[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9398-S9418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A 
                            LEGACY FOR USERS

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H.R. 3), and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3), to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway 
     safety programs, and transit programs, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees on the part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in 
the Record of July 28, 2005.)
  Mr. INHOFE. I understand we have 15 minutes divided evenly between 
the majority and minority, and the Senator from Arizona has up to 30 
minutes.
  I ask now to recognize the Senator from Arizona for up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is a remarkable piece of work. I want 
to assure my colleagues that I will not take a half hour, but I will 
take a few minutes to talk about some of the interesting and egregious 
and remarkable aspects of this bill.
  There is an old saying about evil, and that is, if you do not check 
it or reverse it, then it just continues to get worse. I have to say, I 
haven't seen anything quite like this, although I have seen some pretty 
bad things in the years that I have been here.
  It is $286.4 billion, terrifying in its fiscal consequences and 
disappointing for the lack of fiscal discipline it represents. I wonder 
what it is going to take to make the case for fiscal sanity here. If 
you had asked me years ago, I would have said that the combination of 
war, record deficits, and the largest public debt in the country's 
history would constitute a sufficient perfect storm to break us out of 
this spending addiction--and I would have been wrong. I think we can 
weather almost any storm thrown at us. This week's expenditures, I 
think, are a pretty good example.
  I mentioned before, we are all the beneficiaries of the foresight of 
President Eisenhower and the Congress that helped to shepherd the 
original highway bill legislation. I have carried it to the floor 
before. It is about that thick. It has two demonstration projects in 
it.
  This is just a small example of some of the provisions in this bill, 
which are unnumbered pages. The conferees didn't even have time to 
number the pages. I have no idea how many billions are in here. Some, I 
am sure, are very good projects. Many of them are interesting. Some of 
them are entertaining. Just glance right here: Parking facility in 
Peoria, IL, $800,000. A parking facility in a highway bill.
  The original bill as proposed by President Eisenhower and adopted by 
the Congress had two demonstration projects. Now we have a lot. No one 
has counted them yet. No one has counted these projects because we have 
not, of course, had time because they have been stuffed in late, in the 
middle of the night.
  Not surprisingly, my colleagues have come to me and begged: Please 
make this short; I have a plane to catch. Please don't take too long; I 
have a plane to catch. I have to get out of here.
  Of course, it is just a coincidence that we happen to be considering 
this legislation just before we leave.
  How do we celebrate? Let me count the ways.

       Section 1963, Apollo theater leases. The section would 
     require the Economic Development Administration to lease and 
     improve the Apollo Theater, in Harlem, New York.

  The Apollo Theater in Harlem, NY.

       Midway Airport, directs the Coast Guard, in consultation 
     with the Department of Transportation, to make grants or 
     other funding to provide for the operation of Midway Airport.

  This is not an airport bill; this is a highway bill.

       Expands the authority of the State of Oklahoma in 
     environmental matters to extend over ``Indian country'' 
     within that State.

  Let me say that again.

       Expands the authority of the State of Oklahoma in 
     environmental matters to extend over ``Indian country'' 
     within that State.

  I don't know what that costs. But what in the world is it doing on a 
highway bill?

       Requires for Treatment as a State under EPA regulations, an 
     Indian Tribe in Oklahoma, and the State of Oklahoma, must 
     enter a cooperative agreement to jointly plan and administer 
     program requirements.

  What is that all about? No one has ever brought it to my attention as 
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I admit it is a long-
neglected committee--at least until recently.

       Eligibility to Participate in Western Alaska Community 
     Development Quota Program. Designates a community to be 
     eligible to participate in the Western Alaska Community 
     Development Program established under the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Act.

  It may be worthwhile. I have no clue. What in the world does it have 
to do with a highway bill?
  This is one of the most remarkable I have ever seen. I have been 
talking about these for years and years, but this is truly remarkable. 
This is a ``technical adjustment.''

       This section would overturn a decision by the 9th Circuit 
     Court of Appeals.


[[Page S9399]]


  It overturns a court decision in a highway bill, and legislates a 
settlement between the parties that would authorize $4 million to be 
provided, tax free, to the Alaska Native fund. That $4 million is going 
to be spent to be provided tax free to the Alaska Native fund, in a 
highway bill.

  This section was not in either the Senate-passed or the House-passed 
bill. Neither one. So right there it is in violation of the rules of 
the Senate and the Congress. It wasn't in either bill.
  This ``technical adjustment'' is neither technical nor an adjustment, 
but it is a bailout for Hawaii and a blatant giveaway to the Alaska 
Native population. In 2000, the General Services Administration donated 
to Tanadgusix Corporation, called TDX, which is an Alaska Native 
corporation, a World War II decommissioned dry dock under the condition 
that it be transported from its holding area in Hawaii and placed in 
Alaska.
  The TDX agreed to this condition. However, after receiving title, TDX 
began operating the dry dock in Hawaii. GSA attempted to enforce the 
contract. TDX sued the Government. A Federal district court and the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had both ordered TDX to tow the dry dock 
to Alaska. Additionally, the Department of Justice has filed a false 
claim suit against TDX for its illegal use of the dry dock.
  None of this seems to matter to the conferees who require the dry 
dock to be sold, so long as the buyer agrees to operate the dry dock 
outside the United States to protect the ports in Hawaii and Alaska 
from competition.
  The conferees also require the Government to compensate TDX with $4 
million tax free.
  Why? Again, what in the world does this have to do with highways? And 
why should we be bailing out corporations and overturning court 
decisions? It is only $4 million. We are talking about $280-some 
billion. But this is a bailout for Hawaii and a tax-free gift to 
Alaska.
  Conferees also have tax cuts. Do you know in this bill we have tax 
cuts, repeal of special occupational taxes on producers and marketers 
of alcoholic beverages? We don't want people to drink and drive on 
highways, so I guess there is some connection to the highway bill, 
repeal their alcohol taxes.
  There are income tax credits for distilled spirits wholesalers. 
Income tax credits for distilled spirits wholesalers in a highway bill.
  Caps on excise tax on certain fishing equipment. I guess you have to 
drive on a highway to go fishing. Maybe that is it.
  There are tax breaks for luxury transportation. We don't want to 
leave our big donors out of this bill. Tax breaks for luxury 
transportation, exemption from taxes on transportation provided by 
seaplanes and certain sightseeing flights. I guess you could land a 
seaplane on a highway--although that is hard, as an old pilot, I have 
to say. Exemption on taxes on transportation provided by seaplanes and 
certain sightseeing flights.
  I might add to my colleagues, we have had a couple of hours to 
examine a 2,000-page bill.

       Section 1114, Highway Bridge Program. The section contains 
     bridge construction or improvement projects totaling $100 
     million for the fiscal year.

  We are getting up there a little bit now.

       These include $12,500,000 per fiscal year for the Golden 
     Gate Bridge, $18,750,000 per fiscal year for the construction 
     of a bridge joining the island of Gravina to the community of 
     Ketchikan in Alaska.

  Let me tell you that once again: $18,750,000 per fiscal year. We 
figure it is about $80 million. It could be a lot more than that. Guess 
how many people live on the Gravina Island? Fifty; five-zero. I don't 
know what that works out to per capita, but it is about a million-
something per person at least.

     . . . and $12,500,000 per fiscal year for the State of 
     Missouri for construction of a structure over the Mississippi 
     River to connect the City of St. Louis, MO, to the State of 
     Illinois.
       National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program. 
     Directs the Department of Transportation to establish and 
     implement a program for highway construction in corridors of 
     National significance to promote economic growth and 
     international or interregional trade pursuant to criteria in 
     the section.

  It lists 33 earmarks for 24 States totaling $1.95 billion--B--billion 
dollars.

       Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Program.

  It is always interesting when you see the words ``pilot program.''

       Directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 
     freight intermodal distribution pilot grant program 
     authorized for a total of $24 million. A portion of the 
     funding must be used for the following projects:
       Short-haul intermodal projects, Oregon $5 million; the 
     Georgia Port Authority, $5 million; the ports of Los Angeles 
     and Long Beach, California, $5 million.

  Ports--ports, my friends, not highways, ports.

       Fairbanks, Alaska [of course] $5 million.
  Just throw that in.

       Charlotte Douglas International Airport Freight Intermodal 
     Facility, North Carolina, $5 million.
       South Piedmont Freight Intermodal Center, North Carolina, 
     $5 million.
       Development of Magnetic Levitation Transportation Systems. 
     Authorizes a total of $40 million for MAGLEV deployment and 
     earmarks 50 percent of the funding made available each year 
     for a MAGLEV project between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada, and 
     50 percent for a project east of the Mississippi River.

  So we are going to have $40 million for MAGLEV deployment and half of 
it goes to Nevada and half of it goes for a project east of the 
Mississippi River.
  ``Project Authorizations,'' this section would fund 5,173 projects, 
totaling $14.8 billion.
  Here is my favorite so far: $2,320,000 to add landscaping 
enhancements along--get this--the Ronald Reagan Freeway. I wonder what 
Ronald Reagan would say: $2,320,000.
  In my youth, I have watched Ronald Reagan deride this kind of 
activity on the part of Congress. He used to get a pretty good 
response.

       $480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse on the Erie 
     Canal in the town of Lyons, New York.

  A historic warehouse. I hope we all have a chance to visit it 
sometime.

       $600,000 for High Knob Horse Trails, construction of horse 
     riding trails and associated facilities in High Knob area of 
     the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia;
       $2,560,000 for the Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail in 
     Virginia. These funds would be used for acquiring the site; 
     designing and constructing an interpretive center, and for 
     the enhancement of the trail corridor;
       $120,000 for the Town of St. Paul--restoration of Hillman 
     House to serve as a trail information center;
       $400,00 to rehabilitate and redesign Erie Canal Museum in 
     Syracuse, New York;
       $2,400,000 for the National Infantry Museum Transportation 
     Network in Georgia;
       $960,000 for transportation enhancements to the Children's 
     Museum of Los Angeles;
       $1,200,000 for the Rocky Knob Heritage Center in Virginia;
       $1,600,000 for the Blue Ridge Music Center in Connecticut.

  So we can listen to music as we are traveling on the highways.
       $200,000 for the deer avoidance system to deter deer from 
     milepost markers in Pennsylvania and New York;
       $1,280,000 for the Cultural and Interpretive Center in 
     Richland, WA;
       $1,200,000 for the planning and engineering of the American 
     Road, the Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn, MI;
       $1 million for the Oswego, NY pedestrian waterfront 
     walkway;
       $400,000 for the Uptown Jogging, Bicycle, Trolley Trail in 
     Columbus, GA;
       $2 million for Ketchikan, AK, to improve marine drydock 
     facilities;
       $3 million for dust control mitigation on rural roads in 
     Arkansas.

  Dust control mitigation on rural roads. Good luck. And

       $850,000 for the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor 
     Center in Louisiana;
       $5 million for the Grant Tower reconfiguration in Salt Lake 
     City, UT.

  I guess we don't know what the problem with the present configuration 
of the Grant Tower is in Salt Lake City.
  Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities, which 
would set aside $20 million for the construction or refurbishment of 
ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities and, guess what, of this 
amount $10 million would be earmarked for, guess where, Alaska. And $5 
million would be earmarked for New Jersey. Way to go, New Jersey. And 
$5 million would be earmarked for Washington.
  It authorizes such sums as may be necessary for 465 earmarked 
projects totalling $2,602,000,000, and the big winners are Alaska, 
Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
  Going-To-The-Sun Road in Glacier National Park in Montana. Authorizes

[[Page S9400]]

$50 million for a project to be 100 percent federally funded to 
reconstruct a road in Glacier National Park. I am sure no one else with 
a national park in their State has need for roads that would outdo this 
one.
  Bear Tooth Highway in Montana. Upon request by the State of Montana, 
the Secretary shall obligate such sums as necessary to reconstruct the 
Bear Tooth Highway. I think this might fit nicely into the $3 million 
we provided a few years ago on another appropriation bill to study the 
DNA of bears in Montana so they could use the Bear Tooth Highway.
  The Great Lakes ITS implementation: $9 million to continue ITS 
activities in the Milwaukee, Chicago, and Gary, IN, area.
  There is a lot more.
  The Knik Arm Bridge funding clarification: Directs the DOT to provide 
all funds earmarked for the Knik Arm Bridge to provide the Knik Arm 
Bridge and Toll Authority, $229.45 million. The Knik Arm Bridge, a name 
that is hard to pronounce, I admit, will be renamed Don Young's Way.
  Another section in the legislation: Traffic circle construction, 
Clarendon, VT--$1 million for the State of Vermont to plan and complete 
construction of a traffic circle at a specified location.
  Three million dollars--$3 million--to fund the production of a 
documentary--get this: $3 million to fund the production of a 
documentary about infrastructure that demonstrates advancements in 
Alaska, the last frontier.
  Statewide transportation funding. This section would fund ferry 
projects, including $25 million for projects in Alaska and Hawaii, and 
extension projects utilizing ferry boats, ferry boat terminals, or 
approaches to ferry boat terminals; $2.5 million for the San Francisco 
Water Transit Authority; $2.5 million for the Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority Ferry System; $1 million for the Governor's 
Island New York ferry system, and $1 million for the Philadelphia 
Penn's Landing ferry terminal.
  The Department of Transportation is going to provide grants to the 
Oklahoma Transportation Center to study motorcycle accident 
investigation methodology, $1,408,000. And then, of course, $1 million 
for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for a wood composite products 
demonstration project at the University of Maine.
  Well, anyway, that is how we are doing the grand plan, and I would 
point out to my colleagues there are, according to the information I 
have, 30 donor States that are losers and there are 20 States that are 
winners. Some States have as much as 526 percent return on every dollar 
that is sent to Washington, and others have as low as 92 percent. Some 
have 206 percent, 218 percent, 207 percent, 227 percent.
  I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record. I 
think my colleagues would be interested to see how they came out on 
this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S9401]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS29JY05.001



[[Page S9402]]

  Mr. McCAIN. What is so harmful in this is, because I happen to 
represent, as do some other Senators, fast-growing States, it is the 
rapidly growing States that are penalized the most here: Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia. The fastest growing States are 
the ones that are receiving the smallest amounts of money, and it is 
obviously very unfair. I think we all know what the answer is. Let the 
States keep the dollars they collect in the form of taxes and spend it 
within their own State. I think the answer is that simple.
  This is how this Congress administers the money of the American 
people, Mr. President. In the 1950s when President Eisenhower's ``Grand 
Plan'' was being formulated, the country focused on building a unified 
transportation system to improve the safety, security, and economy of 
our Nation as a whole. Now, Congress circles transportation funds like 
sharks. Instead of serving the public good, this Congress slices and 
dices the Treasury's money to fill up the pork barrel. And we do so 
with grand speeches and lofty language, with no trace of shame or 
irony.
  We live in the Era of the Earmark, Mr. President. In 1982, the 
transportation bill included 10 earmarks costing $386 million. In 1987, 
the bill included 152 earmarks, with a cost of $1.4 billion. By 1991, 
the bill included 538 earmarks--costing taxpayers over $6 billion. Our 
most recent transportation bill, TEA-21, included 1,850 earmarks with a 
price tag of more than $9 billion. The legislation that we are voting 
on today eclipses those numbers. I am told that SAFETEA-LU includes 
over 6,300 earmarked projects totaling over $20 billion.
  Some Members of Congress may be happy to associate their names with 
this legislation--the chairman of the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for example has made sure that this 
legislation renames the Knick Ann Bridge in Alaska ``Don Young's Way.'' 
The bridge would also receive more than $229 million. I want no part of 
this, Mr. President. This legislation is not--I emphasize not--my way 
of legislating.
  And I'm sure that if we had adequate time to review this conference 
report we would find more pork and more inappropriate provisions. But, 
of course, we will once again go through this process too quickly for a 
proper evaluation. This conference report is over 2,000 pages long--and 
over six and one-half inches high--and yet we've had less than a day to 
review it. And that doesn't even include the statement of managers, 
which sits in a box in the cloakroom--making it difficult for any 
member to read.
  Fiscal prudence is crucial. But even if the conferees had excluded 
pork from this legislation, that alone would not make it adequate. 
Equity is also essential, and--unfortunately--the conference report 
that is before us still retains a grossly unfair feature of past 
legislation.
  This conference report perpetuates the historical discrepancy between 
donor States and donee States. Remarkably, not only does the bill 
continue this disparity, it actually exacerbates it. Whereas the bill 
that was passed last year by the Senate would have increased, at least 
theoretically, every State's rate of return to 95 percent in the final 
year of the bill--2009--the substitute amendment before the Senate only 
promises a rate of return of 92 percent in 2008 for those States. Until 
then, many States will linger at a rate of return of 90.5 percent in 
the first year and less than 92 percent thereafter while others receive 
more--in some cases much more--than what they contribute to the Highway 
Trust Fund.

  As if that weren't enough, this year's bill would actually propose to 
create further disparities between States. Though ``Equity'' is in the 
title of the legislation, the number of donor States would increase 
from 28 under current law to 30. In addition, 16 States would linger at 
the bottom of the barrel through 2009. Some may argue that these so-
called super-donor States should be satisfied with the fact that they 
are scheduled to move from a rate of return of 90.5 percent to one of 
92 percent in 2008. I would suggest that this is a meager improvement 
over current law and nothing to cheer about. After all, many other 
States are set to receive significantly higher rates of return. While a 
State like Ohio is expected to receive 92 percent in 2009, Alaska will 
receive a rate of return of almost 530 percent in the final year. 530 
percent on top of the hundreds of earmarks and special provisions that 
are in this conference report.
  Mr. President, I fully recognize that during the years when the 
Federal Government was building the Interstate system, a redistribution 
of funding between the States may have made sense. Clearly, it would 
have been very difficult for the State of Montana, for example, with 
fewer than a million people, to pay the full cost of building its share 
of the Intestate system. But, Mr. President, that era is over. Congress 
declared the construction of the Interstate system complete in 1991. 
Yet here we are, almost 15 years later, and donor States are still 
expected to agree to the redistribution of hundreds of millions--if not 
billions--of dollars to other States regardless of the already enormous 
transportation needs of donor States.
  That's not where this story ends, though. The rate of return formula 
is based on the authorized funds that are ``below the line''--that is, 
that count towards the calculation of the rate of return. There is a 
significant amount of funds that is ``above the line.'' These funds are 
not counted in the rate of return calculation. It's above the line that 
more mischief takes place. For example, $100 million is earmarked for 
the Alaska Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement project above the line. 
This means that Alaska's rate of return significantly understates the 
amount of Federal funding that Alaska receives under this legislation. 
The race for pork that takes place above the line also explains why 
some States that are nominally donor States might be happier with this 
legislation than one would expect. For example, California will receive 
over $1 billion in funding for earmarked projects above the line--
that's well over the average annual funding that California receives 
below the line.
  In closing, I note that the conference report exceeds the funding 
level requested by the President of $284 billion by over $2 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator from 
Arizona, are you yielding back your time or just yielding the floor?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am sorry. I would like to yield 2 minutes of time and 
yield back the rest of my time after yielding 2 minutes to the Senator 
from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleague. I know 
that the chairman of the committee is anxious to conclude the 
legislation so I will be brief.
  I simply reiterate the point that I hope colleagues sincerely 
consider the points made by the senior Senator from Arizona--not meant 
to embarrass but to get us to focus on how we could better fund our 
transportation needs in the country. We are all pretty bright and 
pretty good on identifying what is necessary, but far better it would 
be, as he pointed out, to let the States keep the money raised in the 
States and for them to decide how best to use the money in their own 
States. It would be much more fair than taxing some States and giving 
it to residents of other States. Even for the donor States such as 
ours, instead of getting close to 100 percent of the targeted amount 
that was provided in the bill in the first year, some are lucky if they 
get there at the very end of the period of time. There needs to be a 
fix to this problem sooner or later. I hope my colleagues again will 
sincerely consider the remarks of those who regrettably are required to 
vote against this legislation because of its unfairness and because of 
the way taxpayer dollars are used for projects, some of which do not 
even relate to highways or to transportation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.


                 SteeLGrid Reinforced Concrete Decking

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to engage my distinguished 
colleague from Oklahoma in a colloquy regarding steel grid reinforced 
concrete decking. First, I would like to congratulate my colleague on 
the successful completion of conference negotiations on this important 
legislation, and thank him for all he has done to assist me and my 
constituents through this bill.

[[Page S9403]]

  It is my understanding that steel grid reinforced concrete decking 
has significant technological benefits and the ability to accomplish 
the goals of bridge and highway officials across the Nation. Among the 
many benefits of this technology are long service life, rapid and/or 
staged installation, and reduced maintenance costs and closures. 
Unfortunately, this type of bridge deck system is underused because of 
the larger initial costs incurred. It was my great hope that the 
benefits of this technology would be noted in the conference report of 
SAFETEA-LU. While it was my understanding that efforts were made by the 
distinguished chairman to incorporate language regarding this 
technology into this important piece of legislation, the issue of steel 
grid reinforced concrete decking was not directly addressed in the 
conference report. Accordingly, I would like to ask the, chairman 
whether he agrees with me on the many benefits of steel grid reinforced 
concrete decking.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
his persistence in advocating on behalf of steel grid reinforced 
concrete decking as a way of modernizing and strengthening our Nation's 
bridges. Be assured that it was my intention to assist this technology 
gain greater prominence among transportation officials at the national, 
State, and local level. I understand my good friend from Pennsylvania's 
enthusiasm for this technology and desire to expand its use. I look 
forward to working with Senator Santorum to educate our colleagues and 
transportation officials about the vast benefits of this technology.


                     exise tax on highway vehicles

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend from 
Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Commitee, as well as my friend 
Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the committee in a brief 
colloquy.
  The transportation reauthorization legislation that this body is 
considering includes a very important provision that is intended to 
provide clarity with respect to the excise tax on certain highway 
vehicles under Internal Revenue Code Section 4051. Can my colleagues 
confirm that it is the drafters' intent that this provision will allow 
vehicle dealers to rely on the gross combined weight rating established 
by the manufacturer?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is our intent. Present law allows the seller to 
rely on the weight rating specified by the manufacturer when 
determining the applicability of vehicle excise taxes on trucks. The 
same rule should apply for tractors.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I concur. A seller should be able to rely on the gross 
vehicle weight rating and the gross combined weight rating established 
by the manufacturer. Only in situations where the seller modifies the 
vehicle substantially will the seller be responsible for determining 
different weight ratings.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleagues for this clarification.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
transportation reauthorization bill. This bill is long overdue and will 
provide Colorado and our Nation with investments to improve our 
transportation infrastructure.
  I regret that this bill could not do more to correct the fundamental 
injustice that States like Colorado--a donor State--suffer under our 
highway funding system.
  Nonetheless, Colorado does get much needed relief in this bill. It 
will receive a 46.7 percent increase over the last time this bill was 
reauthorized. That's the largest percentage increase under this bill 
and more than any other State. That is $156 million more over the life 
of the bill than we received under the previous transportation bill, 
TEA-21.
  This increase in transportation funding to Colorado will help ensure 
that the highest level of our transportation infrastructure is 
maintained. Having a first-class transportation system is critical to 
Colorado. Transportation infrastructure is critical to the health and 
vitality of our State, from the Eastern Plains to the West Slope, and 
from Weld County to Conejos County, Coloradans depend on safe and wel1-
funded highways.
  Recognizing our State's varied needs, I worked hard with the Colorado 
Department of Transportation and with counties and municipalities 
across the state to ensure these precious tax dollars will be well 
spent. I am especially happy with our efforts to secure authorizations 
for the following highway projects: I-70/Havana/Yosemite; Wadsworth and 
U.S. 36 Broomfield interchange; Wadsworth Bypass, Grandview Grade 
Separation; U.S. 287 Ports to Plains Corridor; I-70 and SH58 
interchange; improvements to Powers Blvd. and Woodman Rd. interchange; 
improvements to I-25S, Douglas, Arapaho County line to EI Paso; 
improvements to U.S. 36; improvements to U.S. 24--Tennessee Pass; 
improvements to Bromley Lane and U.S. 85 Interchange; improvements to 
104th and U.S. 85 Interchange; improvements to I-25 North, Denver to 
Ft. Collins; improvements to I-70 East multimodal corridor; 
improvements to Parker and Arapaho Rd. Interchange; improvements to I-
225, Parker Road to I-70; improvements to I-70 West Mountain Corridor, 
Denver to Garfield; improvements to I-76--Northeast Gateway; 
improvements to C470 and U.S. 85 Interchange; improvements to Wadsworth 
and Bowles intersection; improvements to U.S. 160, Wolf Creek Pass; 
Fort Carson I-25 and Highway 16 interchange; U.S. 50 East Pueblo to 
Kansas border; Heartland Expressway improvements; I-25 Denver to Ft. 
Collins improvements; Pueblo Dillon Drive at I-25 overpass and ramp; 
Denver Union Station improvements; improvements to 56th and Quebec 
Street; U.S. 550 New Mexico State Line to Durango; SH 121 Bowles Ave. 
intersection and Ridgeway; improvements, Jefferson County, CO; 
construction of McCaslin Blvd., U.S. 36 interchange in Superior; I-70 
East Multimodal Corridor to Denver; SH 83--SH 88 interchange 
reconstruction, Arapaho County; improve to SH44 from CO Boulevard; 
improvements to SH550 btw Grand Avenue, N/S of city; improvements on 
U.S. 36 corridor from I-25 to Boulder.
  Earlier this month I met with community leaders in Colorado Springs 
to discuss their efforts to prepare for the influx of troops and their 
families associated with BRAC changes and the redeployment of the 
Army's 4th Infantry Division to Fort Carson. Community leaders were 
united in their desire to see improvements and upgrades of the 
interchange of I-25 and Highway 16 at Fort Carson. The upgrade of this 
interchange is of vital importance to ensure that traffic flows freely 
into Fort Carson and along I-25.
  I am pleased that we were able to secure $5 million for that project, 
and that my Colorado colleague Senator Allard was able to secure an 
additional $3 million for that project. Unfortunately, the final report 
of the transportation bill being passed today did not include the 
correct highway number for this project. The report wrongly lists 
Highway 12, rather than rightly listing highway 16. I will seek a 
correction of this in the technical corrections bill later this year.
  This is an important bill, and I am happy to support it.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conference report on 
H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, protects an important program 
administered by the Department of Transportation the Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprise Program also known as the DBE Program.
  The DBE Program ensures that small businesses owned and controlled by 
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals are able to compete 
on a level playing field for federally funded highway and transit 
contracts.
  I strongly endorse the DBE Program and am pleased that this program 
continues to enjoy bipartisan support.
  Since the DBE Program was started in 1982, the field of highway 
contractors has grown more racially diverse. The DBE Program was 
expanded to include women in 1987, and that improvement to the program 
has opened the doors for women contractors to join what has 
traditionally been an all-male field. Despite the increased fairness 
and greater opportunity for minority and women contractors since the 
inception of DBE, there continues to be a strong need for the DBE 
Program.
  Unfortunately, studies have shown that when DBE Programs end, many 
contractors simply revert to their old practices, denying contracts to 
small companies owned by minorities or the economically disadvantaged. 
It is clear

[[Page S9404]]

that the DBE Program is still needed to secure the gains made and 
encourage even greater opportunity for these small businesses, and I am 
pleased that the conferees have recognized that continuing need and 
have retained this program.
  Federally funded highway and transit contracts are big business, and 
it is imperative that we give everyone the big guys and the little guys 
a fair opportunity to take part. The DBE is vital to increasing 
participation in our federally funded highway projects.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of final passage of 
the transportation reauthorization bill. The road to final passage has 
been long and brutal, but I am pleased that we have finally reached 
this point. This is a good bill for Maryland and a good bill for our 
Nation.
  The State of Maryland is the fifth most densely populated State in 
the Nation. Our highways and byways serve almost 54 billion vehicle 
miles of travel annually. Maryland has the second largest urban 
interstate traffic density and the sixth largest percentage of roads in 
urban areas in the United States. As part of the Northeast corridor, 
Maryland experiences an extremely high volume of through traffic, 
especially on roadways such as 1-95. Maryland is also one of the few 
States in the Nation with two major metropolitan areas, Washington, DC, 
and Baltimore, and two major beltways with some of the highest traffic 
volumes in the country, within 30 miles of each other. In the 
Washington metropolitan area, we have the third longest average commute 
time in the Nation.
  This bill will provide much needed relief to the stresses that our 
commuters experience every day by making critical investments to 
highway safety and expansion, improvements to our Metro system, and 
expansion of our transit systems.
  Maryland will receive more funding for highways and mass transit 
under this bill than it does now. For highways, Maryland can expect to 
receive $140 million more per year in Federal highway formula money, 
more than $2.9 billion over the life of the bill. This funding will 
help make our roads safer, improve traffic conditions, and help promote 
economic development throughout the State. For our transit systems this 
bill provides more than $900 million. This means critical funding to 
improve the capacity of the Washington Metro and expand and build 
capacity for transit systems throughout Maryland.
  In closing, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, for 
all of his hard work on this bill, particularly for his steadfast 
dedication to the transit needs of Maryland and our Nation. Thanks to 
his efforts, this bill provides essential support to State and local 
governments to ensure greater access to safe and reliable transit 
services.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the highway bill 
conference report. This legislation is 2 years overdue, and I am 
pleased that we are finally completing this very critical piece of 
legislation.
  I would like to thank Senators Inhofe, Bond, Jeffords, Baucus, and 
their staffs for their very hard work on this bill and commend them for 
the bipartisan way in which they have proceeded.
  I would also like to thank Senator Lott and Senator Inouye, the 
chairman and co chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation and Merchant Marine, for their work on the safety 
portions of this bill, as well as Senator Stevens, the chair of the 
full Commerce Committee. I was proud to have worked on these very 
important motor carrier and passenger safety provisions.
  I have addressed this body before with my concerns about the need for 
a highway bill.
  In America over one-third of our major roads are both deteriorating 
and congested. In Arkansas, 47 percent of our roads are in poor or 
mediocre condition--almost half. Additionally, over one in four bridges 
are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that close to 42,800 
persons died in car crashes in 2004. Over 2,000 Arkansans have died on 
our highways over the past several years. Too many families die on our 
highways--plain and simple.
  The amount of freight expected to travel on our Nation's highways 
over the next 20 years is expected to double. Not only do we need to 
improve the existing system, we feed to increase the capacity of the 
system.
  This bill would decrease congestion on American roads and enable 
businesses to transport their materials across the United States 
safely. It would also spur economic development and create many jobs 
for hard-working Americans.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that for every $1 
billion of investment in our highways, we create 47,500 jobs annually. 
This bill provides a record amount of investment in our Nation's 
highways and interstates, over $286 billion.
  But we still have much work to do. We must continue to make 
investments in infrastructure, and we must work toward finding creative 
solutions to our transportation problems. After all, good schools, good 
health care, and good jobs don't mean much if you can't get there.
  I am pleased this bill provides funding increases that could be used 
to make substantial progress on important economic development projects 
in my State and around the country. With passage of this bill, Arkansas 
would be able to make progress on many critical projects such as the 
Northeast Arkansas Connector, the Caraway Bridge Overpass, the 
Interstate 430/630 Interchange Modification, the Perry Road Overpass, 
and the Hot Springs East-West Arterial, just to name a few. These 
projects will greatly enhance the capacity and safety of Arkansas 
roadways.
  This bill also enables Arkansas to make significant progress on our 
two large corridors, I-49 and I-69, that, if completed, would help 
generate economic expansion, add jobs, and provide isolated areas with 
transportation options. I am pleased this bill provides $75 million for 
the I-69 Corridor, including the Great River Bridge which serves as a 
``Bridge Across the Delta.'' It provides $72 million for the I-69 
Connector, which will enable the northern part of the State to access 
I-69. 1 am also pleased that this bill provides $37 million for the I-
49 Bella Vista Bypass and several other projects that will reduce 
congestion and allow for further economic development in northwest 
Arkansas, one of the top 10 fastest growing areas in America.
  This is a wise investment that will pay for itself by fostering 
interstate commerce, bolstering tourism, and creating jobs.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. It is a long overdue bill. It is 
a bipartisan bill. My constituents support it, I support it, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today we are passing a significant bill 
for the people of this country. It will create hundreds of thousands of 
jobs. It will reduce congestion on our highways. It will move goods 
more efficiently. And it will improve local transit systems.
  I was pleased to have been a part of putting this bill together as a 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and as a conferee 
on this legislation.
  This is a good bill for the State of California. In total, California 
will receive $21.6 billion in highway and transit funding over the next 
5 years. That is an average of $1.175 billion more per year for 
California than the last highway bill in 1998. And it will create an 
estimated 800,000 jobs in my State.
  When I arrived in the Senate in 1993, California was getting about 83 
cents on the dollar in highway funds. I am pleased to report that with 
this bill California's rate of return will reach 92 percent. Not what 
it should be--but a significant improvement.
  This bill also includes over $1 billion in special projects for 
California, including over $130 million for the I-405 HOV lanes in the 
Los Angeles area and $58 million for the Golden Gate bridge seismic 
retrofit--an extremely important project in helping to preserve one of 
American's most notable landmarks.
  Let me tell you why increased funding is so crucial for California.
  According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Los Angeles and the 
San Francisco-Oakland region are ranked No. 1 and 2 for the worst 
roadway congestion in this country. California has two more cities in 
the top five, with San Jose ranked fourth and

[[Page S9405]]

San Diego ranked fifth. The inland empire of San Bernardino and 
Riverside Counties is ranked 12th and Sacramento is ranked 13th.
  What does this congestion translate to? Delays--in the Los Angeles 
area, 136 hours per year, on average per driver, in peak hours. Drivers 
in the San Francisco and Oakland area experience 92 hours of delays, 
and San Jose drivers endure 74 hours of delays. Inland empire drivers 
are delayed 64 hours, and San Diego drivers are delayed 51 hours a 
year. This is time people could spend with their families, reading a 
book, or any number of other things; instead, they are stuck in 
traffic.
  Congestion will not get better over time. California's population is 
expected to increase from 35 million people today to 50 million people 
by 2020. We need to make significant improvements in our transportation 
system. This bill will help fund the roads that will help ease 
congestion.
  And it will also fund transit systems that will enable more people to 
get off the roads and onto buses, trains, and subways.
  Transit ridership is up growing rapidly in California. The number of 
miles traveled annually by transit passengers grew by 20 percent 
between 1997 and 2001. The number of annual passenger trips was up 14 
percent. In the San Francisco Bay Bridge corridor, 38 percent of all 
trips are on transit. And 30 percent of all trips into central Los 
Angeles are on transit.
  This is why I am pleased that California will receive $4.6 billion in 
guaranteed transit funding over the next 5 years.
  To mention a few specific examples of projects in California, this 
bill funds the Metro Gold Line eastside extension in Los Angeles, the 
Mission Valley east extension in San Diego, the Muni Third Street light 
rail in San Francisco, and the South Corridor light rail extension in 
Sacramento.
  Another issue that I spent a lot of time working on involves grade 
crossings. Over 40 percent of all the Nation's imported goods come 
through California ports. The majority enter through the ports of LA 
and Long Beach. Many of the goods are then put on trams, leave Los 
Angeles, and travel through Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This 
causes terrible local congestion.
  To help that problem, this bill funds over $150 million for the 
Alameda corridor east for grade separations.
  In addition to congestion, grade crossings create significant safety 
problems. This bill includes my provision for a study of grade crossing 
safety. The study would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in 
consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a 
study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the 
ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security 
duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and 
other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during 
emergencies.
  Finally, this legislation recognizes that we can both improve our 
transportation system and improve our environment at the same time.
  For example, I worked to ensure that fuel-efficient hybrid cars can 
be allowed on HOV lanes. This will provide incentives for people to 
purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, and will allow the State of 
California to implement a law passed last year.
  In addition, this bill promotes bike and pedestrian paths. Funding is 
provided for the Virginia Corridor Rails to Trails plan, which will 
convert a Union Pacific railroad right of way into a bicycle and 
pedestrian trail in Modesto. Also, Marin County will receive $25 
million to develop a network of bike and pedestrian paths.
  This bill has been several years in the making. It has been the 
subject of intense--and sometimes tough--negotiations. But in the end, 
I am glad I had the opportunity to help craft a bill that will do so 
much to improve the lives of Californians, create so many jobs in 
California, and make such significant improvements to our 
transportation system.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President. I would like to briefly explain the scope 
of the Transit New Start project listed as ``Seattle Monorail Project 
Post-Green Line Extensions.'' The project authorization does not 
authorize any Federal funding for the 14-mile Green Line approved by 
Seattle voters in November 2002. The 14-mile Green Line was approved by 
voters using entirely local funds. The authorization in this bill is 
for a possible second monorail line or an extension of the Green Line 
following construction of the 14-mile line.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I proudly rise in support of the 
transportation bill that Congress passed today. It has been 3 years in 
the making, and I must admit there were times when I thought this 
moment would never come.
  I could not be more pleased to vote for this transportation bill. 
When the Senate passed this legislation in May, I feared that Wisconsin 
would suffer under an unfair, 5-year bill. Today, Congress passed 
legislation that is significantly different. This legislation treats my 
State equitably. Over the next five years, Wisconsin will receive an 
average rate of return of $1.06. Wisconsin taxpayers are getting their 
fair share under this bill, and that deserves everyone's support.
  The Wisconsin delegation has worked tirelessly on improving this 
legislation over the past 3 years. I would especially like to thank 
Congressman Petri, whose efforts as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Highways, Transit and Pipelines helped ensure the fair treatment of 
Wisconsin. Throughout the process, Congressman Petri worked with others 
in the delegation, and this bill is truly the result of bipartisan 
cooperation. I would also like to thank the members of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee: Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member 
Jeffords, along with Senators Bond and Baucus worked hard to ensure 
that the needs of all fifty States were met.
  Three years in the making and this legislation is long overdue. This 
bill will mitigate the congestion that clogs our roadways, and it will 
enhance safety on highways throughout Wisconsin. It provides needed 
funding for such critical projects as the Marquette Interchange, the 
St. Croix River Crossing and the Sturgeon Bay Bridge. Commuters and 
visitors alike will see a direct benefit from this legislation, in 
addition to the thousands of jobs that the funding in this bill will 
create.
  For 3 years, I have been consistent in my request for Congress to 
complete an equitable transportation authorization bill. I am proud to 
join my colleagues in supporting exactly that.


               Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reiterate 
my support for the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprise, DBE Program. This program is an effective tool 
used by the Department of Transportation to make real the promises of 
our Founding Fathers and the fundamental values of our Nation: economic 
opportunity, equal opportunity, a chance to be able to share in the 
remarkable assets of our Nation.
  The DBE Program is a much needed program. It is an essential tool in 
combating the continuing effects of discrimination in the highway 
construction industry and in creating a level playing field for all 
businesses. It accomplishes these goals in a completely constitutional 
way without establishing quotas and, whenever possible, enhancing 
contracting opportunities in race and gender neutral ways.
  Let me explain how the DBE program works. In past debates, my 
colleagues in the Senate have criticized the program for lacking 
flexibility. This is simply not true. Mr. President, this is not a 
quota it expressly prohibits quotas. This program offers a set-aside of 
a specific amount of money, but there is no specific direction as to 
who gets that amount of money. There is no quota of numbers of women, 
no quotas of numbers of particular races. It is open to any 
disadvantaged business enterprise. And, while we set aside a very 
specific sum of money, the money is not allocated with specificity.
  This program is intended to help level the playing field for 
businesses owned by individuals who have historically suffered 
discrimination in Federal contracting based on their gender, race or 
ethnicity, and who continue to suffer as a result of that 
discrimination. To ensure that these firms receive their fair share of 
Federal contracts, Congress set a national goal. I reaffirm

[[Page S9406]]

that it is appropriate in this country to set national goals for what 
we will do to try to break down the walls of discrimination, the 
barriers against equal opportunity, in order to give people an 
opportunity to share in the full breadth of the upside of the economy 
of our Nation. The goal for each agency, including the Department of 
Transportation, is negotiated on an annual basis, allowing the 
flexibility that is so desired.
  In addition, the DBE Program is very flexible. It allows each State 
to respond to local conditions. In the implementation of the DBE 
Program, the Secretary of Transportation has the authority to increase, 
decrease or even waive the DBE goal where it is not possible to achieve 
the goal in a particular contract or for a given year.
  Many opponents to this and other programs aimed at offering 
assistance to disadvantaged business owners often argue that it is 
inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena which 
required that affirmative actions programs, such as this one, be 
``narrowly tailored'' to serve the Government's ``compelling 
interest.'' It is clear that rectifying past discrimination is a 
compelling Government interest. And, I believe that the flexibility I 
described above demonstrates that program is narrowly tailored to 
achieve that interest. In fact, it has been upheld by every court that 
has reviewed it.
  It is the duty of Congress to use whatever means available to this 
body to enhance competition on federally funded projects by promoting 
equal opportunity and the full participation of all segments of the 
community in a marketplace environment that is free from the effects of 
past or present discrimination. The reality is that those effects, 
those inequalities and those injustices still exist. Justice Sandra day 
O'Conner, who penned the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the 
Adarand decision, stated, ``the unhappy persistence of both the 
practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against 
minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and 
government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.''
  Many of the firms that have been able to use the program, the women-
owned firms or minority-owned businesses, literally would have been 
excluded from doing so altogether were it not for the DBE Program. 
Arguments against these programs often point to the possibility of 
firms being excluded for other reasons such as size, experience or 
specific qualifications necessary. However, the reality in America's 
history is that the individuals running these disadvantaged firms often 
do not meet these standards because they were prevented from doing so 
by a lack of access to capital, training, or even blatant 
discriminatory Government policies. As the Congress, and this body in 
particular, has upheld in numerous debates, the Federal Government has 
an affirmative obligation, both a statutory one and a moral one, to 
make certain that we are going to do something very specific to respond 
to that kind of discrimination.
  Mr. President, time has shown that the DBE Program works. It is a 
program that meets constitutional muster. It is a program that has a 
rational, national compelling interest. I am happy to reiterate my 
support for this essential program that has served an enormous benefit 
to countless minority- and women-owned businesses in the country. Thank 
you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand the need for a good highway and 
transit bill.
  As debate on this bill has dragged on over the last year and a half, 
I have heard from many Arizonans in industry, as well as users of our 
surface transportation system detailing the pressing needs in our 
state.
  But throughout that time, I have expressed concern that the 
reauthorization legislation that has been brought before this Chamber 
has had certain fundamental deficiencies.
  The conference report before us today preserves two of the most 
objectionable defects: a grossly unfair formula for apportioning 
highway funds among the States and a staggering quantity of pork-barrel 
earmarks.
  It is simply impossible to explain to my constituents why more than 
9.5 cents out of every dollar in gas taxes they pay at the pump goes to 
subsidize road construction in other States.
  And while it is true that this conference report makes the barest 
progress toward equity by ensuring that rate of return to high-growth 
States like Arizona will inch up to 92 cents on the dollar, I believe 
that much more progress could have been attained given that this bill 
expends some 30 percent more than its predecessor.
  This conference report preserves Arizona's rock-bottom standing in 
the donor/done sweepstakes.
  And it does so in a way that adds insult to injury, for even as 
Arizona and other high-growth states continue to heavily subsidize the 
others, and are only moved up to the higher rate of return in the 
bill's fourth year, others are raised up immediately.
  Even as the sponsors of this legislation suggested that we ignore the 
extent to which Arizona highway users will be compelled to subsidize 
those in other States, but they ensured that their own apportionments 
were promptly and generously supplemented.
  I must also object to the out-of-control earmarking in this 
conference report.
  Earmarking is, of course, the insertion into the bill of projects 
selected not through a merit-based process, but through the influence 
of Members.
  Consider: The 1982 highway bill contained 10 such projects. The 1991 
bill had 538. The 1998 bill had 1,800. This bill has somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 6,000. The list alone goes on for 250 pages.
  Among those listed is the notorious ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' the 200 
foot high $223 million bridge connecting Ketchikan, AK, to an island 
that is home to 50 people and is currently accessible to the mainland 
by a 10 minute ferry ride.
  I hope that between now and the next time Congress takes up a highway 
bill, we will take a serious look at the flawed process that results in 
the diversion of funds from fast-growing States, as well as at the 
unsustainable rate at which earmarking has been proliferating.
  But for now I can only note my disappointment in what we have 
produced, a bill the Wall Street Journal today describes as a monument 
to ``extravagance''--and vote against this conference report.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall Street Journal 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2005]

                          Capitol Hill Blowout


Highways, bike paths, ethanol, ``biomass''--Congress throws a spending 
                                 party

       President Bush had to twist a lot of arms to squeak his 
     Central American Free Trade Agreement through Congress this 
     week, but Republicans are about to make sure he pays for a 
     whole lot more than their chiropractor bills. Having 
     sacrificed to support free trade, the Members prepared for 
     the August recess by throwing themselves a giant spending 
     party.
       Speaker Dennis Hastert had barely waited for dawn to break 
     after the midnight Cafta vote before he directed the House to 
     pass a $286.4 billion highway bill. He expects Mr. Bush to 
     sign this because it is ``only'' $2.4 billion more than the 
     President's 2005 veto limit, which is ``only'' $28 billion 
     more than his 2004 veto limit of $256 billion, which was 
     ``only'' a 17% increase over the previous six-year highway 
     spending level. ``Only'' in Washington could spending so much 
     money be considered an act of fiscal discipline.
       The bill is all about ``jobs, jobs, jobs,'' declared Mr. 
     Hastert, and he's right if he's referring to the Members' re-
     election prospects. The House version alone contained 3,700 
     special earmarks, doled out liberally across state and party 
     lines.
       Democrat Jim Clyburn retained another $25 million for his 
     famous ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a project in rural South 
     Carolina that has already sucked up $34 million in federal 
     funds. The California delegation secured $1.4 billion for 
     more than 479 projects, including $2.5 million for freeway 
     landscaping. And ranking Transportation Committee Democrat 
     James Oberstar snatched more than $14 million for Duluth, 
     Minnesota, including $3.2 million for an extension of the 
     longest paved recreational path in the nation.
       Next to this highway extravagance, the energy bill seems 
     almost a bargain at an estimated $66 billion or so. Minor 
     highlights here include the repeal of a Depression-era law 
     (Puhca) that will open up electricity sector investment; new 
     reliability standards for the national power grid; more 
     federal authority to settle siting disputes over much-needed 
     natural gas terminals; and an inventory of offshore oil and 
     gas resources that may someday encourage more exploration.

[[Page S9407]]

       We can also say this for the bill: It doesn't pick energy 
     winners or losers. Everyone who produces so much as a 
     kilowatt hour is a winner in this subsidy-fest of tax credits 
     and new federal mandates. There's $550 million for forest 
     biomass, $100 million for hydroelectric production, and $1.8 
     billion for ``clean coal.'' There are subsidies for wind, 
     solar, nuclear and (despite $60 oil) even for oil and gas.
       Most egregious is the gigantic transfer of wealth from car 
     drivers to Midwest corn farmers (and Archer-Daniels-Midland) 
     via a new 7.5-billion-gallon-a-year ethanol mandate, which 
     will raise gas prices by as much as a dime a gallon on the 
     East and West coasts. Oh, and don't forget the $15 billion (a 
     155% increase) in federal home heating subsidies, $100 
     million for ``fuel cell'' school buses, and $6 million for a 
     government program to encourage people to ride their bikes--
     presumably along Mr. Oberstar's newly paved trail.
       All of this points up the bill's underlying mortal failing, 
     which is that it abandons the lesson of the 1980s that the 
     best way to ensure abundant energy supplies is to let the 
     price system work. At least the House-Senate conferees 
     dropped a Senate provision that would have mandated that 10% 
     of all electricity come from ``renewable'' sources by 2020, 
     regardless of supply and demand. Although in return for 
     killing this, the House had to drop its liability protection 
     for producers of MTBE, a gas additive that Congress itself 
     mandated in 1990 but now wants to feed to the trial bar.
       It's too much to hope that Mr. Bush will target one of 
     these fiascoes with his first veto; any chance of a highway 
     veto vanished when Mr. Hastert scheduled the bill immediately 
     after Cafta. At least the Members are leaving town for 
     August; too bad they plan to come back.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on H.R. 3, which will reauthorize our Nation's surface 
transportation laws and provided significant and needed resources to 
maintain and improve our nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems.
  For Rhode Island, this legislation is welcome news and will bring 
tremendous resources to address a number of high-priority highway and 
transit projects.
  This conference report is the product of hard work and bipartisan 
cooperation, and I was pleased and proud to be named as a conferee on 
the transit title of this conference report. I believe the transit 
title of this bill continues the trend of TEA-21 of investing more in 
transit systems to the benefit of our economy and our environment.
  I want to thank Chairman Shelby and Sherry Little, Rich Steinman, and 
John East of his staff for their hard work and bipartisan spirit. I 
also want to commend my ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, who has 
fought for transit since the first day he took office, as well as his 
staff, Sarah Kline and Aaron Klein, for their tireless work in helping 
my office and others. Lastly, I want to thank my subcommittee chairman, 
Senator Allard, and his able staff, Tewana Wilkerson, for their work on 
balancing the needs of old and new transit systems.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for over 2 years Congress has been trying 
to reauthorize the Federal surface transportation and safety programs 
that to keep commerce and traffic flowing smoothly across our Nation. 
The reauthorization bill is long overdue and I am pleased Congress will 
finally complete this process today. Funding for transportation 
infrastructure such as roads, bridges and border crossings is an 
important investment that increases the mobility of people and goods, 
enhances economic competitiveness, reduces traffic congestion, and 
improves air quality.
  Improvements in transportation infrastructure are critical to all of 
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 and has discriminated against 
Michigan and other states for 50 years since the interstate system was 
first legislated. 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 to the disadvantage 
of 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 needed more 
funding than they contributed to the system. It was necessary in order 
to build a national interstate highway system. However, 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 other donor States, have fought to correct this 
inequity in highway funding. Over the years, 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. This bill 
will bring us to 92 cents per dollar by fiscal year 2008.
  During the past 2 years, in its effort to reauthorize TEA-21, the 
Senate has twice passed bills that would have been better for Michigan 
and other donor States in terms of rate of return than is today's 
Conference Report. The first Senate-passed bill died in conference due 
to President Bush's veto threat and his unwillingness to accept the 
funding levels in either the House or Senate bill. This year's Senate-
passed bill was modified in the conference with the House of 
Representatives.
  The bill before us has less overall funding than either of the 
previous Senate passed bills and does not go as far as it should go in 
closing the funding equity gap for donor States. Although I am 
disappointed we did not do as well as we proved could be done in the 
two Senate bills, this Conference Report still allows Michigan to make 
a little progress toward achieving equity. Michigan will go from a 
current 90.5 percent minimum rate of return on its gas-tax 
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund to 91.5 percent in fiscal year 
2007 and to 92 percent in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
  This bill will provide more than $1.123 billion annually to fund 
transportation projects in Michigan, $239 million more per year than 
the prior 6 year highway bill, and will create 61,500 new jobs across 
the State.
  Furthermore, the bill provides funding for a number of critical 
highway related projects in Michigan. I am delighted to have helped to 
secure significant additional funding for Michigan roads and highway 
related projects which will help make up for the fact that we are a 
donor State.
  For example, the bill provides $40.8 million to reconstruct and widen 
I-94 in Kalamazoo. The bill also provides $29 million for the Detroit 
Riverfront Conservancy to establish a West Riverfront walkway and 
greenway along the Detroit River from Riverfront Towers to the 
Ambassador Bridge. It provides $12 million for the construction of a 
new at-grade crossing and I-75 interchange in Gaylord to reconnect 
Milbocker and McCoy Roads and a new overpass to reconnect Van Tyle to 
South Wisconsin Road. It also provides $13.28 million to repave a 
portion of H-53 in Alger County.
  The legislation we will pass today represents some progress in the 
ongoing fight for equity for donor states. I will continue to fight in 
the future, as I have in the past, until we are able to achieve full 
equity for Michigan. I recognize, however, that we have succeeded in 
reducing the inequity a little more in each reauthorization bill, and 
we do so in this bill as well. I therefore will support this bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will overwhelmingly 
approve the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU, H.R. 3. I support this 
important legislation as I have done when similar measures came before 
the Senate last year and again in May. I believe it is a

[[Page S9408]]

critical step toward funding our Nation's transportation infrastructure 
and creating much needed jobs.
  This process was not perfect. It took 12 short term extensions and 
nearly 2 years to complete this bill. The Senate funding level began at 
$318 billion 18 months ago and shrunk to $295 billion in May. The House 
passed its version, TEA-LU, at $284 billion. The President 
unfortunately, supported the lower House number. In fact, he threatened 
to veto any transportation bill that exceeded the $284 billion funding 
level. I am glad he changed his mind.
  Reauthorization of TEA-21 is one of the most important job and 
economic stimuli that the 109th Congress can pass. I am pleased that 
Congress has finally accomplished this elusive goal.
  I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the benefits of this 
legislation for my home State of Illinois.
  H.R. 3 would make the largest investment to date in our Nation's 
aging infrastructure, $286.45 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.
  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 $6.18 billion over the next 5 
years from the highway formula contained in the Senate bill. That is a 
33.34 percent increase or $1.545 billion over the last transportation 
bill.
  With these additional funds, the Illinois Department of 
Transportation will be able to move forward on major reconstruction and 
rehabilitation projects throughout the State.
  My Illinois colleague, Senator Obama, and I were able to add more 
than $215 million for projects through the State. And we worked closely 
with our House colleagues to support projects such as the Chicago 
railroad initiative CREATE and the new Mississippi River bridge in St. 
Clair County.
  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 everyday. Illinois would receive about $2.467 
billion under SAFETEA-LU, a 128 percent increase from TEA-21.
  The transit section authorizes CTA and Metra projects as well as 
provides funding for transit systems in Springfield, Rock Island, 
Ottawa, and Rockford.
  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. 
This legislation would increase funding for CMAQ by 7.5 percent.
  With regard to highway safety, Illinois is one of 20 States that has 
enacted a primary seat belt law. H.R. 3 would enable the State of 
Illinois and other states who have passed primary seat belt laws to 
obtain Federal funds to implement this program and further improve 
highway safety.
  I know this legislation is not perfect. Congress should have stood up 
to the President and passed a bill with greater funding for highways 
and transit. Illinois' highway formula should be higher, and this bill 
should have been finished 2 years ago. But thankfully we have reached 
the end of this very long road. Thankfully, the State of Illinois will 
not miss another construction season.
  I would like to take a minute to thank Senator Obama for his work on 
this bill. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee 
and a conferee, he was able to ensure Illinois received its fair share 
of highway and transit funding. I was pleased to work with him and my 
House colleagues to deliver a transportation bill that will move our 
State forward and address critical highway, bridge, and transit needs.
  With the passage of this legislation, Congress has upheld its 
obligation to reauthorize and improve our Nation's important 
transportation programs. I am pleased to support SAFETEA-LU.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to support the passage of the 
conference report for H.R. 3, SAFETEA-LU, the reauthorization of our 
Federal surface transportation programs. During my 42 years in the 
Senate, it has been the rare occasion when we pass a piece of 
legislation that is guaranteed to save lives. But the safety provisions 
authored by the Senate Commerce Committee in this transportation 
reauthorization bill will save thousands of lives, and prevent 
thousands of serious injuries, for generations.
  I want to thank Chairman Stevens, Chairman Lott, Senators Pryor, 
Rockefeller, Burns, Dorgan, Lautenberg, and Boxer of the Senate 
Commerce Committee for working so closely with me to develop a 
consensus, bipartisan safety bill in the Senate. Likewise, Chairman 
Young, Chairman Petri, Chairman Barton, and Ranking Members Oberstar, 
DeFazio, and Dingell from the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
and Energy and Commerce Committees for their efforts in merging our 
bills into a truly landmark conference report.
  In crafting our bill and conference report, we have incorporated many 
of the administration's recommendations and provisions from our similar 
effort that passed the Senate last year covering auto, truck, rail 
safety, and hazardous materials transportation safety. The bill also 
strengthens consumer protections for those who entrust their belongings 
to a moving company, provides more robust, predictable funding for 
boating safety and sport fish restoration programs, and provides 
additional financing options.
  In the 1970s, we required that seatbelts be standard equipment in all 
automobiles. We then followed in the 1980s with airbags and other 
safety features. Now a new generation of technology has opened the door 
to even greater automobile safety. With Chairman Stevens and Senator 
Lott, we undertook a bipartisan mission in the Commerce Committee to 
use these new technologies to reduce injuries and save lives of 
automobile drivers and passengers.
  The development of electronic stability control by America's 
brilliant engineers is the most promising vehicle safety technology of 
our generation. Rollovers represent one-third of all traffic safety 
fatalities, so our safety bill requires that electronic stability 
control become standard equipment on all passenger cars and trucks in 5 
years. It is also cost effective since it uses existing anti-lock 
brakes to correct the course of a vehicle before a potential rollover.
  During a rollover, we need to keep occupants inside the car where 
they are better protected. Therefore, the bill also requires stronger 
doors and door locks. The third critical change is to mandate stronger 
roofs that are less likely to crush occupants during a rollover.
  This highway safety bill goes even further: side-impact crash 
standards that likely will result in side-curtain airbags in every 
automobile; new rules to make 15-passenger vans subject to the same 
safety tests as automobiles; a prohibition on sales of new 15-passenger 
vans to schools for use in carrying children; and new power-window 
switches that will reduce strangulation deaths and injuries to 
children.
  Cumulatively, these improved vehicle safety standards will save 
thousands of lives.
  We also dramatically increase funding for programs to reduce drunk 
driving and increase seatbelt use. I am especially proud that our bill 
gives States large incentives to crack down on hard-core drunk drivers, 
those who have the audacity to drive drunk again after a prior 
conviction. We also provide $29 million annually for national 
advertising and safety enforcement campaigns, which research data shows 
has had a significant effect on saving lives. In other words, everyone 
will see more commercials during the holidays about drunk driving and 
seatbelt use, and there will be more police on patrol during those 
times.
  There is a final issue that is very important to me, highway safety 
on Indian lands. While the rate of highway deaths and injuries has 
declined across the Nation, the death and injury rate on Indian lands 
has actually increased.

[[Page S9409]]

Since 1982, 65 percent of fatal crashes that occurred on Indian lands 
were alcohol related. That compares to the national alcohol-related 
death rate of 47 percent of all fatal crashes.
  The percentage of fatal crashes on Indian reservations that involves 
a single vehicle is 26 percent higher than in the rest of the Nation. 
These single-vehicle accidents are the most preventable, and where we 
can save the most lives per dollar spent on traffic safety outreach and 
enforcement.
  Therefore, from the funding pool for the basic safety grant in this 
bill, we more than doubled the proportion of basic safety grant money 
sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA distributes this money to 
Indian tribes that apply for funds to reduce drunk driving, increase 
seatbelt use, and enact other safety strategies. This was a provision 
in the original Senate bill, and we convinced our colleagues on the 
conference committee to include it in the final report. This extra 
funding will make a tremendous difference in the lives of our Native 
Americans, whose families suffer the tragedy of highway deaths more 
severely than any other part of our country.
  To improve the safety of trucks and buses operating on our Nation's 
roads, we have reauthorized the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's safety programs FMCSA and strengthened their efforts 
to improve truck safety through strong enforcement and cooperation with 
the trucking industry. The conference report also reauthorizes the 
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, MCSAP, for the years 2006 
through 2009 at an average annual funding level nearing $200 million, 
more than double the TEA 21 level, and consistent with the 
administration's proposal.

  The conference report also provides $128 million over the life of the 
reauthorization to improve States' Commercial Driver's License programs 
and modernize the Commercial Driver's License Information System, 
CDLIS. The conference report updates the medical program for commercial 
drivers by establishing a Medical Review Board to recommend standards 
for the physical examinations of commercial drivers and a registry for 
qualified medical examiners to ensure medical examiners have received 
proper training.
  The conference report also improves the maintenance and safety of 
intermodal truck chassis are the current Single State Registration 
System for truck registration, SSRS, with a new system that requires 
truckers to only register in one State, while preserving State revenues 
collected through the current system.
  To improve the safety and security of the transportation of hazardous 
materials, the conference report reauthorizes the hazardous materials, 
HAZMAT, transportation safety programs at an average of $30 million 
annually, now administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, PHMSA, for the first time in over 10 years.
  The conference report provides $21,800,000 annually for community 
HAZMAT planning and training grants and allows States to use some of 
their planning money to training programs as needed. Additionally, the 
bill provides $4 million annually for HAZMAT ``train the trainer'' 
grants, and allows these funds to be used to train HAZMAT employees 
directly.
  The conference report also increases civil penalties to up to 
$100,000 for HAZMAT violations that result in severe injury or death 
and raises the minimum penalties for violations related to training. 
The conference report requires Mexican and Canadian commercial motor 
vehicle operators transporting HAZMAT in the U.S. to undergo a 
background check similar to those for U.S. HAZMAT drivers.
  Additionally, the conference report streamlines Federal 
responsibilities for ensuring the safety of food shipment by 
transferring primary responsibility of food transportation safety from 
the Department of Transportation to the Department of Health and Human 
Services, HHS, which would set practices to be followed by shippers, 
carriers, and others engaged in food transportation.
  To provide greater protection to consumers entrusting their 
belongings to a moving company, the conference report allows a state 
authority that enforces State consumer protection laws and State 
attorney general to enforce Federal laws and regulations governing the 
transportation of household goods in interstate commerce. Additionally, 
the conference report imposes new penalties for fraudulent activities 
perpetrated by movers and imposes new registration requirements on 
household goods carriers to protect consumers.
  This conference report also reauthorizes activities funded by two of 
the Nation's most effective ``user-pay, user-benefit'' programs--the 
sport fish restoration fund, administered by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the recreational boating safety fund, administered by the 
U.S. Coast Guard. These programs constitute the ``Wallop-Breaux'' 
program, which is funded through the aquatic resources trust fund.
  The reauthorization will allow continued funding of programs that 
benefit boating safety, sportfish, and wetland restoration, as well as 
Clean Vessel Act grants that help to keep our waterways clean. I am 
pleased to report that this provision is supported by a large coalition 
of recreational and boating groups who are members of the American 
League of Anglers and Boaters.
  The changes made include: (1) renaming the trust fund the sport fish 
restoration and boating trust fund, and eliminating the separate 
boating safety account; (2) reauthorizing the marine sanitary devices 
pump-out program, the Boating Infrastructure Grant Program, and 
outreach programs; and (3) funding most of the programs on a percentage 
basis, which provides both simplicity and fairness. Conforming changes 
to the Internal Revenue Code are also included.
  The growing popularity of recreational boating and fishing has 
created safety, environmental, and access needs that have been 
successfully addressed by the Recreational Boating Safety and Sport 
Fish Restoration Programs. The trust fund program reauthorizations and 
funding adjustments contained in the conference report are important 
for the safety of boaters, the continued enjoyment of fishermen, and 
improvement of our coastal areas and waterways.
  Finally, the conference report streamlines the Federal Railroad 
Administration's Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Loan 
Program and increases the amount of loans for railroad infrastructure 
improvements. The conference report creates a new program to fund the 
relocation of rail lines and other projects that help alleviate 
congestion, noise, and other impacts from railroads on communities and 
provides additional funds for highspeed rail planning and development 
efforts.
  As the title of this bill implies, increasing the safety of our 
highways and surface transportation system is one of our Nation's top 
priorities, and I am proud to say that this conference report will 
bring us closer to the goal of having the safest transportation system 
in the world.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the highway 
bill conference report. I want to first applaud the chairman, 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.
  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 overpopulated highways.
  This bill will provide roughly $1.76 billion in funding for New 
Mexico over the next 5 years. The New Mexico projects that made it into 
this bill will be instrumental in continuing our push for economic 
development. The money for Double Eagle II Airport will play heavily in 
making this new facility a leader in aircraft manufacturing. 
Additionally, as our population continues to grow, the money for the 
extension of University Boulevard will allow this growing portion of 
Albuquerque direct access to other parts of the city.

[[Page S9410]]

  This bill also contains vital funding for the southern portion of New 
Mexico. This bill contains $5 million for reconstruction of NM-176. 
This road will be a key component in making the LES plant in Eunice a 
success. Finally, this bill provides $7 million for reconstruction of 
the I-10/I-25 interchange and $2 million for road work on I-10 itself.
  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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, after nearly 3 years and countless 
temporary extensions, the Senate is about to pass a monumental 
transportation bill. We will provide over $286 billion that will create 
thousands of jobs and keep our transportation infrastructure healthy.
  Getting to this point truly has been a work of dedication and 
perseverance. First, I thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords, from 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as Senator Bond, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
They provided excellent leadership and cooperation.
  I sincerely thank their staffs many of whom spent sleepless nights 
getting this done. In particular, I thank Ken Connolly, J.C. Sandberg, 
Malia Somerville, Alison Taylor, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Catharine Ransom, 
Chris Miller, Malcolm Woolf, Carolyn Dupree, Thomas Ashley, Cara 
Cookson, Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keeffe, Nathan Richmond, 
Alex Herrgott, Angie Giancarlo, Greg Murrill, Heideh Shahmoradi, Ellen 
Stein, John Stoody. They played an important role developing the 
transit title in this bill.
  I also thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, for his commitment to the transportation program.
  Let me take a moment and speak about the hard work of the Finance 
Committee staff. Getting the Tax Title done presented many challenges, 
not the least of which was getting it paid for. The House bill simply 
did not provide enough money for our highway infrastructure. The 
Finance Committee worked together tirelessly to find additional revenue 
to pay for it.
  I want to thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate the 
cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan 
Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, and Nick Wyatt.
  I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate 
Legislative Counsel for their service.
  I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, 
including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Matt Jones, Ryan 
Abraham, and Wendy Carey. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Mary 
Baker, Jorlie Cruz, Cuong Huynh, Richard Litsey, Stuart Sirkin, and 
Brian Townsend.
  I especially express my sincere gratitude to Kathy Ruffalo-
Farnsworth. Her extraordinary efforts and contributions in keeping this 
bill together went over and above the call of duty. I hold her in the 
highest esteem and can't thank her enough for her counsel and 
professionalism.
  Finally, I thank our hard-working law clerks and interns: Katherine 
Bitz, Drew Blewett, Adam Elkington, Julie Golder, Rob Grayson, Jacob 
Kuipers, Heather O'Loughlin, Andrea Porter, Ashley Sparano, Julie 
Straus, Danny Shervin and Paul Turner.
  This legislation really was a team effort. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate-House team that 
negotiated the final transportation funding package, I want to commend 
Majority Leader Bill Frist for avoiding yet another stalemate and 
steering this legislation toward final passage. The comprehensive 
highway measure allocates $286.5 billion over 5 years to support 
investment in our Nation's highways and transit systems. Miles traveled 
on Utah's roads has grown twice as fast as its population, but Federal 
funding has remained flat. Now, Utah can plan for long-term projects, 
which in the past have been interrupted by numerous temporary 
extensions.
  With the passage of the Transportation bill, Utah will receive 
approximately $1.8 billion to fund its multi-year highway and transit 
projects. This highway bill will allocate close to $282 million each 
year to invest in Utah's highways over the next 5 years. This is the 
most Federal funding ever committed to Utah in a transportation bill 
and it is long overdue.
  Utah is the crossroads of the West; every year millions of people 
visit the Beehive State to enjoy its natural beauty and to invest in 
its growing economy. The highway bill provides a tremendous amount of 
Federal assistance for road improvements and transit projects across 
the State, including: new I-15 interchanges in Ogden, Layton and Provo; 
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; a pedestrian and bicycle access in Moab; a 
connector from I-15 to the Provo Municipal Airport; improvements for 
the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Access Road; the 3200 South 
Project in Nibley/Cache County; and building the Northern and Southern 
Corridors in St. George. There are, of course, many, many more projects 
throughout the State that will receive funding that I do not have time 
to name here but that are equally as important.
  The Utah Transit Authority, UTA, plans to bring commuter rail to Utah 
to ease congestion and help Utah commuters. I am pleased with the $200 
million set-aside to begin construction on this important project, 
which plans to provide service from Ogden to Provo. This project will 
do so much to relieve congestion and give Utahns a fast, comfortable, 
and efficient choice for transportation. Utah will also receive $30 
million for its statewide bus and bus facilities for the purchase of 
buses, upgrading existing buses, and for improving maintenance 
facilities and storage yards.
  At my urging as a Senate conferee to the Transportation bill, Utah 
State University was designated as a University Transportation Center. 
USU will receive approximately $2 million over the next 5 years and 
will greatly improve the statewide knowledge base and transportation 
research being done in Utah.
  Mr. President, a few months ago, executives of Wavetronix, a traffic-
data collecting company based in Lindon, UT, asked for my help in 
amending the Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Program, ITIP. 
Wavetronix sells sensors that detect speed and flow in highways for 
purposes of gathering information to determine real-time traffic data 
and would like to have access to ITIP funds. Unfortunately, since 1998, 
a Pennsylvania-based company, Traffic.com, has had total control over 
how and where to use Federal ITIP funds. Wavetronix and many others 
have been shut out from receiving ITIP funds because of the closed 
nature of the program. One large company should not have a monopoly on 
the funds provided for traffic data collection. We should benefit from 
innovative solutions coming from small businesses in Utah and other 
States, not funnel millions of dollars each year to a company that does 
not have to compete for--the money.
  In May, I included in the Senate highway bill language that gives 
qualified companies, including Wavetronix, the ability to compete for 
ITIP funding. I am pleased that the conference report maintained the 
important language which provides a fair and level playing field for 
State DOTs and qualified private-sector companies wishing to access 
ITIP funds, without requiring them to work with Traffic.com. This is a 
significant victory for Wavetronix and other similarly situated small 
companies across the Nation.
  Finally, I want Utahns to know that the delegation worked very hard 
to include language in this bill to resolve the Legacy Parkway issue 
and perhaps save Utah hundreds of millions of dollars--and it came 
right down to the wire. We took this action after we received reports 
that the negotiations involving the Utah State Legislature, UDOT, and 
the Sierra Club, although promising, could not be implemented in a 
timely fashion. So the delegation attempted to use this bill to bring 
this longstanding battle to a close in a way that respected the 
environmental concerns that have been expressed. We

[[Page S9411]]

worked day and night to design language that would allow this 14-mile 
highway addition and at the same time alleviate the horrendous traffic 
jams we have witnessed in northern Utah. In the end, the language was 
blocked. The people who have now cost the State of Utah what some 
estimate to be over $300 million made it impossible, with the help of a 
very few allies in Congress, to get it through. In my estimation, this 
fight is not over. My goal is to save our State millions of additional 
dollars and get this highway done so the quality of life of those who 
work south and live north of the project will be improved.
  Despite my disappointment that this provision was not included in the 
final bill, I still believe this bill is one of the most important 
pieces of legislation Congress will consider this year. This bill will 
help ensure the safety, efficiency, and mobility that every American 
expects from their transportation system.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, Congress is finally completing 
work on a bill to reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st century. This bill has been a long time coming and while it is 668 
days overdue, for Wisconsin it may have been worth the wait. I am 
pleased that Wisconsin will now have a chance to address our State's 
vital transportation needs for the next year and plan its priorities 
for the next 5 years. I am even more pleased that this conference 
report builds on the precedent set under TEA-21, where Wisconsin, after 
decades of not getting our fair share, finally started to receive at 
least as much in highway funding as we pay to the Federal Government. 
During this summer travel season, the people of Wisconsin should be 
happy to know that their tax dollars will be used to improve 
Wisconsin's roads, bridges, trails, rails and transit system.
  While the bill is not perfect, it goes a long way toward ending 
Wisconsin's decades-long legacy as a donor State. Historically, 
Wisconsin's taxpayers have received about 78 cents for every dollar we 
have paid into the highway trust fund. As a result, we have lost more 
than $625 million between 1956 and when TEA-21 was passed in 1998. 
Under TEA-21, the previous 6-year highway authorization, Wisconsin 
received approximately 102 cents for every dollar it paid contributed 
to the highway trust fund through gasoline taxes. I was pleased to work 
with the Wisconsin delegation to finally turn around decades of our 
State getting the short end of the stick, and am happy that we are now 
able to build upon that success. The conference report guarantees 
Wisconsin an absolute dollar increase of over 30 percent, or about $165 
million per year, over the last bill and improves our rate of return to 
106 cents per dollar paid in over the 5 years of the bill. This will 
help us make up for the decades where Wisconsin was instead on the 
losing end of the highway funding equation.
  I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin's delegation in achieving an even 
greater measure of fairness for Wisconsin's taxpayers. Throughout this 
over 2-year process, I have worked closely with Senator Kohl and the 
entire House delegation to get the best possible treatment for 
Wisconsin. The conference bill represents a great victory for 
Wisconsin, largely due to this bipartisan bicameral cooperation. I 
would like to give special thanks to those members of both bodies who 
have worked in the trenches as conferees to craft this bill, especially 
Congressman Tom Petri, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on 
Highways, Transit and Pipelines. As one of the key conferees, he worked 
tirelessly over the past 2 years or more to come to this agreement and 
to ensure that Wisconsin was treated fairly.
  While there are probably some projects in this large bill that may 
not be priorities for their States or local communities, but instead 
were proposed by special interests, I don't feel that this is the case 
for Wisconsin. I worked closely with the Wisconsin Department of 
Transportation when I made requests for funding of specific projects to 
ensure that they addressed Wisconsin's transportation priorities. I 
think this was probably true for the entire Wisconsin delegation as 
well, and I want to thank the State Department of Transportation for 
this valuable advice and support. The projects I requested were chosen 
to meet a range of State and local needs and span the entire State from 
our urban areas, with the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee or East 
Washington Avenue in Madison, to suburban and rural areas like the 
Stillwater Bridge linking St. Croix County to Minnesota, or the 
Sturgeon Bay Bridge and State Highway 57 in Door County. These projects 
will create jobs in Wisconsin, allow for the more efficient movement of 
manufactured goods and agricultural products throughout the State, 
provide access to Wisconsin's natural wonders to residents and 
visitors, and in many cases make the roads safer for Wisconsin's 
families as they go about their daily lives.
  Finally, while attention has been focused on money for highways and 
bridges, this bill also includes funds for important safety 
improvements, transit projects, recreational trails, boating programs 
and funds to give seniors and the disabled more mobility, to name a 
few. I was proud to support many of these programs that were ultimately 
included in the bill. Having fought to secure funds for recreational 
trails, senior transportation, and various transit projects from the 
statewide bus funding to the Dane County's Transport 2020 and the 
commuter rail extension through Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee, I can 
attest that these are as important to many citizens in Wisconsin as the 
essential highways and bridges.
  As I noted before, this bill is not perfect. I am concerned about 
some of the environmental provisions in the bill, particularly those 
with a potential impact on the Nation's air quality. The language 
modifies current transportation regulations dealing with long-range 
transportation planning and its impact on air quality. The current 
rules require that major new road projects must not contribute to 
violations of air quality standards over a 20-year period. The 
conference report instead mandates that Clean Air Act conformity will 
be considered over 10 years. The bill also contains environmental 
review streamlining provisions that include tight review deadlines and 
conflict resolutions provisions. I agree with these measures in 
principle, but I am concerned that the articulated deadlines may not be 
realistic.
  On balance, my concerns about these provisions are not enough to 
cause me to oppose this bill that provides critical highway funds in a 
fair manner. I will vote for the bill.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the conference report that 
accompanied the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act reauthorization bill. The Senate adopted this measure 
earlier today and I voted in support of it.
  I would like to begin by thanking the principal Senate authors of 
this important legislation: Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee; Senator Shelby and Senator 
Sarbanes of the Banking Committee; Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus 
of the Finance Committee; and Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye of the 
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. I commend them and 
their staffs for their hard work over these past 3 years in crafting 
this legislation.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues who served on the conference 
committee during these past 2 months. Reconciling legislative 
differences with the other body over a bill of this large, complex and 
important nature is no easy task; I appreciate all of their hard work.
  The conference report that passed the Senate funds our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure at $286.4 billion between fiscal year 
2005 and fiscal year 2009. This includes all of our Interstate 
highways, the National Highway System, secondary roadways, intercity 
passenger rail, local transit systems and transportation safety 
programs. Taken together, these elements form one of the most essential 
factors that determine the well-being of our country and our country's 
national economy: ensuring the safe and efficient passage of people and 
goods.
  The conference report provided $233.8 billion for our Nation's 
roadways. Included in this amount was $25 billion for the maintenance 
and expansion of our Interstate highway system, $30.5 billion for the 
maintenance and expansion of our larger National Highway

[[Page S9412]]

System, $21.6 billion for the replacement of defunct or obsolete 
bridges, $32.5 billion for discretionary projects under the Surface 
Transportation Program and $5 billion for highway safety programs. Out 
of these funds the conference report provided my home State of 
Connecticut with nearly $2 billion between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal 
year 2009--a 19 percent increase over the original authorization bill's 
amount. Included in these resources were on average $51 million a year 
for Interstate highway maintenance, $48 million a year for roads 
included in the National Highway System, $91 million a year for bridge 
replacement, $61 million a year for large and small-scale road 
improvement projects under the Surface Transportation Program and $7 
million a year for highway safety programs. Beyond these resources the 
bill provided over $160 million for several dozen highway initiatives 
across Connecticut. All of these initiatives, from the reconstruction 
of I-95, municipal streets and bridges to multi-use recreational 
trails, stand to improve the quality of life in the communities and 
regions where they are taking place.
  The conference report also provided $52.6 billion for our Nation's 
transit systems. Out of these funds the report provided Connecticut--a 
State heavily- dependent on mass transit services--with nearly $485 
million between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2009--a 33 percent 
increase over the original authorization bill's amount. In addition to 
these resources the report included nearly $150 million for local 
transit agencies across Connecticut to improve their infrastructure and 
services, thereby working to alleviate congestion that continues to 
plague my State's roadways.
  Overall I believe that the resources provided in this conference 
report will help improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure 
over the next 4 years. They will allow for critical maintenance and 
capital improvement projects to go forward on our roadways; they will 
allow for dangerous overpasses to be replaced; they will allow for 
transit systems to meet more efficiently the needs of their riders; and 
they will allow for a greater degree of safety on our roads and rails. 
Nevertheless, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to discuss 
some of the shortcomings I see in this conference report--shortcomings 
that, in my view, threaten to undermine the very goals this legislation 
tried to accomplish.
  First, I do not believe that the level of investment provided in this 
conference report is fully adequate to meet the growing needs of our 
transportation infrastructure. When the Senate originally debated this 
legislation, I was pleased to support a bipartisan measure that 
provided $295 billion between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2009. 
This funding level was considerably higher than the House level of $283 
billion and the Bush administration's original recommendation of $256 
billion.
  Therefore, when the conference report was completed earlier this 
week, I was disappointed to learn that the conference committee 
provided $286.4 billion--a figure only marginally higher than the House 
figure and significantly lower than the Senate figure. I have been told 
by the Connecticut Department of Transportation that this level of 
investment is barely adequate to keep pace with expected inflation over 
next 4 years and wholly inadequate to meet the growing crises facing 
our transportation systems both in Connecticut and across the country.
  Second, I remain concerned over how the levels of guaranteed funding 
for highways and transit were determined in this conference report. 
Earlier this year, I strongly opposed a unilateral move by the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee to reduce transit's share in the 
Senate bill from the previously-negotiated ratio of 18.82 percent to 
18.18 percent. Unfortunately, this new ratio prevailed in the Senate 
version of the bill. In conference it was raised to 18.57 percent. 
While this conference agreement is higher than the Senate version's 
ratio and higher than the ratio in the original authorization bill, it 
still underfunds transit activities by $700 million compared to the 
original agreed-upon ratio in the Senate.
  Highway and transit interests should not be working against each 
other. They should be working together. The best transportation systems 
in the world are those that feature a sound, safe, and efficient 
balance between various modes of transportation. Disrupting that 
balance by favoring one mode over another ultimately causes road 
congestion, unreliable transit service, and higher transportation 
costs--three problems that many parts of this country, including 
Connecticut, are experiencing today. If we are to overcome these 
problems and support a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation 
network in this country, then we must adequately and equally invest in 
all modes, whether they are highways, transit, airports, or seaways. We 
must recognize that each mode is an important and integral part of a 
larger transportation network.
  From reviewing the funding allocations provided for both transit and 
highways in this bill, it concerns me that inadequate resources are 
going to areas of the country, such as Connecticut, where the 
transportation needs are the greatest. I find this rationale 
inconsistent with the way our national government usually addresses 
matters of national significance that affect particular regions of our 
country. When a drought plagues a certain part of this country, we 
always stand ready to provide drought relief to the affected States. 
When a hurricane slams into our coastline, we always stand ready to 
provide emergency disaster relief to the affected States. When farmers 
are experiencing financial difficulty, we always stand ready to provide 
them with vital subsidies. And when forest fires burn mercilessly over 
hundreds of square miles, we always stand ready to provide emergency 
assistance to the affected States. Why then, when key components of our 
national transportation system are plagued by aging and obsolete 
infrastructure, do we not seem to stand ready to provide adequate 
assistance to the most affected States?
  A transportation system in crisis is more than a transportation 
problem; it's an economic problem. Without a balanced, safe, and 
efficient transportation system, goods cannot be delivered to their 
destinations in a timely manner, services cannot be rendered 
efficiently, and people cannot get to their jobs conveniently. Over 
time, the environment worsens, the quality of life declines, and the 
region suffers as a whole.
  Today, the transportation system serving Connecticut and the 
surrounding region is in need of assistance. In Connecticut alone, a 
rapidly aging infrastructure routinely causes significant disruptions 
to our transportation network--disruptions that have had a negative 
impact on the region and country as a whole.
  The busiest commuter rail line in the country is located in 
Connecticut. It runs over 70 miles between New Haven and New York 
City--carrying over 33 million riders annually along our southwest 
coast. Last year, a combination of cold weather and rapidly aging rail 
cars--many of which are a decade or more beyond their operational 
lifetimes--caused one-third of the line's fleet to be taken out of 
service for emergency maintenance. In fact, about 37 percent of the 
fleet was taken out of service for most of last February--230 cars out 
of the 800-car fleet. Needless to say, this occurrence put an enormous 
strain on thousands of commuters who rely on the service daily to get 
to and from work, travel to and from school, and to see their families.
  The nation's seventh busiest highway is also located in Connecticut. 
Our segment of Interstate 95 is a major artery for commercial vehicles 
and other interstate traffic. In March of 2004, an accident caused an 
overpass in Bridgeport to collapse. While there were thankfully no 
fatalities, the accident did force the closure of Interstate 95 for 4 
days until a temporary overpass could be built. Needless to say, this 
closure created enormous burdens on the already beleaguered highway and 
transit systems in Connecticut, New York, and New England. It also 
created an adverse economic effect that was felt far beyond our region 
as people and goods were unable to reach their important destinations 
on time.
  These are the types of incidents that speak to an acute 
transportation need in Connecticut and in our region of the country. 
These are the types of incidents that should be considered closely when 
vital transportation resources are being allocated in a reauthorization 
bill. It is my hope that Congress in

[[Page S9413]]

future years will take these considerations more into account when 
drafting transportation authorization measures. The problems facing my 
State and others will not go away on their own.
  In closing I thank again the authors, managers and conferees of this 
legislation. I look forward to working with them and all of my 
colleagues on future initiatives that seek to ensure the long-term 
well-being of our Nation's transportation system.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the U.S. Department 
of Transportation's disadvantaged business enterprise, DBE, program 
contained within the surface transportation reauthorization bill. The 
DBE program is critical to providing equal opportunities to small 
businesses that are owned and controlled by minorities, women, and 
others in our Nation who have been socially and economically 
disadvantaged. I am pleased that Congress is committed to its 
reauthorization.
  This important DBE program has been in existence since 1983. It was 
created to remedy the demonstrated history of discrimination that has 
existed in our Nation against minority-owned small businesses. The 
program was amended in 1987 to include women-owned small businesses. In 
1998, Congress reauthorized the DBE program for both minorities and 
women, in light of an extensive record of hearings and evidence showing 
the effects of discrimination on the ability of disadvantaged 
businesses to compete on an equal basis.
  Although we have made progress as a Nation in the treatment of 
minorities and women, the evidence shows that discrimination endures. 
The U.S. Department of Transportation has conducted 15 detailed 
disparity studies since 1998 showing ongoing discrimination against 
businesses owned by these groups. The studies show a statistically 
significant disparity between the availability of minority and women-
owned businesses in government contracting, and their utilization. 
Courts have consistently held that such evidence is strong evidence of 
unlawful discrimination and of the need for the continuation of the DBE 
program.
  There is also ample anecdotal evidence showing that discrimination in 
contracting still exists. Loretta Molter started her own business in 
Frankfort, IL, in 1987, and her business was recently named 
subcontractor of the year by the Illinois Department of Transportation. 
But in a letter that Ms. Molter wrote last year to the Women First 
National Legislative Committee, she stated: ``Prime contractors tend to 
take advantage of small minority or women businesses. . . . If the 
goals were eliminated, general contractors would not use minority or 
women business owners. . . . There is a good ol boy's network, be it on 
the golf course, on trips, or dinner/lunch meetings.''
  And consider the words of Takyung Lee, an Asian-American owner of a 
small trucking company in Wauconda, IL. Lee submitted a statement to 
the city of Chicago last year that discussed the disparate treatment 
faced by Asian Americans in the trucking business: ``When we do get 
jobs, we are targeted and harassed. Our drivers are stopped and checked 
for identification when others are not. We have to show proof of 
health, welfare and pension payments when other companies get away with 
these and other violations. . . . It seems that some people think an 
Asian American does not belong in the construction business. I have 
worked hard to prove them wrong but face discrimination and unfairness 
every day. I wonder how much success I could have if I did not have to 
fight so hard against people who are prejudiced?''
  It is unfortunate that Asian Americans, women, and other participants 
in the DBE program must ask themselves that painful question. We can 
hope for a day when we have a color-blind society and equality of 
opportunity, but that day is not yet here. The surface transportation 
reauthorization bill recognizes this reality and gives new life to a 
program that is trying to level the playing field for those who 
continue to be socially and economically disadvantaged in the 21st 
century.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is our final step to positively 
reaffirm our commitment to a strong and dedicated highway program, the 
safety and soundness of its infrastructure, and the security of the 
Nation's transportation network.
  But in the process of pursuing and completing those goals, conferees 
had to make many decisions. As chairman of the Finance Committee, at 
the outset, I committed to several fundamental principles during this 
conference.
  First, that the bill be paid for. Whatever we added to the trust fund 
should not increase the deficit. If you look at the revenue table, 
prepared by Joint Tax, you will see that the new trust fund money 
raised by fuel fraud enforcement is raised in a deficit-neutral manner. 
The tax-writing committees were fiscally responsible in our efforts to 
grow the trust fund.
  Second, highway taxes pay for highways. These are taxes that will be 
collected regardless of whether or not we have a highway bill. They 
can't be used for anything else. The tax provisions of the highway bill 
aggressively focus on collecting all of the taxes due and owed to the 
highway trust fund.
  So we increase the size of the trust fund. Primarily, we do it by 
being tough on fraud. Some of this fraud is just plain old criminal 
activity--but we have reason to believe that billions of our highway 
tax dollars are being stolen for a more sinister purpose, that being 
the potential funding of terrorism. So we have the opportunity with 
this legislation to not only shut down these thieves but to rightfully 
collect all of our highway taxes to fully fund this bill. Under the 
Senate bill, several billion dollars will be added to the highway trust 
fund merely by moving jet fuel to the rack. Unfortunately, we can't 
keep all of the untaxed jet fuel out of the diesel market unless all 50 
States move all of their fuel tax collection to the rack. But we can 
collect billions that are currently stolen from both airport and 
highway trust funds.
  The third principle was to provide the highway trust fund with 
sufficient resources to serve America's highway needs. The additional 
resources the Finance Committee produced for the authorizers, I 
believe, enabled this deal to happen. Add up last year's FSC-ETI 
conference report changes and the trust fund gained $24 billion extra. 
This year we have added another roughly $3 billion in additional 
receipts for the trust fund. Without these additional resources, we 
would have faced another case of legislative gridlock. Legislative 
gridlock wouldn't help the folks we represent who were facing gridlock 
on their roads.
  I would also like to mention two policy initiatives that do not 
relate to the highway trust fund. The Senate carried into conference a 
package of excise tax reforms and a transportation bond proposal.
  The legislation before us also includes a number of excise tax 
reforms. These are small items, but important to the affected 
taxpayers. For the most part, these provisions simplify various Federal 
excise taxes.
  I will note that these excise tax reforms do lose some revenue. It is 
roughly $1 billion over the 10-year period. When the highway bill came 
out of the Senate, these measures were offset with revenue raisers to 
make them deficit neutral. The House did not accept the group of 
revenue raisers we had allocated to these provisions. It should be 
noted that the budget resolution provides $36 billion over 5 years for 
tax relief outside of reconciliation. So this relatively minor deficit 
impact is accounted for in the budget.
  Finally, I am pleased we were able to reach agreement on the Talent-
Wyden transportation infrastructure private activity bond proposal. 
Senators Talent and Wyden are to be commended for pursuing this 
innovative concept. There will now be $15 billion in bond authority for 
transportation projects.
  We did hear some sharp criticisms of the heavy-lifting the Finance 
Committee did to make this bill happen. We were told our offsets 
weren't real and that phony accounting occurred in the highway trust 
fund. I rebutted these charges during Senate floor debate. I said our 
principles would be honored in conference and they were. We got the job 
done.
  In the end, that is what counts: doing the peoples' business. The 
conferees achieved an important policy objective. The highway trust 
fund more accurately reflects the resources it receives from the 
taxpayers who use our

[[Page S9414]]

Nation's roads. The resources will go into maintaining and improving 
America's highway system. All of this will be accomplished in a 
fiscally responsible manner. That is what the folks back home should 
expect. That is what we have done. That is what really matters. That is 
why the folks back home sent us here in the first place.
  In conclusion, after great effort by many people, the Senate is 
poised 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 
today we are going to deliver legislation to the President's desk to 
start solving these problems. Our conference agreement utilizes more 
than $285 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, Sherry Kuntz, John Good, 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, and 
Ryan Abraham.
  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 conference agreement is infused with the spirit of bipartisan 
and bicameral cooperation. Hopefully, that spirit will be influential 
to the entire ongoing legislative process.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today the Senate is taking the final 
step in a very long, and at times frustrating but overall rewarding 
process to address our national transportation needs. It has been 22 
months since TEA-21 expired on September 30, 2003. The Federal-aid 
program has since been operating under a number of short-term 
extensions--a total of 11 to date. I urge the Senate to approve the 
conference report before us so that our States can start working on 
addressing their transportation needs.
  Both sides of the aisle in the Senate and House embraced a spirit of 
bipartisanship and collaboration that has delivered a quality piece of 
legislation. As in all legislative endeavors there has been much give 
and take. There are provisions in this bill for which I would have 
preferred another outcome, but on the whole, I believe we have produced 
a product that will continue the good work started in ISTEA and 
improved upon in TEA-21.
  The conference report provides $244 billion in guaranteed spending 
over the 2005-2009 period for our Nation's highways and mass transit 
systems. If you include 2004, the bill provides $286.5 billion in 
guaranteed spending--an almost $90 billion increase over TEA-21. 
Finally, the highway program is guaranteed $193 billion over the 2005-
2009 period.

  We worked very hard with our House colleagues to balance the needs of 
donor and donee States. I will be the first to acknowledge that this 
balance--as with any compromise--is not perfect. My colleagues 
representing donee and donor States that receive lower rates of return 
or growth rates than they feel fair have made this fact very clear to 
me.
  I am very sympathetic to the concerns of both donors and donees in 
this situation. Both have significant transportation needs that cannot 
be ignored. Addressing their concerns was even more difficult because 
we had very limited dollars to solve either group's issues.
  SAFETEA-LU tries to split the difference. Donee States have an 
average rate of growth of 19 percent above their TEA-21 levels, and 
donor States will reach a 92 percent rate of return by 2008. Also, if 
there is a positive revenue aligned budget authority in 2007, it will 
be directed to improve donor States rate of return.

  One concern of my donor State colleagues when we were on the floor 
was that not all donor States were treated equally--that concern has 
been addressed.
  Over the 6 years under TEA-21, we made great progress in preserving 
and improving the overall physical condition and operation of our 
transportation system; however, more needs to be done. A safe, 
effective transportation system is the foundation of our economy. We 
are past due to fulfill an obligation to this country and the American 
people--the conference report before us does just that.
  Finally, I would like to acknowledge all the staff time and effort 
that has gone into the bill. Specifically, I would like to single out 
my highway team: again, Ruth Van Mark and James O'Keeffe, Andrew 
Wheeler, Marty Hall, Nathan Richmond, Greg Murrill, Angie Giancarlo, 
Alex Herrgott, and Rudy Kapichak.
  From Senator Bond's staff: Ellen Stein, Heideh Shahmoradi, John 
Stoody, and Julie Daman.
  From Senator Jefford's staff: JC Sandberg, Malia Somerville, Ken 
Connolly, Cara Cookson, Chris Miller, and Jo-Ellen Darcy.
  From Senator Baucus's staff: Kathy Ruffalo.
  From Senator Frist's staff: Libby Jarvis, Sharon Soderstrom, and Erik 
Ueland.
  From the Federal Highway Administration: Today is Administrator Mary 
Peters last day before she heads back to Arizona. It is very 
appropriate that we finish the bill on her last day, because without 
the hard work of Mary and her staff at FHWA, we would not be here 
today.
  On Mary's staff I want to especially thank Susan Binder, Carolyn 
Edwards and Ross Crichton, who over the last 3 years have done more 
than 1600 formula runs. We really appreciate all of your hard work.
  Also, I want to personally thank the hard working attorneys in the 
Senate Legislative Counsel office. In particular, Darci Chan, Heather 
Arpin and Gary Endicott.
  Finally, Rachel Milberg with CBO has done great work in assisting 
staff work through the complicated scoring process.
  I am certain my colleagues share my strong desire to get a 
transportation reauthorization bill passed and urge them to support the 
bill before the Senate today.
  Let me say I do have a great deal of respect for both of my 
colleagues from Arizona. However, I will put them on my doubtful list. 
But I would say this and I will be very brief. We only have 7\1/2\ 
minutes on each side. I want to make sure that Senator Bond, with whom 
I have worked as chairman of the Subcommittee of Transportation, and a 
few others get their time.
  Working with Senator Jeffords and Senator Baucus and Senator Bond has 
been a great experience. We have worked very well together. This has 
been difficult. We have worked for 2 years on this bill. It is not 
easy. I would only say this: It is paid for. It didn't increase taxes. 
It is within the President's parameters.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President,
  I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on the 
transportation reauthorization measure. This legislation authorizes 
more than $286 billion--more than an $80 billion increase over TEA-21--
in funding over the 6 years for maintaining and improving our Nation's 
and State's highways, bridges and transit systems. This is one of the 
most important pieces of legislation that we have considered this year 
and its enactment will help to restore the Federal commitment to our 
surface transportation infrastructure--the lifeblood for our economy as 
well as our quality of life.
  As the ranking member on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs Committee which crafted the transit portion of this 
legislation, I am proud that the agreement continues our commitment to 
a national transit

[[Page S9415]]

program and builds on the important achievements we made in the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, of 1991, and 
TEA-21, enacted in 1998.
  I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Shelby of the full 
committee for his efforts on the balanced budget amendment of the 
transit title and to Senators Allard and Reed, the chairman and ranking 
member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, for their hard 
work as well.
  This legislation increase overall transit funding by 45 percent over 
the levels provided in the past 6 years to meet the growing needs for 
public transit infrastructure in all regions of the country. It 
provides the resources and planning tools to help ensure the continued 
development of an advanced, integrated transit system--a system that 
will cut air pollution, conserve fuel and reduce congestion on our 
roadways. This measure will go a long way to meeting the growing demand 
for transit in cities, towns, rural areas, and suburban jurisdictions 
across the country.
  I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes two key 
provisions which I sponsored, the Transit in Parks Act, or TRIP, and an 
expansion of the commuter benefits program to encourage greater mass 
transit use by Federal employees in the National Capital Area. The new 
Federal transit grant initiative known as TRIP will support the 
development of alternative transportation services--everything from 
rail or clean fuel bus projects to pedestrian and bike paths, 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.
  The expansion of the commuter benefits program will allow thousands 
more federal employees to take advantage of a guaranteed tax-free 
financial incentive of up to $105 per month, paid by their employer, 
towards the costs of transit commuting. It will give employees more 
choice in their commuting options and provide an additional incentive 
to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit. In 
addition, Federal agencies will be permitted to offer shuttle services 
for their employees to a public transit facility. This is particularly 
important to employees of the Food and Drug Administration who will be 
relocating to the new FDA headquarters at White Oak, MD.
  Maryland's formula share of transit funding will grow by nearly $275 
million over the 6 years--from $571 million to $846 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, D.C., Frederick and 
Brunswick, the Baltimore Light Rail system, and bus systems and para-
transit systems for elderly and disabled people throughout Maryland.
  This bill advances important existing and planned new transit 
projects in the Baltimore and Washington Metropolitan areas as well as 
in growing regions of our State. In the Washington area, it provides 
$100 million to enable the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority, WMATA to purchase 52 new rail cars to help alleviate the 
severe overcrowding that the Metrorail system is currently 
experiencing. The new cars will enable WMATA to lengthen trains from 6 
cars to 8 cars on the Metrorail System, utilize more of its design 
capacity, and give the authority increased ability to assist in case of 
an emergency. It provides $21 million to enable Montgomery County to 
complete the Silver Spring Transit Center--a major new transportation 
hub connecting MARC commuter trains, the Metrorail system, Ride-on and 
Metro buses and taxi services that is designed for integrated, mixed 
use private transit-oriented development. The Silver Spring Transit 
Center will not only enhance regional mobility, but will also help to 
promote smart growth and continue to strengthen the remarkable 
revitalization in Silver Spring's downtown business district. The 
measure also authorizes two new transit projects to help relieve 
traffic congestion and improve mobility in the region--the Bi-County 
Transitway, otherwise known as the Purple Line, connecting Bethesda to 
Silver Spring and extending to New Carrollton, and the Corridor Cities 
Transitway connecting the high-tech employment centers and mix-use 
developments in the 1-270 corridor to the Washington Metro and MARC 
Commuter rail.
  In the Baltimore area, the measure authorizes $105.3 million for 
planning, environmental study, right of way, and initial construction 
of the Red and Green Line Transit projects as proposed in the Baltimore 
Region Transit System Plan. The Red Line--an East-West Transit Line 
that will extend for approximately 11 miles from the Social Security 
Administration Headquarters in Woodlawn to Fells Point--will provide 
service to areas in Baltimore currently not served by high quality 
transit. The Green Line would extend from the existing Metro system at 
the Johns Hopkins Hospital for approximately 5 miles northeast to 
Morgan State University. This authorization will guarantee that these 
projects continue to move forward in a timely fashion over the next 5 
years. The measure also authorized the final $12.5 million in Federal 
funds needed to complete the double tracking of the Baltimore Light 
Rail Project and provides $5.2 million to enhance the Baltimore water 
taxi system.

  And statewide, the bill authorizes continued funding for the MARC 
Capacity Expansion Program to enable the Maryland Department of 
Transportation to make needed capacity improvements, purchase new 
rolling stock, and enhance the MARC system. The bill also provides $25 
million in statewide bus and bus facility grants that benefit towns and 
cities throughout the State. The measure also includes a provision 
reauthorizing the National Transportation Center, NTC, at Morgan State 
University over the next 4 years. The NTC conducts important research, 
education and technology transfer activities that support workforce 
development of minorities and women, and addresses urban transportation 
problems. Morgan State will receive $1 million each year to continue 
those activities.
  For our Nation's roadways and bridges, this legislation authorizes 
nearly $184 billion in funding to enable States and localities to make 
desperately needed repairs and improvements. 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 
non-attainment 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 programs--Interstate maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge 
and the Surface Transportation Program. Likewise, ISTEA's and TEA-21's 
basic principles of flexibility, intermodalism, strategic 
infrastructure investment, commitment to safety and inclusive decision-
making processes are retained.
  Maryland's share of highway funding will grow from an average of $443 
million a year to $583 million a year or an average of $140 million 
more each year than was provided under TEA-21 for a total of more than 
$2.9 billion over 5 years. The measure provides funding for a number of 
important transportation improvement projects through all regions of 
our State. Senator Mikulski and I placed a high priority in this 
measure of ensuring that Maryland is ``BRAC'' ready as it prepares to 
handle an influx of new people in areas surrounding many of Maryland's 
military installations. In this regard, the measure provides $12.5 
million to make sorely needed access improvements to MD 175 in the 
vicinity of Fort Meade, nearly $10 million for upgrading the US 40, MD 
715 interchange at Aberdeen Proving Ground and the Edgewood Train 
Station, $15 million for construction of MD Route 4 at Suitland 
Parkway--an important access way to Andrews Air Force Base--and $6 
million to design improvements to MD 210--a major regional commuting 
corridor that provides access to the Indian Head Naval Base in Charles 
County. The measure also provides $12 million for planning and 
construction of the Southern Maryland Commuter Initiative, a program of 
improvements in

[[Page S9416]]

Southern Maryland to relieve congestion by enhancing peak-period 
transit services for commuters, including individuals commuting to 
military bases in Southern Maryland. And it provides over $1.5 million 
for intermodal improvements at the Edgewood and Odenton MARC stations.
  We also placed a premium on addressing those areas of Maryland that 
have experienced particularly severe congestion, bottlenecks or safety 
problems and provided more than $31 million to upgrade MD Route 404 and 
US 113 on the Eastern Shore, nearly $30 million to continue 
improvements to 1-70 in Frederick and to initiate upgrades of US 220 
South of Cumberland in Western Maryland, $27 million for upgrades to MD 
5 in Southern Maryland, and more than $22 million for roadway, 
interchange and bridge improvements in the Baltimore metroplitan area

  We provided funds for several community-based projects around 
Maryland designed to expand travel choices and enhance the 
transportation experience of our citizens by improving the cultural, 
historic, aesthetic and environmental aspects of our transportation 
infrastructure, including funding to complete the Allegheny Highlands 
Trail in Western Maryland, the Fort McHenry and Assateague Visitors 
Centers, the Baltimore water-taxi system, and the roads and trails at 
Patuxent and Blackwater Refuges.
  Before I close, I want to take a moment to note the hard work of the 
staff involved with this bill. This legislation has been years in the 
making and while it represents the efforts of many individuals there 
are several whom I would like to especially recognize. First, let me 
thank the staff of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby, particularly 
Sherry Little and John East, as well as Tewana Wilkerson of Senator 
Allard's staff, for their hard work and dedication to the transit 
program. Also, as I noted earlier, Senator Reed has worked closely with 
me throughout this process and I want to thank Neil Campbell of his 
staff for his significant contributions to this bill. On my own staff, 
I want to recognize Sarah Kline, Aaron Klein, and Charlie Stek for 
their tireless work and for their commitment to helping the people of 
Maryland. Kate Mattice, on detail from the Federal Transit 
Administration to my office last year, also made an important 
contribution to this legislation. Finally, I would like to extend 
particular thanks to Richard Steinmann for the exceptional assistance 
he has provided to the Banking Committee over the past 2 years while he 
has been on detail from the Federal Transit Administration.
  Like any other complex and comprehensive piece of legislation, this 
bill has its share of imperfections. I think it was unfortunate that 
the administration was unwilling to snpport a higher level of 
investment in these programs, and as a result the measure that emerged 
from the conference is billions of dollars less than what the Senate 
passed a few months ago. And I am particularly disappointed that the 
measure does not contain the stormwater runoff mitigation provision 
that was approved by the Senate and is so important to helping States 
and localities meet water quality standards stemming from the 
stormwater impacts of Federal aid highways. 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. JEFFORDS. Madam President, as we prepare to give the final 
approval to the highway bill conference report I would like to thank 
Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond and Baucus and all of the Senators 
and staff who have helped to move this bill forward.
  The bill we are about to vote on is good for the Nation.
  This bill will save lives by making our roads safer.
  This bill will reduce traffic congestion by making our roads and 
bridges more efficient.
  This bill will boost local economies by creating hundreds of 
thousands of jobs across the Nation.
  It may have taken us 3 long years to get here, but the impact of this 
bill will be felt for decades to come.
  This bill will affect every American in some way.
  This bill provides the biggest investment in our roads, highways, 
bridges and transit systems in our nation's history.
  Once again I thank Chairman Inhofe and all the members of the EPW 
Committee for their work.
  Madam President, I would like to take one brief moment to thank the 
staff who have worked so hard to help craft this highway bill.
  On my staff I would like to thank my staff director, Ken Connolly; 
J.C. Sandberg, Alison Taylor, Malia Somerville, Cara Cookson, Catherine 
Cyr Ransom, Chris Miller, Mary-Francis Repko, Geoff Brown and Jeff 
Munger.
  From Senator Baucus's staff, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth;
  From Senator Inhofe's staff, Ruth Van Mark, Andy Wheeler and James 
O'Keefe;
  And from Senator Bond's staff, Ellen Stein.
  These Congressional staffers have made extraordinary personal 
sacrifices to move this massive legislation along for over 3 years, and 
I would like to express my personal gratitude for their efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time on this side. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank Senator Jeffords for the great working 
relationship.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding we have 6 
minutes. I would like to yield 2 minutes each to three Senators, three 
of the hard workers on this bill. I did forget to mention Senator 
Grassley, who was so helpful. I would like to recognize Senators Bond, 
Lott, and Shelby for 2 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, it has been a long road to get here on 
SAFETEA, and I am pleased to be here. I thank Chairman Inhofe, Senators 
Jeffords and Baucus, with a special thank you to my staff: Ellen Stein, 
John Stoody, and Heideh Shahmoradi; Senator Inhofe's staff, Senator 
Jeffords' staff, Senator Baucus's staff, the help of Senate legal 
counsel, employees of FHWA, who ran 1661 runs, Ross Crichton, Susan 
Binder, and Carolyn Edwards, and the staffs of the Banking, Finance, 
Commerce, and Budget Committees.
  I might inform my colleagues from Arizona, this includes highways and 
bridges, mass transit, safety, and other items. I thank particularly my 
colleague from Arizona for mentioning a bridge across the Mississippi 
River. We have the largest truck traffic in the Nation coming east and 
west on Highway 70, the eastern edge of Missouri. If they do not have a 
bridge, they do not get to Illinois. That is one point people from 
drier States perhaps do not understand.
  This bill is one characterized by equity, by safety. Environmental 
issues are addressed by getting environmental input early on and giving 
them an opportunity to resolve the problems before money is wasted. It 
brings the stakeholders to the table earlier. Under the CMAQ 
provisions, we allow in six States the use of clean-burning biodiesel 
fuel.
  My colleagues and staff have worked tremendously hard in moving this 
bill over the last 2\1/2\ years and I want to highlight some of the key 
elements of this bill that I am proud of.
  H.R. 3 achieves several major goals:
  First, equity--this bill carefully balances the needs of the donor 
States while recognizing the needs of the donee States.
  There are many sections in this bill that I am proud of supporting, 
such as the fact that all donor States will receive an equitable 
increase to, at the minimum, a 92 percent rate of return by fiscal year 
2008.
  The average rate of growth among States is 30.32 percent and all 
States will grow at not less than 117 percent over what they received 
in TEA-21 starting in 2005 ramping up to 121 percent by 2009.
  I, along with Chairman Inhofe, both Senators Baucus and Jeffords, and 
our partners on the House side have worked diligently in trying to 
ensure that the bill remain fair and equitable among all States.
  There are many States that continue to fall under the $1.00 rate of 
return, I am one of them. Due to the budgetary

[[Page S9417]]

constraints as well as balancing the needs of both the donor States 
with the needs of the donee States, we were unable to achieve any 
better.
  Another key component of this bill is safety. This bill goes a long 
way to saving lives by providing funds to States to address safety 
needs at hazardous locations, sections, and elements.
  Safety in this authorization is for the first time given a prominent 
position, being elevated to a core program.
  Inadequate roads not only lead to congestion, they also kill people. 
We average more than three deaths a day in Missouri and I think that a 
large number of these deaths can be attributable to inadequate 
infrastructure.
  Nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last year 
alone. 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.
  I am hopeful that the level of funding provided toward the safety 
program and other core programs is a sufficient amount to address the 
growing needs of all states.
  The passage of this bill comes at a very critical time, especially 
for my home State of Missouri. We have some of the worst roads in the 
Nation, with over 50 percent of its major roads in poor or mediocre 
condition, requiring immediate repair or reconstruction.
  Environmental issues are also addressed, such as to ease the 
transition under the new air quality standards, the conformity process 
is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as streamlining 
the project delivery process by providing the necessary tools to reduce 
or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review stage.
  Another accomplishment of our package ensures transportation projects 
are built more quickly by bringing environmental stakeholders to the 
table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised earlier and the 
public will have better opportunities to shape projects. Projects more 
sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured 
environmental review process more efficiently and with fewer delays.
  This bill also ensures that transportation projects will not make air 
worse in areas with poor air quality, while giving local transportation 
planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air quality 
responsibilities. Transportation planning will be on a regular 4-year 
cycle, require air quality checks for projects large enough to be 
regionally significant and reduce current barriers local official face 
in adopting projects that improve air quality.
  Another accomplishment in the bill is allowing local areas to spend 
congestion, mitigation and air quality funds on the purchase of 
biodiesel fuel. Soybean based biodiesel provides another market for 
midwestern, including Missouri, farmers. The clean burning fuel reduces 
smog forming ozone, soot and hazardous air pollutants. Homegrown 
biodiesel also decreases our dependence on foreign oil. It's a win for 
the environment, energy security and farmers.
  Lastly, jobs. We have all heard the statistics and this bill 
undoubtedly will create jobs.
  The comprehensive package here before the Senate today is the key to 
addressing our Nation's needs in infrastructure development and 
improvement. I am hopeful that other Members of the Senate agree and 
pass this bill so our State transportation departments can get back in 
the business of letting contracts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference 
report.
  I am in support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3, the 
surface transportation reauthorization bill. This is a bill, that 
Senator Sarbanes and I have been working on in the Banking Committee 
for over 3 years now, and I look forward to seeing it signed into law.
  It has taken 12 extensions of TEA-21 to reach agreement on this bill. 
It is time to get this bill completed and furnish States with resources 
for needed transportation infrastructure and implement these important 
policy improvements.
  The transportation bill has many important components which I am 
proud to stand here today and support. I am especially proud of Title 
3, the Public Transportation Title. I extend my personal thanks to 
Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, for all 
the work he has done to help craft our committee's approach to 
strengthening public transportation, both in terms of funding and 
policy.
  I would also like to thank Senator Allard and Senator Reed, chairman 
and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, 
and Senator Johnson who also served as a conferee. This bill was truly 
a bipartisan, collaborative effort. I am very proud of what we have 
been able to accomplish.
  In this bill, we have increased the ability of States to use money 
flexibly. We made new and innovative technology, like bus rapid 
transit, eligible for significant Federal investment for the first 
time. This is a promising new cost-effective approach to transportation 
that has real promise in this country. Also, we increased 
accountability for the Federal investment in public transportation 
through several new mechanisms. A contractor performance assessment 
report will provide real data on transit industry performance and will 
enable transit agencies to have an opportunity to assess the quality of 
cost and ridership estimates for their high-dollar investments.
  I am a big believer in positive reinforcement and I included several 
provisions in the bill to reward transit agencies for delivering 
projects that are on-time and on budget. One of those provisions will, 
for the first time, allow transit agencies an opportunity to keep a 
portion of their under-run in new starts projects or would give them 
the chance for a more generous share if they deliver the projects they 
promise to their communities.
  Another accomplishment here of which I proud is the extent to which 
we have been able to extend the benefits of public transportation to 
some of the people who need it most, for example, in rural areas. For 
many years, the prevailing view--a wrong view in my mind--was that 
public transportation was only valuable in very urbanized cities.
  In some rural parts of our country, long distances separate people 
from critical infrastructure. Many of these people are elderly or do 
not have access to a car. Connecting these people to critical 
infrastructure is one of the most valuable services public 
transportation can provide.
  These are just a few of the several important advancements this bill 
makes over current law. This is a bill I am proud of and I want to 
acknowledge some people who have been critical to putting this bill 
together and making it a successful piece of legislation with broad 
bipartisan support.
  Me and my staff were very lucky to have one of the best resources 
that the Banking Committee could have during this process. The Federal 
Transit Administration loaned the committee one of their finest people: 
Rich Steinmann. Rich is an extremely knowledgeable, competent 
professional and his experience is widely respected on both sides of 
the aisle and in both chambers of the Congress. We are indebted to him 
for his time and work on this bill. Additionally, I want to thank 
Sherry Little and John East of the Banking Committee staff. I think 
everyone would agree that this was a tough process on members and staff 
alike. Finally, I want to thank some additional staff who had a 
critical role in putting this challenging bill together: Sarah Kline, 
Aaron Klein, Tewana Wilkerson, and Neil Campbell. Thank you for your 
work on this.
  I am proud of this bill and I look forward to seeing it signed into 
law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, as a member of the conference, I thank the 
leadership and the job they have done. The process has not been easy. 
It has been long and not always pretty, but we produced a bill with 
more jobs, safety, and opportunity for all American people. I am very 
proud of it.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman to dispense as he 
sees fit.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield back the remainder of my time and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.

[[Page S9418]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. The next vote is on the highway conference reported bill, 
the last of the evening, the 11th rollcall of the day and the last vote 
before the August break. I thank all of our colleagues for their 
patience and efforts. We have been very busy, very productive the last 
several weeks. We can all, in a bipartisan way, be proud of what we 
have accomplished.
  We will return for business on Tuesday, September 6th, with a vote 
that day sometime around 5:30. That is Tuesday, September 6th. I wish 
everyone a safe break.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), 
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) 
and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) would each vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     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
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Cornyn
     Gregg
     Kyl
     McCain

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boxer
     Feinstein
     Roberts
     Smith
     Sununu
  The conference report was agreed to.

                          ____________________