[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 686-704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       SAFE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 2003--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1072.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we are about to begin discussion on the 
cloture motion we will be voting on this afternoon. It could be 
considered by many people as the most significant piece of legislation 
we will be dealing with this year or maybe even in a 6-year period. The 
current extension of TEA-21, passed in 1998, expires on February 29. We 
have to act. We have no other option. Some might argue that we can do 
another extension, but another extension without Senate action on a 6-
year bill sets us up for not doing a reauthorization bill this year at 
all. That is just not acceptable.
  The President has released his fiscal year 2005 budget, and I believe 
it misses the mark with transportation funding. He proposes funding 
$256 billion on highways and transit, approximately $55 billion under 
the Bond-Reid amendment that we agreed to with a plurality of 79 votes.
  Earlier today we heard from Senators who believe that S. 1072 
proposes a level of spending that is too high, that we need to bring it 
into line with the President's numbers. I disagree. I strongly support 
the President on virtually everything he is doing, but in this case I 
do not agree. We have a crisis in the country in terms of our 
infrastructure and we must meet this crisis. We need to stick with the 
Bond-Reid level and need to get the bill done now.
  For those who want to wait to do a bill, we caution you that putting 
this off only makes it harder. The current extension is spending down 
the trust fund balance. If we do another extension, the balance will be 
spent down even further, which means we will have little choice at that 
point but to increase fuel taxes. In my mind, indexing fuel taxes was 
probably a fiscally responsible position at one time because it does 
preserve the purchasing power of our transportation dollars. But I also 
understand the political realities. I know it is not a viable option at 
this time.
  This bill does not assume an increase in fuel taxes. Due to the good 
work of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, both of whom I met 
with this morning--and both have been real champions in working 
diligently to make this happen--the deficit is neutral in this bill.
  Don't fool yourselves into believing that delaying action on this 
bill is saving money. The exact opposite is true. For instance, our 
transportation infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. Thirty-two 
percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Thirty-
nine percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally 
obsolete. As much as I hate to admit it, my State of Oklahoma ranks 
last of all 50 States, which is not too complimentary to the idea that 
I am the chairman of this committee. The cost to address these issues 
only increases the longer we wait.
  In addition, the economic consequences escalate because poor 
infrastructure contributes to congestion, which means lost productivity 
to the tune of $76 billion.
  Additionally, another delay to enacting a 6-year comprehensive bill 
will frustrate our State departments of transportation in their own 
programs. They need the assurance and security of a stable Federal 
program in order to make their individual programs work. As you well 
know, they have worked on these programs now for not just months but 
well over a year anticipating that we would have this reauthorization 
underway.
  Finally, we are missing an opportunity to create jobs. For every $1 
billion invested in Federal highway transit spending, 47,500 jobs are 
created. We estimate that S. 1072 will impact the overall job growth by 
700,000 jobs. To the construction worker, our bill would generate over 
2 million opportunities for employment. In other words, when one job 
ends, there will be another opportunity available so the construction 
worker can move from one job to another thereby avoiding unemployment. 
I think that is a good thing and one each of us in this Chamber should 
be willing to roll up our sleeves and work to get done. I anticipate 
that is exactly what we are going to do.
  In addition to a job creator, spending on transportation makes good 
economic sense. For every $1 billion in transportation expenditures, 
the gross domestic product increases by $1.75 billion. Furthermore, 
transportation investments improve freight mobility which in a ``just 
in time'' delivery business model is critical to growth.
  I recognize for those who believe this bill should be stopped for 
budgetary

[[Page 687]]

reasons that my arguments may not meet with a receptive ear, but I do 
want you to understand that voting no on cloture means you are voting 
no on addressing the repair and rehabilitation needs of our 50-year 
interstate system which is at the heart of the economic engine of the 
Nation. Voting no on the cloture motion would be voting no on the 
creation of over 2 million employment opportunities and no to 700,000 
new jobs. It would be voting no on addressing congestion problems which 
cost the economy $76 billion annually and voting no on increases to 
gross domestic product.
  Finally, if we are able to proceed to S. 1072, I will be asked by 
many of you to help you with individual needs in your States. I am 
happy to do that. I want to do that. But before I can help you, you 
need to help me.
  I ask you to vote yes on the cloture motion so that when the need 
comes up in your State and you have a need to meet a crisis, or you 
have special project needs, we will be helping each other. I think we 
all understand that.
  Some people who have actually read the legislation we are going to be 
considering are still saying that perhaps it is not meeting the 
environmental goals or it is not meeting the public participation. I 
think this is one of the major strong points of this legislation. We 
have spent a lot of time--and I have to tell you that the ranking 
member, Jim Jeffords, along with Kitt Bond, and of course Harry Reid, 
the Senator from Nevada, have all been very cooperative--in working out 
things. There are some things in this bill that I don't like, but 
compromise has been the name of it.
  For example, on the environmental issues, it requires metropolitan 
planning organizations and State transportation planners to consult 
during regional planning with agencies responsible for land use 
management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, 
and historic preservation.
  It expands the number and types of environmental and resource 
agencies participating in the environmental review.
  It provides a new opportunity for environmental and resource agencies 
to participate in the development of the environmental review schedule.
  It establishes a new obligation for the lead agency to consider the 
needs of environmental and resource agencies when developing the review 
schedule, including the responsibilities of resource agencies under 
applicable laws, resources available to environmental and resource 
agencies to conduct the review, and the sensitivity of the national and 
historic resources that could be affected by the projects.
  It provides a new opportunity for environmental and resource agencies 
to participate in the development of a project's purpose and needs 
statement.
  It provides a new opportunity for environmental and resource agencies 
to participate in development of the project alternatives to be 
reviewed.
  It provides new opportunities for transportation planners to consider 
transportation land use and environmental plans when conducting the 
environmental review.
  It creates a new obligation by the lead agency to make available 
promptly to environmental and resource agencies information useful to 
an environmental review.
  I was around back in 1991 serving in the other body when we put 
together ISTEA. It is a very comprehensive bill. I was also involved on 
this committee in 1998 when we were putting together TEA-21. But in 
none of those efforts and in none of that legislation were the 
environmental concerns met as well as we are meeting them here.
  The same is true with public participation. Those of us who serve in 
the Senate are constantly inundated at our townhall meetings by people 
saying they do not have the opportunity to participate in these things. 
We are correcting that. We think that people and other governmental 
agencies should be a part of it.
  There is a specific new section devoted to improving public 
involvement in transportation planning and projects, directing State 
and metropolitan transportation planners to hold public meetings at 
convenient and acceptable locations and times, to employ visualization 
techniques to describe plans, and to make public information available 
electronically such as the World Wide Web.
  There are new opportunities for public comment on specific 
environmental factors considered by metropolitan planning organizations 
and States during the transportation planning. We know this is true 
when we go back to our States. They tell us that in their department of 
transportation--I am sure in North Carolina, in Nevada, in Oklahoma--if 
they have the chance to plan in advance to have this comprehensive bill 
in front of them--not just another extension--they then can make their 
long-term plans get much more from the construction dollars.
  I reemphasize that there is nothing we are going to do in this 
Chamber which is going to provide more jobs than will be provided by 
this bill. That is why it is so important that we defeat cloture and 
get on with this and get it done in the next 10 days or so.
  I compliment the leaders on both the Democrat and Republican side, 
and particularly Senator Reid, the assistant minority leader, for his 
cooperation in helping us to make this a truly nonpartisan and 
bipartisan effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is with a certain amount of sadness 
that I worked on this matter this weekend and looked over all the past 
history of the surface transportation legislation. The sadness comes 
because Pat Moynihan is not here. When we started working this bill 
last year, I asked Senator Moynihan to come visit with me and my staff. 
He did. He came with that smile. I always had the feeling with Senator 
Moynihan that no matter the subject he always knew more than I did. He 
had a lot of humility. Even though he knew that he knew more than most 
anyone he dealt with, he never flaunted that great mind that he had.
  The legislation we have before us today is basically what Pat 
Moynihan envisioned for our country. Serving with him on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee--which I did for my tenure in 
the Senate--was like going to school and not having to take the test. 
Senator Moynihan was wonderful. He would talk about the great Robert 
Moses of New York and the planning that he did.
  I hope that all of us as we proceed through this bill will understand 
the greatness of Pat Moynihan, and what he has done for our country.
  Everywhere in the Nation's Capital there is evidence of Pat Moynihan. 
I worked in Washington, DC, as a Capitol policeman, going to law 
school. And when I worked here as a Capitol policeman, Pennsylvania 
Avenue was a slum. During the Kennedy inauguration, Pat Moynihan 
recognized that and said we should do something about it. He was just a 
bureaucrat at the time. But he proceeded from that time to help develop 
the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation. Now you can go up 
Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House and it is one of the most 
beautiful streets in the world because of Pat Moynihan.
  I hope we proceed through this legislation recognizing what a 
wonderful man Pat Moynihan was. One cannot stop but think of the things 
he did, including the Ronald Reagan Building. For 50 years that was a 
big hole in the ground. In the Nation's Capital we had this big 
nothing. Pat Moynihan said: We cannot spend enough money on that; we 
will build a building there. That is a building that Ronald Reagan, I 
am sure, in his own way, is proud of. There is not a more beautiful 
building in the Nation's Capital, with the exception of maybe the 
Library of Congress, than the Ronald Reagan Building. That is Pat 
Moynihan's. It is his.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that Patrick Moynihan was born and 
raised in my city of Tulsa? He was the first one when I came here--not 
to the Senate but to the other body--to whom I came over to talk. We 
developed a very close relationship. Someone could wonder, how could 
this be--you have

[[Page 688]]

one who is a dedicated liberal, one who is a dedicated conservative, 
having that affection.
  When I was elected to this body in 1994, his office was next door to 
me. I confess right now before all these people, when the bells rang 
for a vote, I would go and look down the hall and wait until Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan was coming up so I could walk and talk with him on the 
way over. He was just a remarkable person. There is a lot of dedication 
to him in what we are doing today.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the Senator from Oklahoma 
recognizing the goodness of this man. He is absolutely right. I am sure 
the Senator learned a great deal in those walks from the Russell 
Building over here.
  I remember Senator Moynihan and I sat together on a bus going from 
the airport to the funeral of the great John Chafee. During the entire 
trip, he pointed out, as we traveled to Rhode Island--Providence, I 
think is where the funeral was--all the architecture, the history of 
the buildings, as we drove up to the beautiful church. And when we got 
to the church, he told me all about that church.
  I wish I had the recall of Pat Moynihan. I wish I had 20 percent of 
the recall ability of Senator Moynihan. He had such an ability to 
communicate. As Senator Bumpers said, upon the publication of Senator 
Moynihan's 15th book--or whatever it was--you have written more books 
than I have read.
  He was a great man. I have my heart full. Part of it is gratitude for 
knowing a man such as that, that there are great ones on this Earth. 
Pat Moynihan was a great one.
  About 50 years ago, one of the really fine Presidents we have had, a 
Republican, President Dwight David Eisenhower, presided over the 
creation of the Interstate Highway System. On that occasion, he said:

       The Nation badly needs new highways. The good of our 
     people, of our economy and of our defense, require that 
     construction of these highways be undertaken at once.

  President Eisenhower continued:

       We have fallen far behind in this task. . . . Today there 
     is hardly a city of any size without almost hopeless 
     congestion within its boundaries and stalled traffic blocking 
     roads leading beyond these boundaries.

  President Eisenhower said what we needed to do in this legislation: 
If there was ever a time in the recent history of this body when we had 
to do something on a bipartisan basis, it is this bill. People stuck in 
traffic are Democrats and Republicans. It is equal opportunity, whether 
you are stuck in traffic in Las Vegas, Phoenix, St. Louis. There are 
people of both parties stuck in that traffic, losing valuable time. If 
they were not stuck in that traffic, they would make our country more 
productive.
  Why did President Eisenhower feel so strongly about an interstate 
highway system? He felt that way because, as a young major, he was 
asked in the 1930s to bring a convoy of military vehicles across the 
country. It was at that time he realized there was no easy way to do 
it. The roads were hopeless. There was no way you could travel this 
country, even for military purposes, easily. At that time he realized 
something needed to be done, and when he became President, that was one 
of the first things he pushed.
  People who are complaining about the cost of this bill, Republicans 
and Democrats, should understand that the highway bill President 
Eisenhower originally sponsored was also criticized as being too 
costly. This bill is not too costly. One of the compromises the Senator 
from Oklahoma worked out with Senator Jeffords and me is that it is as 
small as it is. If it were up to Senator Jeffords and this committee, 
it would be bigger. It is because of the chairman of the committee that 
it is as small as it is. I hope everyone who criticizes the Senator 
from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, understands he did yeoman's work.
  As we speak, the House is talking about a bill bigger than ours. They 
criticized President Eisenhower for a bill being too big and they 
criticize us for a bill being too big. In my opinion, the bill is too 
small.
  Part of the reason for President Eisenhower's bill, the Interstate 
Highway System, has been completed. We have many more different 
responsibilities now than we had then. In recent years, we have done 
some very good work with highway transportation.
  Going back to 1982 when I first came to Washington, we had the 
Surface Transportation Assistance Act. This bill established the mass 
transit account, the highway trust fund. The reason that became 
important was, people came to the realization that for every vehicle we 
keep off our highway system, it saves money. It was determined that it 
would be good if we became partners with the mass transit folks and 
worked together on legislation. That was what we did in 1982 and that 
is what we are doing now. That is why it is such good news that the 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, that handles mass 
transit, has agreed on a proposal.
  Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and I met today with the chairman 
of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, and they have agreed to that. 
That is really important. That started back in 1982. At that time, 
there was an 85 percent minimum return provision. That means for every 
dollar put into the highway trust fund in a State such as North 
Carolina, there was a guarantee they would get at least 85 percent of 
the money they put in. Some States got more than that, but 1982 was the 
first time there was a minimum return provision. One of the 
controversies in that bill was an increase in the Federal gas tax from 
4 to 9 cents per gallon. It was a good bill and passed.
  In 1987, 5 years later, we had a bill called the Surface 
Transportation and Uniform Reallocation Assistance Act. It was not a 
very sexy name but it got the point across. It increased the speed 
limit, which was so important for States such as Nevada, from 55 miles 
per hour to a higher speed. It worked out well and we hope that 
continues to be OK. In a State such as Nevada--800 miles from the top 
to bottom, 500 miles across--you need to be able to travel in a safe 
manner on an interstate highway system faster than 55 miles per hour.
  It also included a provision requiring States to spend a specified 
minimum amount for environmental purposes. That was the first time the 
highway bill had really taken that into consideration. So that was 
important.
  Congress felt so strongly about this that President Reagan vetoed 
this bill. It was overridden by the House and the Senate. That does not 
happen very often, but the Presiding Officer, who was part of the 
administration during that time, recalls that.
  In 1991, we had the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 
ISTEA. That is where the name comes from--ISTEA. This created the 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, CMAQ, program, which has been a 
program that the environmentalists love, and some who are not as 
environmentally sensitive do not like it. But these programs were 
established then and dealt with air quality.
  With the interstate system largely complete, as I indicated earlier, 
ISTEA shifted the Federal program from capital construction to focus on 
people and the movement of goods. This is where Senator Moynihan was so 
good. It also expanded the transportation decisionmaking process to 
include local officials, stakeholders, and citizens. And that passed.
  It seems as if it was just a short time ago when, in June of 1988, we 
passed TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. This 
continued the basic policy structure established in ISTEA. It 
dramatically increased funding of the Federal Surface Transportation 
Program and established important budgetary protections or firewalls to 
guarantee highway and transportation spending. And, for the first time 
since 1982, we increased the minimum return to 90.5 percent, which was 
very important.
  I also want to make sure the record is clear from this Senator's 
perspective of the contributions to highways and transit, and basically 
good government, that came from John Chafee. I have been so fortunate. 
I worked through all these bills that I have

[[Page 689]]

talked about, and I have had the very good fortune to work with Senator 
Stafford, as chairman of the committee, the great Senator from Vermont; 
Senator Moynihan for a short time; Senator Baucus; Senator Chafee; and 
these men set a high level that we who are now trying to move this bill 
must meet.
  But Senator Chafee was such a good friend to me personally. He did so 
many things to help me in my political career. Even though he was a 
member of the other party, he went out of his way to always try to make 
me look good. I will always be indebted to him and his family, and that 
includes Lincoln, for all the good things that Senator Chafee did for 
me. Even though I was closer to Senator Moynihan than I was to Senator 
Chafee, I felt such a kinship to Senator Chafee and cared a good deal 
about him, and his imprint is also on this legislation. Senator 
Moynihan could not have done much of what he did without Senator Chafee 
working with him.
  This bill we have before the Senate is good legislation. It is 
imperfect. This legislation that is before this body is imperfect 
legislation, but it is the best we could do. For 50 States, having a 
formula that you put into a computer and do your computer run which 
comes out as good as this one says a lot for the great work of our 
staffs.
  As Senator Inhofe has said, I would like to do different things in 
this bill. If I had been the person dictating what was in this bill, it 
would be different than what we have in it. But, frankly, I am down the 
totem pole. You have the chairman and ranking member and the 
subcommittee chairman and then me, but I did have some input in this 
measure. I think what we have come up with, as I indicated, is far from 
being perfect, but I think it is good legislation. And that is what 
legislation is all about.
  Legislation is the art of compromise. I have been fortunate that a 
number of measures I have introduced are now law in this great country. 
I have never ever gotten everything I wanted. Everything that is now 
law that I introduced had to be changed. Anyone who is of the mind that 
they are going to get what they introduced is wrong because it just 
does not happen. I have never known it to happen.
  This legislation we have been given by the two leaders we have 2 
weeks to finish. If we do not finish it in 2 weeks, I am sorry to say 
what might happen. What might happen is this bill will be pulled, and 
we will have to extend the highway program for a year. That does not 
help any State. No State is helped with that program. Every State gets 
hurt. So we have to move and move quickly on this bill.
  At the birth of the interstate system, safety and the efficient 
movement of people and goods framed the national transportation debate. 
Fifty years later, as President Eisenhower indicated, that is still the 
talk, the same speech. You could give the Eisenhower speech today on 
the floor of the Senate, and if we did not tell you it was 50 years 
old, you would think it was being given by someone who wrote it today. 
Fifty years after President Eisenhower's interstate highway system, 
safety and efficiency remain our foremost objectives.
  This year, traffic congestion will cost Americans more than $67 
billion in lost time and productivity--$67 billion in lost time and 
productivity--and it will waste almost 6 billion gallons of fuel. I 
cannot imagine 6 billion gallons of fuel. I do not know where you would 
put all that, but that is how much is wasted, which only increases our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  As for safety, traffic accidents last year killed 42,000 people. We 
can reduce the toll of traffic congestion. We can save lives by making 
our highways safer. We have a responsibility to keep working on these 
problems and to find meaningful solutions.
  The bill currently before this body represents a major commitment to 
maintain and improve our national transportation infrastructure. It 
also creates jobs.
  Again, there has been controversy over there not being enough jobs 
created during the 3 years that President Bush has been President. 
Those people who are trying to damage this bill should understand this 
legislation will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, some say as many 
as 2 million jobs.
  The majority leader of the Senate was here today, and he said for 
every $1 billion we spend in this highway bill, $2 billion will be 
created by other things, the offshoot of this legislation. We know for 
every $1 billion we spend on infrastructure development, 47,000 high-
paying jobs are created. We know that. And these are well paid, skilled 
jobs for Americans.
  This bill is also a referendum on improving our quality of life. No 
other measure will we debate in this Congress that has the potential to 
so dramatically impact every facet of our everyday lives.
  I thank my colleagues, the entire committee, but especially Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Bond for working to craft a 
bipartisan package that continues the intermodal legacy of its 
predecessors, ISTEA and TEA-21.
  Our proposal does not make dramatic changes to the core program 
structure because it does not need to. The groundwork has already been 
laid. During a year's worth of reauthorization hearings, the committee 
learned that the basic structure does work.
  This package refines and improves the current program to ensure that 
our investments have the maximum impact on improving our surface 
transportation system.
  Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Union and has been for 
more than a decade. Clark County--that is where Las Vegas is located--
has experienced the bulk of that growth. This growth represents unique 
challenges but also opportunities.
  The bill before the Senate provides resources and programs that 
encourage the effective management and operation of our Nation's 
transportation system. The continued success of that system is 
essential to fast growing metropolitan areas such as Clark County, 
where traffic congestion and air quality are serious issues.
  This legislation also places a renewed emphasis on safety by 
consolidating the various safety initiatives spread through the Federal 
highway program into new core safety programs. One of the aspects we 
have worked on includes something called the Safe Routes to School 
Initiative. It was felt that we wanted to do everything we could to 
have kids walk to school, ride bicycles to school. Why do they have to 
have a bus pick them up and drop them off at their door? One of the 
things we are doing is creating safer routes for children. If they want 
to use a bike or walk, we have bike paths and sidewalks.
  This is important because, for example, in Clark County, we have 
opened, in the last 2 years, 18 schools a year, a total of 36 schools. 
By opening one new school a month we can't keep up with the growth in 
Clark County. We have high schools that are approaching 5,000 kids. So 
the safer routes to school program will help promote healthy living by 
making it safer for children to walk or ride to school on bikes, not 
cars and buses. I am pleased this package moves the Nation's surface 
transportation program forward without jeopardizing our natural 
environment.
  One of the things we did in this bill, which was difficult, States 
have complained about. Originally back before 1982, some States were 
barely getting 80 percent of what they put into these trust funds. We 
moved it to 85, 90.5. And now with this bill, the formula now before 
the Senate, every State, by the end of this legislation, will get 95 
percent of what they put in. That is very difficult. It goes without 
saying that some of the States who were getting more than a dollar in 
years past, a lot of them continue to get more than a dollar, but some 
of them don't. The State of Nevada, under this formula, gets less than 
a dollar. But in fairness, the formula is a formula. It wouldn't have 
been right for the formula to be any different for me than it is for 
others. So this is fair. We have made it so every State at the end of 
this bill will get at least 95 percent.
  In this legislation every State will get a percentage increase. This 
legislation is not perfect, but it is about as

[[Page 690]]

fair as we could do. I have worked with my staff the last 4 or 5 days 
to say, could you come up with something. I had a few problems with the 
legislation. Come up with something. I will talk to Senator Inhofe 
because we might have a formula that may be better. We couldn't come up 
with one. I wish we could have, but we couldn't. But what we have done 
here is the best we could do. The vast majority of the States will do 
extremely well compared to what they did in the past.
  As with any compromise, this is not perfect. It is inevitable that 
some States will not be completely satisfied with the results, but it 
is important to note every State benefits from the growth in this 
program.
  We worked hard to create a funding mechanism that allows all 50 
States plus the District of Columbia to benefit from program growth 
while addressing several competing fundraising priorities: Donor versus 
donee, old versus new, urban versus rural. These have all been put in 
this formula, and we have come up with what is as fair as we think we 
can do. The bill before us accomplishes that goal.
  Once more, let me emphasize, every State benefits from the growth in 
the program. So again, I extend my appreciation to my colleagues--the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and 
Senator Jeffords, the ranking member--for the good work they have done. 
We are all going to have to be vigilant. I hope those who want to 
change the bill come here and offer amendments. I hope they do it as 
soon as possible. We hope to get to this bill tomorrow. We are hopeful 
and confident the motion to proceed should be overwhelmingly approved. 
I can't imagine anyone voting against this.
  I was told by the person who asked me to object on their behalf on 
the motion to proceed that that Senator was concerned about the transit 
portion of the bill. That has been taken care of. The chairmen of the 
two committees have signed off on this. I hope we can move forward on 
this very quickly.
  Again, I am glad we are here. What we do on this legislation will set 
a tone for the rest of this legislative year. I hope we can permit it. 
I should be more confident, like the players in the Super Bowl and the 
coaches: We are going to finish this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I reextend my appreciation to the Senator 
from Nevada for all the help he has been. His expertise is well known 
in this Chamber, and he has been on the opposite side of me probably 
more than on my side. I like it this way better.
  I would like to amplify a couple things Senator Reid talked about. I 
think it is significant, when you talk about where we are now relative 
to where we were in TEA-21, the last 6-year reauthorization. Our 
average is 35.6 percent higher. The average State is higher than it was 
in TEA-21.
  In the comments he made about a computer run, I know this is kind of 
complicated to explain to people because it is the only way I think you 
can come up with something that is very fair. Prior to this, in 
previous years under TEA-21, we had the 1104 table which was a minimum 
guarantee. That was a percentage that each State had that was a 
percentage of the total growth. It was purely politically driven.
  I don't like the way some of these things come out of the computer. 
But when this came out, I agreed with Senator Reid, there is not a 
better way of doing it. I will give an example. I was talking to one of 
the Senators from Pennsylvania who was complaining about perhaps not 
getting the share they should have gotten. So I did a comparison.
  My State of Oklahoma--I hope no one from Oklahoma is listening right 
now--is 70,000 square miles. Pennsylvania is 46,000 square miles. My 
State of Oklahoma has a population of 3.5 million. They have 12.2 
million. The historic rate of return since we came in to the first 
bill, through Senator Moynihan, has been .87 percent. Pennsylvania has 
been 1.16 percent. This is the key: the total miles. Unfortunately, I 
don't have this less toll roads, but I will explain the difference.
  If you take the total amount of miles in my State of Oklahoma, it is 
112,000 miles. The total number of miles in Pennsylvania is 119,500 
miles, but that includes toll roads. We all know Pennsylvania has a lot 
of toll roads. So when you take them out, I am quite sure the number of 
miles we refer to in this legislation would be more than Pennsylvania. 
And yet if you look back historically, in 1998, Oklahoma received $351 
million; Pennsylvania $1.16 billion. In 1999, Oklahoma received $413 
million; $1.3 billion for Pennsylvania. It goes on consistent with 
that.
  What I am saying is, even under the formula we are looking at right 
now, Pennsylvania is getting back about three times the amount. Again, 
there are other factors. I am sure we will be talking about those from 
State to State. But it shows it is very difficult to come up with 
something that is fair. There is not one State that will not be able to 
go back to their people and say how well their State is doing under 
this.
  I don't sound like a conservative Republican when I am talking this 
way, but this is one area where conservatives believe Government has a 
function, a strong role, and that is to build infrastructure. We have 
not been doing a good job of it. I know this because I spent 8 years in 
the other body. During that time, I was on the committee called Public 
Works and Transportation. It is strictly transportation, not like EPW, 
which is environment, all the regulatory agencies, and transportation. 
So it is just about half the jurisdiction. But during that time, we 
watched what was going on, and I was right on top of it.
  When I came over to this body in 1994, I became chairman of the Clean 
Air Subcommittee. I kind of left the transportation part. When we came 
back and I became chairman of the Transportation Infrastructure 
Subcommittee, all of a sudden I realized what had happened in the 4 
years I had been detached from transportation.
  When you talk about the number of vehicles that are traveling, the 
number of trucks, the number of congestive stops, where you have to sit 
and idle your engine--we are handling all of these things in this bill. 
I think during that 4-year period we did a bad job. We didn't do what 
we should have done. Quite frankly, in 1998, I wasn't real happy that 
we weren't really meeting the problem. A computer run is tough. You 
have to consider that some States are fast growing States, such as 
Nevada, big States such as California, Florida, Texas, and some of them 
would be complaining that they are not doing too well. It is because 
you have to have a ceiling, a growth ceiling. If you have a growth 
ceiling and they are getting back an inordinate amount of money, it 
bumps into that ceiling. At the same time, you have donor and donee 
States. If you take Texas and Pennsylvania, both of which might argue 
they are not treated fairly, if you make a change in one, it is making 
an adverse change in the other. I think we have to say we have done a 
good job when you look at this.
  One thing I think is important to talk about is the public views. I 
think the general feeling is that we spend too much money in 
Washington, and I think we do. But when it comes to their views on 
transportation investment, it is totally different. In January, last 
month of this year, Zogby International conducted interviews of a 
thousand likely voters chosen at random nationwide. That is a pretty 
big sampling, as those of us know who read these polls. It is about 
twice the size of the average poll.
  Eighty-seven percent of those interviewed said the Nation's highway 
and public transit network is very important to the Nation's economy; 
83 percent agreed that President Bush and Congress should do more to 
help create jobs for those Americans who want to work, even though the 
latest Government statistics suggest that the U.S. economy is 
rebounding; 69 percent favored boosting Federal spending on 
transportation projects during 2004, and that is significant--69 
percent of the Americans favor boosting the amount of money of Federal 
spending

[[Page 691]]

on transportation projects during 2004 as part of the transportation or 
jobs creation initiative, as well as part of the transportation needs 
and infrastructure needs. I think that is very significant. According 
to the same pollster, that is how nearly 70 percent of American voters 
responded.
  In a survey they conducted a year before, they said they believe 
America is facing a transportation capacity crisis. That is what I was 
saying we were observing a year ago--that our Nation's roads, airports, 
and mass transit systems are struggling to handle a growing population 
economy. Fifty-six percent overall, and 79 percent of young women with 
children, said traffic congestion is depriving them of more time with 
their families or for leisure activities than it did just 5 years ago. 
That is significant.
  These are social problems that exist because we are not doing an 
adequate job. These answers should not surprise anyone. It says that, 
since 1982, the U.S. population has grown almost 19 percent, the number 
of registered motor vehicles has increased by 36 percent, and vehicle 
miles traveled has ballooned 72 percent. Surprise, over the past 20 
years, we have added less than 5 percent to road capacity and even less 
than that to public transit. So we added even 5 percent less to road 
capacity in spite of the fact that the population has grown 19 percent 
and the motor vehicles have increased by 36 percent.
  Just take that as one statement, one statistic, and that justifies 
everything we are doing in trying to beef this up. It proves that what 
we are doing now is inadequate, but it is the best we can do under the 
circumstances.
  Forty-eight percent of those surveyed by Zogby described the 
condition of the roads in their local communities as either fair or 
poor. That was the assessment of 75 percent of Hispanic Americans.
  The survey polled a random sample of a thousand likely voters 
nationwide--the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percent--and 
highways and public transit are consistently important to Americans. 
They said in a commentary accompanying the survey that highway safety 
and efficient public transit are also high priorities. Overcrowded 
roads are not only a concern for commuters but also for Americans who 
are nervous about another terrorist attack.
  Other key findings: 80 percent think the Nation's highways and public 
transit network is extremely important or very important to the U.S. 
economy. The fact is, I commented in my opening remarks that this is by 
far the biggest jobs bill that we can be considering at any time. That 
is what 80 percent of Americans say.
  Nearly 8 in 10 also agree that an investment in highways, bridges, 
and public transit should be considered an important element in 
homeland security and national defense. We know this administration is 
very concerned about national security and homeland defense. I am glad 
they are. We are overdue in addressing these issues. The people agree 
with that, also.
  Nearly 90 percent feel it is important that their representatives in 
Congress fight to ensure sufficient Federal funding for transportation 
improvement projects in their local areas. That is interesting because 
this is at a time when people are complaining about the amount of money 
we are spending.
  Two-thirds of Americans say roads and public transit systems play a 
highly important role in their everyday lives. We are concerned about 
congestion. I am in my State of Oklahoma. I am sure it is the same 
problem in North Carolina and virtually in every State.
  One of the foremost authorities in putting together, consolidating 
the concerns has been the Texas Transport International; that is the 
Texas Aggies' group that put together something that they conduct 
annually--not just in Texas but throughout the country--as to what we 
are going to do about congestion. They said, less than a year ago, that 
59 percent of the Nation's roadways today are experiencing significant 
traffic congestion compared to only 34 percent in 1982.
  Fully two-thirds of the major roads in the 75 U.S. urban areas are 
congested during peak travel periods, compared to only one-third in 
1982. That is double. Both figures will increase without additional 
investment. The average number of hours per day with congestion that 
might be encountered on urban roads has risen from 4.5 hours in 1982 to 
about 7 hours in 2001.
  The average annual delays per peak road traveled in 75 urban areas is 
60 hours. That is significant because, when you have delays, you are 
also talking about pollution and about leaving cars running and trucks 
running, polluting the air, using up the fuel. We have an energy crisis 
in this country to start with.
  Traffic congestion is now responsible for 5.7 billion gallons of 
wasted motor fuel. The total cost of traffic congestion to the U.S. 
economy and lost productivity and wasted motor fuel in 2001 was almost 
$69.5 billion, or putting it down so we understand it, that is $528 per 
person. I think sometimes we throw around figures of billions and 
trillions and it is difficult to understand, certainly, for people who 
are not spending this much time studying these things in Washington. 
That $69 billion equals $528 per person.
  Shortly, I am going to talk about some of the other areas of the bill 
specifically, section by section. At this point, I will yield the floor 
because I understand the senior Senator from Texas has comments she 
would like to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the chairman for allowing me 
to speak on this legislation because let me say that I hope in the end 
I will be able to support the bill.
  At this point, I could not possibly do that because of the inequity 
to Texas. Let me say that I know the chairman is working with other 
Members to try to come up with solutions, and I hope I will be able to 
support the bill in the end.
  Most of the goods that drive our economy ride on our Nation's 
highways in large part because over the past 50 years the Federal Aid 
Highway Program has assisted the States in producing one of the world's 
finest highway and mass transit networks.
  The majority of that system was designed in the 1950s to meet the 
needs of a rapidly growing nation to connect to new population centers 
in the West. Today, there are other critical needs to be addressed 
different from those in the 1950s, particularly the amount of trade 
that is stemming from NAFTA and the increased burden on our 
infrastructure that NAFTA produces.
  Although strong trade partnerships with our neighbors--Mexico and 
Canada--have provided substantial national benefits, the resultant 
traffic is devastating to our Nation's infrastructure.
  Back in the 1950s, our smaller States and Western States needed the 
extra help at the expense of States such as Texas. But now, I think, 
every State has more of an ability to contribute to its own 
infrastructure. The ability to contribute is much more equal today than 
it was in the fifties when there were huge inequities in the amount of 
national infrastructure.
  The State that has borne the greatest burden in the entire life of 
the Federal Aid Highway Program has been my home State of Texas. We are 
the single largest donor State. Since 1956, Texas has contributed over 
$5 billion more to the program than the State has received in funds to 
build its own highways. In fact, there has never been a year that Texas 
received more in highway funding than it sent to Washington.
  Texas has the most highway miles of any State in our Nation. 
Therefore, the people of Texas, obviously, buy more gasoline and, 
therefore, contribute more to the tax. Over the past 12 years, Texas 
and other donor States have made good progress. In 1998, Texas received 
only a 76-cent return on every dollar sent to Washington, a loss of 
$1.7 billion. Current law guarantees us 90.5 cents on the dollar, but 
this is still very inequitable.
  Though we expected to equalize more this year, hoping to get up to 95 
cents

[[Page 692]]

at least, that has not happened. I cannot possibly support the highway 
funding formula in this bill. I am concerned that in an effort to limit 
costs, the committee created a new class of superdonor States.
  It appears that Texas, California, and Florida have been designated 
to shoulder the burden of the Nation's transportation network at the 
expense of their own. I have to object to this new superdonor category.
  The bill before us distributes $227 billion in highway funds using a 
formula that will hold six States--Texas, California, Arizona, 
Colorado, Florida, and Maryland--at a 90.5 cent rate of return for 5 
years. So for every dollar our constituents send to Washington, they 
get 90.5 cents back. Only in the final year, the sixth year, does that 
increase to the level of 95 cents. If Texas were to receive 95 cents 
for all 6 years, the formula would provide Texas an additional $700 
million over this period.
  These superdonor States have one aspect in common: They are the 
fastest growing States in America. Ironically, the formula in the bill 
offers the least relief to States whose needs are most pronounced, 
States whose cities and populations are developing most rapidly. Three 
of these six also are on the Southwest border, so we have the added 
burden of infrastructure needs from NAFTA in addition to being high 
growth states.
  The committee thinks we should like this legislation because while 
the total spending grows 36 percent, Texas will see a 42 percent dollar 
increase compared to 6 years ago. However, our increase has little to 
do with the formula but is caused by Texas buying more gas and paying 
more taxes into the highway trust fund.
  In 2002, Texas contributed 9.11 percent of the total dollars in the 
trust fund, up from 8.27 percent 4 years earlier. Buying more gas 
allows us to contribute more funds. We do grow in dollars returning to 
the state, but we don't grow as much as we are putting in. We keep the 
same rate of return, 90.5 cents on the dollar, until the sixth year.
  Ever since the 1993 passage of NAFTA, it is these fast-growing 
superdonor States that are the major trade gateways to the United 
States. Eighty percent of NAFTA traffic travels through my home State 
of Texas. But while the entire Nation benefits from that resulting 
commerce, Texas bears the brunt of maintenance and upkeep on our 
highways, and those costs are not insignificant.
  To its credit, the committee did, for the first time, create a border 
and a corridor fund that represents some of that added burden on the 
States on our northern border with Canada and our southern border with 
Mexico. I commend the chairman and thank him for adding those funds.
  However, the $1 billion for each of those funds which, by the time 
Texas gets its fair share, will still not bring us up anywhere close to 
the $700 million we are losing by not being treated like other donor 
States.
  In 2002, over 4 million trucks hauling 18 billion pounds of cargo 
entered from Mexico through 24 commercial border crossing facilities. 
Over 3 million of those trucks, or 68 percent, entered through Texas.
  In addition to commercial traffic, 90 million personal vehicles from 
Mexico also traveled through the Southwest border States. So Texas now 
with a bigger infrastructure burden is getting less percentage of what 
it sends to Washington than almost all of the other States.
  I am just hoping the chairman will work with us, not to create a new 
superdonor State category. I hope we don't break precedent and create 
this new sort of stepchild in donor States that will also be used for 
other formulas for other kinds of State aid.
  I understand small States have the ability to have more votes in the 
Senate. I understand small States may believe they should have more of 
a piece of the pie than the larger States. However, representing a 
large State as I do, I just have to say I think we are all much more 
equal in capacity now than States have ever been before, and the 
concept that there should be donor and donee States should be going by 
the wayside.
  I am not saying we would want to do something that cuts people off 
precipitously or hurts people immediately, but I think we ought to be 
in a phasedown of the entire donor-donee State strategy or attitude 
because I think every State should be able to decide, getting 100 
percent of what it sends to Washington, what it wants the money spent 
for. If we are going to have a Federal highway system, we all want it 
to be a good system, and perhaps there should be some donor capacity. 
But a 10-cent-on-the-dollar donation seems to me to be too high. I hope 
the chairman will work with us to create all donor States equal, to 
create everyone at least at a 95-percent rate of return. The House bill 
treats all of the donor States the same. Donee States do vary all 
across the board. But we have never made a new class of donor States, 
and I hope we will not do it in this bill.
  I hope the chairman will work with those of us who believe there 
should be a much more equitable funding formula so that I can support 
the good provisions in this bill.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. As we talked about before, there are always problems in 
formulas. There are so many things to consider, as we outlined, such as 
fast-growing States, large States, small States. I would have to say to 
the senior Senator from Texas, we in Oklahoma are kind of in the same 
situation as Texas. We have always been a donor State. We are just 
delighted to look down the road and see that there is a light at the 
end of the tunnel and that we are getting to the point where we will 
all have a minimum of 95 percent. I can remember when that number was 
at 77 percent and then 80 percent and then 90.5 percent and now up to 
95 percent.
  This is one of the difficulties. The Senator from Texas is from one 
of the three largest States and it is a fast-growing State. In my 
opening remarks, I mentioned that to come up with a formula, as the 
Senator from Nevada has said, it is a very difficult thing, because 
there are fast-growing States. There has to be a ceiling but there also 
has to be a floor. There has to be consideration for donee and donor.
  I thought it was kind of interesting, during the remarks of the 
Senator from Texas, that the Senator from Nevada came over and said, I 
wish we were doing as well as Texas on percentages.
  Later on we are going to have full-size charts.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, could I offer to make that trade to 
the Senator from Nevada on a percentage basis? I will trade him right 
now.
  Mr. INHOFE. Later on we are hoping we are going to have larger charts 
to be able to show one for every State, but this one which I will hold 
up--I hope everyone will be able to see it--if we take under TEA-21 the 
average in the State of Texas was $2.1 billion. That is the average of 
each year for a 6-year period. Starting in 2004, they would go up to 
$2.6 billion; 2005, $2.8 billion; 2006, $2.9 billion; and going on up 
at the end of 2009, it would be $3.6 billion, almost $3.7 billion, 
which is a huge increase, of course, over previous years.
  I recognize there will be a lot of States that are not going to be 
happy with their formulas. It is those people who try to find a better 
formula, after we put all of our resources together and spent a year 
doing this, who have had a very difficult time coming up with something 
that is going to be any better.
  Quite frankly, I spent some time in Texas. I held a field hearing in 
Texas. I talked to them and hopefully they are going to be very pleased 
with the massive increases, the percentage increase. For the State of 
Texas under this bill over TEA-21, the previous 6-year authorization 
bill, is 42 percent. Now the average increase is 35.6 percent. So Texas 
is way above the average increase and way above the average amount of 
the average States.
  I recognize there are problems with any formula, but those are some 
facts

[[Page 693]]

we are dealing with and things we had to consider. It is always 
difficult when representing 50 States, as we were in the committee. I 
would like to have done a lot better for my State of Oklahoma. I know 
Senator Santorum talked to me about some of the problems in his State. 
When we look at the State of Texas and the State of Pennsylvania, where 
there is a donee State that is dissatisfied, the only way that can be 
improved would be to do something to lower the ceiling in the other 
States. So it is a difficult thing to deal with.
  I certainly will yield to the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I do understand the difficulty of 
dealing with these formulas, and I am sure the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member tried in every way to please as many 
people as they possibly could. It just seems wrong to create a new 
level of super donor State. Yes, we have increased to 42 percent 
instead of the average 36 percent, but that is because our people are 
putting more in the highway fund because we are buying more gasoline. 
Therefore, of course, our rate of increase would go up. We are still in 
the same position of sending a dollar to Washington and getting 90.5 
cents back until year 6. It is just hard to see that a donee State has 
more infrastructure burden than a State like Texas which not only has 
the most highway miles but has 80 percent of the traffic from NAFTA.
  I would love to take the chairman of the committee to I-35 where it 
is a parking lot from Austin to Dallas. It takes more time to drive 
from Austin to Dallas than it does to fly from Austin to Washington. It 
is just ridiculous. It is a parking lot, and that is because it comes 
from Mexico through Texas and we do not have the capability to expand 
at the rate the traffic is expanding on that NAFTA corridor.
  As I said in my statement, the chairman did create a real border 
corridor fund that will be helpful, but it still does not nearly make 
up for the deficit we are sending in this new super donor State 
capacity to Washington. It is $700 million we could be spending on our 
own infrastructure trying to meet these needs if we could get 95 cents 
on the dollar back so every donor State would be equal.
  I know it was hard. I absolutely appreciate that. Unfortunately, 
representing Texas for 10 years, I have been in a lot of the formula 
fights, and small States tend to win. I know the Senator from Oklahoma 
has been a donor State and knows how it feels, so he probably 
understands how I feel right now. I just hope in the end we can see 
that we will get to 95 cents either through the help of the border 
corridors or in the formula in some way to acknowledge we should not be 
a super donor State with all of the problems we have.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, there is a lot of truth to what the 
Senator says. One thing that needs to be clarified, and we have asked 
the staff to do it because it has not been done before, is to see--I 
mean, we are in the same situation. The State of Texas today is getting 
back 90.5 percent. We are getting back 90.5 percent. It is kind of an 
interesting study that is being conducted right now to determine how 
much of the money--when the Senator says Texans pay in so much and get 
back so much, a lot of the fuel that is being purchased, subject to 
excise tax, is not purchased by citizens of Texas, particularly talking 
about a corridor going through. I know when I am down there, I purchase 
a lot of fuel. That same I-35 goes through my State of Oklahoma. A lot 
of the NAFTA traffic is traffic that is not Texas traffic, but they are 
purchasing fuel there. It would be interesting to know whether or not 
the citizens of my State of Oklahoma or the citizens of State of Texas 
are actually getting back perhaps more than they are paying in in fuel 
revenues.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That would certainly be an interesting study to have. 
I would also point out that part of the purpose of the gasoline tax is 
to maintain highways for use, and even if it is someone like the 
Senator or someone using the highway for NAFTA purposes, they are using 
the highway and it is the wear and tear that must be maintained.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  I do not see others waiting to be heard. As we all know, tonight, in 
about an hour and 25 minutes from now, we will be having a cloture 
vote. Is that correct, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. Between now and then, we will have a chance to hear from 
a lot of people, and as they come in I would be glad to have them heard 
on this subject. In the meantime, I will make a statement that I would 
otherwise be making after the cloture vote. I am hoping the cloture 
vote will be successful and we can move right on to this very 
significant vote. In the meantime, I am inclined to want to share a few 
things that are in this bill, which I would be glad to do at this time, 
and then yield to any Senator who comes in who may want to be heard.
  I ask the Chair to go ahead and recognize the Senator from 
Massachusetts now, if he wishes to be recognized. Mine is going to be a 
rather long statement. We will go ahead and move to that when the 
Senator from Massachusetts is through.


                Congratulating the New England Patriots

  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, the matters before us are of enormous importance to 
this country, and certainly to my State. These issues dealing with road 
transportation and mass transit are basic, fundamental to our Nation's 
infrastructure and our economy. We are going to be focusing on this 
over the next several days. We are very much looking forward to it. 
There is an incredible need for attention to these important 
investments.
  But I welcome the opportunity to take just a moment or two at this 
time to recognize the extraordinary success last evening, when the New 
England Patriots played the Carolina Panthers. Some 80 million 
Americans watched that extraordinary game.
  I have a resolution which will give me a great deal of pleasure to 
offer in behalf of myself and my colleague and friend, Senator Kerry, 
who is not here physically but joins with his enthusiasm to urge 
favorable consideration of this resolution which is meant to 
congratulate the New England Patriots for their dramatic victory in 
yesterday's Super Bowl. It could not have been more exciting.
  With 7 seconds remaining in the game, the score tied, Adam Vinatieri 
kicked a 41-yard field goal to clinch the Patriot's second Super Bowl 
success in the past 3 years. Mr. Vinatieri is making a trademark of 
kicking the winning field goals in Super Bowls. Two years ago, his 48-
yard field goal won the game as time expired.
  I also congratulate Tom Brady, the youngest quarterback in National 
Football League history to win two Super Bowls. He had another 
outstanding day with 350 yards passing and had 3 touchdown passes. Mr. 
Brady's performance gave him his second Super Bowl Most Valuable Player 
trophy in 3 years.
  The Patriots had a remarkable season. They tied the Miami Dolphins' 
record in 1972, winning 15 straight games. Much of the credit goes to 
the man named Coach of the Year, Bill Belichick, and his two 
outstanding assistant coaches, Romeo Crennel, who produced the No. 1 
defense in the National Football League, and Charlie Weiss, who 
produced the team's outstanding offense.
  Among the Patriots' heroes of last night's game, and for the entire 
season as well, was the offensive line. They did an outstanding job of 
protecting quarterback Tom Brady. In fact, they allowed no sacks of the 
quarterback in the Super Bowl or in any of the other games in the post-
season playoffs. Truly a remarkable record.
  I want the Senate to adopt the pending resolution commending the 
Patriots on their dramatic victory in a game that will surely rank as 
one of the most exciting Super Bowls ever.
  I notice in the chair the wonderful Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. 
Dole. I commend, certainly, her enthusiasm for her team. She has 
reminded me of that enthusiasm and her very

[[Page 694]]

strong support. I commend the Carolina team for showing extraordinary 
sportsmanship and competitiveness and just a superb performance by that 
team.
  If it is agreeable, I believe the resolution is at the desk. I 
believe it has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We do not have the resolution at the desk.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will call for consideration of the 
resolution at a later time. We will do that, under prior agreement, at 
a time, as I understand it, that will be later in the afternoon.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on another subject, I want to address the 
Senate for just a few moments on one of the important aspects of the 
President's budget. The President's budget should be looked at, not 
only for what it contains, but also for what is not included in the 
budget.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield so I can make a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am very interested in hearing the 
remarks of the senior Senator from Massachusetts. However, we are right 
now debating the cloture motion. While I think it is perfectly 
appropriate to talk about the game last night, I hate to get into 
another subject when we only have an hour and 20 minutes to be talking 
about our cloture motion.
  I, first of all, ask the Senator if this is something that could be 
postponed until after that motion.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I know we just heard my good friend from Texas talk 
about the Border Patrol and the commission that has been established.
  Mr. INHOFE. Which is on this bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is on this bill. I am conscious of that. I will not 
take a great deal of time, but I am not familiar with restrictions. I 
inquired of the Chair to be able to work out a suitable time to be able 
to speak. I don't intend to take much time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate has to be relevant to the pending 
measure.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I will make it to be.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call 
be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Under the rules, it is my wish, as the chairman of the 
committee, that we get to this very important bill. The Senator from 
Massachusetts has agreed, if he could be recognized, he would keep it 
down to 10 minutes. That would be acceptable to me, if it is 
acceptable?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That will be fine. I ask to be notified when I have 30 
seconds left.


                               The Budget

  Madam President, the President's budget that was submitted today, 
which is really the declaration by the administration with regards to 
defense and national security, but also is extraordinarily important in 
terms of health policy and education. There is probably not a more 
important document that is submitted by any President than the budget 
item indicating a nation's priorities. So that is why I wanted to be 
able to just take a few moments on one particular aspect of it, and 
that is the state of our economy and how this budget addresses the 
state of that economy or how it failed to do so.
  I just wanted to share with the Senate the strong sense that we are 
in a jobless recovery. This economy may be fine for Wall Street, but it 
is bad for Main Street. I have certainly seen that in the last weeks or 
months that I have had a chance to get around this country. I saw it up 
in the State of New Hampshire, where every new job is paying 35 percent 
less than the jobs that had disappeared. I saw that down in New Mexico, 
where you still have 78,000 workers who are waiting for an increase in 
the minimum wage and the new jobs are paying 23 percent less.
  It is the same in Arizona, in Michigan, in South Carolina, and across 
the country. South Carolina has lost tens of thousands of jobs. So I 
was interested about what is in this budget, or what would fail to be 
in this budget, with regard to American workers.
  One of the principal concerns that I find from families while 
traveling across this country is the failure of the Senate to respond 
to the problems of those who are unemployed with the extension of the 
unemployment insurance. There are 90,000 workers a week who are losing 
their unemployment compensation. There is virtually nothing in this 
legislation that deals with that. The unemployment compensation fund 
has nearly $20 billion.
  The proposal that has been offered by Senator Cantwell and others 
would provide for some 13 weeks of unemployment compensation. It has 
been rejected by the other side more than 12 different times.
  Look at this chart. It shows the average number of out-of-work 
Americans who are running out of unemployment benefits and not finding 
jobs. The average monthly rate from 1973 to 2003 was 150,000. The 
estimate for January 2004 is 375,000. And there is not one word in here 
to recommend that we have a temporary extension of unemployment 
compensation.
  These are all hard-working Americans. They are not eligible for the 
unemployment compensation fund unless they have paid into it. They have 
paid into it. And we are finding objection from the other side to 
providing some relief for these workers. I can't believe that.
  Second, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New 
York Times editorial from Friday that makes this very point I have just 
made. I will quote part of it.

       The pernicious joblessness bedeviling the nation is 
     spawning a new category of Americans dubbed ``exhaustees''; 
     the hundreds of thousands of hard-core unemployed who have 
     run through State and Federal unemployment aid. According to 
     the latest estimates, close to 2 million Americans, futilely 
     hunting for work while scrambling for economic sustenance, 
     will join the ranks of exhaustees in the next six months. 
     They represent a record flood of unemployed individuals with 
     expired benefits--the highest in 30 years--who are plainly 
     desperate for help.
       The emergency program cries out for immediate renewal.

  I ask unanimous consent that full editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 2004]

                     Exhausting Federal Compassion

       The pernicious joblessness bedeviling the nation is 
     spawning a new category of Americans dubbed ``exhaustees'': 
     the hundreds of thousands of hard-core unemployed who have 
     run through state and federal unemployment aid. According to 
     the latest estimates, close to two million Americans, 
     futilely hunting for work while scrambling for economic 
     sustenance, will join the ranks of exhaustees in the next six 
     months. They represent a record flood of unemployed 
     individuals with expired benefits--the highest in 30 years--
     who are plainly desperate for help.
       President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress are 
     doing nothing to help these people. Washington showed no 
     qualms last month in allowing the expiration of the emergency 
     federal program that had offered an extra 13 weeks of help to 
     those who exhausted state benefits. Historically, such help 
     has been continued in periods of continuing job shortages.
       A year ago, the aid was extended an extra year by 
     Republican leaders. But now, the G.O.P.'s election-year talk 
     is of a recovery rooted in the tax cuts weighted for affluent 
     America. Tending to the exhaustees clearly mars that message.
       The emergency program cries out for immediate renewal. It 
     costs $1 billion a month, money that is available from the 
     federal unemployment fund.
       In January alone, 375,000 unemployed people are running out 
     of state benefits with nothing to help them through to 
     spring, according to estimates of new federal data by the 
     Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a capital watchdog 
     group. Without action, the exhaustee toll will mount.
       Many will slip into the limbo of the more than 1.5 million 
     Americans who have given up looking for work in the inert 
     employment market. These amount to the flatliners, 
     industrious people overlooked on the administration's screen 
     of spiking recovery indexes.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I also want to mention one other item 
that is included by reference. That is

[[Page 695]]

the item of the President talking about his overtime provisions.
  Again, he has indicated his support on the overtime provisions that 
will effectively eliminate overtime coverage for 8 million Americans--
primarily firefighters, policemen, and nurses, who are the backbone for 
homeland security.
  I have said here a number of times that I was not only strongly 
objecting to the administration's proposal but I particularly object to 
the inclusion in the administration's proposal that talked about 
training in the Armed Forces which can make a worker overtime 
ineligible. That, I thought, was the cruelest part of the proposal.
  We have American service men and women who are in Iraq, in combat, or 
in the National Guard and Reserve. Many of them will be coming right 
back and will return to the civilian job market. Yet if they are going 
to have the training in the Armed Forces, they could be ineligible for 
overtime. I have said that before on the floor of the Senate.
  My good friend Secretary Chao--and I see the former Secretary of 
Labor presiding over the Senate--wrote a letter to Speaker Dennis 
Hastert. She pointed out we shouldn't worry about the fact of the 
military.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Secretary of Labor,

                                 Washington, DC, January 27, 2004.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I write to provide you with the facts to 
     correct the record following last week's Senate floor debate 
     on the Consolidated Appropriations Act with regard to the 
     Department of Labor's proposed revision of the Fair Labor 
     Standard Act's overtime exemption regulations. I also would 
     like to thank you for your support and leadership on the 
     important issue.
       The recent allegations that military personnel and veterans 
     will lose overtime pay, because of proposed clarifications of 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ``white-collar'' 
     exemption regulations, are incorrect and harmful to the 
     morale of veterans and of American servicemen and women. I 
     want to assure you that military personnel and veterans are 
     not affected by these proposed rules by virtue of their 
     military duties or training.
       First, the Part 541 ``white collar exemptions'' do not 
     apply to the military. They cover only the civilian 
     workforce.
       Second, nothing in the current or proposed regulation makes 
     any mention of veteran status. Despite claims that military 
     training would make veterans ineligible for overtime pay, 
     members of Congress should be clear that the Department of 
     Labor's proposed rules will not strip any veteran of overtime 
     eligibility.
       This has been one of many criticisms intended to confuse 
     and frighten workers about our proposal to revise the badly 
     outdated regulations under the FLSA ``white collar'' 
     exemption regulations. It is disheartening that the debate 
     over modernizing these regulations to meet the needs of the 
     21st Century workforce has largely ignored the broad 
     consensus that this rule needs substantial revision to 
     strengthen overtime protections.
       The growing ambiguities caused by time and workplace 
     advancements have made both employers' compliance with this 
     rule and employees' understanding of their rights 
     increasingly difficult. More and more, employees must resort 
     to class action lawsuits to recover their overtime pay. These 
     workers must wait several years to have their cases 
     adjudicated in order to get the overtime they have already 
     earned. In fact, litigation over these rules drains nearly $2 
     billion a year from the economy, costing jobs and better pay.
       I hope that this latest concern will be put to rest 
     immediately. Once again, I assure you that military duties 
     and training or veteran status have no bearing on overtime 
     eligibility. We hope that future debate on this important 
     provision is more constructive. If we can provide further 
     assistance in setting the record straight, we would be 
     pleased to do so. The Office of Management and Budget has 
     advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the 
     Administration's program to the presentation of this report.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Elaine L. Chao.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, let me quote a couple of parts of it. 
This is the letter to the Speaker by Secretary Chao stating ``that 
military personnel and veterans are not affected by these proposed 
rules by virtue of their military duties or training.''
  That is what she says.
  However:

       Proposed section 541.301(d) states that ``training in the 
     armed forces'' can make a worker an overtime ineligible.

  This is new language. It is not in the current regulations. The only 
purpose is to take away overtime for veterans. Either it is in there or 
it is not in there. It happens to be in the regulation.
  She states:

       First, Part 541 ``white collar exemptions'' do not apply to 
     the military. They cover only the civilian workforce.

  No one is claiming that the rule affects the military force. The 
issue is the veterans who leave the military to work in the civilian 
workforce would lose overtime protections because they have had 
training in the Armed Forces. Then it goes on:

       Second, nothing in the current or proposed regulation makes 
     any mention of veterans status.

  No. But the proposed regulation, for the first time, addresses 
``training in the armed forces.'' Veterans who work in the civilian 
workforce who typically have received such training.
  It isn't the people who are in the military. We agree with that. It 
is after they get out that they are going to be subject to this. If 
they don't want it in, they ought to have another rule that eliminates 
that.
  I want to bring to the Senate's attention the understanding of the 
National Association of Manufacturers.

       Bush overtime proposal denies overtime to veterans.
       The overtime proposal explicitly states that training in 
     the armed forces can disqualify workers from overtime 
     protection. Many employer groups encourage the Bush 
     administration to deny overtime protection to more categories 
     of work, such as veterans.

  Look at these comments from the National Association of 
Manufacturers.

       NAM applauds the department for including this alternative 
     means of establishing that an employee has the knowledge 
     required for the exemption from overtime protection to apply. 
     For example, many people who come out of the military have 
     the significant knowledge based on work experience.

  There it is. Veterans who go in and have that specialized training 
which is so necessary not only for their security but the security of 
their squad members or their company members, their platoon, or 
whatever it might be, they get that. When they come back as a member of 
the National Guard and return to the civilian workforce, bang, zippo, 
their employer comes up and says, This is what the rule is. This is 
what the regulation is, the letter from the Secretary notwithstanding.
  We are going to make an effort to eliminate that whole overtime rule 
because we do not believe the men and women who are the heart and soul 
of homeland security, who are the firefighters, police, nurses, and 
others ought to be carved out from overtime protections. There are many 
problems with our economy today, but one of them is not that our 
firefighters and policemen and nurses are getting paid too much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend. I will take time at another time to 
go through the various provisions of the budget dealing with education 
and health. I think it is important that the American people understand 
exactly what those provisions do and don't do for the American people.
  I thank the floor manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from 
Massachusetts using the time. He has a concern about the extension of 
unemployment benefits, and we are all concerned about that. A lot of 
that would be alleviated with the passage of the transportation bill. 
This is the largest jobs bill we will be considering this year, or 
perhaps in a 6-year period. It is very significant.
  Madam President, one of the goals for reauthorization of TEA-21 has 
been to increase the rate of return to donor States. We have talked 
about that. We have had several bills in the past in which we wanted to 
achieve that. In this particular one, we achieved it to a smaller 
degree in TEA-21. But in this reauthorization, we want to further 
increase the return to donor States without negatively impacting the 
growth of

[[Page 696]]

donee States. That is where we get into the problem with the State of 
Texas and the State of Pennsylvania. If we do one, we will negatively 
impact the other. Our goal has been to streamline the project delivery 
process to create greater flexibility for States to spend their highway 
safety dollars in the areas of greatest need.
  Most Members agree that in Washington we do not have all the answers. 
The Presiding Officer would admit readily that people in North Carolina 
know about the needs in North Carolina greater than we do. That is one 
good thing about this program; we do leave a lot of it to the States. 
We do more than that in this reauthorization. I have talked to people 
in a number of States, including people in the State of Texas, who are 
very pleased with the idea that they are getting more flexibility. This 
bill recognizes they have a better idea of the needs of their State. I 
certainly know that to be true in the State of Oklahoma.
  Finally, the goals were to focus attention on freight movement. This 
has not been considered. Freight movement is the responsible party for 
a lot of the congestion referred to by several speakers so far, causing 
trucks to idle, cars to idle, time wasted when pollution carries on 
where we are paying for additional gasoline but nothing is moving.
  Although the proposed bill before the Senate addresses each of these 
areas, it has not covered all the reforms I would like to cover. 
However, it is a good start. We made a good start. It has been in the 
spirit of cooperation. Historically, when we reauthorize a highway 
bill, it is not partisan. As we worked together, Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Reid, Senator Bond, and myself, in many hours of putting 
together our best ideas, there were things I would have preferred to 
have in here that are not here. This is a good start.
  The Federal aid highway system is a key component to America's 
continued economic growth. The free flow and movement of goods, safety 
for travelers, advancement and use of technology, and security of our 
borders and freight corridors are essential to our economic stability. 
Our investment in this critical infrastructure is not only required for 
people in goods movement but almost the foremost link in creation of 
jobs and opportunities for all Americans and represents the largest 
investing in discretionary programs.
  I remember seeing that familiar square-shaped sign ``Men Working'' 
and someone very creatively inserted ``Not''--``Men Not Working.'' It 
is clear, each day we fail to enact a comprehensive 6-year 
reauthorization of the highway program, we continue to erode the 
ability of our economy to grow.
  Many colleagues share my strong desire to get this bill passed and 
sent to the President by February 29. On February 29, the extension we 
have on TEA-21 expires. No State benefits by prolonging the process 
through temporary extensions of the current program. It disrupts 
planning; it disrupts the ability to plan ahead on the availability of 
workers to get the very most out of it. It is very important we do 
that. The proposal before the Senate provides the framework for 
transportation investments needed to accomplish our shared goal of 
creating new and better economic opportunities.
  The centerpiece of our bill is the new Equity Bonus Program which 
replaces the Minimum Guarantee Program. The Equity Bonus Program 
increases the minimum rate of return for donor States while ensuring 
fair treatment to donee States, about which we have been talking.
  All donor States reach 95 percent return on highway trust funds by 
2009. That is a huge increase. We remember when it used to be 77 
percent and 80 percent. In addition to the fact that we are going to 
get everyone up to 95 percent return in this bill, all States take home 
more money than they did under TEA-21. Unlike the current Minimum 
Guarantee Program, which is in place right now, where the table in 
section 1104 governed what your State received each year in Federal 
highway dollars, under the Equity Bonus Program the formulas are the 
driving force, not the politics.
  The 1104 section approach, or minimum guarantee, is an approach that 
was purely politically driven. A lot of people were outraged about it. 
But they sat down and said we will put some percentages here until we 
reach 60 votes and we can pass a bill. But that is not fair. Certainly, 
we correct that situation in this bill.
  We allow the formulas to work. We recognized there would be some 
inequities if we allowed the formulas to be the sole factor in 
distributing dollars to the States. Therefore, we subjected States to 
growth ceilings in each year; that is, there is a ceiling. So we get 
the fast-growing States that will not have more than they would be 
entitled to at the expense of those that are currently donee States. 
This accomplishes the two goals and keeps the costs of the Equity Bonus 
Program affordable and ensures that donee States are still able to 
grow.
  We also recognized that States with lower tax bases have an added 
challenge to adequate funding of their transportation system. We define 
these States as States with low population or low population densities 
and low income. We guaranteed these States at least their TEA-21 rate 
of return.
  Finally, large donor States do not reach 95 percent until 2009. This 
is a concern for some of the Senators from Florida, California, and 
Texas. This is because the growth ceilings prevent them from growing 
too fast at the expense of large donee States. This means they bump 
into the ceiling. For instance, if we were to increase the growth 
ceiling in any year to move the large donor States to 95 percent 
sooner, the increased costs would be at the expense of the large donee 
States such as New York and Pennsylvania.
  Since releasing this plan on January 21, I have heard from both large 
donor State members who are concerned their States do not reach 95 
percent until 2009 and donee State Senators who believe their States do 
not grow as much as they would like. Both sides raise valid concerns. 
But the cold reality is, in order to get the bill through the Senate--
we are talking about S. 1072, on which there will be a cloture vote an 
hour from now--it has to take care of both donor and donee States.
  So there have to be compromises. We have made compromises. As the 
Senator from Nevada said, there are a lot of things he believed he 
cannot get for his State that he believed he should have, and the same 
is true for my State of Oklahoma.
  After working on this for over a year, Jim Jeffords, Kit Bond, Harry 
Reid, and I decided the most fair, reasonable, and logical way to 
balance donor and donee needs was by creating ceilings and floors. Both 
benefit but both have to give up some growth in order to help others 
grow.
  In order to get this bill off the floor, we have to have 60 votes, 
which means a balance between the donor and donee States. This proposal 
achieves that.
  Another new initiative is establishment of a new core funding 
category for safety. With highway fatalities approaching an 
unacceptable 43,000 a year, Congress has the responsibility to make the 
roads safer. That is why we call this SAFETEA. The purpose of the new 
highway safety improvement program is to increase the visibility and 
effectiveness in funding for safety projects in such a way as to 
produce a dramatic reduction of highway fatalities and injury.
  SAFETEA also addresses the significant challenges involved in 
intermodal connectivity by creating a set-aside from the National 
Highway System Program for the completion of ``last mile'' connections. 
One of the frustrating aspects of freight congestion is the need to 
complete the last connection between port terminals and highways or the 
connection between freight rail and highways. This has never been 
addressed in the previous authorization bills. This proposal not only 
identifies a funding source for intermodal connectors but also creates 
room at the planning table for freight interests and concerns.
  Additionally, this bill lowers the threshold level for assistance 
under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, 
TIFIA, from $100

[[Page 697]]

million to $50 million, which I think all four Members thought was a 
dramatic improvement, to make some structural changes to the program 
designed to make this financial tool more usable to States.
  Freight congestion is not the only mobility issue. Personal mobility 
is also a problem in both urban and rural areas. Reports indicate that 
on a nationwide scale, road congestion costs the U.S. economy about $67 
billion annually, including 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion 
gallons of gasoline that is wasted. Here we are with a fuel crisis, an 
energy crisis in this country, and we are wasting 5.7 billion gallons 
of fuel.
  The committee bill also proposes to give States and localities 
increased ``tools'' to deal with this problem, by permitting and 
encouraging the use of innovative techniques such as ``hot'' lanes for 
single occupants who pay a toll to ride in high-occupancy lanes as well 
as variable toll pricing, which uses varying peak-hour pricing to 
control congestion during regular high-volume periods. We have tried to 
do this in the past. We are just being more innovative in carrying this 
further.
  SAFETEA establishes the Intermodal Passenger Facilities Program, 
which provides grants for making necessary connections between various 
modes of transportation. Current surface transportation programs fail 
to address the importance of intercity bus services. In my State of 
Oklahoma, many people are using the intercity bus services to travel 
between our two largest cities, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and our rural 
areas.
  In many cases, this type of service is the only link rural 
communities have to larger urban areas where connections can then be 
made to both national and international destinations. Specifically, 
this provision would encourage the development of an integrated system 
of public transportation facilities through intercity bus facility 
grants.
  I see that the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Jeffords, is in the Chamber. I am sure he has a few 
remarks to make. If I could finish with this before I get into the 
section-by-section analysis, would that be acceptable with the Senator.
  Thank you. I will go ahead and do that at this time.
  During the 107th Congress, we all experienced a cold dose of reality 
when the revenue aligned budget authority--that is, RABA--was negative 
for the first time. Hysteria hit. We were all concerned at that time. 
The principle that dollars into the trust fund should equal dollars out 
is fiscally sound and responsible and something I strongly support. 
However, to maintain consistency in the program, we need to even out 
the swings in revenue projections.
  Last year, we learned that unless the mechanism to predict future 
revenues is more realistic, the potential consequences can be 
disastrous. Some will argue that we should not allow negative RABAs. I 
disagree. As I stated earlier, I strongly support the principle of 
``dollars in equals dollars out.'' If we continue to rely on the system 
of revenue projections, we must accept the negatives along with the 
positives. While the pay-as-you-go system of funding highways may be 
cumbersome, it is also an important fiscal principle we should retain.
  At the same time, we can and need to make improvements to RABA to 
make it more reliable in the future. This bill does that by modifying 
the RABA calculation so that annual funding level adjustments are less 
dependent on future anticipated receipts and more dependent on the 
levels of actual receipts to the highway trust fund.
  We strengthen stewardship of highway trust fund dollars by requiring 
project management plans and annual financial plans to be submitted for 
all Federal aid projects above $1 billion or more and requiring annual 
financial plans for all projects receiving $100 million or more in 
Federal aid funding. Both of these items were raised in last year's 
hearings on reauthorization as areas needing additional oversight. I 
might add that even the States came in and were supportive of this 
idea.
  As our system ages and becomes functionally obsolete, extensive 
reconstruction will need to occur. Typically, these projects are very 
large in scope and I believe require careful oversight to ensure proper 
management of funds and fewer opportunities for surprises in the 
construction process. These changes are designed to give us the 
information needed to accomplish critical oversight.
  Colleagues, the bill in front of you represents the culmination of 
Senate efforts for reauthorizing critical transportation infrastructure 
needs across America. This bill aims at funding all States equitably 
and generously, increasing the safety of drivers and pedestrians on our 
roads, streamlining environmental review processes while protecting 
critical natural resources, improving program effectiveness and 
efficiency, and preparing for the transportation needs of the future.
  I ask my colleagues to consider the significant level of effort put 
into the preparation of this bill by the several committees involved, 
the administration's recommendations, and stakeholder input. I believe 
this bill does that.
  I would like to make one comment. We do have a vote coming up in 50 
minutes from now, and we have several people who want to be heard. I 
would only say we have been talking a lot about formulas. As most of us 
know--but sometimes it does not come out forcefully--there are other 
funds that are going to be available. About 7 percent of the amount 
that would be in formulas would be found in projects. Anyone who wants 
this bill should consider voting for cloture so we can get on the bill. 
We would expect them to certainly support this motion if they have an 
interest in projects for their States.
  At this time I will just repeat one thing I said earlier when the 
Senator, Mr. Jeffords, was not in the Chamber. We have been talking 
about how Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and, of course, Senator Reid 
and I have been working very closely, together with our staffs, to get 
to the point where we are now. So I publicly thank the Senator from 
Vermont for all the hard work he has put into this bill and for the 
cooperative method of how we have come to some compromises. Perhaps 
neither one of us is really excited about it, but we know that is the 
art of compromise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his very kind 
words. I certainly reciprocate and acknowledge the amount of 
cooperation we have had, especially that our staffs have had working 
together, which has greatly stimulated all of us to recognize we have a 
good bill and we are going to get it done.
  I would also like to announce to the Senator that I just left the 
Finance Committee, and we voted out--as was expected--favorably the 
money to get it done. So we are ready now to proceed to it tonight, and 
hopefully we will.
  Chairman Inhofe and I are urging a ``yes'' vote, of course, to move 
the transportation bill to the Senate floor where it can be fully 
debated and amended. This bill will strengthen our Nation's 
transportation system, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and 
improve the safety of our transportation system.
  Our Nation's roads and bridges and transit systems need immediate 
attention. Passage of the bill will provide essential Federal funding 
to the States so they have the resources needed to maintain and improve 
our transportation infrastructure. We cannot afford to wait any longer 
to make much-needed investments in our transportation infrastructure.
  Fortunately, unlike many other bills, our transportation bill will be 
fully offset and paid for. The Finance Committee did a tremendous job 
working this out. As I said just a moment ago, they passed it.
  Let us not forget that each time you go to the gas pump, you are 
paying for this bill. Our transportation bill better spends the gas 
taxes you are currently paying. We do not increase the Federal gas tax; 
we better spend that tax to help States, counties, and cities address 
their transportation needs.

[[Page 698]]

  A 6-year bill will allow us to better spend the gas taxes and fund 
State efforts to reduce congestion, improve transit programs, repair 
dangerous bridges, and improve freight mobility. A 6-year bill will 
create over 2 million new, high-paying jobs. That is 2 million high-
paying jobs.
  Chairman Inhofe is absolutely correct; since the bill is deficit 
neutral, putting off our bill until next year will only make matters 
worse. So let's do it now.
  An extension simply means that urgent highway and bridge repair costs 
will be more heavily borne by States and local governments than by the 
Federal Government. A simple extension means commuters will spend more 
time stuck in traffic. A simple extension means visits to the grocery 
store or the doctor's office or the drugstore or the restaurant will 
take longer.
  Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre 
condition. Almost 30 percent of our bridges are in bad shape. We have 
to address these problems, and our transportation bill will help get 
that job done.
  We are asking for a ``yes'' vote to move this bill to the Senate 
floor for a full debate on its merits, and we hope to do it soon. It 
will be open for amendment, and the chairman and I will work with all 
Senators in this effort. Do not forget, the EPW bill increases the 
amount of funding for each and every State. And every State gets more 
than they did last time. I think that is correct.
  Chairman Inhofe has been a very forceful leader in this massive 
undertaking to reauthorize our Nation's transportation laws. He has 
thoughtfully devised an innovative plan that balances the interests of 
the great majority of donor and donee States.
  That is a tough one. Chairman Inhofe is to be commended for his 
creativity and energy in crafting major aspects of the bill, which the 
EPW Committee is putting before the Senate.
  As head of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Bond has 
worked closely with Senator Inhofe and led the charge to obtain a 
strong level of funding for this effort.
  Senator Harry Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and I 
have worked together with Senators Inhofe and Bond throughout the 
Committee process and stuck together at the Committee markup to protect 
and enhance the passage of the bill.
  History should also record that many fine staff worked long hours and 
proposed some excellent approaches for our consideration. They have 
done a tremendous job.
  Before I conclude I would like to mention my old friend John Chafee. 
Six years ago, Senator Chafee was the Chairman of the EPW Committee. He 
moved this massive bill with the grace and the tenacity that was his 
trade-mark.
  John Chafee was a giant in this body, and he is missed very much 
today by all those who had the wonderful opportunity to work with him 
and shared his expertise.
  I can only hope that we all draw on the lessons of bipartisanship, of 
cooperation and of consensus that John taught us.
  To sum up, we are asking for a yes vote to get this bill to the 
Senate floor for a full debate on its merits.
  Our Nation needs this bill and needs it now.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to take a few 
moments to raise some questions about the wisdom of invoking cloture on 
this bill at this time. I am concerned that this is a deficient bill in 
a very fundamental sense.
  One, it is deficient because one of the key parts of this bill, 
public transit, has not yet been voted out of the committee of 
jurisdiction. So we are dealing with a bird which is missing its right 
wing and a significant number of tail feathers. I believe we ought to 
wait until we can see the full program before we vote cloture on 
proceeding on this bill.
  Second, the Finance Committee has just voted on the legislation 
relative to how to finance this bill. I will have to say, I am very 
concerned about the approach we are taking. Essentially the approach 
is, by whatever words you wish to use to describe it, to take money 
from the general revenue fund and use it to replace funds which 
historically have come from the users of the transportation system.
  At a time when we just received a budget from the President that is 
over $500 billion in deficit--I repeat, $500 billion in deficit for 
this next year--to be further adding to the deficit by stripping out 
funds which would otherwise have gone to general revenue seems to me to 
be more than reckless.
  Even if you accepted the proposition that it was all right to use 
general revenue to finance highway and transit purposes, the key 
portions of these funds come from what I would call, charitably, 
``funny money sources.'' As an example, we use the closure of certain 
tax loopholes, which even have names such as the Enron tax loophole. 
That is probably a very good thing to do. The problem is, we have 
already done it twice before. We used the same set of tax closures of 
loopholes to finance the jobs bill. That is the bill that relates to 
international taxation and has been precipitated by the fact that the 
European Union declared--supported by the World Trade Organization--a 
portion of our taxation of international transactions to be illegal. 
And if we don't provide an acceptable alternative, we face the prospect 
of very significant retaliatory tariffs against our products. So there 
is going to be a lot of impetus to get that bill passed.
  The second bill which uses these same items is the CARE bill which is 
the charitable giving legislation that I know has a significant amount 
of support. Since we can't use the tax loophole closures more than 
once, are we making the decision that we are going to do it for the 
highway bill and, therefore, have it unavailable for the jobs bill and 
the CARE bill?
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield, yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Has the Senator seen the size of this bill?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Yes, I have observed it. And I might say, it 
will be somewhat larger when the public transit section and the 
financing section are added.
  Mr. McCAIN. Has the Senator seen the first bill that we passed in 
1956? This is the bill that was passed in 1956. This is the bill in 
2004. How far we have come.
  How far and disgraceful a path we have tread with this porkbarrel-
laden piece of overspending at a time when we have all-time deficits.
  I urge my colleagues--in fact, I urge the managers of the bill--to 
look at what they did in 1956 to fund the highways in the United States 
and what they are trying to do now which is wasteful and disgraceful. I 
wonder if my colleague would have a look at that.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I look forward to doing so.
  Let me make my last point with which you might not agree. I think we 
need to establish what are we trying to do with this legislation. We 
are not just passing a piece of legislation in order to shove money out 
the door. When we passed TEA-21 5 years ago, I made on this floor a 
prediction which saddened me but has come to pass; that is, that as a 
result of TEA-21, our highways, our bridges, and our public transit 
systems are in worse shape with greater congestion than they were the 
day we passed TEA-21.
  Why is that? It is because we have either inadequately funded those 
basic parts of our American infrastructure or, if we did adequately 
fund them, the resources were not distributed to where the needs were 
the greatest.
  Let me cite a few examples. According to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's conditions and performance report, which is prepared 
every other year to measure the needs of the Nation's highways and 
transit system, let me quote from that report:

       Capital investments by all levels of government between 
     1997 and 2000 remain below the ``cost to maintain'' level. 
     Consequently,

[[Page 699]]

     overall performance of the system has declined.

  That same report estimates that over the 6 years of TEA-21, the 
quality of the highway system has degraded by 6 percent and that 29 
percent of America's bridges are considered structurally deficient.
  On the issue of congestion, there is a study which was done by the 
Texas Transportation Institute, I believe, at Texas A&M University. 
This was what they had to say about congestion:

       In 2001, 5.7 billion gallons of fuel were wasted as a 
     result of congestion; 3.5 billion hours of lost productivity 
     resulting from traffic congestion.

  Those hours and gallons lost cost the Nation $69.5 billion, a $4.5 
billion increase from the year 2000. The estimate is that if we 
appropriate the funds that are currently being suggested, that loss in 
gallons of gasoline and productivity will rise to $90 billion by the 
year 2009.
  Mr. President, we have lots of deficits in this country. We are 
talking today about the deficits in our budget. We talk regularly about 
the deficits in our trade balance. But we have another deficit, and 
that is the deficit in our basic infrastructure. While it is not as 
graphic and we do not get a report on it as frequently as we do on the 
trade deficit or the fiscal deficit, it is just as pernicious and maybe 
even more so.
  If you ask yourself the question, how is the United States of America 
going to compete in a global economy which worships at the altar of 
lowest unit cost of production and be able to maintain American living 
standards, that will be a major challenge for the next generation of 
the American public and their political representatives.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I will conclude first and then I will take a 
question. I believe two of the fundamental parts of being able to 
answer that question are that the United States needs to have the best 
educated population on earth so that we can continue to generate the 
innovative ideas and the efficiency in production that has hallmarked 
our economy.
  Second, the key responsibility of the public sector is to maintain an 
infrastructure that will be as efficient as possible. Those are two of 
the keys to American productivity which will allow us to compete in the 
global economy and maintain an average income and standard of living 
that is dramatic and above the rest of the world. In my judgment, this 
legislation will not achieve that objective, while at the same time 
adding to our national deficit.
  For those reasons, I believe we should take more time with this 
legislation, see what comes out of the Banking Committee for public 
transit, be able to understand the implications of the financing 
program that was just reported by the Finance Committee, and what is 
going to be required in order to avoid another 6 years of degradation 
of our basic public surface transportation system.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Yes.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the Senator from Florida is 
concerned about, for example, the bridges. Of all the bridges we have 
in America, about a third of them are in disrepair. The Senator is 
aware that some of these bridges are in such bad condition that school 
buses won't drive over them. They stop the bus and have the kids walk 
across and the bus comes across and they load it up again. The Senator, 
from the statements I have heard him make before the committee on which 
we serve together, statements I have heard him making over the years, 
and in his experience as the Governor of Florida, indicates to me that 
he thinks we should do something about these bridges, as an example.
  The Senator may be aware that prior to 9/11, I introduced legislation 
called the American Marshall Plan. The resolution has been passed by 
the National Council of Mayors and other organizations in the States 
saying we need to do something with our infrastructure separate and 
apart from the regular highway bill we do every 5 or 6 years.
  Is the Senator in a position to say in addition to the work being 
done on this highway bill, we need to look at other parts of the 
infrastructure, including water, sewer, and bridges? Does the Senator 
acknowledge that?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Absolutely. I am privileged to serve on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee with our distinguished colleague 
from Nevada, and we both know the state of our water and sewer systems 
are even worse than our transportation system, in terms of their 
degradation and inadequacy, and with every year that passes, that 
degree of decline further accelerates. So we have many needs in America 
to reverse the decline of our infrastructure so that we cannot only 
have a quality of life today--water systems that will serve our 
people's needs, highways that are not excessively congested and are 
safe to drive on but also are absolutely fundamental to our economic 
well-being.
  Mr. REID. I also ask this question to my friend. The Senator is aware 
that my legislation--after 9/11, other things got in the way and 
nothing happened with that. Is the Senator aware that the Banking 
Committee, which does mass transit--they have agreed on a mass transit 
bill. Is the Senator also aware that the Finance Committee has agreed--
in fact, they have probably done that by now because they were meeting 
this afternoon--to make sure that bill is funded properly, as is our 
highway bill? Is the Senator aware that that has taken place?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. As a member of the Finance Committee, I can 
say that the Finance Committee has just voted out a financing program 
to support this legislation. We were not informed as to what the 
Banking Committee's number would be for public transit. It was 
estimated that it would be $36.6 billion over 6 years. I don't know if 
that is the final number that the committee recommended.
  Mr. REID. Let me ask a final question. The Senator is aware that the 
State of Florida, for example, in this highway bill, will wind up 
getting $3,138,589,000, which is a growth rate of some 40 percent, and 
that the fiscal year 2003 number the people of Florida got for a return 
on the dollar they put in was the minimum, 90.5 cents. At the end of 
this bill, Florida will go to 95 percent; that is, they will get 95 
cents back for every dollar. I think the Senator would acknowledge that 
is an improvement over the last bill for the State of Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I don't deny that this legislation is better 
than it has been. I make two points: One, it is not enough to keep pace 
with the annual demands on the system, both for maintenance and to 
avoid increasing congestion. Every survey I have seen, including those 
I just cited, give statistical validation to that.
  The second concern is that we are going to be adding to one of the 
other deficits in this country, which is our fiscal deficit, by 
diverting money which otherwise would have gone into general revenue in 
order to pay the cost of both the highway and the public transit 
system.
  Finally, the specific elements of that transfer from general revenue 
to the transportation fund are extremely questionable. I mentioned one 
set of so-called tax loophole closers that we have already spent 
before. How much confidence can we have that this bill is going to get 
to the finish line before the jobs bill or the charitable giving bill, 
so that this essential part of the financing package is still 
available? I think it is a high risk. I say that to someone who knows 
something about high risk. I think it is an unstable platform on which 
to place our Nation's transportation funding.
  Mr. REID. What I hear the Senator saying is that the Senator has no 
question with the amount of money being spent in this bill, the Senator 
has some question how it is being financed?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. No. Even if we provide adequate financing to 
assure that this level will be allocated, I think we are doing as we 
did 6 years ago with TEA-21, assuring that whoever is here in 2009 is 
going to be facing a transportation system that has been further 
degraded.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do say this to my friend, and I ask that 
he respond: We have programs that are

[[Page 700]]

funded in this bill that were the property of Senator Pat Moynihan, 
principally, that I think are certainly far from being perfect, but 
they are the best programs we have had during the lifetime of this 
legislation.
  I say to my friend, with the fact that we have 2 weeks to complete 
this legislation--we bring it up now or the majority leader said we 
wouldn't be able to do it--I would think doing this highway bill is so 
much more important than not doing it, that it is easier to weigh that 
on the scale of legislative necessity.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I think that self-imposed standard that we 
have to do this in the next 2 weeks is unacceptable. This has to be 
done, yes, but it ought to be done when we have had an opportunity to 
view all the pieces and understand the implications of all the pieces. 
By trying to do this between now and what happens to be President's Day 
is arbitrary and does not serve the interests of our public and does 
not serve our ability to represent our constituents.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, those of us who would love to 
be heard on this----
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, we have a vote 
scheduled at a quarter to 6. There are Senators who want to speak 
before the vote. I apologize to everyone for having taken the time with 
Senator Graham. We have 25 minutes remaining. I wonder if Senator Dodd 
can indicate how much time he wants.
  Mr. DODD. Ten minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I suggest, we have 24 minutes and we have three people to 
be heard, including the Senator from Connecticut. That is 8 minutes 
apiece. Does the Senator object to speaking for 8 minutes?
  Mr. DODD. No.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dodd, 
Bond, and Thomas be recognized for 8 minutes in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend all of my colleagues who worked on 
this legislation. This is a difficult bill. I have been around this 
institution long enough to know that when you have highway bills and 
formulas, it is always complicated. We are seeking perfection, and we 
are never going to achieve it. I admire those who serve on these 
committees and have to work on these issues to try to put these bills 
together. I begin on that note.
  I also thank my colleague from Florida who knows a lot about 
transportation issues and has worked on these issues a long time. I 
associate myself with his remarks.
  I am concerned about this bill. I have talked with my colleagues 
about it. I wish to say publicly that I am grateful to the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Nevada, and others 
who spent some time talking with me about this bill and what happens to 
my State.
  Obviously, we all begin by looking at what happens to our States in a 
bill such as this. Connecticut receives, under the present version of 
this legislation, the smallest increase of all of the 50 States, a 10-
percent increase. I am deeply worried that we are no longer discussing 
a bill that was once rooted primarily in the notion of need and are now 
moving into a different consideration for how these dollars will be 
spent.
  My State is a donor State. It contributes more each year in tax 
revenues to the United States than we receive back in funding.
  As a small State, we do not contribute more than we get back in terms 
of gasoline tax revenues. My State is 100 miles long. The average 
vehicle can cross my State with about 3 gallons of gasoline.
  Yet I think everyone is aware geographically where my State is 
located. It is a thoroughfare. Millions of vehicles literally every 
year pass on the Northeast corridor through my State.
  So with the wear and tear on our highways, the tremendous congestion, 
the huge volume of transportation that occurs, it is unfair to make 
allocations solely based on gas tax revenues.
  I particularly note, as I look at the managers' amendment, that there 
is a provision that provides for a floor of a 35-percent increase for 
States with a total population density of less than 20 persons per 
square mile, a total population of less than 1 million people, as 
reported in the decennial census conducted by the Federal Government 
2000, or a median household income of $35,000.
  There are seven States that fall into that category. Where is the 
need? Those States receive a 35-percent increase in funding, regardless 
of whether there is any traffic, or whether there has been any 
deterioration in road conditions at all. Here we are taking seven 
States which have fewer than 20 people per square mile, a population of 
less than 1 million people, or a median income of less than $35,000, 
and yet they get a 35-percent increase. But a State such as mine that 
has cars and trucks passing through all night long and all day long 
believes that these highways are critically important to our economy 
and well-being. I am troubled by how this formulation is being 
considered.
  It is worthy of note that when we first wrote the highway bill, to 
which Senator McCain referred, back in the 1950s, it was called the 
National Defense Interstate Highway System. Few people today would deny 
the indispensable role that the Nation's highways, as well as mass 
transit systems, play in homeland security.
  I can say to my colleagues, I am sure they are aware of this, that on 
September 11, 2001, one of the reasons my State was able to contribute 
as much as it did to the devastation in New York is because of that 
National Defense Highway System that Dwight Eisenhower authored back in 
the 1950s. It allowed for our first responders to get into New York 
City, as well as for people to flee that city, which is exactly what 
Dwight Eisenhower had in mind when we created the National Defense 
Highway System.
  Today, as we talk about the needs of my State and others--by the way, 
there are a variety of States throughout the Northeast and Midwest that 
I don't think do as well as they should be doing under these 
formulations. I know this is a work in progress, and I know we are not 
done yet. I say that with the full knowledge of those who helped us 
work on it.
  I felt it necessary this evening, as we prepare to vote on cloture, 
knowing these formulas can get locked in and once they are locked in, 
it is awfully difficult to change them. Trying to add discretionary 
funding here and there may be satisfactory to some, but we are looking 
at a 6-year bill where economic development and congestion is so 
incredible.
  Tonight, one could go on Route 95 in my State and see that it is a 
parking lot. It isn't just between peak hours; it is getting that way 
all day long every day because of the tremendous congestion.
  As the Senator from Florida pointed out, we need to know what the 
mass transit piece of this legislation is going to be. I am pleased 
things seem to be moving in the right direction, but it is going to be 
awfully difficult to try to explain to people why certain States are 
just so limited in their ability to get the resources necessary to see 
to it that they can replace the older infrastructure to accommodate the 
tremendous demand that is building up in our region of the country.
  I hope we will take a look at some of these formulations. I say with 
all due respect to the seven States that are going to automatically get 
35 percent, show me your need. If you have a need, I will listen, but 
if you are merely going to get a 35-percent increase because you have 
less than 20 people per square mile, population of less than 1 million, 
or median income of less than $35,000, how do you justify getting a 35-
percent increase when the need doesn't exist? When there are other 
parts of the country that have tremendous need, how can you justify 
that we are only getting a fraction of that increase over the next 6 
years?
  That is not how this ought to work. If we are going to start making 
decisions in this country on these kinds of

[[Page 701]]

formulations, then those of us who come from donor States, who 
contribute far more than we get back, are going to have to start making 
that kind of calculation on every issue that comes along.
  It strikes me that in too many cases the States getting the most out 
of this bill as presently crafted are the ones that contribute the 
least when it comes to Federal dollars, and those that contribute the 
most get back the least. We need to consider that as we move forward.
  Again, I appreciate immensely the work my colleagues have done in 
writing this legislation. It is not easy, I know that. I am grateful to 
them for giving me an ear when I talk about these issues and share my 
concerns that come from not only my State but a region of a country 
that runs as a belt across the Midwest and Northeast.
  I know my colleagues are cognizant of that. I am not telling them 
something of which they are unaware.
  Certainly, as we talk about a highway bill for the next 6 years, as 
well as transit when it comes along, we need to have formulations that 
are, as they historically have been, based on need, and not on a 
formulation that is going to disregard it.
  Whatever time I may have remaining, I yield it to my colleague from 
Missouri who, if I have another minute or so, I will give him those 
minutes to use as he sees fit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his 
understanding. He and I have worked together on many issues, and it is 
not easy. Certainly, this one is not easy. There is no question that we 
are not seeking perfection. We understand the problems that all States 
face. Over the 6 years, this bill actually winds up giving, as best I 
can figure, the State of Connecticut 20 cents more on every dollar they 
put in than the money we get back in the State of Missouri. So we have 
given at the office, and we are attempting to achieve equity.
  Nobody is going to be 100 percent happy, but this is one where there 
has been tremendous cooperation, over better than a year, among 
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, my colleague, the 
subcommittee chairman, and Senator Reid, trying to listen and develop a 
framework that is fair and that deals with the pressing needs that this 
Nation faces.
  I commend the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Jim Inhofe, along with Senators Reid and Jeffords, for a job 
well done.
  The Finance Committee has been working hard. I gather they have done 
a good job to come up to the level that was originally contained in the 
Bond-Reid amendment in the Budget Act. We thought this was the minimum 
we needed because there are such pressing needs for highways. 
Obviously, everybody knows good highways lessen congestion. Everybody 
knows that they are the guidelines to economic development. If we do 
not have good highways, we cannot keep and grow good jobs. So it is 
vitally important for the long-term future of the State.
  In my State, it is really a safety issue. We are a very wide, broad, 
and tall State with lots of traffic through it. In many of these areas, 
the two-lane highways are carrying traffic that is designed for at 
least four lanes nowadays. Safety in this authorization is for the 
first time given a prominent position, being elevated to a core 
program.
  We have more than three deaths a day on Missouri's highways, and at 
least one and maybe more than those are attributable to the conditions 
of our highways. I know this happens in other States. That is why I am 
delighted that the administration, in laying out the title SAFETEA, the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, 
has emphasized safety because good roads and highways are a matter of 
safety.
  I think this bill does mirror the administration's proposal 
continuing our commitment to the motoring public's safety. This is 
accomplished by providing much needed funding to reduce highway 
injuries and fatalities, all without the use of mandates. Funding for 
good highways and bridges is absolutely essential and a key component 
of our bill will go a long way toward saving lives by providing funds 
to States to address safety needs at hazardous locations, sections, and 
elements. These include roadside obstacles and unmarked or poorly 
marked roads that may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, 
pedestrians, and other highway users.
  We know in Missouri that inadequate roads not only lead to 
congestion, therefore more pollution, they delay, deny, and derail 
economic development opportunities, but they also kill people. When you 
have traffic--10,000, 15,000, 20,000 cars a day--on a narrow, two-lane 
road, you are going to have people passing when they should not and 
they run into other people head on.
  We heard testimony from the administration that nearly 42,000 people 
are killed on our roads and highways each year. We need to make an 
investment to reduce that loss. I am glad that the bill reflects the 
continued commitment to making not only investments in our 
infrastructure but also to the general safety and welfare of our 
constituents.
  On the question of equity, our bill is the best we can come up with 
in the real world to achieve equity among all of the States. Some of us 
have been donor States for a very long time, getting back far less than 
the dollar we put in. There are other States that have consistently 
received more. As a result, this bill tries to achieve some equity by 
getting all States to a 95-cent rate of return, at least by the end of 
the authorization.
  There are 24 States; Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, 
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. At 
the same time, we wanted to make sure that every State got an increase. 
So every State gets at least a 10-percent increase over the amount of 
funds that they were getting in TEA-21, and we put a lid on so that 
some States would not take an undue share. I think the top rate is 
about a 42-percent increase. So in that framework, we have come up with 
what we think is equity.
  My home State of Missouri, as many of the donor States mentioned, has 
some of the worst roads in the Nation. It has about the third worst 
roads in the Nation, with 59 percent of its major roads in either poor 
or mediocre condition, requiring immediate repair or reconstruction. We 
also have the second worst bridges in the Nation.
  I take my hat off to the chairman of the committee because I 
understand his State may be the one State that ranks in worse shape 
than Missouri does on both of these. As my colleagues will notice, 
Missouri is very much in the middle ranks of those getting an increase.
  During the reauthorization of TEA-21, donor States did not think it 
was feasible to achieve the 95 percent rate of return. Under our 
proposal, we are able to get them there. However, I am aware that some 
of the donor States are concerned they hit our growth caps and do not 
achieve a 95 percent return in 2004.
  We were unable to bring donor States up as early as we might have 
wished due to our budgetary constraints, and balancing the needs of the 
donor States with the needs of the donee States. But as donor States 
grow, the donee States see a gradual decline. To bring greater equity 
between the States, I am proud to announce that all States will grow 
not less than 10 percent over TEA-21.
  This bill also addresses important environmental issues that were 
part of a compromise, worked out with great input from all sides. To 
ease the transition to new air quality standards, the conformity 
process is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as 
streamlining the project delivery process by providing the necessary 
tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the 
environmental review stage. We think that is very important.
  We know there are lots of different ideas on this bill. We tried to 
accommodate all of those ideas. We had ideas

[[Page 702]]

and requests coming in over the transom, through the window. We met 
people on the floor. Our staffs worked together to try to balance all 
of these needs. Clearly, there are going to be a number of amendments. 
I hope our colleagues will work with us because there is a real desire, 
on the part of the chair and the ranking member of both the full 
committee and the subcommittee, to give a hearing to these. If there 
are important issues that need to be dealt with, we want to get the 
votes and move forward so we can, we hope, get the bill signed before 
the current authorization expires at the end of February.
  Regarding a sufficient level of growth, the administration proposed, 
in my view, an insufficient level of growth for our Nation's aging 
infrastructure. The reason for offering the Bond-Reid amendment was 
because the administration's SAFETEA proposal came in at a mere $200 
billion for highways.
  During last year's budget debate, I, along with Senator Reid, offered 
an amendment to fund highways at $255 billion over 6 years, which was 
supported by a vote of 79 to 21. I am pleased to report that the bill 
we have before us follows the Bond-Reid amendment providing a 31-
percent increase in funding over TEA-21. While this is not as high as 
some might have wanted, we are able to achieve this goal without 
raising fuel taxes.
  In this bill, I think all of us are concerned about jobs as well as 
the benefits that good highways and bridges bring if we are to get 
people to work this summer, which I think is very important because we 
still do not have enough people working. We need to get the 
authorization so it can get out to the highway departments so they can 
make their contracts for the coming year.
  I do not need to tell my colleagues, because I think everybody has 
heard it too many times, that the Department of Transportation 
estimates that for every billion dollars in new Federal investment, 
there are 47,000 jobs created. We want to see those jobs created this 
year. Accordingly, in 2009 our comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 
billion will sustain over 2 million new jobs.
  According to the Associated General Contractors, the same $1 billion 
investment yields $500 million in new orders from manufacturing and 
$500 million spread through other sectors of the economy. Construction 
pay averages at $19 per hour, 23 percent higher than the private sector 
average. Failure to enact a 6-year bill yields the loss of 90,000 jobs.
  Another accomplishment of our package will ensure transportation 
projects are built more quickly because environmental stakeholders will 
be brought to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised 
earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape 
projects. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move 
through a more structured environmental review process more efficiently 
and with fewer delays.
  The bill also ensures that transportation projects will not make air 
worse in areas with poor air quality, while giving local transportation 
planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air-quality 
responsibilities. The bill will put transportation planning on a 
regular 4-year cycle, require air quality checks for projects large 
enough to be regionally significant and reduce current barriers local 
officials face in adopting projects that improve air quality.
  This comprehensive package is a good step forward to addressing our 
Nation's needs in infrastructure development and improvement.
  I thank my colleagues from the Finance Committee, and others. I urge 
everybody to work with us. The managers of the bill will be doing their 
best to expedite it. I appreciate the time. I urge my colleagues to 
support the motion for cloture and to move to the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is one of the most important 
issues we have had before us. As we look to a year with relatively 
short time to work on issues, with a large number of issues out there, 
I think it is important for us to deal with this and to deal with it 
promptly. I am delighted that we are going to have it up to date and be 
able to work on it over the next week or so.
  I have not heard all of the discussions. I am sure I understand what 
most of them have been because I have been on the Finance Committee. We 
have finally come to an agreement as to what the funding level will be 
and what the sources of funding will be. It follows very closely what 
we came out with in the Environment and Public Works Committee, of 
which I am also a member. So I am very pleased with what we are doing.
  Does it suit everybody? Of course not. There are all kinds of 
discussions about funding source. The funding source is not entirely 
the gas tax. But the way we work it out, all that additional funding 
does come from something related to transportation, so I think it is a 
justifiable way to put this in a spending arena that will help 
accomplish the things we need to do. I cannot think of anything more 
important.
  We have been in a CR since September. I don't know what you heard 
from your transportation departments at home, but they feel as if they 
can't move forward, can't do contracting, can't plan on what they need 
to be doing in the future until they get more assurance of where we 
are. So it is imperative that we do something here.
  I can't think of anything more important to our lives, unless it is 
energy, than transportation. To be able to go with our families, do our 
work, protect our country--all these things are related, of course, to 
travel and the highway bill.
  The interstate system is 50 years old. The Senator from Arizona was 
talking about the little bill that passed 50 years ago. Times have 
changed substantially and I believe there is a more comprehensive 
approach to travel that combines the spending of all levels of 
Government, which amounts to over $100 billion annually, when you talk 
about all of them put together. So our share is not the largest, but it 
is more than we have had in the past.
  It is a critical time. It is a critical situation. We need to move. 
As I said, I know there are different views and I understand that. 
There are decisions that have to be made in this bill in terms of 
distribution of funding, not only among States, but what is used for 
mass transit, what is used for pathways, and a number of other safety 
projects and things of that kind.
  But, really, our responsibility is to come to an agreement and move 
forward here and then bring it to the House and get this done. I think, 
of course, it is also one of the big economic features before us. It 
creates lots of jobs immediately. But more importantly, it strengthens 
the whole economic structure so we can develop with other kinds of 
jobs.
  I know there is the case about there being donors. Let me talk about 
a larger State that does pretty well. We have thousands of miles of 
roads, 27,000 miles of roads, and relatively few people. But lots of 
people who do not live with us are going through. This is a Federal 
highway system and it has to move throughout the country. So the 
decision as to appropriating and adjusting the money among the States 
is not an easy one. Certainly not everybody agrees with how we are 
going to do it.
  In any event, I am not going to take more time. We have learned a 
great deal about it. Again, one of the most important aspects we have 
to deal with is the funding that is related to the tax that is assessed 
on gas. We made some changes on some of the others.
  I urge Senators to pass this bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? I understand the Senator, in 
addition to being on the committee I chair, is also on the Finance 
Committee. Would he care to report on what has just transpired in the 
last hour or so?
  Mr. THOMAS. We have passed a bill there to bring it to the floor. The 
funding is very close to what the chairman used in our Environment and 
Public Works Committee.

[[Page 703]]

  As we said, the direct amount from gas funding was somewhat short, 
but we used some other things, dollars that were related, and scooted 
them over from other expenditures into this bill so we are offsetting 
the costs. We find ourselves with the amount of money pretty much as 
laid out by the chairman and the chairman's committee. I appreciate 
very much what he has done and certainly hope we can move forward.
  Mr. INHOFE. I further ask, since I am chairman of the committee, if 
the Senator who has the floor now will yield to me for a few comments.
  Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
  Mr. INHOFE. I see Senator Thomas, from a State such as Wyoming, falls 
into a category we are taking care of in the formulas. That is low-
yield or low-population States. They have to be looked after. As he 
points out, people are driving through, yet they don't have the 
population base to be supporting large amounts of revenue to pay for 
the roads.
  On the other hand, we see Senators such as the Presiding Officer now, 
from the State of Texas, one of the fastest growing, largest States. He 
certainly has problems. So being very careful to try to take care of 
all these diverse needs in establishing a formula to put together 
something that would take care of the large States, we put in a ceiling 
and we put in a floor. We put something in there for donee and donor 
States. It is a very difficult formula.
  I remind my colleagues who might not feel this is a fair approach to 
it, to remember, to recall when we tried to do this before under TEA-
21, we had a purely political system. Everybody got a percentage of the 
amount of money that was there and it was all driven by politics. Once 
they received 60 votes, they didn't care what happened. We are not 
doing that. We have a formula that takes care of all these needs.
  I saw the senior Senator from Pennsylvania coming through just a 
moment ago and there have been some complaints from that State. I 
compare that to my State. My State is 20 percent larger than the State 
of Pennsylvania, yet we have roughly the same number of miles of roads. 
Yet under this formula, he is receiving some $3 for every $1 we 
receive. That doesn't look like I do a very good job for my State of 
Oklahoma. Nevertheless, it is a reality that we have to consider all 
these things.
  If you look at some of the compromises we have made, we had four 
principals who spent more time than anyone else drafting this bill. 
They were, of course, myself as chairman, Senator Jeffords as the 
ranking member, Senator Reid as the ranking member on the subcommittee, 
and Senator Bond on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, 
subcommittee chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I will conclude by urging my colleagues not to waste any 
more time. We need to get to this. We should have done this back on 
September 30. I urge colleagues that we invoke cloture and get right to 
the bill.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment that I rise 
today to express my objection to moving forward on the bill before us, 
SAFETEA. The cloture vote that we will have in the next few hours is 
the first step towards debating a bill with which few in this body are 
completely familiar. Essential elements of the bill came out of the 
Finance Committee today, and Senators have clearly not had enough time 
to review these proposals and to assess the effect on their States. I 
believe that debating and voting on this legislation this week would be 
irresponsible, and potentially damaging to many States, including the 
State of Wisconsin.
  The leadership has made it clear that they intend to push this 
measure through under artificial time constraints. Yet, members of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee were not given essential 
information before the transportation bill was brought for a vote on 
November 12, 2003, and now Members of the Senate will be debating a 
formula we haven't seen and are told we can't change. The unknowns, at 
this point, outnumber the areas of understanding. Many Senators still 
haven't seen crucial information from the Finance and Banking 
Committees. Questions of how to pay for this bill and how transit 
funding will be distributed among the States were debated in Committee 
as recently as today. I fail to see how we are acting responsibly to 
vote on legislation the same day it comes out of Committee.
  I want to make my self clear. I support a 6-year authorization of 
transportation dollars. And I support a bill that would be funded at 
the levels the Senate supported in last year's budget resolution, and 
that is fiscally responsible. During every previous authorization, I 
have fought to give my State equitable--equitable, not favorable--
treatement under the various formulas. I could not, in good conscience, 
move forward with a bill that would be a step backwards for my State.
  I understand that moving forward today does not eliminate all the 
opportunities to alter this bill and make it better. However, the 
complexities of the formulas that the Senate will be dealing with 
require additional time for review. I am particularly troubled by 
possible effects on Wisconsin of the proposed amendment dealing with 
the distribution of highway funds among the States. This formula was 
not released until just over a week ago, and yet this is what 
determines every State's level of transportation funding for the next 6 
years. This amendment contains the new ``equity bonus'' program, 
dictating the State's percentages of formula funding. The State of 
Wisconsin is a loser under this formula. According to charts from the 
Federal Highway Administration, Wisconsin's rate of return will drop to 
$.95 by the second year of the bill, and remain there for 4 years. I 
understand that the formulas involved are complicated and difficult to 
alter. In my mind, this provides all the more reason granting Senators 
additional time to review and amend them.
  A 6-year authorization bill should not move forward under an 
arbitrary time limit. As a Senator whose State could be harmed by this 
legislation, I will use all the procedural tools at my disposal to give 
myself more time to understand and amend the bill. In addition, I will 
use any legislative means to fix the inequities that exist in the 
proposed formula amendment. I am hopeful that the leadership will work 
with me in the coming weeks to protect my State and advance the best 
possible reauthorization bill.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion. The 
clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 426, S. 1072, a bill to authorize 
     funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, 
     transit programs, and for other purposes:
         Bill Frist, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, Susan Collins, 
           Craig Thomas, Pat Roberts, Conrad Burns, Thad Cochran, 
           Norm Coleman, Richard Shelby, Mike Crapo, Robert F. 
           Bennett, George V. Voinovich, Ted Stevens, Lamar 
           Alexander, Lindsey O. Graham.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1072 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce tha the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), 
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Alaska 
(Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Iowa (Mr.

[[Page 704]]

Harkin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The yeas and nays resulted, yeas 75 and nays 11, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--11

     Akaka
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kohl
     Kyl
     McCain
     Specter
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bennett
     Biden
     Burns
     Coleman
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Murkowski
     Reed
     Stevens
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 75, the nays are 
11. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like today's Record to 
indicate that I am necessarily absent due to a delayed incoming flight 
to Washington. Had I been present for the vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of the highway 
funding bill, I would have voted yea.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on Senate rollcall vote 7, to 
invoke cloture on The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (S. 1072), I was absent due to a 
delayed flight. If I had been present for the vote I would have voted 
in the affirmative, to invoke cloture and proceed to the bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank all the main 
principals involved: Senators Jeffords, Reid, Bond, and the entire 
committee. I think it was a very good vote. I think we are going to be 
able to move on to the biggest jobs bill probably in the last 10 years. 
I thank my colleagues for their strong support.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma. I 
have been through this before, but this was the most expeditious and 
well-run operation I have been involved in, and I think we are moving 
toward a successful result.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1072, the highway bill, at 10:30 
a.m. on Tuesday, February 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. What is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on a motion to proceed to 
the bill.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Is the Senator wishing to speak in morning business?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________