[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23484-23488]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2003

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3087, which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3087) to provide an extension of highway, 
     highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other 
     programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending 
     enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will approve a 5-month 
extension of the highway programs authorized by the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, based on an agreement between 
the Senate and House leadership. Only reluctantly, and because of the 
need to complete action on the extension immediately to ensure the many 
TEA-21 programs do not come to a halt, do I accept the terms of the 
extension as approved by the House for the safety programs administered 
by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA.
  The House-passed short-term extension authorizes $56 million less, on 
an

[[Page 23485]]

annualized basis, for motor carrier safety than the program's fiscal 
year 2003 appropriated level. I am very concerned that the level of 
funding in the extension is insufficient to make progress toward the 
national goal of reducing the rate of truck-related crashes by 30 
percent by 2008. The extension does not provide sufficient funding for 
FMCSA to fully implement existing, authorized programs in the short 
term, including the ``new entrants'' program, hazmat permitting, 
additional carrier compliance reviews, and completion of long overdue 
rulemaking proceedings. Further, the bill provides no funds to continue 
construction of inspection facilities at the border. The funding level 
is significantly below the President's funding request for fiscal year 
2004; the Senate Commerce Committee's TEA-21 reauthorization 
legislation; and the funding levels approved by the Senate and House 
Appropriations Committees. And, it is entirely inconsistent with the 
significant funding increases provided over the short-term for highway 
construction and maintenance.
  FMCSA was created after TEA-21 became law to address the increasing 
number of truck-related accidents on our nation's roads and highways. 
The duties assigned to the agency through the Motor Carrier Safety 
Assistance Act, MCSIA, and other legislation have resulted in funding 
levels significantly above the administrative takedown authorized by 
TEA-21. The extension, however, fails to recognize this and, on the 
grounds that the bill must comply with the budget resolution, funding 
for motor carrier safety is being curtailed, while highway construction 
and transit funding is being increased.
  I want to put my colleagues on notice that either when the full 
Senate moves its 6-year reauthorization bill, or is faced with a 
further extension of TEA-21 next February, I will insist that the motor 
carrier safety programs are authorized at an appropriate level of 
funding. I believe my views are shared by Senator Hollings, who joined 
me in sponsoring legislation, S. 1646, that would have funded the 
safety programs for 5 months at a level consistent with the Commerce 
Committee's reauthorization proposal.
  I take pride in the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee completed 
work last June on its 6-year reauthorization of the TEA-21 safety 
programs under its jurisdiction. Our bipartisan bill is designed to 
meet the level of commitment to safety needed to achieve aggressive 
goals for reducing accidents and fatalities on the nation's roadways. 
Safety deserves at least the same attention and priority as highway 
construction and again, I will object to any future related measure 
that does not ensure the motor carrier safety programs are fully funded 
for the full 2004 fiscal year.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in supporting 
the pending legislation. This 5-month extension of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, preserves the basic structure 
of our Federal surface transportation programs, which have proven to be 
extremely beneficial for our citizens' mobility and our national 
economy over the last 6 years.
  I want to focus for a moment on the Federal transit program, in which 
I have a particular interest as the ranking member of the Senate 
Banking Committee. The Banking Committee and its Housing and 
Transportation Subcommittee, both last Congress and this Congress, have 
held a series of hearings on the contributions of the transit program 
to reducing congestion, strengthening our national economy, and 
improving our quality of life. The clear message of these hearings is 
that TEA-21 works. The guaranteed funding, the program structure, and 
the balanced approach to transportation planning encompassed within 
TEA-21 have contributed to a renaissance for transit in this country; 
in fact, transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership 
growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing over 28 
percent between 1993 and 2001. For this reason, I am pleased that this 
legislation preserves the structure and programs of TEA-21 for the next 
5 months.
  While we are talking today about a short-term extension, I think we 
must take a moment to look toward the future. The transportation needs 
of this Nation are significant, as more and more communities find 
themselves confronting the problems of traffic congestion and delay. 
According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in the year 2000, 
Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, 
with an estimated cost to the Nation of $67.5 billion in lost time and 
wasted fuel. As these figures show, congestion has a real economic cost 
to this Nation, in addition to the psychological and social costs of 
spending hours each day sitting in traffic.
  It is clear to me that we will have to greatly increase Federal 
support for transportation to help local communities make the 
investments in infrastructure and system preservation that will keep 
America moving forward in the 21st century. The Department of 
Transportation's Conditions and Performance Report estimates that an 
average of $127 billion per year is needed over the next two decades to 
maintain and improve the condition of our highways, bridges, and 
transit systems. Other estimates show an even greater need. I believe 
that failure to make the needed investment will result in the continued 
deterioration of our existing infrastructure.
  Moreover, investment in our transportation infrastructure has 
economic benefits as well. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
each $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 
47,500 jobs. At a time when our economy is struggling, investing in 
transportation is one of the smartest actions that Government can take. 
Increased investment creates jobs today and leads to economic growth 
tomorrow.
  For this reason, I am disappointed that the administration has not 
yet come forward with the resources we will need to develop a full, 6 
year reauthorization bill. The administration's reauthorization 
proposal, known as SAFETEA, provides only a minimal increase for the 
Federal highway program, and in fact would cut that program in fiscal 
year 2004 from its fiscal year 2003 level. For transit, SAFETEA not 
only fails to grow the program at the pace of inflation, it cuts 
guaranteed funding over the 6 year period, so that the guaranteed level 
in fiscal year 2009 is actually less than the program level today. 
Without a serious commitment from the administration to make the kind 
of investment needed, and strong bipartisan bicameral leadership in the 
Congress, it will be very difficult for us to reauthorize the surface 
transportation programs even when this short-term extension expires.
  Until that commitment is made, however, it is essential that our 
States and local communities be able to continue to operate and 
maintain our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit systems. I encourage 
the Department of Transportation to use the authority granted by this 
legislation to provide the needed assistance as expeditiously as 
possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as the Senate considers this temporary 
extension of our transportation programs, I would like to note for my 
colleagues the budgetary implications of this legislation.
  This bill is subject to a point of order pursuant to section 302(f) 
of the Budget Act because the total level of contract authority for 
transportation programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation--on an annualized basis--exceeds 
the allocation provided to that committee in the FY 2004 budget 
resolution. Because the amount is not significant, and the bill is only 
a short-term extension, I have chosen not to pursue the point of order 
at this time.
  In addition, section 10 of the bill contains a number of provisions 
that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, thus 
subjecting the bill to another 60-vote point of order pursuant to 
section 306 of the Budget Act. Subsections (a), (b) and (c) amend 
sections 250 and 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 and purport to extend the life of the 
transportation categories. Subsection (d) deems certain

[[Page 23486]]

spending adjustments to be ``zero'' for FY 2004. Finally subsection (e) 
expresses a ``sense of Congress'' with respect to the adjustments for 
revenue aligned budget authority (aka RABA).
  While some may argue that these ``budgetary provisions'' are of 
little consequence given the expiration of the statutory spending caps 
which had been set out in section 251, I feel it is still important to 
comment upon them. I am concerned that their inclusion in this bill may 
signal to some that we have prejudged the important fiscal policy 
debate that must take place when the long-term reauthorization comes 
before the Senate. Let me assure my colleagues, that in agreeing to 
this necessary stop-gap measure today, I am in no way conceding the 
future budgetary treatment of transportation spending.
  These issues have a long history.
  In 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 
was enacted and from a budgetary perspective introduced two new 
concepts: two transportation categories (for highways and transit) 
within the discretionary spending limits and an annual automatic 
adjustment to those limits, aka RABA. Both concepts were enshrined in 
section 251 as well as in the transportation laws. In general, section 
251 set out the statutory discretionary spending limits through FY 
2002. These limits were enforced through sequestration. In other words, 
back in 1998 special (one might even say privileged) consideration was 
afforded transportation spending within the context of an overall goal 
to limit spending and balance the budget by 2002. While TEA-21 
purported to establish special budgetary treatment through FY 2003, the 
mechanisms were placed within section 251 which expired on September 
30, 2002 (pursuant to section 275(b)). Consequently this special 
budgetary treatment of transportation spending ceased to have any 
substantive meaning nearly 2 years ago--after enactment of the FY 2002 
appropriations bills.
  I must also remind my colleagues that this RABA mechanism was to have 
been a two-way street. If gas tax revenues exceeded previous estimates, 
spending for transportation would go up. Similarly if gas tax revenues 
decreased, spending levels were to have gone down--thus not altering 
the ``path to a balanced budget.'' This mechanism worked well through 
the boom time of the late 1990's as actual gas tax revenues 
consistently exceeded previous estimates and Congress and the President 
happily spent this windfall. However, when actual gas receipts came in 
below predicted levels and the President reflected the lower levels 
dictated by TEA-21 in his FY 2003 budget, few in Washington were 
willing to acknowledge this reality and spend less.
  I mention this today because I am concerned by the language in this 
bill that expresses the ``Sense of Congress'' on RABA. While the 
language is not binding and merely suggests that any future provisions 
should seek to minimize fluctuations in spending--which sounds like a 
good thing--its very presence in H.R. 3087 might lead some to believe 
that the concept of separate transportation categories and the RABA 
adjustment's inclusion in a long-term extension is a done deal.
  The Senate should remember that when TEA-21 was enacted it was done 
so in the context of 5-year discretionary spending limits--which I 
remind my colleagues were designed to manage the growth of 
discretionary spending in order to reach a balanced budget by 2002. 
Since then, balanced budgets, surpluses and the days of 5-year caps 
have come and gone. And while I sincerely hope we can exercise fiscal 
constraint in the coming years, I do not know when or if we will again 
put 5-year discretionary caps into law. Our recent experiences have 
shown us that, at best, caps might be useful for 2 years. Consequently, 
I believe that as we work towards a long-term reauthorization of our 
Federal transportation programs, we must take a fresh look at any 
associated budgetary mechanisms.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important 
issues in the future.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am reluctant to enact a short-term 
extension of the highway funding bill without improving equity for 
donor States. At issue is the historic mistreatment of about 20 States, 
including Michigan, known as ``donor'' States, who, year after year, 
have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in Washington 
than were 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 came about in 1956 when Senators from a number of small and 
large States banded together to develop a formula to distribute Federal 
highway dollars that advantaged their States at the expense of the 
remaining States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would 
benefit from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have 
tenaciously defended it.
  At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low-
population predominately Western States getting more funds than they 
contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate 
highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to 
those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that. 
However, there is no justification for any State getting more than its 
fair share.
  Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have 
traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have 
fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long 
struggle to change these outdated formulas.
  Through these battles, some progress has been made, but we still have 
a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and other States on 
the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At stake are tens 
of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to pay for badly 
needed transportation improvements in our States and the jobs that go 
with it. Unfortunately, this short-term extension bill does not make 
any improvements on the rate of return for donor States, even on the 
new funds that are included in this bill that are above last year's 
funding levels.
  My colleagues have argued that this short-term bill is a straight 
``clean'' extension of Federal highway and transit programs. They have 
argued that we cannot accommodate any policy changes in an extension 
bill such as improving the rate of return for donor States. But this 
bill does include one policy change. It includes an increase in funding 
over last year. In fairness to donor States and to bring us closer to 
narrowing the funding gap between donor and donee States, the 
additional money contained in this bill should have been distributed to 
donor States at a higher rate.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not do this. It contains more money 
than last year yet fails to address the longstanding inequity. Every 
time we extend these programs without addressing equity, donor States 
lose out on getting back their fair share of gas tax dollars currently 
being spent in other States. There is no logical reason for some States 
to continue to send that money to other States to subsidize their road 
and bridge projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair.
  I plan to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee to obtain a commitment to 
achieve a 95 percent rate of return for a donor State's share of its 
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund in the long-term transportation 
reauthorization bill, up from 90.5 percent under the current bill.
  This is an issue of simple fairness and we should not be satisfied 
until we achieve it.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3087, 
the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003, which extends the 
expiring Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for an 
additional 5 months.
  As my colleagues are aware, we are just days from the expiration of 
TEA-21. We continue to make progress in our negotiations on a 
comprehensive 6-year bill, but we need more time. Earlier this year, 79 
Senators voted for the Bond-Reid amendment to the fiscal

[[Page 23487]]

year 2004 budget resolution which stated clearly that the Senate wanted 
the funding for a 6-year highway bill at $255 billion.
  I believe $255 billion is a reasonable and responsible level given 
the pressing transportation infrastructure needs that are out there. 
Now the challenge is to get to that level. My colleagues on the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works and I have been working 
closely with Senators Grassley and Baucus to find the money. In the 
meantime, we have to address the imminent expiration of TEA-21.
  H.R. 3087 provides 5 months worth of the $35.5 billion allowed under 
the budget resolution of $14.8 billion and a corresponding amount of 
obligation limitation. This is a significant, 7 percent increase in 
highway funding over 2003. This additional $2.2 billion in highway 
funding will translate into over 100,000 new jobs.
  Of course, the best thing we can do to create economic opportunity is 
enact a comprehensive, 6-year reauthorization. As we all know, highway 
bills are job bills. A highway bill drafted at $255 billion over 6 
years will create about 2 million new American jobs. This combined with 
the tax cuts signed by President Bush is the best stimulus the economy 
can receive.
  Let me be very clear that my preference is that we would be 
considering a 6-year comprehensive bill today, not a 5-month extension, 
but reality is that the funding needed to do a comprehensive 6-year 
bill at $255 billion has not yet been identified. Because of that, I 
believe the best outcome for the long-term is to do a 5-year month 
extension and continue to work on a comprehensive 6-year bill.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3087.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President. I rise in support of H.R. 3087, a bill 
to extend the Nation's surface transportation program, TEA-21, for a 
five-month period. Absent enactment of H.R. 3087, the program will shut 
down on September 30, 2003. I urge my colleagues to join me in support 
of this bill.
  I regret the need for a short term extension to TEA-21. A short term 
extension brings uncertainty to our State transportation departments. 
This leads to postponed projects and job loss. But we have yet to find 
sufficient revenues to bring a full, 6-year reauthorization bill to the 
floor.
  I have worked for the last 2 years on reauthorization of the 
transportation program, first as chairman of the committee on 
Environment and Public Works, and now as ranking member. This work has 
been bipartisan. I thank and commend Chairman Inhofe and our 
subcommittee chairman and ranking member, Senators Bond and Reid for 
their approach to this task.
  We have made great progress. We concluded early on that the Nation's 
infrastructure needs far exceed current resources. We shared our 
findings with our Senate colleagues. They in turn gave overwhelming 
support to the Bond-Reid amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution, to 
increase spending on the transportation program by roughly 40 percent 
to $311 billion. This has guided our work.
  Our hearings revealed strong support for the existing TEA-21 program 
structure. In our work to date, we have retained the program structure 
largely intact. My goal is to maintain the current patterns in 
resources allocation among program categories, as well. On funding 
formulas, we have committed to benefitting all States as the program 
grows. And the program growth levels approved by our Senate budget 
resolution will enable such an outcome.
  I will continue to work with Chairman Inhofe to bring a full, 6-year 
bill to the Senate floor within the next 5 months.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3087, a bill 
to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier 
safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust 
Fund until February 29, 2004 pending enactment of a law reauthorizing 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. However, I 
am disappointed that Congress has been unable to enact a 6-year 
reauthorization of TEA-21 prior to September 30, 2003.
  According to the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association, ARTBA, employment in the transportation construction 
industry was down in July 2003 compared to July 2002. Specifically, 
there were 12,100 fewer workers on project sites over the last year, a 
decrease of 3.7 percent. In Ohio, according to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, heavy construction jobs are up slightly from last year; 
however, there are still 3,800 fewer jobs than in August 2000 when they 
were at their peak. Moreover, last year had the lowest number of 
employees in heavy construction since 1995.
  Our economy needs a public works program to create jobs. Investment 
in our Nation's transportation infrastructure through a 6-year 
reauthorization bill would create thousands of jobs and jumpstart our 
sluggish economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
for every $1 billion invested in highway construction, 47,500 jobs are 
created. It is also estimated that every dollar invested in the 
Nation's highway system generates $5.70 in economic benefits, including 
reduced delays, improved safety, and reduced vehicle operations costs. 
This is a six-to-one return on investment.
  Although a 5-month extension extension will continue the flow of 
Federal funding to States' highway programs, it will not deal with the 
Nation's pressing, long-term transportation infrastructure needs. 
According to the Federal Highway Administration's, FHWA, 2002 
Conditions and Performance Report, the average annual investment level 
needed to make improvements to highways and bridges is projected to be 
$106.9 billion through 2020. This amount is 65.3 percent higher than 
the $64.6 billion of total capital investments spent by all levels of 
government in 2000.
  The average annual investment level necessary to maintain the current 
condition and performance of highways and bridges is projected to be 
$75.9 billion through 2020. This amount if 17.5 percent higher than 
capital spending in 2000.
  If we continue to ignore the upkeep, and allow the deterioration of 
our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced 
protection for public safety, health, and the environment. In my view, 
it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that funding levels are 
adequate and efficiently allocated to the Nation's priority needs. In 
1998, Congress recognized the importance of the Nation's transportation 
system through the enactment of TEA-21, a 6-year bill which increased 
by nearly 40 percent Federal investment in highways and transit. Under 
TEA-21, Ohio received a 23 percent increase in transportation funding.
  As chairman of the National Governors Association, I was involved in 
negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress to ensure that all Highway 
Trust Fund revenues were spent on transportation. I also fought to even 
out highway funding fluctuations and assure a predictable flow of 
funding to the States. TEA-21 achieved this goal with record, 
guaranteed levels of funding. While TEA-21 has enabled States and 
localities to improve the condition of deteriorating and unsafe 
highways and to increase capacity and performance, the system is still 
aging, and in need of additional investment.
  TEA-21 also dedicated nearly all highway gas taxes to transportation 
funding and guarantees that States will receive at least 90.5 percent 
of their share of their contribution to the highway account of the 
Highway Trust Fund. One of my top priorities for TEA-21 reauthorization 
is to increase the minimum share for donor states to at least 95 
percent. This increase in the rate of return would generate an 
additional $60 million or more in Federal highway funding for the State 
of Ohio.
  In May 2003, Senator Carl Levin and I, along with House majority 
leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Baron Hill introduced legislation--the 
Highway Funding Equity Act of 2003--to increase donor States' minimum 
rate-of-return to 95 percent. Currently, there are 143 cosponsors of 
the House bill and 22 cosponsors of the Senate bill.
  The legislation we are considering today does not improve donor State 
equity; rather, it continues current law

[[Page 23488]]

with respect to the minimum guarantee program. For donor States, this 
is another reason why a 6-year reauthorization is so important and 
critical to our States. I am strongly committed to improving donor 
state equity in the longer term reauthorization, and look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee to ensure that states receive their fair share of Highway 
Trust Fund dollars.
  I am disappointed that the legislation we are considering does not 
contain language which would have ensured that States that consume 
ethanol-blended fuel are no longer penalized. The Finance Committee 
reported legislation I have cosponsored that would transfer 2.5 cents 
of the Federal tax on ethanol-blended fuel from the General Fund of the 
Treasury to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund and replace 
the 5.2 cents per gallon reduced tax rate for ethanol-blended fuel with 
a tax credit. As a result, the same Federal tax will be collected and 
deposited into the Highway Trust Fund regardless of whether a gallon of 
fuel contains ethanol. The Ohio Department of Transportation, ODOT, 
estimates that Ohio would restore up to $170 million annually as a 
result of the Finance Committee's legislation. I am hopeful this 
legislation will be passed soon.
  Ohio has the Nation's tenth largest highway network, the fifth 
highest volume of traffic, the fourth largest interstate highway 
network, and the second largest inventory of bridges in the country. 
Ohio's transportation challenge is to expand its 1960s transportation 
system to meet 21st century needs. Recently, Ohio approved a State 
motor fuel tax increase that will ensure an annual $250 million new 
construction program for the next 10 years while maintaining bridge and 
highway conditions. With additional Federal funds, ODOT has set a goal 
of having a $5 billion, 10-year Ohio construction program dedicated to 
addressing Ohio's most pressing congestion, safety, and rural access 
needs. The plan is predicated on Congress enacting legislation to 
correct the ``ethanol penalty'' which reduces Ohio's transportation 
revenue, increase donor states' minimum rate-of-return to 95 percent, 
and provide an increased level of investment in the nation's highways 
and bridges.
  This is why a 6-year reauthorization is important to my State. I am 
hopeful that Congress can reach a consensus on how to fund a longer-
term reauthorization. As far as this Senator is concerned, I support 
the principle that the highway program is a fully user-fee based system 
that pays its own way, and I am reluctant to borrow more money for 
highways.
  Furthermore, as chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to include provisions in the 6-year reauthorization that 
will streamline the project delivery process while protecting the 
environment and historic resources, reform the conformity process, and 
reauthorize and improve the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
program.
  I urge my colleagues to work together to produce a six-year 
reauthorization of TEA-21 before the extension bill expires at the end 
of next February. Reauthorization of TEA-21 will be one of the most 
important actions this Congress will take to get people back to work.


                        inequity of donor states

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am concerned that the 5-month highway 
bill extension being considered by the Senate today does not address 
the inequity faced by the donor States for so many years. The donor 
State inequity issue is the historic problem of about 20 States, 
including Michigan, Ohio and Oklahoma, known as ``donor'' States, who 
have sent more gas tax dollars year after year to the Highway Trust 
Fund in Washington than were 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. For a long time there has been no legitimacy to retaining 
such antiquated and unfair formulas that require taxpayers in 20 of our 
States to subsidize highway projects in 30 other States. We should not 
consider a highway bill without addressing this important issue.
  It is a high priority to see that this historic inequity be 
corrected. At stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in 
additional funding to pay for badly needed transportation improvements 
in Michigan and the jobs that go with it. My colleague from Ohio and I 
have authored legislation that would bring donor States to a 95 percent 
rate of return on their contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. This 
would be up from the current minimum rate of return of 90.5 percent 
under the current TEA-21 bill. I am reluctant to see even a short term 
extension of the highway bill go through without increasing the minimum 
rate of return for donor States to address the inequity. I would at the 
very least like to get a commitment from the chairman that achieving 
donor State equity in a 6-year reauthorization bill in his intention 
and an urgent priority. I know he is as determined as we are to achieve 
equity for donor States.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more with my colleague 
from Michigan. There is no logical reason why donor States should be 
contributing more dollars to the Highway Trust Fund than are returned 
to them for highway, bridge, and other surface transportation projects. 
Donor States like Ohio, Michigan, and Oklahoma have as many 
transportation infrastructure needs as other States. With so many 
projects needing funding in our own States, why should the citizens in 
our States continue to pay for transportation improvements in other 
States?
  I, too, would like an assurance that the donor State equity issue 
will be addressed in the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century and that this long-term reauthorization will 
be presented to the Senate as soon as possible.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want my colleagues from Michigan, Ohio, 
and the many other donor States to know that I am committed to 
improving the return to donor States. It is my intention that any 
comprehensive 6-year reauthorization bill considered by the Senate 
include a provision that guarantees all donor States get to a 95 
percent minimum rate of return at the end of the life of the bill 
without harming the opportunity for all States to grow. However, 
Members need to understand that this is only possible if we are able to 
fund the bill at $255 billion which means we must identify additional 
revenue.
  I also want to further assure my donor State colleagues that the next 
highway bill I plan to mark up is a 6-year bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am reassured to hear such a strong 
commitment from my colleague from Oklahoma to achieve a 95-percent 
minimum rate of return for all States in the long-term highway 
reauthorization bill. I look forward to continuing to work closely with 
the chairman to achieve this goal and in the fight for true donor State 
equity.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am also reassured to hear the strong 
conviction of my colleague from Oklahoma that donor States should 
receive a minimum rate of return of 95 percent on the share of their 
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. I too look forward to working 
with the chairman and my colleague from Michigan to improve donor State 
equity.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 3087) was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________