[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8256-S8264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  RESTORING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND BALANCE

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6532, and 
that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that the only 
amendment in order be the Baucus amendment which is at the desk; that 
the amendment be considered as agreed to and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table; and that there then be 90 minutes of debate 
with respect to the bill, as amended, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between the leaders or their designees; and that upon the 
use or yielding back, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the 
bill, as amended, without further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, it is my 
understanding that under the current unanimous consent agreement, we 
will begin voting on two amendments on the Defense authorization bill 
at 6 o'clock; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the unanimous consent request of the Senator from 
California modify the existing unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote that is scheduled to occur at 6 p.m. 
will occur unless an agreement specifies differently.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is my understanding that this agreement does not 
specify differently, and on that basis I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6532) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to restore the Highway Trust Fund balance.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, this is an important moment for us, not 
just for us as legislators acting responsibly but for our States and 
for the working people of this country. We were perilously close to 
having a shortfall in the highway trust fund which would have resulted 
in slowing down contracts on repairing bridges, building highways, et 
cetera. Six times the Senate has brought up legislation to restore 
money to the highway trust fund and protect those jobs, but until now 
my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle have put up 
roadblocks and filibustered us.
  Today, at a hearing we held on the status of our bridges, the 
condition of our bridges, the Bush administration itself urged us to 
act. I was very grateful to Senator Inhofe for his work. Because we 
have been facing objections from Senators DeMint, Gregg, and others, we 
were unable to move forward. We are very grateful we have reached this 
moment so we may vote on this important legislation and solve the 
immediate crisis.
  We all know what has been happening with the trust fund. First, $8 
billion was borrowed from the trust fund in 1998. We need to restore 
those funds. That is what we are doing today. Beyond that, we have to 
figure out a way to finance highways and transit systems and repair 
bridges and the rest with a more secure source of funding. Senator 
Inhofe and I are working together on that, along with Senators Isakson, 
Baucus, and the rest of the members of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. We know our colleagues in the House are doing it as well. We 
are going to have to look at how we keep pace with the many billions of 
dollars needed for repair. We have to make sure we pay attention to our 
Nation's infrastructure if we care about a thriving economy, moving 
goods, moving people, all the rest. If we ignore this, it is to our 
detriment. We saw a bridge collapse in Minnesota. We were reminded of 
that today at the hearing. All of us were appalled to see what that 
looks like. I know bridges in California, in Oklahoma, bridges all over 
the country are in need of repair. We can't play politics. That is why 
we have been on the Senate floor. We have sent letters, asked our 
friends to back off. If they want to make a statement about how to fund 
transit and highways, that is very appropriate as we write the new 
highway bill.
  What is happening out there is, obviously, because of the horrible 
price of gas, which, thank goodness, has come down a little bit, people 
are turning away from driving or they are doubling up. They are 
switching to hybrid cars. Hopefully, soon we will see more 
opportunities for electric cars. As a result, however, the trust fund, 
which gets its funding from the gas tax, has been going down. That, 
coupled with the borrowing that we did in 1998 from the trust fund, has 
led us to this day.
  I don't have much more of a statement except I want to thank certain 
people who weighed in to push us and my friends on the other side. I 
hope they were pushed by this to back off and say: Let's have a clean 
bill. Let's fix the problem. Then we will debate how we get a highway 
trust fund that is necessary for the needs of the country.
  AAA was very helpful, as was the American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials; the American Society of Civil 
Engineers; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; 
the American Highway Users Alliance; the American Trucking Association; 
the Associated General Contractors of America; the National Association 
of Counties; the National Association of Manufacturers; the National 
Governors Association; the National Conference of State Legislatures; 
Midwestern Governors' Association; the Coalition of Northeastern 
Governors; the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce.
  Again, what we are doing is simply restoring the revenue that was 
shifted out of the trust fund 10 years ago when the balances were high. 
What we are doing is saying to many working people that we are not 
going to let them run the risk of being laid off, fired, having to come 
home and tell their family they can't work. We know that is a fact 
because each billion dollars of

[[Page S8257]]

Federal funding is estimated to support 34,000 jobs. If we didn't act 
on this and that $8 billion was not restored, we would have lost 
379,000 jobs all across America; in my own State, 32,000 jobs. This is 
not the time to play games. In August, we lost 84,000 jobs in America. 
Imagine if we had added another 379,000 lost jobs.
  Today, through the wonders of communication I can say to State and 
local officials watching us have confidence that the flow of funds to 
build and operate transportation systems, to build highways and 
bridges, to make sure communities are insured, those funds are going to 
be there. Again, as we move behind this crisis, I do look forward to 
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Inhofe 
and I, Senators Baucus and Isakson, we call ourselves the big four of 
the committee. We have met. Our staffs are meeting every day. We are 
meeting. We are coming up with principles, what is the fair way to fund 
infrastructure needs. These meetings have been very important. They are 
not ideological. They are only business. How do we take care of 
business? That means moving goods, people, keeping the country going. I 
can't tell my colleagues how pleased I am that we can have the 
opportunity today to vote on a clean bill, simply restoring the $8 
billion that was borrowed from this fund and sending a signal to the 
300,000-plus people who would have lost their jobs, at least this is 
some bit of good news for them in what has been a very bleak economy.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time through the 
leader's office on our side.


                           Amendment No. 5427

       (Purpose: To change the date of restoration.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the previous order, amendment No. 
5427 is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5427) was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 3, line 2, strike ``September 30, 2008'' and insert 
     ``the date of the enactment of this Act''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time on the 
Republican side be allocated as follows: 15 minutes for Senator DeMint, 
10 minutes for Senator Gregg, 10 minutes for Senator Coburn, 10 minutes 
for Senator Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't object, Mr. President, but I would also like to 
be included in that particular order just given.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of this 
highway bill and the charge that it has been held by me and a few 
others. The fact is, this $8 billion highway trust fund bailout has not 
been held up. The only request was that it come to the floor with some 
debate and the opportunity for amendment, which is the normal Senate 
process. The request was that this $8 billion be passed in secret 
essentially with no vote and no debate. Our only request as Senators 
was that we have a chance to bring to light why this happened.
  A few years from now--maybe even a few months--many of my colleagues 
are going to wake up and look at our Nation's finances and wonder how 
we got in this mess. We are running this country into the ground, and 
we are actually on the verge of an economic crisis because of 
incredible overspending and a huge growing debt. One bill after another 
comes up, and we pass it almost without thinking and spend more and 
more borrowed money.
  Today's votes are creating tomorrow's fiscal disaster. This $8 
billion highway trust fund bailout is only one example among many I 
would like to mention over the next few minutes.
  During the previous year, the Democratic-controlled Congress has 
produced a parade of fiscally irresponsible bills that have mortgaged 
our Nation's future and could ultimately bankrupt the Nation and harm 
the future for our children and grandchildren. If we look at the 2008 
appropriations bills, at the end of 2007 Congress passed a bloated 
budget bill. Supposedly, they were going to get things under control, 
but this exploded with over 10,000 earmarks. On top of that, there were 
a number of budget tricks and gimmicks that hid at least $14 billion of 
extra spending.
  Not too long after, we brought up the farm bill. This was 
reauthorizing an antiquated farm program that cost taxpayers billions 
and increased costs to consumers all across the country. This was a 
$600 billion bill over 10 years. It was all borrowed money. We don't 
have this money to spend. Yet we continue to spend it. It included 
numerous wasteful, unnecessary earmarks that had nothing to do with a 
solid farm bill. Just a few examples would be $257 million in tax 
earmarks for Plum Creek Timber Company. This is the Nation's largest 
private landowner, a multibillion-dollar company with over $7 billion 
in capitalization. Yet we believed we needed to give them $257 million.
  The language in the farm bill also requires the Forest Service to 
sell portions of a certain mountain to a ski resort and over $1 million 
to the national sheep and goat industry--all worthy causes, I am sure, 
but not worthy of more borrowed money and more debt on the future of 
Americans.
  The so-called stimulus package, over $100 billion was supposed to 
help solve our problems. Certainly, it didn't. We sent checks to all 
Americans but did little to fix the problem. Over $100 billion more in 
borrowed money that we didn't have, just sending checks to people to 
build up our political clout rather than do something for the country.
  We need to have a predictable Tax Code, lower our corporate tax rate, 
make the current tax rates permanent so businesses and investors know 
what their tax rate will be in the future. But we don't debate that. We 
just send out checks with borrowed money.
  Everyone knows more and more about the housing bill. The housing bill 
bailed out mortgage companies that had made bad loans and ultimately 
included a section that allowed the U.S. Government to essentially 
nationalize the mortgage industry. As part of that bill, we created a 
$4 billion deficit spending slush fund for community development block 
grants and millions that went to a very suspect group, the ACORN group. 
That seems to be more of a political group to get out the vote for some 
of our colleagues.
  Now, we know we have taken over these two large companies of Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac. Now the taxpayers are on the hook for what could 
be hundreds of billions of dollars because of the lack of congressional 
oversight over the last several years. As part of that bill, I had 
asked for one amendment that would stop the lobbying and the 
contributions to Congress by these two corporations that we are now 
bailing out. But instead of giving me that amendment, the majority 
leader kept the Senate here until Saturday to avoid that one vote that 
would have done what all of us know needs to be done and stopped the 
political influence from these companies for which we are supposed to 
be providing oversight.
  Today we are talking about $8 billion that we are going to borrow and 
put in the highway trust fund. Supposedly back in the late 1990s, $8 
billion was taken as part of an agreement to set up a separate trust 
fund. I will take them at their word for that. But we have had numerous 
opportunities this year to save more than that amount of money, if we 
knew we needed it. Frankly, the Department of Transportation says we 
probably only need about half of that right now. Yet we are going to 
take $8 billion from the general fund, borrow it, and put it in the 
trust fund.
  Highway infrastructure is one of the most important things we can do 
as a Nation.
  But much of this bill is not about roads and bridges. It is numerous, 
wasteful earmarks that I am afraid could end up as part of this $8 
billion. The current bill includes $45 million for a magnetic 
levitation train project in Las Vegas; $2.5 million for landscaping 
enhancements along a freeway; $3.3 million for a bike trail in Laredo, 
TX. This list could go on page after page. These are not priority 
projects. They do not deserve us going into more debt as a nation to 
borrow this money.
  We have had numerous opportunities to cut these projects so that the 
highway trust fund would not go broke. Only a few months ago, we had a 
transportation technical corrections bill. We had almost a billion 
dollars of projects

[[Page S8258]]

that were no longer needed or wanted by the States. Yet, instead of 
saving that $1 billion, we added back essentially the same amount of 
new projects.
  Now we are here at the trough again, and we have a crisis, and we 
will put a lot of people out of work if we do not produce this bill. 
That is why we have agreed to forgo the opportunity to offer 
amendments, even though we should not pass an $8 billion bill without 
the opportunity to debate it in more detail.
  I wish to remind my colleagues, we do not have this $8 billion. It is 
borrowed money, and we are going to move it from one account to 
another, and borrow it from who knows where--China or somewhere else--
because we do not have that money. But there are numerous problems with 
this, and we need to recognize that the earmarks, the wasteful 
earmarks, are taking priority national projects and putting them places 
they do not need to be. Our lack of an energy policy in this Nation 
that has run up the cost of gasoline has restricted the ability of 
Americans to travel, and that in itself has reduced the revenues to the 
trust fund. So we have caused this problem ourselves by congressional 
mismanagement, and now we want the taxpayers to bail us out again.
  Again, this is a bill I think we need as far as funding projects. But 
the way it is done, and the fact that it is done with no more 
accountability on earmarks and the things that have caused the 
problems, makes it very difficult to support the bill, even though I 
see long-term highway funding being one of the most important things we 
can do.
  I hope the chairman and ranking member of the committee will consider 
next year, as we go into reauthorizing a highway program, the fact that 
the Federal Government should no longer be involved in non-Federal 
projects around the country. We have an opportunity to devolve this 
program to the States, where the money would stay at home and be used 
for real priorities, not for things I decide or another colleague 
decides they want for somebody back home where the State does not 
necessarily want it to go.
  Obviously, we have talked a lot about the ``bridge to nowhere'' and 
other projects such as that across the country. But I hope I will get 
the support of my colleagues to move this back to the States, give them 
the ability to manage their own programs over the years, and stop this 
wasteful spending at the Federal level.
  Again, there are a number of amendments we would have liked to have 
had the opportunity to offer, and I wish to warn my colleagues, the 
pattern that is developing here is that we are passing bills by 
unanimous consent, with no debate, no amendments. This goes on bill 
after bill. We are passing very bad legislation with very little 
accountability to the American people.
  But I appreciate the passion of Senator Inhofe and others who know we 
need to push this through, and it is not fair to the States or to the 
workers to blindside them with shortfalls as we have. But the 
shortfalls are of our own doing, and it is because of our own waste and 
incompetence here in Congress that we have ended up with this problem 
and more debt on the American people. I hope next year we will go about 
doing it in a much better way than we have done in the past.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk 
about the emergency we are facing in the highway trust fund. The 
highway trust fund is the primary means of funding all of our highway 
construction and repair projects in every State in this Nation.
  Last Friday, President Bush's Transportation Secretary, Mary Peters, 
acknowledged finally what we on this side have been warning about for 
months: that the highway account of our highway trust fund is broke.
  We have been hearing denials of this crisis for some time, but the 
Bush administration has now finally taken a closer look at the real 
receipts that are coming in from the Federal gas tax and discovered 
their estimates have been off by some $3 billion just since May. Now 
they tell us they are preparing to default on their bills to our 
States.
  Let me make it very clear to everyone how serious the impact could 
be. If we do not pass the bill that is before the Senate this evening, 
my Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee is going to be forced to 
slash money for Federal highway investments in every State across the 
country, and it is going to cost each of our States tens of millions of 
dollars in the next month alone.
  Not only does this threaten the safety of our Nation's roads and 
bridges, it could also very easily mean tens of thousands of jobs lost, 
as the Federal Government defaults on the contracts in every State of 
our Union.
  Now, this nightmare is going to become a reality just as the 
unemployment rate has reached the highest it has been in nearly 5 
years. Our country lost 84,000 jobs in August alone--84,000 jobs--which 
came on top of job losses in July and June and, in fact, every month of 
this year.
  We know people across this country are hurting. Many are wondering 
how they are going to be able to pay their bills as the weather now 
starts to get colder and they have to begin turning on their heat.
  If we do not shore up this trust fund, we are going to be forced to 
halt ongoing highway projects dead in their tracks. That means 
thousands upon thousands of people who go to work every day in the 
construction industry in our Nation to build our highways and bridges 
are going to be told to go home and do not come back to work the next 
morning.
  The urgency of this bill is very critical. We cannot delay it. I hope 
we can put aside the ideology and partisanship for the evening and 
everyone can work together for the good of the Nation on this critical 
issue because we literally cannot afford to wait any longer.
  I want to explain the situation so my colleagues understand where we 
stand this evening. This coming Thursday--that is tomorrow--may be the 
last time the Federal Government will be able to reimburse 100 percent 
of their expenses. The Department of Transportation has told my 
Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee that on 
Thursday, September 18--that is a week from tomorrow--reimbursements 
could drop to as little as 64 percent of the funds that States are due. 
They simply have to offer the States an IOU for the rest.
  In my home State of Washington, 21 percent of the transportation 
budget is supported by the Federal gas tax. Local agencies spend 
between $15 million and $30 million per month in Federal dollars. If 
the Federal Government has to cut back or cut off funds, Washington 
State will lose between $33 million and $54 million a month over the 
next 5 months.

  That is only one State, one example in this country. In other States, 
the Federal Government's share is a lot bigger than in Washington 
State. In fact, at a hearing this morning, the Oklahoma Transportation 
Director, Gary Ridley, testified to the Senate about the impact it will 
have in his State. In answer to questions, he said, in Oklahoma, 85 
percent of the State's construction program--85 percent--is paid for 
with Federal funds. He said the kind of crisis we are talking about 
will have a ``dramatic effect'' on his State's ability to move forward 
on road construction.
  He told us that in Oklahoma they just opened bids on $80 million in 
highway work, including a $40 million project to replace a bridge in 
Oklahoma City that has been identified as having numerous safety 
vulnerabilities. But Mr. Ridley testified this morning he has had to 
ask his State highway commission to hold off on those contracts. In 
fact, he said he might even have to stop all right-of-way acquisition 
and construction projects until we here in Congress find a solution to 
this trust fund crisis.
  So this is a desperate situation in every State across the country. 
What is most disturbing to me is it is not as though we did not know 
this was coming. I have been sounding the alarm about the highway trust 
fund for almost 2 years. My Democratic colleagues and I have warned 
repeatedly that we face a looming disaster. We have proposed a solution 
that would enable these funds to stay solvent, so our States are whole, 
so our construction industry can continue during this construction 
season to move forward on these critical safety transportation 
projects. We have made it clear that

[[Page S8259]]

without action this year, we would face a financial disaster, and that 
it was coming upon us very fast.
  Well, the situation is so serious that after months of blocking our 
legislative solution, this administration, the Bush administration, did 
a 180 and is now asking us--in fact, telling us--we have to get a bill 
on the President's desk by the end of this week. So I am very hopeful 
this evening we can finally move this bill and provide a solution to 
our States.
  What this bill does is replace $8 billion that was taken out of the 
highway trust fund back at the end of 1998. This is not a bailout from 
the general fund of the Treasury. That $8 billion was collected from 
our gas taxes for the purposes of being deposited into the highway 
trust fund.
  Now, at the time, the trust fund was flush with money and people did 
not think we needed it. Well, clearly, we need it now. We are proposing 
to restore that $8 billion that was paid in gas tax receipts to the 
trust fund, and we are not asking for a penny more.
  This is not new to anyone in this body. We have debated this proposal 
before. I and my ranking member on the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Bond, included this proposed transfer in our 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. So 
it has been a bipartisan effort in our Senate Transportation 
Subcommittee.
  In fact, Democrats also tried to pass this proposal back in June on 
the FAA bill. We included it in the tax extender package. We tried to 
pass it as part of the stimulus bill.
  Well, we are back this evening. We have another chance. We are 
working on a bipartisan basis to move this critical bill forward, and I 
urge my colleagues again to get this done this evening because, as I 
said, we are going to start seeing severe consequences to this crisis 
if we do not act and work together on this now.
  As I said, this Thursday--tomorrow--could be the last day that our 
States are fully reimbursed for construction work. So by this time next 
week, States may have to start doing without. The stakes could not be 
higher. Mr. President, 84,000 jobs were lost last month. We cannot 
afford to put another job at risk. But, importantly, these construction 
contracts are out there and we are in the middle of construction 
season. Our States need to know we stand by our word and this money is 
going to go out to them in a timely fashion.
  I thank my Democratic colleagues, as well as our Republican 
colleagues, who have been working with us this evening in a bipartisan 
way to finally move this bill forward and solve this crisis that is in 
front of us.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we do not have a UC on the majority side, 
but we do on the minority side. So our next speakers will be in the 
order of 10 minutes for Senator Gregg, 10 minutes for Senator Coburn, 
and then I will wind up the final 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is no question there is a serious 
problem out there relative to the financing of already let contracts in 
road construction and that it is unfair to those people who have had 
those contracts and those people who are working on those projects that 
they should be blindsided by the fiscal irresponsibility of the 
Congress. But it is also inappropriate to the taxpayers of the United 
States that we should correct this problem in a way which does even 
more egregious harm to the future of this country by significantly 
expanding the deficit.
  Just yesterday, we learned that the deficit of the United States has 
doubled under this Congress. It has gone from $163 billion to $407 
billion. This is a huge increase in the deficit. What does the deficit 
mean? We are passing debt on to our children which they all have to pay 
for. Now we are going to, with this bill, add another $8 billion to 
that deficit--$8 billion. That is big money. Eight billion dollars 
would run the State of New Hampshire for at least 2 years, probably for 
2\1/2\ years, so it is a lot of dollars. So this decision, the way it 
is being executed, the way we are approaching solving the problem of 
the highway trust fund running short of funds, although it needs to be 
done--we need to address the issue of let contracts. The way we are 
trying to correct the problem is the wrong way. We shouldn't be adding 
to the deficit to do this.
  This is pretty much a self-inflicted wound, and it is really an 
intentionally self-inflicted wound. When the SAFETEA bill was passed, 
it was passed with the knowledge--the open knowledge, which was pointed 
out on this floor by a number of us--that the revenues in the highway 
trust fund, which would come from gas tax and which had always paid for 
highway construction, were not going to be enough to meet the largess 
of that bill. The avarice of our colleagues to spend money far 
outweighed the money that was coming into the trust fund.
  We knew that in the term of SAFETEA that this was going to happen, 
that the lines were going to cross and that the trust fund would be 
depleted. That depletion was accelerated, obviously, by the fact that 
energy prices went up and people, rightly and appropriately, started to 
aggressively conserve their use of gasoline, and that was good for the 
country and good for ourselves in dealing with this issue of gas 
prices. However, it had the effect of reducing the revenues into the 
trust fund. So the day of reckoning, which was inevitable under the 
original SAFETEA bill, was accelerated and, according to the 
administration, occurred sort of out of the blue because 2 weeks ago 
they were saying they would have vetoed a bill such as this that added 
to the deficit, and now they are saying they support it. So they 
reversed their position on the basis of information they received in 
the last 2 weeks about the status of the trust fund.
  Why was the original SAFETEA bill so out of whack? Well, it was out 
of whack because it included 6,000 earmarked special projects--some of 
which were listed by my colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint--
which totaled $24 billion of spending, which we didn't have money to 
pay for, yet we put them on the books anyway. Then, a year ago or so, 
when we could have contracted those projects, we went by lapsing those 
projects which nobody wanted to pursue--$1 billion worth--we decided 
not to. We decided instead to expand projects and add even more 
projects.
  There has been a representation that this $8 billion raid on the 
general fund by the highway fund is just a repayment for a loan that 
occurred in the late 1990s, as it is represented--1998, I believe it 
was--when the highway trust fund allegedly transferred $8 billion to 
the general fund. Well, that is truly a straw dog argument because 
those monies never had any practical effect on Federal spending or the 
Federal deficit--that transfer, that event--but this event does. This 
is real dollars. This event is a real $8 billion increase in the 
deficit. Somebody is going to have to pay for it, and the people who 
are going to have to pay for it basically are these young men and women 
right here who are serving us as pages. When they get out--they are 
juniors in high school, and when they get out of high school and go to 
college, which I am sure they all will, when they graduate they are 
going to start a job, and when they start that job they will find there 
is a big tax bill, and a large chunk of that tax bill is going to be 
for debt we are running up here today. So 8, 10, 12, 15 years from now, 
when they are starting to make their living and trying to raise their 
children, trying to send their kids to college, trying to buy their 
first home, they are going to be limited in what they can do. Why? 
Because they are going to have to pay a huge amount of taxes for costs 
which are being incurred right here today by adding to our deficit, and 
this is $8 billion of our costs that we are putting onto the next 
generation.
  This is not the correct way to do it. There are ways to pay for this. 
There are ways to do this that do not involve that. The cleanest would 
be to simply borrow the money--not from the general fund but from the 
mass-transit accounts which have the money--and that was what the 
administration suggested. It was rejected by the House because the 
House didn't want to be responsible. Now we are in this tight 
timeframe, and it is claimed that we can't have any amendments here in 
the Senate. We simply have to take care of this. Actually, there is 
some legitimacy to the tight time argument, but

[[Page S8260]]

it doesn't mean we shouldn't have any amendments to discuss this.
  I proposed an amendment, Senator DeMint proposed an amendment, and 
Senator Coburn.
  My amendment was to try to avoid this in the future by reinstituting 
rules around here which used to discipline our spending but which were, 
in the dark of night, eviscerated by those who wanted to spend a lot of 
money we don't have out of the highway trust fund. Two rules--one, that 
this should have a scoring event and should be subject to pay-go. How 
can a group of folks around here who carry a pay-go flag around as if 
it is the banner of fiscal responsibility say that pay-go shouldn't 
apply to a transfer which is going to create an $8 billion deficit--an 
$8 billion add-on to the deficit? Inexcusable. That was part of my 
amendment, to make pay-go applicable here.
  The second part was to reinstitute what is known as the Byrd Rule. 
Byrd developed language which said that as the trust fund--as it became 
apparent that the trust fund monies were not going to meet trust fund 
obligations, you reduce the obligations, and that was called the Byrd 
Rule. It was the responsible way to govern. You pay as you go. As money 
comes in, you spend the money. If you have a trust fund that funds a 
project, as that trust fund has money to pay for that project, you 
spend the money to pay for that project. But when SAFETEA was passed, 
everybody knew that a lot more money was being promised than was going 
to come in, so a little game was played in the middle of the night: 
Let's put a knife into the Byrd Rule. Let's cut it in half. Let's 
eviscerate it. That is exactly what happened. So I am just suggesting 
that we reinstitute the Byrd Rule. It won't apply to this event, but at 
least prospectively it will. Fiscal responsibility--that is all I am 
asking for.
  Unfortunately, it has been represented that we can't take up any 
amendments because we have to do this in a matter of hours or else 
these contracts can't go forward. Well, we could obviously have taken 
up the amendments. Clearly, we are going to spend 2 hours debating 
this. I only wanted 15 minutes to debate my amendment. It clearly could 
have been done in this 2-hour period. No, the issue was that we didn't 
want to take up any amendments that might make people have to take a 
hard vote. That was the issue: a hard vote on fiscal responsibility, on 
the issue of putting pay-go back in place and putting the Byrd Rule 
back in. So, using the leverage of people being put out of work and 
contracts which had been let not being paid for, the other side has 
been able to successfully get around making those hard votes. I 
recognize the eccentricity of the situation, but it still doesn't look 
well, and it is not correct.
  At some point, we are going to have to face up to this, you know. One 
generation should not do this to another generation. One generation 
should not constantly run up the debt on the next generation and take 
credit for the spending today which they are not willing to pay for. It 
is just not right. As a politician running for reelection, I shouldn't 
say: Oh, I got this project for my State, we are going to build this 
program right here, and then not be willing to say I was willing to pay 
for it also; instead, say: Oh, well, as to paying for it, I am going to 
let my children and my grandchildren, my neighbors' children and my 
neighbors' grandchildren worry about that problem. I am just going to 
do the project and take credit for it.
  So what we are doing here is totally inappropriate from a fiscal 
standpoint, but obviously the timing of this is such that we are not 
going to get these votes. I intend to return to this amendment. I will 
find someplace to stick it on, and then everybody will have to vote on 
this, hopefully, at some point in the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, seeing no one on the other side of the 
aisle, I yield to the junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate today and 
the majority leader's remarks this morning, and I do appreciate the job 
my senior Senator has done in trying to secure funds for infrastructure 
through the trust fund. I intend to support passing this. Begrudgingly 
I will support it because I think it is the wrong way to do it. It is 
not wrong to put the additional money in there; it is wrong to not pay 
for it.
  I can't help but note that the Senator from Washington stated that 
this is an emergency. Well, you haven't seen anything when you start 
talking about the emergencies we are getting ready to face. What about 
the emergency when, by law, Social Security benefits get cut, when we 
can't make Medicare trust fund payments? What emergency are we going to 
have? How is this going to compare to that? We are not allowed to do 
anything on this bill except debate.
  I wonder what the American people would think, that we are going to 
spend an additional $8 billion that we don't have--whether it is owed 
to the trust fund or not, we don't have it--that we are going to 
collect that money but we are not going to pay for it out of some of 
the $300 billion-plus waste we now know exists every year in the 
Federal Government? Imagine if you applied that to your own situation. 
You have a family. You have an emergency, as the Senator from 
Washington said, but you know that about 12 percent of everything you 
spend in your household is wasted. Are you going to go out and make a 
note at the bank and have your kids be responsible for paying for it or 
are you as a family going to get rid of some of the 11 percent or 12 
percent of pure waste, pure fraud that you have going on in your family 
budget? None of us in America are going to do that. We wouldn't do that 
to our kids. We wouldn't do that in our family budget. But that is 
exactly what we are doing here today. This is a small one. This is a 
small one we are facing.
  We didn't have an amendment on the floor to say we will pay for this 
$8 billion by reducing the fraud in Medicare from $80 billion to $72 
billion. There is $80 billion a year in fraud in Medicare. We weren't 
offered the opportunity to offer that amendment to get rid of the fraud 
in Medicare so we could afford to do this. It was just released 2 weeks 
ago that 31 percent of the payments Medicare makes are improper 
payments, with 80 percent of them overpayments. That is not included in 
the $80 billion worth of fraud. There is not any opportunity for us to 
offer an amendment to offset that incompetence and clean that up so we 
can pay for this.
  There are similar projects in Medicaid. The Social Security 
disability trust fund--the GAO tells us there is $2.5 billion a year in 
fraud in the Social Security disability trust fund. We didn't have an 
opportunity to offer an amendment to get rid of that fraud to help pay 
for some of this $8 billion shortfall.
  The American people are going to be scratching their heads. We are 
going to borrow more, and we are not going to eliminate any of the 
other problems, any of the other excess, or any of the other waste or 
fraud, which came to over $382 billion this past year of American 
taxpayers' money that was unwisely spent.
  We weren't given an opportunity to get rid of the performance bonuses 
at the Pentagon that are $8 billion that they pay every year to 
Pentagon contractors who do not meet the performance requirements of 
their contracts but they pay them anyway. There was no opportunity for 
us to offer that amendment, to be able to pay for this rather than 
charge it to our children.
  There is $15 billion worth of excess costs associated with no-bid 
contracts at the Department of Homeland Security. There is no 
opportunity to offer an amendment to change the discipline in the 
contracting at Homeland Security, which we could have easily done and 
mandated to pay for this. There is no opportunity to do that.
  There is $4 billion in wasted excess payments for crop insurance 
every year. We, in fact, passed a farm bill, but we didn't fix that.
  That is $4 billion a year of hard-earned taxpayer money that goes out 
the window, which doesn't benefit anybody. Yet we are not given an 
opportunity to try to grab that to pay for this, and $10 billion is 
wasted a year, at a minimum, on IT contracts in the

[[Page S8261]]

Federal Government. There is no opportunity to offer to save that money 
to pay for the highways.
  The American people have to be scratching their heads and saying: 
What are we doing? Why aren't we addressing the real issues? We need to 
build infrastructure, take care of our highways and bridges and our 
roads. That is what the trust fund is for. Why would we not pay for it 
when we have such a large amount of fraud, waste, and duplication in 
the Federal budget?
  I could go on and on. There is mismanagement of U.N. contributions. 
We know at least $2 billion out of the $6 billion we send to U.N. is 
pure waste every year. There is no opportunity to offer that amendment 
against this. There is no opportunity whatsoever to say we are not 
going to send another penny to the U.N. until they show us how they are 
spending American taxpayers' money. The only government that is less 
efficient than ours is the U.N. The only one that obfuscates more of 
the numbers than ours is the U.N. The only one with less transparency 
than ours is the U.N. There is no opportunity to do that.
  We wanted to offer an amendment because part of the problem with the 
highway trust fund is that too much of the money doesn't go for 
bridges, roads, and highways. My senior Senator is committed to making 
sure we get back on that with the next Transportation bill. We have 
242,000 bridges in disrepair in this country--242,000. This body 
rejected fixing that. Instead, we went on to build bike trails. Which 
do you think is more of a safety concern, building bike trails or 
building bridges?
  I hope the American people are paying attention to what we are doing 
and that they become very dissatisfied with what we are doing. We have 
earned our 11-percent approval rating. How we are handling this bill 
today exactly fits the expectations of the American people--that 
Congress doesn't get it, that we are different, that we don't have to 
meet the expectations that every small business and every family does. 
We don't have to eliminate waste because it may be hard to do or we may 
have to take a hard vote. We just fit the mold of their expectations. 
It is time for us to change that, not just for us but for the 
generations that follow.
  I will state to you today that the estimates for next year's budget 
deficit are far under what it will actually be. We will be much closer 
to $1 trillion than we will be to $500 billion. Think about $1 
trillion. That is $3,300 for every man, woman, and child we are going 
to spend next year that we don't have. We are not going to add it to 
the seniors because they are never going to pay it back. If you are 
born today, instead of owing $410,000, which you will ultimately be 
responsible for in terms of unfunded liabilities, we are going to move 
you to about $500,000. None of our kids can afford that. We are 
stealing America away from our children. The process--not the goal; the 
goal is a worthy one--under which we are doing this is something that 
cannot continue if our Republic is to survive.
  Of every republic in the history of the world that has failed, none 
of them failed because they were conquered from without. Every one of 
them failed on fiscal issues. We should wake up. We should start 
addressing the waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication in the Federal 
budget before we ask the next child or grandchild to take on debt for 
our benefit.
  Like I said, I support that we are putting the $8 billion in there. 
What I don't support is the process under which we cannot eliminate 
other waste, fraud, and other duplication to be able to pay for it. We 
do a disservice to our country and to ourselves, and we do a disservice 
to the body of the Senate.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 28\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am here to talk about the need to replenish the 
funds in the highway trust fund. I have to tell you, I have visited our 
State, and you know that about a year ago a bridge just fell down in 
the middle of the Mississippi River. I was thinking as I listened to 
the Senator from Oklahoma talk about the promises that we make to our 
children, that we make to future generations. I think the people of 
this country think we made a promise to them that we are going to have 
safe roads and safe bridges. We didn't keep up that promise to the 13 
people who died that day when they plummeted into the Mississippi 
River. We didn't keep the promise to the hundreds of people who were 
injured in all the cars that went crashing down on an eight-lane 
highway in the middle of the Mississippi River six blocks from my 
house. We need to keep that promise.
  When you look at the history of the highway trust fund, it was raided 
once before, many years before I came to Congress, by the exact amount 
of money. I believe it was something like $8 billion. It was raided of 
that money, and it was taken out of the fund and put into the general 
fund.
  What we are doing today, at the request of the Bush administration, 
is taking that money from the general fund and putting it back into the 
highway trust fund because we have a promise for public safety to the 
people of this country.
  My colleagues have been talking about priorities. I think there has 
been an issue of priorities. I would like to pay for some of the things 
that are going on in this country when we see that deficit. I can tell 
you how I would do it, how I would pay for that deficit. I would start 
bringing our troops home from Iraq. That is $10 billion a month.
  It is ironic--that figure--because Senator Inhofe was at the hearing 
we had in the Environment and Public Works Committee about bridges and 
about the expenditures on bridges and trying to keep bridges safe, with 
Congressman Oberstar and others. One of the witnesses told us that it 
would be about $10 billion a year to start bringing up our bridges to 
safety over the next few years. I thought that is exactly the amount of 
money we are spending per month in Iraq. So that is one way we can get 
the money if we really wanted to and if some of my friends on the other 
side would have the will to want to pay for this important 
infrastructure investment.
  Another is to close the loopholes that have allowed people to store 
money in the Cayman Islands and hide their money. Another is to change 
the capital gains rate. Another is to roll back tax cuts on the 
wealthiest people, couples making over $250,000 a year and individuals 
making over $200,000 a year. That would bring in between $50 billion 
and $60 billion a year.
  I don't have trouble trying too find money to pay for this. We have 
been unable to get our friends on the other side--whether it is the AMT 
fix or any other tax fixes for the middle class, we have been unable to 
get them to pay for this. We are left where we are now with a request 
from the administration to pay for this from the general fund so we 
don't have contractors or people out of work who are supposedly working 
on construction projects. This means something to me because I see it 
every day. That bridge is going up and it is going to be opening on 
Monday. It is kind of ironic to me that we are debating whether we are 
going to replenish our Nation's highways--when everybody is giving 
glorious speeches about the need to invest for infrastructure--on the 
anniversary of that bridge going up again. Some people are actually 
saying we should let this highway trust fund die on the vine and let 
these jobs die on the vine.
  I am going to use some examples for bridges. We learned today that 
fully one-quarter of America's 600,000 bridges have aged so much that 
their physical condition, or ability to withstand current traffic 
levels, is simply inadequate. One of the things we have seen on our 
roads and bridges in the last few years is that we are seeing something 
of a boon in our world economy, with the new energy economy. We are 
seeing wind turbines being transported on our roads and rails. We are 
seeing biofuels and more wear and tear on our roads and rails.
  As we move to the next century, economics with the next century 
energy, looking at more of our energy being produced from the workers 
and farmers of this country, we cannot be stuck in last century's 
transportation system. I am not going to pretend that replenishing the 
money into the highway trust fund is going to bring us to where we need 
to be with public transportation and where we truly need to go 

[[Page S8262]]

with infrastructure in this country to compete on the world stage. At 
least it will stop the bleed so we are going to be able to keep up with 
the ongoing projects we have right now.

  I am glad the administration is finally supporting doing something 
about this. It has been sad that we have gone to the other side three 
times to try to fund this important transit fund. As President Kennedy 
once said, building a road or highway isn't pretty, but it is something 
that our economy needs to have. We see that with that bridge in 
Minnesota, but we see it over and over again in the rural areas with 
the development of the wind farms and development of solar and ethanol.
  Just to give you a sense of what we are seeing in our State, for the 
first 6 months in 2007 ethanol production in the United States totaled 
nearly 3 billion gallons or 32 percent higher than the same period last 
year. Of course, we are going to move to cellulosic, but that will 
still meet transportation needs in rural areas. Currently, there are 
128 ethanol plants nationwide, with total annual production capacity 
nearing 7 billion gallons, and an additional 85 plants are under 
construction. Total ethanol production is expected to exceed 13 billion 
gallons per year by early 2009.
  In terms of transportation, this means that an average square mile of 
land in southern Minnesota, which generates now the equivalent of 80 
loaded semitrucks per year, could soon produce double that or 160 loads 
of grain per year. So we are seeing more wear and tear on our roads. It 
is a good thing. We want to produce wind and solar and biofuel and 
homegrown energy in this country. That will mean having a 
transportation system that can keep up with our growing economy.
  Mr. President, I will end with what I began with. We are going to be 
opening a new bridge in Minnesota. Every time I go by that bridge, 
which is six blocks from my house, I always think about that schoolbus 
with kids in it that was perched precariously and by some miracle it 
didn't go over the side. Every kid was saved. They called it the 
miracle bus. We have a promise to those kids that were on that bus that 
this isn't going to happen again. We will keep our roads and highways 
as a No. 1 goal of our Government--public safety. That means not just 
safety on our streets but safety in our streets. That means better 
roads, bridges, and a better transportation system. So that is why we 
would have liked to have done this in another way, but we are in a 
crisis situation with our transit funds, and we should support it and 
replenish the funds.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me conclude on our side and then, 
hopefully, we are going to go to Senator Murray after that and then to 
a voice vote. Where we are right now is, last Friday I was notified by 
the Department of Transportation that the highway trust fund would run 
out of money sometime in the next 2 weeks. As recently as this summer, 
DOT said it was going to be all right for another year. We understand. 
A lot of people don't understand this.
  The Federal gas tax is not a percentage, it is a centage. That means 
for every increase that we have in the price of gas, the revenues go 
down. Consequently, they have gone down in such a way that could not 
have been anticipated at the time. That, combined with the busy 
construction season, caused the trust fund's balance to go from $4.2 
billion at the end of July to less than $1.4 billion in the beginning 
of September.
  In my State of Oklahoma, our director is Gary Ridley, who I believe 
is the best director in the United States of America. He was forced to 
take dramatic action--and I think prudent action--when he said we would 
have to cut by $80 million the projects in August that were postponed.
  Here is what we are up against. These are projects that have already 
been bid, people have been hired, the shovels are in their hands ready 
to do something, and all of a sudden they have to stop doing it which 
creates all kinds of problems.
  Furthermore, at the point the trust fund officially runs out of 
money--which will be within the next 8 days unless we do what we are 
doing today, which I am confident we will--work on countless projects 
currently under construction will be halted. In other words, projects 
already under construction will be stopped.
  The uncertainty over the Federal Government's ability to make good on 
financial promises made in law is forcing States to substantially 
disrupt their highway programs. It is a lot more serious than just 
stopping programs because if you stop programs, you are breaching 
contracts. You will have lawsuits and penalties that will come in and 
end up costing a lot more money. This is why we say what we are facing 
is, indeed, a crisis.
  Once a project is canceled or delayed and jobs are lost, it is not as 
simple to restart the project, as there will be penalties to the States 
and, in many cases, a new contracting process.
  Despite the arguments to the contrary, in my opinion, H.R. 6532 is 
not a raid on the general fund. In fact, the opposite is true. Let me 
go over this point to be sure we all understand.
  I do not find disagreement with anything my three Republican 
colleagues said here. They are talking about a lot of things that had 
very little to do with this bill. I certainly agree with my junior 
Senator in his discussion about the United Nations, about the Social 
Security trust fund problems, and spending in general. What happened 
here--and I was mistaken not too long ago. I said it was the 1998 
Balanced Budget Act. It was not that. It was actually in TEA-21. 
Nonetheless, back in 1998, they took $8 billion out of the trust fund 
and put it into the general fund. That is critical, we understand, 
because this is a moral issue. Probably the most popular tax in America 
today is the tax we have on our highways because people know when they 
buy a gallon of gas, that money is going to go to repairing highways, 
bridges and overpasses and make them safer for everyone in America. 
That is fine, but when they find out we have raided that trust fund and 
have taken $8 billion out and put it into the general fund, that is 
morally wrong.
  I argued since that time--I can remember being on the floor 10 years 
ago, in 1998, saying this is wrong, we shouldn't be doing it. I have 
been trying to rectify that problem since 1998.
  We are in a position where we can look at it this way: that we are 
rectifying something that should not have happened 10 years ago. We are 
giving back the $8 billion to the trust fund. That is not fiscally 
irresponsible. I think it is the right thing to do.
  While I agree with my colleagues the highway program has grown to 
include things that are not in the Federal interest and doing nothing 
to save lives or reduce congestion or relieve the problems of 
transportation, which is a crisis in America, these issues are more 
appropriately dealt with in the national highway reauthorization bill 
for 2009.
  I plan to play a very important, significant role. I will continue to 
be one of the big four, as Senator Boxer referred to it, during that 
time. I have felt for a long time--and I agree with my junior Senator--
that there are a lot of items that should not be in a Transportation 
reauthorization bill. Over the years, more and more projects have crept 
in.
  It is interesting that Senator Boxer, who is considered one of the 
most liberal Members of this body, and myself, who has been ranked 
recently as the most conservative Member of this body, agree in this 
area. While I am conservative, I have said I am a big spender in two 
areas. One is national defense and the other is infrastructure. That is 
what Government is supposed to be doing.
  Talk to anyone, and they will tell you it is a crisis out there with 
our bridges. Oklahoma is dead last in the condition of our bridges. 
They don't realize it, but we are No. 3 from the top in terms of number 
of bridges, only exceeded by Texas and California. Yet we are a 
relatively small State. So we have this problem. We have to deal with 
it, and Government has to do it.
  When the Federal highway system was chartered back in 1953 during the 
Eisenhower administration, I believe, we have been doing highways and 
funding them the same way since that time. Up until about 7 or 8 years 
ago, we always enjoyed a surplus in the highway trust fund. That is why 
people

[[Page S8263]]

are always targeting it, saying there is a surplus there, let's throw 
in the bike trails, let's throw in all these other projects about which 
Senator Coburn was talking. I agree with him they should not have been 
there.
  One of the ways we are going to meet this crisis--and I am going to 
try to do it--is to make sure everything we do is directly related to 
safety on the highways and safety in transportation. Intermodal, sure, 
we have to consider we have channels, we have barge traffic, we have 
trains, we have all these things that are important. But we do have a 
serious problem, and anyone who doesn't think we have a serious problem 
in transportation in America has not been out driving around.
  I don't argue with those who feel this process is not right. I don't 
like this process. I was hoping we would be all right when we passed 
the 2005 Transportation reauthorization bill. I was elated. I knew we 
were going to be in good shape on that bill. All these things happen, 
but when they happen, we have to correct it. You can't say this is the 
wrong way to do it. I have to do it and whatever way is right. That is 
my opinion. Maybe I am in the minority, but when we are defending 
America and working on infrastructure, Government has to perform.
  I would only say I do not disagree with my colleagues who do not like 
the way this happened. I don't like the way it happened either. I wish 
it did not happen that way. I can tell you we are going to have to do 
something. I don't agree this is a bailout. I don't call it a bailout. 
I think it is one of the two prime responsibilities of Government, and 
we are going to have to do it. What we are doing now is not enough.
  Let me speak to my colleagues who have complaints about what is in a 
highway reauthorization bill. When the 2009 reauthorization bill takes 
over from the 2005 bill, I will expend as much energy as I can to keep 
on the track of safety and moving America and not all these other 
things special interest people want. I think those things are fine, but 
they should stand on their own two feet. I believe we have the 
opportunity now to get this done.
  While I don't like the way it happened, I can tell you it had to 
happen. We cannot stop construction in America at a time that is 
already a crisis. In the absence of passing this bill today, that is 
exactly what will happen.
  I encourage everyone to vote for it. I hope we are going to be able 
to do it on a voice vote. I understand other speakers wish to be heard. 
I will go ahead and set an example and yield back the remainder of our 
time on this side, hoping we can get to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. On this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation vital to 
this Nation's transportation infrastructure. The highway trust fund, 
the means by which we fund our Nation's roads, highways, and bridges, 
is in trouble. Tomorrow, the U.S. Department of Transportation will 
slow down payments to States for infrastructure investments. That is 
highway projects. This is happening because forecasts now suggest that 
a shortfall of billions of dollars to the highway trust fund will occur 
in the near future.
  The shortfall stems from the agreement of the 2005 highway bill 
negotiations, when the Bush administration and the Republican-led 
Congress agreed to spend down the balance of the fund.
  Last year, we learned the trust fund would run out of money faster 
than anticipated. Accordingly, the Finance Committee reported out a 
bill at that time to address the problem. We tried to move a $5 billion 
highway fix earlier this year as part of a larger FAA reauthorization 
bill, and that proposal was blocked. So we had to find other ways to 
pass this critical highway fix. In the meantime, the highway trust fund 
problem worsened. As gas prices rose dramatically, fuel tax receipts, 
which finance the lion's share of the highway trust fund, dropped 
sharply. In short, as Americans drive less and purchase less fuel, the 
trust fund shortfall has worsened, even more so than we previously 
expected.
  So we tried to pass the highway trust fund as a stand-alone bill. 
Recognizing the dramatically worsening state of the fund, we proposed 
an $8 billion fix--not $5 billion but up to $8 billion. In fact, the $8 
billion fix matched the amount that was taken from the highway trust 
fund when its balance was deemed to be too large back in 1998.
  We worked with the House in developing that measure, and the House 
sent it over to the Senate with a resounding vote of 387 to 87. We 
attempted to clear that bill through the Senate by unanimous consent on 
June 26, but the bill was blocked again.
  Then before Congress recessed in August, I again attempted to move 
this $8 billion highway trust fund fix as part of the Jobs, Energy, 
Families, and Disaster Relief Act. But that measure also failed to 
pass.
  Ensuring the highway trust fund remains solvent means my State of 
Montana will not have to suffer more than $98 million in funding cuts, 
as well as approximately 3,500 job losses in the next year.
  Nationwide, the industry experts tell us the funding cuts to States 
would be at least $14 billion, with job losses approaching 400,000 if 
we fail to address this trust fund need. This will occur at a time when 
nationwide unemployment is at its highest level in 5 years.
  In transferring $8 billion from the general fund into the highway 
trust fund, we will ensure delivery of the full $41.2 billion in 
guaranteed highway funding for fiscal year 2009.
  It is important to remember the States have been relying on the 2005 
agreement between the Bush administration and Congress when developing 
State budgets over the last several years. They relied on us.
  Fixing the highway trust fund will preserve Federal funding for 
roads, highways, and bridges, and it will preserve good-paying jobs 
that rely on construction and maintenance projects.
  An important point here, too, is no offset is required to fix the 
highway trust fund and that is because the $8 billion transferred is 
intergovernmental. The Congressional Budget Office indicates this fix 
does not constitute a spending outlay and, thus, would not violate the 
pay-go rules. Likewise, the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms this 
transfer will have no revenue effect.
  I am pleased the Bush administration has finally come to its senses 
and realized the need to address this problem. I am pleased my 
colleagues in the Senate across the aisle have removed their 
objections, and I am pleased we are now finally going to do what needed 
to be done for over a year.
  I wish to note that the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation, the senior Senator from Washington, has joined me in 
doing everything she could do to get this problem fixed. She talked 
with me innumerable times and many Senators. She was very concerned 
about this situation and worked so hard. She deserves the lion's share 
of the credit for all the work she has done. I congratulate her for her 
staying efforts in that regard.
  We should not delay any further. We should remember the old adage: 
There are no Democratic roads, there are no Republican roads, only 
American roads. We need to fix this trust fund now. Our States and 
constituents are relying on it.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill having been 
read the third time, the question is on passage of the bill, as 
amended.
  The bill (H.R. 6532), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                               H.R. 6532

       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 6532) entitled ``An Act to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to restore the Highway Trust Fund balance.'', do 
     pass with the following amendment:
       On page 3, line 2, strike [September 30, 2008] and insert 
     the date of the enactment of this Act

  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S8264]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________