Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 65 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)

[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been withdrawn.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.

____________________