be able to reduce something by doing it.
  Second, the other point I want to make is, we have a Finance 
Committee. It is headed by Senator Grassley, and the ranking minority 
is Senator Baucus. They have done a great job. We have gone to them 
with this bill and said we need to be able to pay for this, but we need 
a little bit more money. Can you find it? They found it.
  The Joint Tax Committee validated what they said and, consequently, 
we have something that will not add to the deficit. It will do a little 
better job of taking care of donor States that will not be taken care 
of if this amendment should pass. I ask Members respectfully to reject 
the Sessions amendment.
  Have the yeas and nays been requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 646, as modified. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 16, nays 84, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                                YEAS--16

     Brownback
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     McCain
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Thomas

                                NAYS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 646), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Rail Crossing Safety Funding

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill that we are 
considering has provisions to address this Nation's problems of grade 
crossings and the need for grade separations.
  According to the Federal Railroad Administration, ``grade crossings 
are the site of the greatest number of collisions and injuries'' in the 
railroad industry. In 2000, there were 3,502 incidents at grade 
crossings.
  This year in Glendale, CA, there was a tragic commuter train crash 
that resulted in 11 deaths and more than 200 injured.
  In addition, the large volume of freight train traffic from 
California's ports to the rest of the Nation is a public safety hazard 
in many communities in California where traffic--including emergency 
vehicles--is severely delayed at these grade crossings.
  In Riverside, CA, from January 2001 to January 2003, trains delayed 
ambulance and fire protection vehicles 88 times. This translates into 
more people possibly dying from health emergencies such as heart 
attacks, and larger and more deadly fires. If there is another 
terrorist attack, imagine what would happen if emergency first 
responders could not get across the tracks.
  That is why I am pleased that this bill includes my language to 
require the Federal Railroad Administration to make recommendations to 
Congress on ways to fix this.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes funding that States may use 
to separate railroad tracks and roads, and I am wondering whether the 
Senator from Missouri would enter into a colloquy on this matter.
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to. And let me say that I agree with the Senator 
from California that there is a serious problem with grade crossings in 
this country, and I commend her for her leadership on this issue.
  Mrs. BOXER. As I understand it, the Freight Transportation Gateways 
program has a provision--the ``Freight Intermodal Connections on the 
National Highway System''--that would allow States to use a portion of 
their highway funds to build bridges and tunnels for grade separations. 
California would receive $73 million each year.
  Mr. BOND. Yes, this program would allow California--and all States--
to use 2 percent of its National Highway System funding for three 
purposes, one of which is to eliminate grade crossings.
  Mrs. BOXER. A second provision is the ``Elimination of Hazards 
Relating to Railway-Highway Crossings,'' which provides at least a $178 
million set-aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program each year 
for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings. Does this 
include projects on grade separations?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, up to 50 percent of this funding could be used for 
grants specifically for grade separations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Finally, there is a third provision that authorizes 
grants for rail line relocation projects. This would create a grant 
program that would allow States to receive funding to improve rail 
lines that pass through a municipality. This includes projects on grade 
separation. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am

[[Page S5268]]

pleased that Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye included this 
provision.
  These provisions are a good start. I hope to continue to work with my 
colleague to ensure that Federal funding is available to help States 
and localities undertake grade separation projects so we can improve 
safety and relieve congestion where railroads and highways meet.
  Mr. BOND. I will be happy to continue working with the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.


                      Reinforced concrete decking

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will discuss steel grid reinforced 
concrete decking--a product that I understand to have significant 
technological benefits and the ability to accomplish the goals of 
bridge and highway officials across the country. I am told that the 
following are benefits of steel grid: long service life; rapid and/or 
staged installation; and reduced maintenance costs and closures. 
Despite these benefits, states are hesitant to use steel grid 
reinforced concrete decking because of the initial cost per square foot 
of steel grid. However, because of construction benefits and the fact 
that steel grid weighs much less than the cast-in-place deck 
alternative, it is my understanding that using this product can reduce 
the total cost of a project. Because this type of deck system is 
underused, I urge your support for language in the conference report 
that highlights the benefits of steel grid and encourages the further 
development and use of this product.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
his attention to steel grid reinforced concrete decking and the 
potential it holds. I look forward to working with Senator Santorum on 
this issue.


                   direct deliveries of aviation fuel

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the 
chairman of the Finance Committee.
  I am concerned about the application of one of the fuel tax 
provisions of the JOBS bill. Some people were cheating, by paying no 
tax on aviation fuel and then selling the fuel for highway use. To 
prevent this, we moved the collection point upstream, to the point at 
which fuel is removed from the rack.
  At the same time, we created exceptions, for situations where there 
is little risk of evasion. One important exception is for fuel 
delivered by pipeline to a secure airport that goes from a secure fuel 
tank at an airport terminal directly into a commercial aircraft.
  Here is the problem. Fuel suppliers often enter into long-term 
contracts to deliver fuel throughout an entire region. In some cases, 
they don't have their own fuel tanks at a particular airport. So the 
company enters into a contract with a fuel supplier, referred to as a 
``position holder,'' who does have fuel available at that airport. In 
these cases, when planes come in for refueling, the legal title to the 
fuel shifts from the position holder to the reseller, then to the 
airline when the fuel goes into the commercial aircraft.
  The concern is that situations like this may be disqualified from the 
exception because some believe the passage of title means that the fuel 
is not considered to go ``directly'' from the position holder to the 
commercial aircraft. As a result, the transaction could be subject to 
the burdens of the new rules even though I believe there is absolutely 
no risk of evasion.
  In the chairman's markup, I filed an amendment to address this 
concern by clarifying that these so-called ``flash title'' transactions 
qualify for the exception, as long as they meet all of the other 
applicable requirements. I understand, however, that some believe my 
amendment was unnecessary because the transactions could already 
qualify.
  This is an important matter to me. It affects many companies, 
including a Salem, OR, company that employs more than 100 people and 
provides an important service to airlines throughout my State.
  I would like to get a clarification of this point. Is it the 
chairman's  understanding that a transaction that otherwise qualifies 
for the exception in section 4081(a)(2)(C) and 4081(a)(3) and (4), 
which allows commercial aviation to self-assess fuel tax at the 
commercial rate, when the commercial airline receives fuel at one of 
the secure airports through the hydrant system exception, is not 
disqualified merely because of the incidental transfer of title from 
the original position holder to the reseller, and then to the 
commercial airline?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, so long as the commercial airline fuel transaction 
takes place on one of the secure airports listed by the Treasury, then, 
that also is my understanding.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, with that understanding, I thank Chairman 
Grassley for his assistance in this matter. It is important in order to 
avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on companies in Oregon and all 
across the country that provide aviation fuel.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the surface transportation reauthorization 
bill that was reported out of the Environment and Public Works 
committee increased Michigan's rate of return on all highway funds 
apportioned to States to 92 percent of our share of contributions to 
the highway account of the highway trust fund. However, a significant 
change in the funding formula was made through a substitute offered on 
the Senate floor which resulted in over $8 billion in apportioned 
highway funds being added to the bill to help certain States, including 
some donor States. The rate of return for all States on that $8 billion 
ranges from 37 percent to 550 percent. Under the substitute bill, 
Michigan receives the lowest rate of return of all States on the 
distribution of that new money. Only 12 States have a rate of return on 
this new money that is below 90 percent.
  In recognition of Michigan's disproportionately low share of the new 
funding, the mangers gave assurances that corrective measures would be 
considered before the bill was passed by the Senate.
  While a solution has not been identified yet, I would appreciate the 
assurances of the managers that in conference they will make every 
effort to address and correct this disproportionate treatment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I understand and appreciate the Senator's concerns. While 
I cannot make any guarantees on a final outcome, I will continue to 
work to see if there is a way to address the critical needs of his 
State.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with the comments made by my colleague, the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I understand 
the concerns raised by the Senator from Michigan. I appreciate his 
leadership and knowledge of transportation issues and I will continue 
to work with him as this bill progresses.


                         household goods movers

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to discuss 2 amendments to the 
Commerce Committee's title of this bill addressing the regulation of 
the household goods moving industry. The Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation and Merchant Marine, which I chair, developed a strong 
package to provide further protections to consumers that use movers to 
ship their belongings. Principally, our provisions are designed to 
address fraudulent and extortionary practices used by movers who take 
consumers' goods ``hostage'' and request exorbitant fees in exchange 
for releasing their worldly possessions.
  Mr. INOUYE. These protections are needed because, while the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, assumed the regulatory 
duties for the household goods moving industry previously entrusted to 
the Interstate Commerce Commission, inadequate Federal statutory 
protections and limited resources have meant that the interstate moving 
industry has essentially gone without oversight. FMCSA has received 
nearly 20,000 consumer complaints since January 2001, and yet until 
recently has had only one or two employees dedicated to household goods 
regulation and enforcement for the entire nation.
  Mr. LOTT. Senators Bond and Pryor have filed amendments to this 
section of the bill dealing with 2 important issues and I want to thank 
them for their hard work and interest in this topic. Senator Inouye and 
I worked with Senator Bond to craft a version of his amendment which I 
have offered and we are prepared to accept Senator Pryor's amendment 
with the understanding that we will continue to work together to 
perfect these provisions through the conference process with the House.
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes, we understand that both Senators have a very strong 
interest in these provisions, and while I have concerns with the 
changes that

[[Page S5269]]

Senator Bond is proposing which I believe could significantly limit the 
authority of our State attorneys general in assisting the Federal 
Government in enforcing these new protections for moving company 
consumers, we are prepared to accept this language and make a 
commitment to work with both Senators to improve their provisions 
moving forward.
  Mr. LOTT. Similarly, I know that Senator Bond has concerns with the 
language proposed by Senator Pryor that defines who ``household goods 
carriers'' are, and therefore who is subject to the new consumer 
regulations we've proposed. In particular, the Senator is concerned 
that this definition could impact traditional moving companies' entry 
into new markets, such as the ``u-pack'' and ``pod'' moving and storage 
services being offered today which might not be covered by this 
definition. We understand these concerns and will continue to work with 
Senator Bond to ensure that we craft a fair and workable definition of 
a ``household goods carrier'' through the conference process.
  Mr. BOND. I thank Senators Lott and Inouye for their commitments to 
address this issue in conference. I also raise my concerns with the 
amendment offered by Senator Pryor to define the term ``household goods 
motor carrier.'' Definitions matter, and in this case, meeting the 
definition of a ``household goods carrier'' subjects the carrier to 
certain existing and new regulations that others who do not meet that 
definition do not have to provide. At the same time, I support 
excluding express delivery and parcel delivery carriers from the 
definition of ``household goods carrier.'' As currently drafted, 
however, I am concerned that the amendment would make it substantially 
more difficult for an established moving company to enter one of these 
new markets in which consumers are provided a trailer or container 
which they pack themselves and which the company then transports for 
them. The definition, as now offered by Senator Pryor, would mean that 
an existing moving company would be subject to these new regulations 
while others who offer these services, but do not provide traditional 
moving services, would not be. As this bill moves to conference with 
the House, I am committed to working with the managers of this title to 
find a definition that is accurate and fair and that covers the 
universe of services that are being offered to consumers who are 
planning interstate moves of household goods.
  Mr. PRYOR. I understand the Senator's concerns and the intent of my 
amendment is not to restrict competition or new entrants into the 
marketplace, but to ensure that we focus our resources on the problem 
as we now know it. I'll be glad to work with you to perfect this 
definition so that we can properly protect consumers while also 
ensuring a fair and open market place for the many different services 
now being offered.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's commitment, and I also offer to 
work with you and Senator Lott and Inouye in conference on the 
amendment regarding procedures for allowing State attorneys general to 
pursue enforcement actions against interstate household goods movers in 
federal court. This amendment, which I have worked out with the 
managers and is being offered by Senator Lott, establishes an approval 
process for actions taken by State attorneys general by the Secretary 
of Transportation before the AGs proceed in court. The amendment is 
critical because it establishes a responsible framework with a 
delineation of responsibilities to the States. The efforts of State 
governments should be focused on investigating and prosecuting those 
carriers that are too small or cases of fraud that are too isolated to 
cause a Federal response. At the same time, Federal agencies should be 
pursuing complaints of fraudulent activities by large and established 
carriers. By focusing our enforcement efforts along these lines, we 
will leverage our resources which will improve the effectiveness of the 
response to fraud and abuse in the household goods moving industry and 
ensure that no carrier slips through the cracks. The amendment also 
will ensure that State cases are legitimate and properly prepared. In 
addition, the amendment provides intervention and substitution 
authority for the Secretary if the Secretary believes that Federal 
Government would be in a better position to prosecute the case.
  Mr. PRYOR. As a former State attorney general and the ranking member 
of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and 
Insurance Subcommittee, I have significant concerns with this approach. 
I believe the amendment proposes a significant departure from precedent 
and establishes hurdles that could dissuade State attorneys general 
from proceeding with their cases, to the detriment of consumers. 
Allowing State attorneys general to enforce Federal laws and 
regulations with respect to the transportation of household goods in 
interstate commerce is perhaps the most important aspect of these 
provisions, since I believe that State attorneys general are much more 
likely than the Federal Government to doggedly pursue justice for their 
citizens in these cases.
  Mr. INOUYE. I want to thank both Senators for their cooperation on 
these matters. Senator Bond raises a good point regarding the 
definition and we understand that this is a complex issue which will 
require further work by all involved.
  Mr. LOTT. Senator Pryor and Senator Bond, we understand your 
respective concerns and will work with you on these two issues as we 
hopefully proceed with his bill in Conference.


                              clean trucks

  Mrs. BOXER. President, my amendment begins the process of putting all 
trucks operating in the United States, including those from Mexico, on 
an equal footing for emission standards with American trucks. Beginning 
in 2007, all trucks, including foreign trucks, operating in the U.S., 
will have to certify that they are meeting the performance emission 
standards of the Clean Air Act--the type of standards that American 
trucks have been required to meet for years. This provision will comply 
with our trade laws and help improve our air quality by assuring that 
foreign trucks are meeting our emissions protections. I thank the 
Senators from Mississippi and Hawaii for working with me on this 
amendment and for agreeing to accept it.
  However, I believe it is only a start. I would have liked to include 
a provision requiring rebuilt engines to meet the standards in effect 
at the time the engines were manufactured. Such a provision would have 
covered more foreign trucks and ensured even cleaner air.
  I understand the complications with including such a provision now, 
and I hope we can address this in Conference.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from California for her leadership. I 
understand what she was trying to do with regard to rebuilt engines. 
However, such a provision would require additional regulations from the 
Environmental Protection Agency, which is outside the jurisdiction of 
the Commerce Committee. With all committees at the table during 
conference, we can look at ways to address this issue.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the chairman, and I say to the Senator from 
California that you have my commitment to look into this issue as we 
hopefully proceed with this bill through conference. That will be the 
appropriate time to bring this additional matter to the table.
  Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate your help on this issue, and I thank both 
Senators for agreeing to continue to address this issue.


                PM-10 and the CMAQ Apportionment Formula

  Mr. KYL. The legislation before us amends the apportionment formula 
for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, CMAQ, program to include 
non-attainment and maintenance areas for fine particulate matter, so-
called PM 2.5, and to make adjustments for the new 8-hour ozone 
standard. It does not amend the formula, however, to include non-
attainment and maintenance areas for PM-10 particulate matter. Would 
the senior Senator from Oklahoma be willing to explore the question of 
whether the CMAQ apportionment formula should include factors for this 
Federal air quality standard as well?
  Mr. INHOFE. I would.
  Mr. KYL. I appreciate the Senator's openness to exploring that 
question. PM-10 is the greatest air quality problem facing Arizona. 
There are currently 8 PM-10 non-attainment areas in Arizona and the 
Phoenix metropolitan area is a serious non-attainment area for PM-10. 
Our CMAQ apportionment should reflect and help us address our

[[Page S5270]]

PM-10 air quality problem. Do I have the Senator's assurance that he 
and his colleagues are open to considering including PM-10 as part of 
the CMAQ apportionment formula?
  Mr. INHOFE. I assure the Senator that I am willing to discuss with my 
fellow conferees the idea of including in the conference agreement on 
this legislation language adding PM-10 to the CMAQ apportionment 
formula.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator for his assurance and his consideration.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that Congress has worked in a 
bipartisan manner to pass a long overdue full transportation 
reauthorization, which has unfortunately been extended on a temporary 
basis six times and simply must be made permanent.
  I congratulate Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Minority Member Jeffords 
for their tireless efforts in moving forward one of the largest bills 
Congress will consider this year. I am sensitive to the fact that the 
current spending extension expires at the end of this month. Clearing 
this legislation through a House-Senate conference before the May 31 
deadline may be difficult, but I am hopeful we can move quickly. This 
is important because the bill will create approximately 47,500 jobs for 
every $1 billion in highway spending. This bill will also provide 
desperately needed funds for Utah roads and create jobs for many 
hardworking Utahns.
  Transportation is an issue in which all Utahns have a stake. Without 
a doubt, transportation plays a central role in the State's ability and 
opportunity to prosper economically. As Utah's population continues to 
grow, its highways are becoming more congested, negatively affecting 
Utah's ability to compete economically, and ultimately decreasing the 
quality of life for many of us.
  I am concerned that in 5 years, Utahns may be changing the term 
``rush hour'' to ``rough 2 hours'' because of the heavy congestion on 
our freeways. The Utah Department of Transportation--UDOT--estimates 
that in 10 years, peak congestion along the Wasatch front will increase 
from 1 hour in the morning and in the evening to more than 3 hours. The 
effect congestion has had on our quality of life is undeniable.
  Time after time I have visited with Utah officials who stress that 
our top priority must be transportation funding, because we simply do 
not have the money to meet the tremendous demands on our roads. Last 
year alone, the State of Utah received approximately $254 million in 
Federal transportation funding. In addition to the Federal funding 
received, the State of Utah spent over $520 million for transportation 
projects in 2004. Yet, UDOT maintains the state is unable to increase 
capacity or maintain existing infrastructure at this level of funding. 
Responding to Utah's serious transportation needs, I voted to increase 
total federal funding in the multi-year transportation bill by $11.2 
billion, which would raise Utah's portion from the $269 million 
originally included in the bill to $282 million. Utah desperately needs 
these funds to fight congestion.
  I am encouraged by the transportation projects planned for fiscal 
year 2006 for the State of Utah. This legislation may help us complete 
many transportation projects throughout Utah, including: new I-15 
interchanges in Ogden, Layton and Provo; commuter rail service from 
Ogden to Provo and light-rail lines to the airport and South Jordan; 
highway projects on US-6 in Carbon County and State Road 92 in Utah 
County; a railroad overpass in Kaysville; and building the Northern 
Corridor in St. George.
  This legislation also contains a provision that addresses an 
important competitive issue in the transportation sector. At my urging, 
Chairman Inhofe has agreed to include compromise language that allows 
qualified companies the opportunity to compete for Intelligent 
Transportation Infrastructure Program--ITIP--funding. I consider this a 
significant victory for small companies, and hope that House-Senate 
conferees will recognize the importance of providing a fair and level 
playing field for those wishing to access ITIP funds.
  Our Nation's transportation infrastructure is in dire need of 
improvement. I believe this legislation not only addresses these 
critical needs, but it will create thousands of job opportunities, 
fight traffic congestion, and improve the safety of our roads and 
bridges.
  As the bill moves to conference, it is my hope that we may come 
together with an adequately funded compromise. I pledge my efforts in 
this cause and hope my colleagues will do the same.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are about to vote on the highway bill. I 
believe we have a strong bill, a bipartisan bill.
  I thank Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Grassley, Senator 
Stevens, Senator Lott, and Senator Shelby for their hard work, 
dedication and leadership to get this bill passed. They have been 
instrumental to the process and deserve great credit.
  I also thank my colleagues Senator Jeffords, Senator Baucus, Senator 
Inouye, and Senator Sarbanes for their willingness to work 
cooperatively on this critical legislation.
  The highway bill is a result of a long, bipartisan process. It is 
based on more than 3 years of work, over a dozen hearings, testimony 
from more than 100 witnesses, and countless hours of negotiation. It is 
supported by a deep and broad coalition--from State and local highway 
authorities to national safety advocates.
  And in a few moments, we will finally deliver to the American people 
legislation that will help build and improve our vast and sprawling 
infrastructure.
  America is interlaced by nearly 4 million miles of roads and 
highways. The interstate highway system has often been called ``the 
greatest public works project in history.''
  Our roads, ports and railroads are vital to America's economic 
success. We know this well in Tennessee where companies like Federal 
Express, U.S. Express, and Averitt Express are located.
  Unfortunately, America's transportation infrastructure has 
deteriorated badly and our roads have become painfully overcrowded.
  Just ask any American commuter. There is bumper-to-bumper traffic, 
not just during rush hour, but all day long. In our Nation's urban 
areas, traffic delays have more than tripled over the last 20 years in 
small and big cities across the country.
  In my home State of Tennessee, traffic congestion has increased in 
all of our major metropolitan areas. Nashville commuters drive an 
average of 32 miles per person per day. Metropolitan planning 
organizations are struggling to meet demand.
  Because of this congestion, Americans suffer more than 3.6 billion 
hours in delays, and waste 5.7 billion gallons of fuel, per year, 
sitting in traffic.
  All the while creating more and more pollution. Cars caught in stop-
and-go traffic emit far more pollution than cars on smoothly flowing 
roads.
  The American Highway Users Alliance estimates that if we could free 
up America's worst bottlenecks, in 20 years, carbon dioxide emissions 
would drop by over three-fourths and Americans would save 40 billion 
gallons of fuel.
  The legislation before use seeks to alleviate these problems in a 
number of ways.
  In addition to improving our roads, the highway bill provides 
generous provisions to improve the buses and rail systems that make our 
urban centers thrive.
  For Tennessee, this legislation will dramatically increase Federal 
highway and transit spending and support economic development 
throughout the State.
  Tennessee, which is a donor State, will receive more than $800 
million on average each year to invest in its highway infrastructure. 
This represents nearly $4 billion over the next 5 years.
  The bill will also provide more than $296 million over the next 5 
years to improve transit for our rural and urban commuters, an increase 
of 166 percent over the last highway reauthorization bill.
  Tennessee's highways have consistently been ranked among the best and 
safest in the Nation, and these funds will help to reduce congestion, 
improve safety, and create thousands of new jobs.
  Our transportation infrastructure is estimated to be worth $1.75 
trillion. Every $1 billion we invest in transportation infrastructure 
generates more

[[Page S5271]]

than $2 billion in economic activity and 47,500 new jobs.
  I look forward to passing this critical legislation.
  We will need to work to resolve our differences with the House of 
Representatives so that we can send the President a bill that he can 
sign into law as quickly as possible. I am confident this can be done.
  The highway bill is a roads bill. It is a jobs bill. It promises to 
help improve every American driver's quality of life.
  I thank my colleagues in advance for, literally, keeping America 
moving forward.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to briefly describe my 
amendment No. 681, which includes modifications to section 1612 of the 
bill.
  I want to thank Senator Inhofe for cosponsoring the amendment, and 
Senators Bond, Jeffords, and Baucus for working with me on this 
important issue and this amendment.
  New air quality standards are driving a new round of air quality 
programs in many of our States. This is good for public health, and I 
strongly support these new standards. To meet these standards, I 
believe that new tools and strategies will be required.
  I believe that one example of a new strategy that works was 
demonstrated in my State of New York. Despite making great strides in 
reducing emissions from a variety of sources, New York City has not yet 
been able to meet the air quality standards in the Clean Air Act. We 
are getting there, but it is a tough job, and there is more to do.
  After the tragedy of September 11, it was clear that a large number 
of diesel-powered fleets and other diesel equipment would be operating 
around ground zero for many months. New York received emergency Federal 
funds to pay for those contractors. And, partly because they were being 
paid by Federal tax dollars, and partly because of New York's 
continuing struggle with air quality issues, diesel equipment operating 
at ground zero was required to be retrofitted with pollution control 
equipment, and some Federal funds were used to pay for the retrofits.
  Communities across New York and the country face similar challenges, 
in that emissions from diesel equipment involved in highway 
construction projects can put a temporary--but significant--increase in 
emissions in communities struggling to meet air quality standards.
  The amendment has three main provisions. First, it requires States to 
develop emission reduction strategies for fleets that are used in 
construction projects located in non-attainment and maintenance areas 
and are funded under this title. Second, it requires EPA to develop a 
non-binding guidance for the States to use in developing their emission 
reduction strategies. The guidance will include technical information 
on diesel retrofit technologies, suggestions on the methods for 
inclusion in the emission reductions strategies, and other information 
that Administrator of EPA, in consultation with the Secretary, 
determine to be appropriate. Third, it clarifies that States may use 
CMAQ funding to finance the deployment of diesel retrofit technology 
and other cost-effective solutions as part of the emission reduction 
strategies.
  I first introduced this provision as an amendment during the debate 
on the transportation bill last year. That original provision was 
included in the bill reported by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee earlier this year. During committee consideration of the 
bill, it came to my attention that the Association of General 
Contractors had concerns with the amendment. I am pleased to say that 
the chairman and I have worked with them to accommodate their concerns, 
and the revised section 1612 that this amendment contains reflects 
those negotiations. The Association of General Contractors now supports 
this provision, and has agreed to actively support it during the 
conference. I will ask unanimous consent that their letter of support 
be placed in the Record following my remarks.
  This amendment will also result in the cost-effective use of CMAQ 
funds. During the debate over the last reauthorization of the highway 
programs, Congress asked the Transportation Research Board of the 
National Academy of Sciences to assess the CMAQ programs. Specifically, 
Congress asked the board to report on whether CMAQ-funded projects are 
cost-effective relative to other strategies for reducing pollution and 
congestion.
  The Transportation Board reported its results in a 2002 Special 
Report 264, the CMAQ Improvement Program, Assessing 10 Years of 
Experience. The report concluded that `` strategies directly targeting 
emission reduction have generally been more cost-effective than 
attempts under CMAQ to change travel behavior.'' It recommended re-
authorization of the CMAQ Program with modifications to improve its 
cost-effectiveness and to enhance its performance in improving air 
quality. In addition, a recently completed report for the Emission 
Control Technology Association that builds on this report and other 
data reaches similar conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of diesel 
retrofits. I will also ask unanimous consent that this report be 
printed in the Record after my remarks.
  This amendment achieves both goals. It improves CMAQ cost-
effectiveness by authorizing states to use CMAQ to fund the deployment 
of diesel retrofits. These are new technologies that have been found by 
EPA, the Diesel Technologies Forum, and others to be very cost-
effective relative to other CMAQ-funded projects to improve air 
quality.
  The amendment will also enhance the performance of CMAQ in improving 
air quality by financing diesel retrofit technology that reduces 
emissions of fine particulate matter, the most serious airborne threat 
to human health today. This is a problem that everyone agrees is a top 
air pollution priority. It's why I feel so strongly about this 
amendment and have worked to fund the EPA's Clean School Bus USA 
program. Recognizing the seriousness of the problem, the administration 
has acted as well, promulgating the 2004 on-road heavy duty diesel 
regulations, the 2010 off-road diesel regulations, the Clean School Bus 
USA Program, the National Clean Diesel Campaign, and the newly-proposed 
Clean Diesel Initiative that is in the President's fiscal year 2006 
budget proposal.
  I am pleased that the Senate will adopt this amendment because I 
believe it will provide States with additional tools to achieve our 
Nation's air quality goals. Reducing diesel emissions from construction 
activities is often the most cost-effective way to improve air quality. 
This amendment will help make that happen do just that.
  I want to again thank Senators Inhofe, Bond, Jeffords, and Baucus for 
working with me.
  Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the material to which 
I referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     May 12, 2005.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Clinton: We appreciate your 
     leadership for including the diesel engine retrofit provision 
     (Section 1612) in the Senate's highway transportation bill 
     (S. 732). This provision is important to both the 
     construction and the mobile source emission control 
     technology industries that we represent.
       At your urging, the Associated General Contractors of 
     America (``AGC'') and the Emissions Control Technology 
     Association (``ECTA'') have been working together to develop 
     ideas for improving on Section 1612 so that it better 
     conforms to the current marketplace. The amendment that you 
     filed today to rewrite a portion of section 1612 reflects the 
     principles that we have jointly developed, and we believe it 
     is a substantial improvement over the underlying provision. 
     Your new proposal will better accomplish the original goals 
     of the legislation--to reduce pollution by spurring more 
     cost-effective use of funds from the Congestion Mitigation 
     and Air Quality Improvement Program.
       Both organizations strongly support your amendment and urge 
     that it be adopted during Senate consideration of the highway 
     bill. Should the Senate adopt the amendment as we hope, our 
     organizations are both committed to working with the 
     conferees to ensure that it is retained in the conference 
     report.
       We appreciate your leadership on this important issue, and 
     look forward to working

[[Page S5272]]

     closely with you to ensure that this important provision is 
     included in the highway bill that is sent to the President.
           Regards,
     Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
       Senior Executive Director, Government and Public Affairs, 
     The Associated General Contractors of America.
     Timothy J. Regan,
       President, Emissions Control Technology Association.
                                  ____


Cleaning the Air: Comparing the Cost Effectiveness of Diesel Retrofits 
                       vs. Current CMAQ Projects


  An Analysis Prepared for the Emission Control Technology Association

                         (By Robert F. Wescott)


                           Executive Summary

       A key goal of U.S. air pollution programs, including the 
     Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program created 
     in 1990, has been to clean the air in cities to improve 
     public health and lower medical costs. But while the CMAQ 
     program has emphasized reductions of carbon monoxide, 
     hydrocarbons, and ozone, recent research finds that the top 
     air pollution problem in urban areas today is fine 
     particulate matter, which is particles with a diameter of 2.5 
     micrometers or less (PM 2.5).
       This pollutant, PM 2.5, is a primary airborne 
     threat to human health today costing more than $100,000 per 
     ton in health costs. Researchers estimate that PM 
     2.5 is two to twenty times as harmful to human 
     health as nitrous oxide, more than one hundred times as 
     dangerous as ozone, and 2000 times as dangerous as carbon 
     monoxide on a per ton basis.
       Diesel engine exhaust is a source of PM 2.5 
     emissions in urban areas. Approximately one third of these 
     diesel emissions are due to on-road vehicles and about two 
     thirds are due to off-road equipment, such as construction 
     equipment.
       Diesel retrofit technology is currently available that is 
     highly effective at reducing PM 2.5 emissions. 
     Diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs) are well suited for 
     retrofitting older off-road vehicles and diesel particulate 
     filters (DPFs) are highly efficient at reducing these 
     pollutants where new low sulfur diesel fuels are available, 
     as is already the case in most urban areas.
       From the point of view of cost effectiveness, diesel 
     retrofits are superior to almost all current CMAQ strategies, 
     including ride-share programs, van-pool arrangements, HOV 
     lanes, traffic signalization, bike paths, and all strategies 
     that attempt to modify behavior (like encouraging 
     telecommuting.) Most of these CMAQ strategies cost $20,000 to 
     $100,000 per ton equivalent of pollutant removed, and some 
     cost as much as $250,000 per ton removed.
       Under conservative assumptions, diesel retrofits cost only 
     $5,340 per ton equivalent of pollutant removed, In fact, 
     among all CMAQ strategies, only emission inspection programs 
     appear to exceed the cost effectiveness of diesel retrofits.
       Expanding the range of CMAQ projects to include diesel 
     retrofits for construction equipment and off-road machinery 
     in urban areas could be a highly effective way to spend 
     public monies. More than 100 million Americans live in areas 
     of the country where PM 2.5 levels exceed the 
     EPA's guidelines.


                               Background

       Cleaning the air to improve human health and lower medical 
     costs has been an objective of U.S. government policy since 
     at least the Clean Air Act of 1970. Concerns about poor air 
     quality, especially in urban areas, led to the creation of 
     the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program in 
     1990, which has set aside a portion of transportation monies 
     for the past 15 years to fund innovative projects to reduce 
     carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, and smog in 
     so-called non-attainment areas. Vehicle emission inspection 
     programs, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) travel lanes, van pool 
     programs, park-and-ride lots, and bike paths are examples of 
     CMAQ projects.
       There has been significant progress in the past 35 years in 
     reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions and smog. 
     Scientists, however, have been able to identify new airborne 
     health risks whose costs are now becoming more fully 
     appreciated. Notably, particulate matter (PM) has been found 
     to have especially pernicious health effects in urban areas. 
     Increasingly it is becoming understood that diesel engine 
     emissions in urban areas, both from on-road trucks and buses 
     and from off-road construction and other equipment, are a 
     significant source of fine particulate matter pollution. This 
     leads to a number of questions:
       What is the current assessment of the top health risks from 
     air pollution from mobile sources in urban areas?
       What is the role of emissions from diesel engines?
       How does diesel retrofit technology to clean engine 
     emissions after combustion compare with current CMAQ projects 
     in terms of cost effectiveness?
       Are CMAQ funds currently being deployed in the most cost 
     effective manner possible?
       This paper examines these questions by reviewing the recent 
     scientific, environmental, economic, and health policy 
     literature.


                   The Health Costs of Air Pollution

       In the 1960s and 1970s they key health risks from air 
     pollution were deemed to come from carbon monoxide, 
     hydrocarbons (or volatile organic compounds, VOCs), nitrous 
     oxides (NOX), and smog, and early clean air 
     legislation naturally targeted these pollutants. During the 
     past ten years or so, however, researchers have identified 
     new pollutants from mobile sources that have particularly 
     harmful health effects, especially in urban areas. Top 
     concern today centers around particulate matter, and 
     especially on fine particulate matter. Fine particulates, 
     with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers 
     (PM2.5), can get trapped in the lungs and can 
     cause a variety of respiratory ailments similar to those 
     caused by coal dust in coal miners. A significant portion 
     of PM2.5 emissions in urban areas come from 
     off-road diesel equipment. According to analysis by the 
     California Air Resources Board, on-road engines account 
     for about 27% of PM emissions in California and off-road 
     equipment is responsible for about 60% of PM emissions.
       Analysis by Donald McCubbin and Mark Delucchi published in 
     the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy evaluates the 
     health costs of a kilogram of various air pollutants, 
     including CO, NOX PM2.5, sulfur oxides 
     (SOX), and VOCs. These researchers estimate health 
     costs from such factors as, hospitalization, chronic illness, 
     asthma attacks, and loss work days for the U.S. as a whole, 
     for urban areas, and for the Los Angeles basin. For urban 
     areas, they find the range of health costs per kilogram of CO 
     was from $0.01 to $0.10, NOX was from $1.59 to 
     $23.34, PM2.5 was from $14.81 to $225.36, 
     SOX was from $9.62 to $90.94, and VOCs was from 
     $0.13 to $1.45. Taking the mid-points of these estimates, a 
     kilogram of PM2.5 therefore was nearly 10 times 
     more costly from a health point of view than a kilogram of 
     NOX, more than 150 times more costly than a 
     kilogram of VOCs, and more than 2000 times more costly than a 
     kilogram of CO. On a per ton basis, a ton of PM2.5 
     causes $109,000 of health costs, a ton of NOX 
     costs $11,332, a ton of VOCs costs $718, and a ton of CO 
     costs $50.


                effectiveness of diesel retrofit filters

       Given the high health costs of PM2.5, 
     significant effort has gone into the development of 
     technological solutions to deal with the problem. The best 
     technologies involve the use of post-combustion filters with 
     a catalyzing agent, which together trap and break down 
     dangerous pollutants before they are emitted into the air. 
     All new diesel trucks will be required to use these 
     technologies by 2007 according to U.S. EPA rules, and off-
     road equipment will have to use these technologies by 2010. 
     (Rules require 95% reductions in emissions of several 
     pollutants, as well as a 97% cut in the sulfur levels in 
     diesel fuel.) However, given that the lifespan of a diesel 
     engine can be 20-30 years, it will take decades to completely 
     turn over America's diesel fleet. Therefore, by lowering 
     emissions from older diesels, retrofits are an effective path 
     to cleaner air over the next few decades.
       Diesel retrofit filters are highly effective at their chief 
     function: preventing dangerous pollutants from ever entering 
     the air. Diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs), at $1,000 to 
     $1,200 per retrofit, reduce PM by about 30% and can work with 
     current higher sulfur diesel fuels. This yields a large 
     benefit when installed on older, higher-polluting vehicles. 
     In addition to the PM reducing capabilities, these filters 
     can also cut the emission of carbon monoxide and volatile 
     hydrocarbons by more than 70%.
       Diesel particulate filters (DPFs), which generally cost 
     $4,000-$7,000 per engine, are far more efficient. They are 
     specifically targeted at keeping more dangerous PM out of the 
     air than DOCs. In fact, they can reduce PM2.5 
     pollution from each vehicle by more than 90%, yielding an 
     enormous cut in emissions over the life of the diesel engine, 
     even when installed on newer, cleaner diesel vehicles. An 
     additional requirement of DPFs, however, is that the vehicle 
     must run on newer very low sulfur fuels. High sulfur fuel 
     leads to sulfate emissions from the filter due to the very 
     active catalysts needed to make the filters function 
     properly. Thus, DPFs are most effective as a solution for 
     vehicles in urban areas--such as construction equipment and 
     urban fleets--where very low sulfur fuels are already 
     available.
       These technologies are not new or experimental; they are 
     already in use around the world. There are 2 million of these 
     technologies already at work in heavy-duty diesel vehicles 
     worldwide. Further, there are 36 million DOCs and 2 million 
     DPFs in use on passenger vehicles in Europe alone, where 
     these technologies are currently being used, reaping cost-
     effective health benefits over the long term.


                            the cmaq program

       The CMAQ program is the only federally funded 
     transportation program chiefly aimed at reducing air 
     pollution. Its historical purpose has been twofold: to reduce 
     traffic congestion and to fund programs that clean up the air 
     Americans breath. Within its air quality mission, it is 
     designed primarily to help non-attainment areas (mainly 
     polluted urban zones) reach attainment for air quality 
     standards under the Clean Air Act. Historically many CMAQ 
     projects have tried to change travel and traffic behavior 
     in order to achieve its goals. These transportation 
     control measures (TCMs) have been designed both to reduce 
     traffic congestion as well as improve air quality. An 
     example is a bicycle path. Designed to reduce the number 
     of drivers on the road, bike paths could, in theory,

[[Page S5273]]

     achieve both goals. Further examples are vanpools, 
     ridesharing and park and ride programs, and HOV lanes: all 
     current CMAQ projects. Other projects have addressed 
     emission reductions directly, as for example, through 
     funding for state automobile emission inspection programs.
       As a condition for reauthorizing the CMAQ program in 1998, 
     the U.S. Congress required that a detailed 10-year assessment 
     of the program be conducted. This review was performed by the 
     Transportation Research Board of the National Research 
     Council and was completed in 2002. This review found that 
     CMAQ has been less than successful in reducing congestion and 
     suggested that the most beneficial way for CMAQ to use its 
     funds is to focus on air quality. It also found that TCMs 
     were less cost effective than measures to directly reduce 
     emissions, such as through inspection programs.
       Furthermore, the study suggested that CMAQ's focus within 
     the domain of air quality is misplaced. CMAQ programs have 
     targeted the gases considered the most dangerous pollutants 
     for many years, like hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and 
     nitrous oxides. While these gases pose recognized health and 
     environmental risks, recent work has shown that the dangers 
     of these substances pale in comparison to the danger of fine 
     particulate matter. In the words of the study, ``Much remains 
     to be done to reduce diesel emissions, especially 
     particulates, and this could well become a more important 
     focus area for the CMAQ program.'' Further, discussing the 
     fact that diesel-related CMAQ programs could be the most 
     cost-effective, the study states, ``had data been available 
     on particulate reductions . . . the ranking of strategies 
     focused on particulate emissions . . . would likely have 
     shown more promising cost-effectiveness results.''


 Comparing the Cost Effectiveness of Diesel Retrofits with Other CMAQ 
                                Projects

       Given that PM2.5 emissions from diesel engines 
     are a leading health concern, that effective technology 
     exists today to clean the emissions of off-road diesel 
     equipment used extensively in the middle of American cities 
     (non-attainment areas), and that the CMAQ 10-year review 
     highlights the possible use of CMAQ funds for diesel retrofit 
     projects, it is logical to compare the cost effectiveness of 
     these diesel retrofits with current CMAQ projects. The CMAQ 
     Program: Assessing 10 Years Experience (2002) estimates the 
     median cost per ton of pollutant removed for 19 different 
     CMAQ strategies and these estimates provide the comparison 
     base. Published estimates for diesel retrofits are 
     compared with these estimates.
       As a first step in comparing the cost effectiveness of 
     pollution reduction strategies, it must be noted that the 
     CMAQ cost effectiveness estimates are presented as ``cost per 
     ton equivalent removed from air,'' with weights of 1 for 
     VOCs, 4 for NOX, but 0 for PM2.5. 
     Relying upon the McCubbin and Delucchi health cost estimates, 
     however, even weighted NOX should be considered 
     more damaging than VOCs. That is, even though 0.25 ton (the 
     1:4 ratio above) of NOX removed counts as the CMAQ 
     equivalent of one ton of pollution removed, it has a higher 
     health cost than a ton of VOCs ($11,332 / 4 = $2,883 for 
     NOX vs. $718 for VOCs). As a second step, 
     conservatively assume that all CMAQ projects remove the more 
     damaging pollutant (NOX). This still means that a 
     ton of PM2.5 reduction would be worth at least 
     9.45 tons of regular CMAQ reductions ($109,000 for 
     PM2.5 / $11,332 for NOX).
       Diesel retrofits are estimated to cost $50,460 per ton of 
     PM2.5 removed by the California Air Resources 
     Board (CARB). This estimate is very conservative and 
     substantially higher than that cited by industry sources. 
     Using the CARB cost estimate, diesel retrofits cost $5,340 
     per ton equivalent of air pollution removed ($50,460/9.45), 
     based upon the CMAQ definition of ton equivalent and on the 
     conservative assumption that CMAQ projects remove the most 
     damaging pollutant reviewed. If a less conservative and more 
     realistic assumption is used--that CMAQ projects remove a mix 
     of NOX and VOCs--then the cost-effectiveness of 
     diesel retrofits becomes substantially more favorable, and 
     could be as low as $332 per ton of CMAQ pollutant removed.
       This analysis means that diesel retrofits for construction 
     equipment are highly cost effective when compared with 
     current CMAQ strategies. As shown in Table 1 and Chart 2, 
     some CMAQ strategies cost more than $250,000 per ton of 
     pollutant removed (teleworking), and many are in the $20,000 
     to $100,000 per ton range (traffic signalization, park and 
     ride lots, bike paths, new vehicles, etc.). The only current 
     CMAQ project category that exceeds the cost effectiveness of 
     diesel retrofits is emission inspection programs.
       Other studies also conclude that diesel retrofits are 
     highly cost effective compared with current CMAQ projects. 
     The Diesel Technology Forum compared the benefits and costs 
     of CMAQ projects with diesel retrofits for transit buses (for 
     NOX pollution reduction) and concluded that 
     retrofits are a better use for CMAQ funds than any other 
     typical CMAQ project, with the exception of inspection and 
     maintenance programs and speed limit enforcement. Also, the 
     California EPA's Air Resources Board has estimated that 
     diesel retrofits have a benefit of between $10 and $20 for 
     each $1 of cost. And the U.S. EPA, in its justification 
     for new on-road diesel rules in 2007 and off-road rules in 
     2010 estimates the benefits for diesel particulate filters 
     at roughly $24 for each $1 of cost.

   TABLE 1.--COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT CMAQ STRATEGIES AND DIESEL
                                RETROFITS
        [Median cost per ton equivalent of air pollution removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Median cost     Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and maintenance.....................          $1,900       1
Diesel retrofits...............................           5,340       2
Regional rideshares............................           7,400       3
Charges and fees...............................          10,300       4
Van pool programs..............................          10,500       5
Misc. travel demand management.................          12,500       6
Conventional fuel bus replacement..............          16,100       7
Alternative fuel vehicles......................          17,800       8
Traffic signalization..........................          20,100       9
Employer trip reduction........................          22,700      10
Conventional service upgrades..................          24,600      11
Park and ride lots.............................          43,000      12
Modal subsidies and vouchers...................          46,600      13
New transit capital systems/vehicles...........          66,400      14
Bike/pedestrian................................          84,100      15
Shuttles/feeders/paratransit...................          87,500      16
Freeway management.............................         102,400      17
Alternative fuel buses.........................         126,400      18
HOV facilities.................................         176,200      19
Telework.......................................         251,800      20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: All costs from The CMAQ Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years
  of Experience, (2002), except diesel retrofit costs, which are from
  author's calculations.

                              Conclusions

       The top air pollution problem in U.S. urban areas today is 
     almost certainly PM2.5, which is estimated to cost 
     more than $100,000 per ton in health costs. A major source of 
     PM2.5 emissions in urban areas is diesel engine 
     exhaust. Approximately one third of these diesel emissions 
     are due to on-road vehicles and about two thirds are due to 
     off-road equipment. Off-road equipment in urban areas is a 
     particular problem, because it gives off exhaust at ground 
     level, frequently near large groups of people.
       Diesel retrofit technology is currently available that is 
     highly effective at reducing PM2.5 emissions. DOCs 
     are well suited for retrofitting older off-road vehicles and 
     DPFs are highly efficient at reducing these pollutants where 
     new low sulfur diesel fuels are available, as is already the 
     case in most urban areas.
       From a cost effectiveness point of view, diesel retrofits 
     are superior to almost all current CMAQ strategies, including 
     ride-share programs, van-pool arrangements, HOV lanes, 
     traffic signalization, bike paths, and all strategies that 
     attempt to modify behavior (like encouraging teleworking.) 
     Only emission inspection programs exceed the cost 
     effectiveness of diesel retrofits based upon conservative 
     assumptions. Expanding the range of CMAQ projects to include 
     diesel retrofits for construction equipment and off-road 
     machinery in urban areas could be a highly effective way to 
     spend public monies.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the 
transportation reauthorization legislation that is pending before the 
Senate, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act of 2005 or SAFETEA. I commend the managers of this bill, 
Senators Inhofe and Jeffords for producing bipartisan legislation that 
will help address the safety and congestion needs on our Nation's 
roads, rails and bridges. I thank the managers for their hard work.
  Under SAFETEA, New Jersey will see a 56 percent increase in mass 
transit formula funds from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2009. It 
will also see an increase its return on the highway dollar from the 
current 90.5 cents on the dollar, which is the absolute minimum, to 92 
cents on the dollar.
  This money is sorely needed. New Jersey is the most densely populated 
State in the Nation. This is causing gridlock on our roads. According 
to the latest study by the New Jersey Institute of Technology, the 
average New Jersey driver now spends 45 hours a year stuck in traffic. 
I repeat, 45 hours a year. All this time spent behind the wheel does 
more than hurt New Jersey's quality of life. It also costs us an 
average of $1,255 per driver in wasted gasoline and lost productivity--
for a total cost of $7.3 billion a year. That is a huge blow to New 
Jersey's economy.
  I have spent 25 years of my life commuting from northern New Jersey 
into New York City. I have seen firsthand how tough the commute is 
getting. People are getting caught in gridlock on roads and bridges 
that are overcrowded and in need of repair. According to the New Jersey 
Department of Transportation, to fix New Jersey's 13 most seriously 
deteriorating bridges will cost $2.03 billion. And we are facing $1 
billion in pavement and surfacing needs for our highways alone.
  New Jersey is the most densely populated State. We need a greater 
share of funding to repair our roads and bridges. Thanks to the 
leadership of Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords, we will begin to see 
some of that funding under SAFETEA.
  However, I must say that I was disappointed when the Senate last week 
refused to pass the amendment Senator Lautenberg and I offered on 
protecting States from corruption in transportation contracting, a 
practice commonly known as ``pay-to-play''. I

[[Page S5274]]

believe that this was due in large part to false statements that were 
made by certain groups and repeated on the floor of the Senate. I would 
like to take a moment to address both these comments and the continuing 
need for this measure.
  The criticisms fall into three areas: First, that this measure was 
not needed to ensure fair and open competition for highway and mass 
transit contracts. Second, that Senator Lautenberg and I were trying to 
impose New Jersey's pay-to-play law on the rest of the Nation. The 
third criticism was that New Jersey did not need a change in Federal 
law in order for its own pay-to-play measures to be implemented. All of 
these points are wrong and I will address each in turn.
  The first criticism was that our amendment was unnecessary. The U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce and certain members of the Senate argued that 
competitive bidding rules already guarantee fair treatment for all 
contractors, without any favoritism. That is not true. Governments can 
and do enact unfair conditions to restrict who may bid. Sometimes those 
conditions can be subtle, such as requiring a certain size for a 
company that receives a contract. Sometimes they can be more overt, 
such as overly burdensome licensing requirements. As a result, the 
playing field is hardly level for those who would like to compete for 
contracts.
  The second criticism was that Senator Lautenberg and I were trying to 
create a national pay-to-play rule that would apply to every State in 
the country. That is also not true. We were not establishing a Federal 
pay-to-play rule in Federal highway contracting. We were merely asking 
the Senate to respect the rights of states to establish and maintain 
their own state contracting practices. Further, this only impacts 
contributions to state level candidates. Federal campaign finance laws 
are in no way affected.
  Finally, opponents argued that New Jersey does not need a Federal fix 
for its pay-to-play problems. That is not true as well. New Jersey 
enacted a statute that limits contributions from a corporation or 
individual who does business with the state to no more than $300. While 
this is a valuable tool in ensuring that contracts are awarded solely 
on the basis of merit, a gaping loophole exists due to the fact that 
the U.S. Department of Transportation will not allow this law to apply 
to highway and mass transit contracts that use Federal funds. As a 
result, New Jersey faces a situation where nearly $900 million in the 
contracts for Federal highway and mass transit projects that it awards 
annually are susceptible to corruption. This is a ``corruption tax'' 
that New Jersey's citizens must continue to pay, thanks to the Senate's 
actions last week.
  A number of States and cities have enacted pay-to-play statutes that 
are similar to New Jersey's. This includes South Carolina, Kentucky, 
Ohio, West Virginia, and New Jersey, and now Hawaii. In addition, pay-
to-play measures have been enacted in the cities of Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, and 24 local jurisdictions in New Jersey. 
Pay-to-Play bills are also pending in Illinois, Connecticut, and New 
York City. Let me be clear, the Senate's actions have put all of these 
laws in jeopardy.
  It is time for the Senate to ensure that both highway and mass 
transit contracts can be awarded without the taint of government 
corruption. We owe the taxpayers nothing less.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to talk briefly about an amendment 
to this bill that I cosponsored with Senators Hutchison and Ben Nelson.
  The amendment repealed, for the most part, an unpopular provision 
that was included in TEA-21 that has never been utilized: the 
Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program. It 
is also known as the Interstate Tolling Program.
  I understand the desire to find new ways to finance our ever-growing 
transportation needs. Our roads and bridges are deteriorating; our 
freight, truck, and passenger traffic is increasing. According to the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, we 
need an annual investment by all levels of government of $92 billion a 
year just to maintain the current system. To improve it, we need $125.6 
billion a year. This bill addresses only a fraction of those needs, but 
the increased funding compared to levels contained in TEA-21 is a 
positive step.
  I think we can do better, and I think we have a duty to do better. If 
we can find ways to provide more money for infrastructure without 
increasing our Nation's deficit, I believe we should do it. I have 
voted in the past to increase the level of funding in this bill because 
I believe it is warranted, it is reasonable, and it is the responsible 
thing to do.
  I applaud efforts to try to find new and innovative ways to finance 
new road building.
  The bill creates a new commission to explore alternative sources of 
revenue for transportation. I think that is a good idea.
  However, I cannot agree that it is a good idea to put tolls on 
interstate highways that have already been paid for with Federal gas 
tax dollars. That is what the Interstate System Reconstruction and 
Rehabilitation Program does.
  This pilot program allows tolling of existing lanes on the Interstate 
Highway. I think that is bad policy, and that is why I have joined 
Senator Hutchison, and Senator Nelson in sponsoring an amendment to 
strip this program from this reauthorization bill.
  My amendment does not affect States' ability to finance new 
interstate construction using tolls. It does not affect States' ability 
to convert HOV lanes to High Occupancy Toll--HOT--add new voluntary use 
tolled lanes to their Interstates, or toll non-Interstate roads.
  The amendment only prevents tolling on existing interstate lanes, 
which have already been paid for once by federal gas taxes.
  I see this as an issue of double taxation.
  We are talking about interstate highways that were built using 
Federal gas tax money. There are those who want to tax the use of these 
same roads that have already been paid for.
  I understand the desire to find new ways to finance road building. In 
Arkansas, our State leaders have chosen to increase the State gas tax 
throughout the years in order to meet its road construction needs.
  In fact, Arkansas is in the top half of State gas taxes. Arkansas has 
acted responsibly, and now there is an effort to institute tolls on 
existing interstate highways because some States don't want to raise 
their gas taxes. They would rather tax through tolling:) I think that 
is unfair.
  This is an issue that affects poor, rural residents who have limited 
transportation options the most. Over the past few years, EAS and Small 
Community Air Service funding has been cut to many rural communities, 
including those in my State of Arkansas. AMTRAK is in financial 
turmoil, and over the road buses such as Greyhound have dramatically 
cut service.
  Tolls on existing roads, which have already been financed and paid 
for by federal gas taxes increase the burden on these people. Again, I 
think it is simply unfair. Not only am I concerned about the double 
taxation issue, but I believe this is a safety Issue.
  Tolls on existing Interstates will produce substantial diversion of 
traffic to other roads. I believe greater volume of truck traffic on 
local roads is not something we should encourage by placing tolls on 
the interstates.
  There is also an economic downside to tolling the interstate. 
Businesses along newly tolled roads which rely on highway travelers--
such as truck stops, motels and restaurants--will be hurt economically 
if significant traffic avoids the toll road.
  The bottom line is that I believe allowing tolls on interstate 
highways that have already been paid for by Federal gas taxes is bad 
tax policy, is unsafe, and could have very detrimental economic 
effects. I am hopeful that you will agree with me that tolling existing 
interstate lanes is a bad idea, and will support our amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today with renewed hope and 
confidence that this Congress can pass a surface transportation 
reauthorization bill. As it has been stated before, we have been 
operating under continuing resolutions--six of them--to keep the 
Department of Transportation's highway, transit, and highway safety 
programs running. We have been operating

[[Page S5275]]

for 2 years on expired legislation and we are far past due on our 
commitment to the American people to deliver an updated policy and 
expanded funding.
  Last year both the Senate and House passed bills and the conference 
committee met for months before we were forced to abandon hopes of 
completing a conference report as a result of the much discussed 
disagreement over the size of the bill. This year we will still have a 
disagreement over the size of the bill but I am optimistic that with 
the narrowed gap, we will be able to resolve the differences quickly 
and amicably. I am pleased the Senate will adopt a bill funded at $295 
billion and am hopeful that this funding level can be retained in 
conference. Our transportation system is bursting at the seams and the 
Congress must adequately fund this bill to address this myriad of 
needs. Almost 30 percent of ou Nation's bridges are structurally 
deficient. Thirty two percent of our major roads are in poor or 
mediocre condition. Our urban centers and suburban communities need 
expanded and updated transit infrastructure. Americans spend 3.7 
billion hours each year in congested traffic. Our State highway 
departments are forced to cancel or delay projects as costs continue to 
rise while the revenue does not come.
  In addition, we have a responsibility to make our transportation 
system safer for the traveling public. The President recognizes this 
and has appropriately named his proposal, the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, SAFETEA. 
Throughout my career in the Senate I have worked with many of my 
colleagues to address critical safety measures on our Nation's 
highways. The most effective way to increase safety on our roads is to 
get people to wear their seat belts. I am a firm believer that the 
individual States must pass primary safety belt laws. The statistics 
are clear. More than 50 percent of the fatalities on our highways are 
individuals who were not wearing their safety belts. My hope is that 
the incentive grants included in this bill will prompt states to take 
actions to cut into the tens of thousands of deaths on our roadways 
each year.
  The Committee substitute will increase funding in the bill from $284 
billion as passed by the Environment and Public Works and Finance 
Committees to $295 billion. This means an additional $247.7 million for 
my home State of Virginia for a total of $4.7 billion in highway 
construction over the next 5 years. This represents more than a 32 
percent increase over the highway funding in TEA-21. The Virginia 
Department of Transportation will now be able to restore many projects 
that had been cut from our transportation plan because of the lack of 
revenue. We have made small steps in the right direction to address 
donor States, increasing the rate of return to 92 percent by 2009.
  We will also increase funding for transit programs across the 
country. While this has traditionally only meant our urban centers, 
transit has evolved to enable Americans in suburban and even rural 
areas of our States increased mobility on subways, buses, light rail, 
commuter railroads, ferries, and vans. More than 80 million Americans 
do not drive or have access to a car and this robust investment in our 
transit systems helps not only those Americans but also helps relieve 
congestion on our Nation's roads.
  I wish to thank the chairmen and ranking members of the committees 
and subcommittees working so diligently on this bill. They and their 
staffs have been working together for several years toward the ultimate 
goal and today we take one step closer to that end. Chairman Inhofe, 
Subcommittee Chairman Bond, Ranking Member Jeffords, and Subcommittee 
Ranking Member Baucus have worked openly with the EPW Committee and 
every Senator in this body to address our concerns and their work is 
very much appreciated by this Senator. They have worked well with the 
Finance, Commerce, and Banking Committees to bring this bill together. 
I know how difficult this bill is to manage and it is my sincere hope 
that the conference committee will soon be able to resolve differences 
between the House and Senate bills and send a strong bill to the 
President. The bill we vote on today increases the revenue for our 
state highway departments, enhances the safety of our roadways, will 
help states address environmental pollution from our roadways, and will 
reduce the congestion millions of Americans deal with each day to help 
keep our Nation the strongest economy in the world.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President I would like to explain my vote today against 
this important legislation, the highway reauthorization bill. I want to 
explain that my vote was against the unfair treatment of my State, and 
not a 5-year reauthorization bill. I support consistent and adequate 
funding of our transportation infrastructure) but I do not support a 
bill that cuts Wisconsin's rate of return unfairly.
  A safe and efficient transportation system is critically important to 
my State. In Wisconsin, the changing seasons require constant 
maintenance of our roads and bridges. In addition, we have an aging 
fleet of buses that are in dire need of replacement. A five-year 
reauthorization is necessary for sustained transportation planning; it 
will provide jobs, will ensure safer travel on our highways and roads, 
and will provide transit funding for millions of commuters. I have 
heard from the people of Wisconsin, and I know they support a 5-year 
authorization bill.
  I share their sentiments on the need for an authorization bill. I 
also share their sentiments on the bill the Senate passed today. I have 
spoken to engineers, bus drivers, road builders and businesses 
throughout my state and the message is the same--don't support 
legislation that would drop Wisconsin's rate of return. My support for 
this legislation would undermine Wisconsin taxpayers who deserve better 
than 92 cents on the dollar. A vote in favor of this legislation would 
set a dangerous precedent for treating Wisconsin unfairly.
  I recognize the arguments of my colleagues that the overall funding 
for Wisconsin will increase and I support the addition of $11.2 billion 
that the substitute amendment contains. The substitute amendment 
provides Wisconsin with an additional $147 million in highway funding 
over the five year life of the bill. These dollars are absolutely 
necessary in the State, and I urge the conferees to maintain the Senate 
level of funding.
  What the substitute amendment does not do, however, is greatly change 
my State's rate of return. Over the life of the bill, Wisconsin will 
still drop from an average of $1.02 to an average of 96 cents on every 
dollar the taxpayers send to Washington. The so-called equity bonus 
program included in the bill is far from equitable. It includes 
exemptions based on random criteria; it is a formula stitched together 
to appease the highest number of Senators possible, not to give each 
State its fair rate of return.
  I remain hopeful that Congress will pass a bill much different than 
the one the Senate votes on today. I hope that my colleagues will, in 
conference, repair the damage that is done to Wisconsin under the 
Senate bill. I hope the final bill gives Wisconsin its fair share. 
Given the great need for a 5 year authorization bill, I would like to 
support this legislation. Given its treatment of Wisconsin, I cannot. I 
hope that will be different when the Senate considers a final bill.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it is critically important that we move 
forward with this reauthorization of the Nation's highway and transit 
programs. Although the funding levels contained in this measure are 
lower than many of us believe are warranted or necessary to address our 
pressing transportation infrastructure needs, given the budget 
constraints within which we had to work, I think we have responded with 
a reasoned and balanced package that will maintain and enhance our 
transit, rail and highway systems.
  There is a huge backlog of needed repairs, replacements, and upgrades 
to bring our transportation network--our roads, bridges, transit 
systems and railroads--up to standards. The Department of 
Transportation's Conditions and Performance Report estimates that an 
average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to 
maintain and improve the condition of these systems. Other estimates 
show an even greater need. This backlog constrains our Nation's 
economic competitiveness, leaves more and more Americans stuck in 
traffic, contributes to air pollution and results in unnecessary 
fatalities.

[[Page S5276]]

  Just last week, the Texas Transportation Institute released its 
annual ``Urban Mobility Report,'' which measures traffic congestion in 
the Nation's 85 largest cities. The report found that congestion across 
the country delayed travelers by 3.7 billion hours and wasted 2.3 
billion gallons of gasoline in 2003. That is nearly 80 million more 
hours and 70 million more gallons of fuel in 2003 than in 2002. Average 
hours spent in rush hour traffic jams jumped from 16 in 1982 to 47 in 
2003. The Washington Metropolitan area continues to suffer the third-
worst traffic congestion in the country, costing area drivers an 
estimated $2.46 billion in lost time, fuel and productivity, or $577 
per commuter. Equally important, the study found that this area would 
have the worst congestion in the country if not for our public 
transportation systems. As these figures show, congestion has a real 
economic cost, in addition to the psychological and social costs of 
spending hours each day sitting in traffic. We cannot afford to let 
these costs of congestion grow any further.
  In my judgment, the report underscores the need to bolster investment 
in our transportation infrastructure and to put in place a sensible, 
balanced transportation network. Over the past 2 years, we have been 
working hard in the Congress to do just that: to reauthorize the 
Nation's surface transportation program, and to bring our 
transportation network up to standards. Last year, the Senate approved 
a measure authorizing $318 billion in funding over the next six years--
an increase of $100 billion over the previous measure--which, in my 
view, provided the kind of investment needed to not only prevent 
further deterioration of our transportation network, but to improve the 
system, relieve congestion and save lives. Unfortunately, SAFETEA did 
not emerge from conference due in large part to the unwillingness of 
the administration and the House leadership to support that level of 
investment. 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.
  The measure that is before the Senate this year provides $295 billion 
over the next 6 years in highway and transit funding. That is $11 
billion more than the level recently approved by the House and $39 
billion more than was originally recommended in the President's 
reauthorization proposal. For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this 
legislation authorizes an average increase of nearly 31 percent in 
funding to enable States and localities to make desperately needed 
repairs and improvements. Maryland's share of highway funding will grow 
by more than $820 million over the next 6 years, from $2.66 billion to 
$3.49 billion, compared to the level provided in TEA-21, to help 
upgrade our highway infrastructure. This represents an average of more 
than $142 million more each year than was provided under TEA-21.
  In the next two decades, Maryland's driving age population is 
expected to increase by nearly 20 percent, the number of licensed 
drivers by 25 percent, and the number of registered vehicles by nearly 
30 percent--and this will mean significantly more traffic on our roads 
and pressures on our transit systems. Maryland's Department of 
Transportation is facing deficient roads and bridges as well as key 
gaps and bottlenecks within the State's transportation system that are 
known to cause delay and congestion. Maryland has an estimated unfunded 
capital need for more than $13 billion in highway maintenance, 
construction and reconstruction over the next ten years. Clearly, 
Maryland must have adequate funding to address these transportation 
challenges and to facilitate overall mobility--and the funds made 
available under this measure will be a significant help in this regard.
  Importantly, the measure preserves the dedicated funding for the 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality--CMAQ--program which helps States 
and local governments improve air quality in nonattainment areas under 
the Clean Air Act; the Transportation Enhancement set-aside provisions 
which support bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other community 
based projects, as well as the other core TEA-21 programs--Interstate 
maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge and the Surface 
Transportation Program. Likewise, TEA-21's basic principles of 
flexibility, intermodalism, strategic infrastructure investment, and 
commitment to safety are retained.
  I am especially pleased that the Senate rejected an amendment to 
strike the stormwater runoff mitigation provision that is contained in 
the measure, which sets aside 2 percent of a State's Surface 
Transportation Program for stormwater runoff mitigation. According to 
the Environmental Protection Agency, polluted stormwater from 
impervious surfaces such as roads is a leading cause of impairment for 
nearly 40 percent of U.S. waterways not meeting water quality 
standards. In the Chesapeake Bay region, it is estimated that runoff 
from highways contributes nearly 7 million pounds of nitrogen, 1 
million pounds of phosphorous and 167,000 tons of sediment annually to 
the bay. In Maryland alone, the Center for Watershed Protection 
estimates that the 7500 miles of Federal-aid highways generate yearly 
loads of 1.2 million pounds of nitrogen, 127,000 pounds of phosphorous 
and 25,000 pounds of sediment into Maryland waterways and eventually 
into Chesapeake Bay each year. A study by the Chesapeake Bay Commission 
estimates stormwater retrofit costs at more than $2.5 billion across 
the watershed. The stormwater provision will provide more than $66 
million for the bay States and local governments for stormwater 
abatement, of which approximately $12.75 million would be available for 
Maryland.
  For our Nation's transit systems, the legislation authorizes $53.8 
billion--$12.3 billion more than provided in TEA-21--to modernize and 
expand our transit facilities. These funds will go a long way to 
meeting the growing demand for transit in cities, towns, rural areas, 
and suburban jurisdictions across the country. Maryland's formula share 
of transit funding will grow by nearly 52 percent over the next 6 
years--from $571 million to $870 million. These funds are absolutely 
critical to Maryland's efforts to maintain and upgrade the Baltimore 
and Washington Metro systems, the MARC commuter rail system serving 
Baltimore, Washington, DC, Frederick, and Brunswick, and the Baltimore 
Light Rail system. Bus systems and paratransit systems for elderly and 
disabled people throughout Maryland will also receive a big boost in 
funding. The measure also includes a provision reauthorizing the 
National Transportation Center--NTC--at Morgan State University. The 
NTC conducts important research, education and technology transfer 
activities that support workforce development of minorities and women, 
and addresses urban transportation problems. In addition, it includes 
provisions which would address a very important issue for employees of 
the Food and Drug Administration who will be relocating to the new FDA 
headquarters at White Oak, MD, enabling the agency to use its own 
vehicles to offer employees shuttle service to and from the metro 
system at Silver Spring and potentially other transit facilities. The 
potential impact of this provision on regional traffic is not 
insignificant. When construction of the White Oak complex is completed, 
FDA will house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at 
the new facility. By enabling this access from FDA's new campus to a 
transit station, we can reduce congestion on area roadways, improve our 
environment and elevate the quality of life for FDA employees. The 
legislation also includes a requirement for the Federal Transit 
Administration to report to Congress on ways to promote improved access 
to and increased usage of tax-free transit benefits at Federal agencies 
in the National Capital Region. Increasing use of public transit by 
federal employees has the potential to greatly aid our efforts to 
combat congestion and pollution in the region.
  I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes the Transit 
in Parks Act, or TRIP, which I introduced. This new Federal transit 
grant initiative will support the development of alternative 
transportation services--everything from rail or clean fuel bus 
projects to pedestrian and bike paths,

[[Page S5277]]

or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other 
public lands. It will give our Federal land management agencies 
important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we 
have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large 
numbers of people in our national parks--quickly, efficiently, at low 
cost, and without adverse impact.
  Like any other complex and comprehensive piece of legislation, this 
bill has its share of imperfections. But if we are to ensure not only 
the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services, but also 
the future competitiveness and productivity of our economy, we must 
make these investments, and move forward with this legislation. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in approving this measure.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Environment and 
Public Works Committee Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords, the 
Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes, Finance 
Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, and 
Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Bond for all their hard work in 
developing this bill and bringing it to the floor. We all know how 
important it is that we complete work on it and get it to the President 
as soon as possible.
  We face many challenges in our transportation system. Traffic 
congestion continues to worsen. In the Philadelphia area--which 
includes Wilmington, DE--rush hour motorists spent 38 hours in traffic 
in 2003. The number of cities experiencing 20 hours of delay or more 
per year has increased from only 5 in 1982 to 51 in 2003. This kind of 
congestion costs this country approximately $63 billion a year and 
wastes nearly 2.5 billion gallons of fuel. We can do better.
  This bill would provide Delaware with $793 million over 5 years to 
address our transportation needs. These needs include the replacement 
of the Indian River Inlet Bridge Replacement in Sussex County which 
carries 16,000 to 18,000 vehicles daily, not including the summer beach 
traffic. It also includes needed improvements to increase capacity at 
the I-95/SR-1 interchange, the busiest interchange in New Castle 
County.
  Transit would receive around $46.5 billion over 5 years, funding the 
increasing demand for transportation choices, allowing people to get 
around without a car. This demonstrates our growing awareness that 
while roads and bridges and highways are important and we still love 
our cars in this country, more and more people are using transit.
  With the congestion we have on our highways, with our increasing 
dependence on foreign oil, with our increasing problems with air 
pollution, it certainly makes sense to provide reliable transit for 
people to get to work, shop or attend a ball game. In the city of 
Wilmington, nearly 27 percent of households have no car and 44 percent 
have only one. This saves families money that can be better invested in 
home-ownership and their children's education.
  In Delaware, we are responding to the demand for more transportation 
choices by making improvements to allow more SEPTA trains to serve 
Wilmington and Newark, and we hope to extend rail service to Middletown 
in the near future. Also, the State is investing in the replacement of 
our buses to improve transit statewide.
  The transit title will also help states fund welfare-to-work 
transportation programs. In Delaware, our welfare-to-work program 
provides approximately 3000 welfare recipients with access to jobs by 
creating alternative transit services in cooperation with other social 
service providers. This is the only way these participants could access 
employment and training.
  In this important legislation, we are also investing $5.8 billion in 
safety programs. This includes an incentive program for states to pass 
primary seatbelt laws like we now have in Delaware. Wearing a seatbelt 
is the most important step anyone can take to improve their chances of 
surviving a car crash, and primary enforcement seatbelt laws are the 
most effective way to increase seatbelt use. Since Delaware's primary 
seatbelt law became effective in 2003, seatbelt usage has increased 
from 75 percent in 2003 to 82 percent in 2004.
  We are also creating in this bill a program to make it safer for 
children to walk to school. A recent national survey found that while 
70 percent of parents walked or bicycled to school as children, only 18 
percent of their children do today. Parents often say that walking to 
school is no longer possible because there are busy, fast-moving, 
multi-lane streets between home and school and often no sidewalks at 
all.
  As more and more children are driven to school, we see traffic jams 
in school parking lots and increasing pollution around schools. 
Meanwhile, children lose this simple way to get a little exercise at a 
time when many American children are struggling with being overweight 
and 15 percent are now considered obese, putting them at risk of a 
number of chronic diseases. Through the Safe Routes to School program, 
states will be able to slow cars around schools, add crossing walks, 
build sidewalks and organize walking school buses where members of the 
community walk a school bus route to walk kids to school.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not completely overcome the tradition 
of separating the different modes of travel and treating them as if 
they are separate systems. The users of the transportation system--the 
American people--don't use the system that way. The design of highways 
affects people's ability to access transit, walk to the store or go for 
a jog. The way we design our transportation system affects people's 
quality of life, the amount of pollution in the air, the amount of oil 
we need, and the amount of polluted runoff in our water.
  In fact, when we develop our transportation network without proper 
consideration of other neighborhood needs, we find ourselves having to 
spend more money to retrofit streets so that kids may safely walk to 
school or to decrease the amount of pollution that runs off roads into 
our rivers and lakes. And when we keep roads separate from transit and 
transit separate from intercity rail and rail separate from air travel, 
we miss the opportunity to make the system work more efficiently.
  Sadly, this bill, which is supposed to address the Nation's surface 
transportation policy, barely even mentions it. But later in the year 
we will have the opportunity to consider what kind of support the 
Federal Government should provide freight and passenger rail. This is 
an important area that we have neglected for too long.
  I hope as we consider a national rail policy we look at what has 
worked for highways, transit and air and use it to develop a robust 
rail system. I also hope that we do not consider rail in a vacuum but 
rather look for opportunities to coordinate rail investment with other 
modes of travel--connecting airports to cities through rail for more 
seamless travel and connecting ports to rail to highways for more 
efficient shipment of freight.
  Finally, because of the need to schedule a vote at 5:30 last 
Thursday, I was unable to make a statement in favor of Senator Harkin's 
complete streets amendment, an amendment that I cosponsored and 
strongly supported. So I would like to do so now.
  First I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Harkin, for 
offering this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor. The adoption of 
the complete streets amendment would be an important step forward in 
providing safe transportation options for Americans. It would support 
active and healthy lifestyles and encourage people to get out of their 
cars. It would also reduce pollution and our reliance on foreign oil.
  It simply requires State transportation departments and metropolitan 
planning organizations to fully integrate the needs and safety of all 
road users into the design and operation of federal-aid roads and 
highways. In other words, as we design our roads, we must consider more 
than just the needs of cars. We must consider bicyclists, pedestrians, 
and everyone who uses our roads.
  There are deadly consequences when this does not occur. Recently, a 
young woman from Poland who was working for a year in Lewes, DE, was 
killed while riding her bike. There are hundreds of young people from 
Europe who come to work near the beaches in Delaware. Many of them do 
not have or

[[Page S5278]]

cannot afford a car and get around by bicycle.
  This particularly young woman, named Katarzyna Reteruk, was leaving 
her place of employment--Anne Marie's Seafood and Italian Restaurant on 
Route 1--and was about to turn onto Route 24, when she was hit by a 
woman leaving her place of employment. Katarzyna was thrown from her 
bike, struck the hood and windshield of the car, and died a short while 
later.
  This tragic event took place in a rapidly growing area of the State 
and on a highway that has had increasing congestion over the years. 
This is a challenge many areas of the country are facing. But we have 
to ensure that we learn from this tragedy and others like it. We must 
make improvements to our roadways for motorists--but we must also 
address the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists and pedestrians.
  We often say that we want to encourage people to get out of their 
cars and be more active. But when there is no place for people to 
safely walk or bike, we can't expect them to do so. In a time of 
increasing obesity, especially in our children, the time has come to 
ensure that opportunities to walk to school or to a friend's house or 
just for exercise are available in as many places as possible.
  By considering the needs of non-motorists, we will improve mobility 
for those who cannot afford a car--including young people just starting 
out--and allow a family of 5 to more easily get by with only 2 cars.
  We have already included in this bill a program called Safe Routes to 
Schools to retrofit our roads to make them safer for children to walk 
to school. This amendment is an excellent addition to that provision in 
that it would ensure that new road projects are built with pedestrians 
in mind, saving us from having to spend money to retrofit roads later.
  Under the complete streets amendment, State departments of 
transportation and metropolitan planning organizations would have to: 
1, fully integrate the needs of pedestrians and bike riders in the 
transportation planning process; 2, promote pedestrian and bicycle 
safety improvements, and 3, set goals for increasing non-motorized 
transportation.
  Metropolitan planning organizations serving 200,000 people or more, 
such as the one in Wilmington, DE, would have to designate a bicycle/
pedestrian coordinator and account for the safety needs of pedestrians 
and bicyclists in their long term plans.
  Finally, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation would 
report to Congress annually on the share of research funds allocated to 
directly benefit the planning, design, operation and maintenance of the 
transportation system for non-motorized users.
  This amendment would build expertise in how we can make our roads 
safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, while improving our roads for 
drivers as well. I hope that we are able to encourage its adoption in 
conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, funding for transportation infrastructure 
such as roads, bridges and border crossings is a sound investment that 
increases the mobility of people and goods, enhances economic 
competitiveness, reduces traffic congestion, and improves air quality. 
Those improvements in transportation infrastructure are critical to our 
States, and the Federal highway money that States receive is critical 
for funding them. In addition, few Federal investments have as large 
and immediate an impact on job creation and economic growth as 
transportation infrastructure. The Department of Transportation 
estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates more 
than 47,500 jobs.
  Unfortunately, the formula that distributes Federal highway funds to 
States is antiquated and inequitable. Historically, about 20 States, 
including Michigan, have been ``donor'' States, sending more gas tax 
dollars to the highway trust fund in Washington than are returned in 
transportation infrastructure spending. The remaining 30 States, known 
as ``donee'' States, have received more transportation funding than 
they paid into the highway trust fund.
  This unfair practice began in 1956 when small States and large 
Western States banded together to develop a formula for distributing 
Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining 
States. Once that formula was in place, they have tenaciously defended 
it.
  At the beginning, there was some legitimacy to the concept that 
large, low-population, and predominately Western States need to get 
more funds than they contributed to the system. It was the only way 
that we could build a national interstate highway system. However, 
there is no justification today for any State getting more than its 
fair share. With the national interstate system completed, the formulas 
used to determine how much a State will receive from the highway trust 
are simply unfair.
  Each time the highway bill has been reauthorized, I, along with my 
colleagues from the other donor States, have fought to correct this 
inequity in highway funding. Through these battles, some progress has 
been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents 
back on our Federal gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to 
approximately 80 cents per dollar, and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5-
cent minimum return for each State.
  Last year, we believed we had another significant victory when the 
Senate passed a bill that would have given donor States 95 cents on the 
dollar in the final year of the bill. Unfortunately, that bill died in 
conference due to the President's veto threat and his unwillingness to 
accept the funding levels in either the House or Senate bill.
  This year's legislation, however, would give donor States just 92 
percent of their highway trust fund contributions by 2009. Although 
that is a small step in the right direction of closing the equity gap, 
we still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and 
other donor States.
  This bill is also a setback from last year's bill because it provides 
fewer overall transportation dollars. Last year, the Senate wisely 
passed a bill that would have pumped $318 billion into our 
transportation systems over 6 years. This year, the Senate has reduced 
that funding down to $295 billion. That is more than the House-passed 
bill of $284 billion but still less than what is needed.
  Michigan's rate of return would go from 90.5 percent to 92 percent 
immediately and remain at 92 percent for the full 5 years of this bill. 
Under this bill Michigan would get an annual average funding level of 
$1.134 billion which represents a 28-percent gain over TEA-21.
  We have made progress in this bill compared to current law in the 
ongoing fight for equity for donor States. I will continue to fight in 
the future, as I have in the past, looking toward full equity for 
Michigan. I recognize, however, that we have reduced the inequity a 
little more in each previous reauthorization bill, and we do so in this 
bill as well. This bill will bring billions of desperately needed 
dollars to States across the country. It will improve our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure and create millions of American jobs, and 
therefore I will support it, although its steps toward equity and 
fairness are very tiny indeed.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on final 
passage on the Senate version of H.R. 3, the SAFETEA bill. As we all 
know, the country has important transportation needs that Congress must 
address and I commend the managers of the bill for working hard to 
address highway construction, mass transit, highway safety and other 
important programs.
  This is a very important bill and I am not taking my vote lightly. I 
have heard from numerous individuals and groups across Wisconsin who 
are opposed to another temporary extension and eager to have the 
certainty for planning purposes that comes with a full reauthorization. 
I understand their concerns and I share their desire that Congress 
provide necessary transportation funding. That is why I voted in favor 
of the motion to proceed to the bill and the motion to invoke cloture 
on the bill--because Congress needs to act on the country's 
transportation priorities. I wish I could vote for the bill. I would 
have voted for a bill that was equitable, even if it was not perfect. 
However, the current bill is far from equitable--in fact, it makes 
Wisconsin a double loser, both under the funding formula's rate of 
return and in the level of overall funding relative to the last bill, 
TEA-21. The bill does not

[[Page S5279]]

do nearly enough to help meet the transportation needs of my 
constituents in Wisconsin and, for that reason, I will vote against the 
bill.
  Let me take a little time to explain my concerns with the bill, 
starting with the funding formula this bill would establish. Under that 
formula, certain States would continue to receive significantly more 
money than they pay into the highway trust fund, while other States 
continue to be denied their fair share. In fact, the number of donor 
States--or those who receive less than their fair share--would actually 
increase under this bill compared to the final year of TEA-21. In 2004 
there were 27 donor States, while by the end of the new bill in 2009 
there would be 31 States that pay more into the highway trust fund than 
they receive back. Six States--Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, 
Oregon and Wisconsin--would become donors, while only Arkansas and 
Nebraska would leave that category.
  I worked hard with the rest of the Wisconsin delegation during the 
last successful authorization to make sure that our State finally got a 
fair rate of return. Let me tell my colleagues, that change was long 
overdue. According to numbers from the Department of Transportation, 
from 1956 through 2000, Wisconsin got back just 90 cents on every 
dollar it paid into the trust fund.
  In TEA-21, Wisconsin at last received a fair return. Unfortunately, 
this bill will take us back to where we were for the previous four 
decades--in the hole. Under the new formula, Wisconsin will once again 
be a donor State in 2006 and receive the bare minimum rate of return of 
92 percent by the final year of the bill. I have spoken to other 
members of our State's delegation, and I think I can safely say we 
agree that Wisconsin deserves better.
  It is bad enough that the bill would return Wisconsin to donor 
status. Adding insult to injury is the level of funding that this bill 
would provide for my State. This bill provides almost flat funding for 
Wisconsin, which we all know in real terms is a cut. In 2004 under TEA-
21, Wisconsin received $635 million, while the average spending under 
the current bill would only be $642.8 million per year. When these 
figures are adjusted for inflation, in real terms the bill means a 
reduction of over $35 million each year for Wisconsin, reducing our 
ability to meet our transportation needs--all while we become a donor 
State and again subsidize other States' transportation projects.
  I cannot support a bill that treats Wisconsin so poorly with respect 
to both overall funding and the formula's rate of return. Fortunately, 
today's vote is not the final word on this bill. I will continue to 
work hard with the senior Senator from Wisconsin and the rest of the 
State's delegation to do everything that we can to produce a final 
transportation bill that is fair for our constituents.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the highway 
bill. I want to first applaud the bill manager, my good friend Senator 
Inhofe for all of his hard work on this important legislation. I also 
want to thank the ranking member of the EPW committee, Senator 
Jeffords, for his work on the bill.
  Mr. President, the highway bill is one of the most important pieces 
of legislation that the Senate undertakes. This bill makes it possible 
to construct and repair vital transportation arteries that crisscross 
this great Nation. As our country grows we must be conscious of our 
transportation needs. Accordingly, this bill increases funding for road 
construction that will substantially reduce traffic delays that plague 
the country. Additionally, this bill substantially increases transit 
funding further reducing congestion and pollution caused by over-
populated highways.
  My home state of New Mexico is one of the most rural states in the 
country. However, our population is on the rise and it is vitally 
important to ensure New Mexicans have the transportation infrastructure 
they need to be competitive with the rest of the country. This bill 
will provide roughly $1.7 billion in funding for New Mexico specific 
projects.
  This bill also increases funding for the Indian roads program. I have 
advocated for increased Indian roads funding for a number of years and 
while this increase only begins to address the need, it will help 
immensely in addressing the economic development problems facing Indian 
Country.
  Once again, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of 
the EPW Committee and their staff for doing a great job in getting this 
bill completed.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senate voted last Wednesday morning, 
May 11, to waive the Budget Act point of order that applied against the 
Inhofe substitute, Senate Amendment 606. The Budget Committee has since 
received a cost estimate of that substitute from the Congressional 
Budget Office. As I pointed out last week, CBO was not able to provide 
a more timely estimate because the language was not provided to them 
until it became available on May 10, a day after the Inhofe substitute 
was put before the Senate. Apparently none of the committees of 
jurisdiction had asked CBO for an estimate of their combined amendment.
  So for the information of my colleagues and the public, I would like 
to enter a table into the Record that summarizes the status of this 
highway bill with regard to budgetary enforcement--showing why there 
was a 302(f) point of order that I raised.
  I would also like to place into the Record a table that addresses not 
the contract authority, which is the relevant unit of analysis for 
budgetary enforcement of this bill, but the deficit results of this 
bill. Last week the bill's proponents repeatedly asserted the bill is 
``paid for'' over the 2005-2009 window of the bill and reduces the 
deficit by $14 billion over the 2005-2015 period. It is hard to know 
how anyone could say this because the Budget Committee and the other 
committees did not receive until yesterday CBO's estimate of highway 
trust fund outlays resulting from the Inhofe substitute. Combining 
those outlay estimates with JCT's estimate of the new revenues that 
would occur if the provisions of the substitute were actually enacted, 
we know that the substitute would increase the deficit by $0.5 billion 
over the 2005-2009 period, and would reduce the deficit by only $3.5 
billion over the 2005-2015 period, not $14 billion as the proponents 
have claimed.
  But these budgetary effects come after other general-fund transfer 
provisions--relating, for example, to the 2.5 cents deficit reduction 
tax on gasoline and 5.2 tax subsidy for ethanol were enacted in the 
JOBS bill, P.L. 108-35--last fall. By creating higher paper entries 
into the highway trust fund, those enacted provisions will have the 
consequence of increasing the spending possible from the highway trust 
fund by $31 billion over the 2005-2015 period without a corresponding 
increase in new Federal revenues. This will have the effect of 
increasing the deficit by $31 billion over that period.
  It is true that both the President's budget request for 2006 and the 
2006 budget resolution now contemplate spending those shifted resources 
on transportation programs. But combining those general-fund transfer 
provisions enacted last fall with possible enactment of the additional 
general-fund transfers and new revenues from general fund offsets in 
this Inhofe substitute before the Senate still will have the effect of 
increasing the deficit by $28 billion over the 2005-2015 period. 
Compared to the resources available for spending from the highway trust 
fund 7 months ago, if this Inhofe substitute is enacted, the increase 
in spending that will be enabled from the highway trust fund will 
increase the deficit by $28 billion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 2 tables displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S5280]]



 COMPARISON OF BUDGET AUTHORITY LEVELS IN INHOFE SUBSTITUTE (SA 605) TO
             COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS IN 2006 BUDGET RESOLUTION
                              [$ billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2005         2006       2006-10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Environment and Public Works
Amount over (+)/under (-)........         -1.5         -0.3         22.6
Banking
Amount over (+)/under (-)........          0.6          0.6          3.1
Commerce
Amount over (+)/under (-)........          0.0          0.1          0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: Senate Budget Committee.


                               DEFICIT EFFECT OF INHOFE SUBSTITUTE (SA 605) TO H.R. 3--TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL
                                                                      [$ billions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015   2005-2009  2005-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays a
Highway Trust Fund Outlays under Inhofe       40.5    38.3    43.6    47.0    49.6    50.6    52.6    54.0    55.2    56.2    57.6     178.5      504.5
 Substitute (SA 605)......................
Highway Trust Fund Outlays under reported     40.5    37.7    42.1    44.9    47.3    48.7    51.0    52.4    53.6    54.6    56.0     172.0      488.3
 version HR 3.............................
Increase in Outlays Resulting from Inhofe      0.0     0.6     1.5     2.1     2.3     1.9     1.6     1.6     1.6     1.6     1.6       6.5       16.2
 Substitute (SA 605)......................
Revenues b
New Highway Trust Fund Revenues Resulting   ......     0.2     0.2     0.2     0.2     0.2     0.2     0.2     0.2     0.2     0.2       0.7        1.7
 from Inhofe Substitute (SA 605)--Fuel
 Fraud....................................
New General Fund Revenues Resulting from
 Inhofe Substitute (SA 605)
    Economic Substance Doctrine...........  ......     0.6     0.8     1.1     1.3     1.4     1.6     1.9     2.2     2.4     2.6       3.8       16.0
    Other Revenue Increases...............     0.1     0.5     0.5     0.5     0.5     0.4     0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3       2.0        3.9
    Assorted Tax Breaks...................     0.0    -0.1    -0.1    -0.1    -0.1    -0.2    -0.2    -0.2    -0.2    -0.3    -0.3      -0.5       -1.8
Total Net New Federal Revenues Resulting       0.1     1.1     1.4     1.7     1.8     1.9     1.9     2.1     2.4     2.6     2.8       6.0       19.8
 from Inhofe Substitute (SA 605)..........
Amount that Increase in Outlays Exceeds
 Increase in Revenues Resulting from
 Inhofe Substitute (SA 605)
Deficit Increase(+)/Decrease(-)...........    -0.1    -0.6     0.1     0.5     0.5     0.0    -0.3    -0.5    -0.8    -1.1    -1.2       0.5      -3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMO: DEFICIT INCREASE RESULTING FROM GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS INTO HIGHWAY TRUST FUND ENACTED IN P.L. 108-357 (does not include enacted fuel fraud
  provisions) c: 31.3.
a. Outlays as estimated by CBO.
b. Revenues as estimated by JCT.
c. CBO estimate based on JCT figures.
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: Senate Budget Committee, Majority Staff.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation to 
the managers of this legislation for including my amendment relating to 
commercial driver training programs. The amendment authorizes $5 
million to the Department of Transportation for a grant program for 
driver training schools and for financial assistance for entry-level 
drivers who need the training.
  In my State of Montana, and around the country, the trucking industry 
is a critical component of the economy. In 2000, the trucking industry 
in Montana provided 1 out of every 13 jobs, paying nearly $900 million 
in wages each year. Currently, the trucking industry is experiencing a 
severe shortage of drivers, and my amendment seeks to address that 
concern by providing funds to get folks behind the wheel.
  Industry research indicates the number of new truck drivers in the 
U.S. needs to increase by 320,000 jobs per year over the next 10 years 
to fill the projected economic growth for that time period. 
Additionally, another 219,000 new truck drivers will have to be added 
each year to replace drivers who will be retiring over this period. 
Those are important jobs, and we need to get folks trained and ready to 
fill the growing demand for transportation services.
  The average entry-level driving course can run as much as $4,000. 
Those tuition costs can serve as a barrier to drivers who need the 
training, and my amendment would allow training programs to use grant 
money to provide financial assistance to those who need it. When you 
are out of work and looking for a job, a $4,000 entry fee can seem a 
little steep--so this amendment will help folks out, and give them the 
resources they need to get trained and get trucking.
  The highway bill before the Senate right now is a jobs bill, plain 
and simple. By authorizing critical funding for highway programs, we 
keep people working on our Nation's infrastructure. Construction 
projects that are currently stalled or deferred, waiting for final 
passage of a highway bill, can get underway again. My amendment 
contributes to the job growth encouraged by the highway bill, and I am 
pleased that it could be included. I commend the managers of this bill 
for their hard work but know that much more remains to be done in 
conference. In a State as large as Montana, infrastructure development 
is essential to our economic growth. This legislation will allocate 
needed funds to our roads and transit systems. The highway bill is a 
priority for our country, and I look forward to supporting its final 
passage here in the Senate.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, after great effort by many people, the 
Senate is ready to move us one step closer to enacting legislation with 
the potential to impact all Americans in every state. Crumbling 
infrastructure and poor transportation choices impede our ability to 
live and do business, and the Senate clearly recognizes that fact. Our 
transportation bill utilizes more than $295 billion to ensure all 
Americans have access to efficient and reliable transportation as they 
go about their professional and personal lives.
  Among the many people whose hard work has made the difference, I must 
first thank the chairmen and ranking members of all the appropriating 
committees that have been involved in this process.
  Credit must also go to all members of my staff, who spent many hours 
sifting through the nuts and bolts of this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark 
Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Ed McClellan, Dean Zerbe, John 
O'Neill, Sherry Kuntz, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the 
tasks before them.
  As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his 
staff was imperative. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, 
Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth, Matt Jones, Jon 
Selib, Anita Horn Rizek, Judy Miller, Melissa Mueller, Ryan Abraham, 
Mary Baker, and Wendy Carey.
  I also want to mention George K. Yin, the chief of staff of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation and his staff, especially the fuel fraud team of 
Tom Barthold, Deirdre James, Roger Colinvaux, and Allen Littman, as 
well as the always invaluable assistance of Mark Mathiesen, Jim Fransen 
and Mark McGunagle of Senate Legislative Counsel.
  This bill is infused with the spirit of bipartisan cooperation. 
Hopefully that spirit will survive the ongoing legislative process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the committee substitute is 
agreed to.
  There will now be 2 minutes evenly divided before the final vote.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, once again I thank Senator Inhofe and 
all of the Senators and staff that have helped us reach this point.
  This bill will make a difference in the life of every American by 
making it easier and safer to get from place to place.
  In passing this bill, the Senate puts this Nation on the path to 
better roads, on the path to shorter and safer commutes, and on the 
path to more jobs. And this bill will not add a dime to the deficit.

[[Page S5281]]

  The additional $11 billion in this bill will allow all States and all 
communities to benefit under this legislation, and it is crucial that 
we hold on to that funding as we move forward with this bill.
  The President's veto threat against this bill is a mistake, it is 
misguided and it is flat out wrong.
  Let's get this bill done, and get it done right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Bond.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, after working 2\1/2\ years on this bill, we 
have a bill that brings the environmental considerations into the 
planning early on so they can be dealt with without wasting money, 
time, and resources.
  No State gets as much as they would like, but thanks to the Finance 
Committee, the donor States get up to 92 cents. All States go up by at 
least 15 percent. Given the constraints under which we operated, I urge 
my colleagues to adopt this bill.
  I commend the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Jim Inhofe, along with Senators Baucus and Jeffords for a 
job well done. It has been a pleasure working with them.
  I also think it is appropriate to recognize the staff members that 
have put in many countless hours of their time to assist in drafting 
this legislation.
  I want to especially recognize my staff: Ellen Stein, John Stoody and 
Heideh Shahmoradi.
  Staff with Senator Inhofe: Ruth Van Mark, James Q'Keeffe, Andrew 
Wheeler, Nathan Richmond, Greg Murrill, Alex Herrgott, John Shanahan, 
Angie Giancarlo, and Rudy Kapichak.
  Senator Jefford's staff: JC Sandberg, Allison Taylor, Malia 
Somerville, JoEllen Darcy, and Chris Miller.
  And Kathy Ruffalo with Senator Baucus.
  This bill faced great challenges within these past 2\1/2\ years. The 
committee worked hard through many meetings, hearings, a failed 
conference, and all to repeat the process again this year in order to 
get where we are today.
  Interestingly enough, while on the floor both last year and this 
year, the Senate was sidetracked by ricin last year which had the 
Senate office buildings shut down for a couple of days. And just last 
week, a general aviation aircraft entered our air space causing us all 
to run out of the Senate Chamber. I can honestly say, I will be 
relieved when this bill is finally passed.
  Some of the highlights that I am proud of in this bill include the 
emphasis on safety. Safety, for the first time in our recent 
transportation legislation, is given a prominent position and elevated 
to a core program.
  This bill mirrors the administration's proposal by continuing our 
commitment to our motoring public's safety.
  Nearly 43,000 lives are taken on our roads and highways each year. I 
am glad that the bill reflects the continued commitment to making not 
only investments in our infrastructure, but also to the general safety 
and welfare of our constituents.
  Another highlight of this bill moves to carefully balance the needs 
of the donor States while also recognizing the needs of donee States.
  My home State of Missouri, like many of the donor States mentioned, 
has some of the worst roads in the Nation. The condition of many of the 
roads and bridges in Missouri require immediate repair or 
reconstruction.
  I am pleased to say that we did make progress in achieving a 92 cent 
rate of return by the end of the authorization. I am hopeful that donor 
States will see a dollar for dollar rate of return in the future.
  Further, I am proud to announce that all States will grow at not less 
than 15 percent over TEA-21.
  The bill also addresses several environmental issues that provide the 
necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the 
environmental review process.
  Transportation projects can be built more quickly by allowing 
environmental stakeholders to weigh in at the early stages.
  Mr. President, we are facing an expiration of May 31. I am confident 
that if conferees are named shortly, we will only require a short-term 
extension and can move this bill through conference quickly.
  Our States need a multi-year bill. We cannot delay contracts anymore. 
The economy needs this boost and people need the jobs that this bill 
will provide.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues as we go to 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is accurate. We 
have been talking about this for 3 years now. I do not think there is 
anything new that can be said, but I do renew my congratulations and 
thanks to all the staff who worked on this bill, certainly Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Baucus, and Senator Bond.
  I agree it would be nice if we had something with which everyone 
agreed. It is impossible to do. The only way to do that is in a way 
that is not desirable. We did a formula, and we took into consideration 
all the factors--donee, donor States, size of the States, passthrough, 
fatalities--and I think we have a good bill.
  I yield back the remainder of my time. Have the yeas and nays been 
requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been requested.
  Mr. INHOFE. I withhold my request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thirteen. I will be brief.
  Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues. This was a consequence of 
both sides working together--big States, small States. It is now time 
to get to conference. It is also a good example of what we can do if we 
do not have this filibuster issue hanging over our heads. We can work 
together. We can get things done. I very much hope Senators recognize 
this because afterwards, it may not always be this way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read a third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--11

     Brownback
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kohl
     Kyl
     McCain
     Sununu
  The bill (H.R. 3), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate has overwhelmingly 
approved the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act of 2005, SAFETEA, H.R. 3. I supported this important 
legislation, as I did last year when the Senate passed a

[[Page S5282]]

similar measure, S. 1072. I believe it is a critical step toward 
funding our Nation's transportation infrastructure and creating much 
needed jobs.
  Now the real work begins. The Senate funding level is $295 billion. 
The House has passed its version, TEA-LU, at $284 billion over 6 years. 
And the President unfortunately supports the lower House number. In 
fact, he has threatened to veto any transportation bill that exceeds 
the $284 billion funding level.
  I was proud to join 83 of my Senate colleagues in standing firm on 
the Senate level of $295 billion. The White House should take note that 
at least 84 Senators--a supermajority--support a higher number.
  Reauthorization of TEA-21 is one of the most important job and 
economic stimuli that the 109th Congress can pass. We must work quickly 
to deliver the best conference report at the highest possible funding 
level. We should not let further delay stand in the way of real 
transportation infrastructure improvement, economic development, and 
job creation.
  I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the benefits of this 
legislation for my home State of Illinois.
  H.R. 3, as amended by the Senate, would make the largest investment 
to date in our Nation's aging infrastructure, $295 billion over the 
life of the bill. In short, SAFETEA would increase the State of 
Illinois' total Federal transportation dollars and provide greater 
flexibility. It would help improve the condition of Illinois' roads and 
bridges, properly fund mass transit in Chicago and downstate, alleviate 
traffic congestion, and address highway safety and the environment.
  The bill would provide $184.5 billion over the next 5 years for 
highways and other surface transportation programs. Illinois has the 
third largest Interstate System in the country; however, its roads and 
bridges are rated among the worst in the Nation. The State can expect 
to receive more than $6.1 billion over the next 5 years from the 
highway formula contained in the Senate bill. That is a 33-percent 
increase over the last transportation bill, TEA-21.
  With these additional funds, the Illinois Department of 
Transportation will be able to move forward on major reconstruction and 
rehabilitation projects throughout the State.
  Mass transit funding is vitally important to the Chicago metropolitan 
area as well as to many downstate communities. It helps alleviate 
traffic congestion, lessen air emissions, and provides access for 
thousands of Illinoisans every day. H.R. 3, as amended by the Senate, 
includes $46.53 billion over the next 5 years for mass transit. 
Illinois would receive about $2.22 billion over the next 5 years under 
the Senate bill, a $286 million or nearly 15-percent increase from TEA-
21.
  This legislation also preserves some important environmental and 
enhancement programs, including the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality, CMAQ, program. CMAQ's goal is to help States meet their air 
quality conformity requirements as prescribed by the Clean Air Act. The 
Senate bill would increase funding for CMAQ from $8 billion to $10.8 
billion--an increase of 35 percent. Illinois received more than $460 
million in CMAQ funds in TEA-21. The State is expected to receive an 
increase in CMAQ funds under the Senate bill.
  With regard to highway safety, Illinois is 1 of 20 States that has 
enacted a primary seatbelt law. H.R. 3 would enable the State of 
Illinois and other States who have passed primary seatbelt laws to 
obtain Federal funds to implement this program and further improve 
highway safety.
  I know this legislation is not perfect. Illinois' highway formula 
should be higher. Amtrak reauthorization and rail freight 
transportation funding are noticeably absent. And important road and 
transit projects from around my home State have not yet been included. 
I will work with Senator Barack Obama, a member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, and my Illinois colleagues in the House to 
ensure that Illinois receives a fair share of transportation funds--
highway, transit, and highway safety--in the final conference report.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol understand the 
importance of this legislation and I am hopeful that Congress can 
expeditiously work through the differences between the House and Senate 
bills in a conference committee. One of every five jobs in Illinois is 
related to transportation, including construction jobs. Unless Congress 
moves quickly, we will lose another construction season and the 
important jobs that are created by public investment in transportation.
  Mr. President, with the passage of this legislation, the Senate has 
upheld its obligation to reauthorize and improve our Nation's important 
transportation programs. I am pleased to support SAFETEA.


                          MISSED SENATE VOTES

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, on May 11, 2005, I was necessarily absent 
from the Senate to attend the funeral of St. Paul, MN police officer, 
Sergeant Gerald Vick, who tragically lost his life in the line of duty 
on Friday, May 6, 2005. I joined over 2,000 Minnesotans in paying our 
final respects to this heroic peace officer, community leader, and 
devoted husband and father.
  Had I been present to vote on the amendments to the Transportation 
Equity Act, I would have voted as follows:
  On the motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act, in relation to 
amendment No. 605 and H.R. 3, I would have voted ``yea.''
  On the motion to table Corzine amendment No. 606, I would have voted 
``nay.''
  On the Lautenberg amendment No. 625, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On the Harkin amendment No. 618, as modified, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, did my friend wish to make some comments 
on the floor at this time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, no. I am not going to make 
any additional remarks. I was going to put us into morning business. I 
understand the Senator had some things she wanted to talk about.
  Mrs. BOXER. If you could do that, if you could ask unanimous consent 
I be recognized first in morning business.

                          ____________________