[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 867-879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           SAFE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know this is a day when we are having 
discussions about the highway bill, the transportation measure, and the 
highway portion of it. I appreciate the opportunity to share with my 
colleagues some of my thoughts on the work that has gone on. As I 
indicated yesterday, there will be a number of very important 
amendments. We hope to overcome the technical difficulties which make 
it impossible for Members to get to their offices so that they can 
present the amendments.
  We have heard from a number of Members who are concerned because they 
are not getting enough in the bill, but, frankly, this bill has much in 
it to commend, and we are looking forward to working in a cooperative 
manner to get this bill passed.
  We have lost valuable time, obviously, as we had to get cloture 
yesterday and we are working under the constraints of the ricin 
presence today. So we are a bit delayed.
  I reiterate, I appreciate and commend the great work of Senator 
Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and my partner on the 
Transportation Subcommittee, my ranking member, Senator Harry Reid of 
Nevada. They have done an excellent job.
  I believe the committee reported out a bill, S. 1072, the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, 
which we know as SAFETEA, which accomplishes several very important 
goals.
  First, safety. Safety in this authorization is for the first time 
given a prominent position, being elevated to a core program. Our bill 
mirrors the administration's proposal continuing our commitment to our 
motoring public's safety. This is accomplished by providing much needed 
funding to reduce highway injuries and fatalities, all without the use 
of mandates.
  A key component of the bill before us will go a long way to saving 
lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous 
locations, sections, and elements. This includes roadside obstacles and 
unmarked or poorly marked roads that may constitute a danger to 
motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway users.
  We know in my own home State of Missouri that inadequate roads delay, 
deny, and derail economic development opportunities. But most 
important, inadequate highways kill people. We have more than three 
deaths a day on Missouri's highways. I think a large number--at least a 
third and perhaps more--of those are attributed to inadequate 
infrastructure.
  When there is traffic of 10,000, 15,000 to 20,000 cars a day on a 
narrow two-lane road, there are going to be people passing when they 
should not and they run into other people head on.
  I have lost friends. I know too many families who grieve the loss of 
loved ones. I can point out roads in Missouri where one can drive not 
very far and see white cross after white cross put up as a reminder 
that some lost their lives on those roads. They lost their lives 
because the traffic was heavy. Very often, someone not from the area or 
even not from the State has come in and is not familiar with the road 
and they pass where they should not. They meet someone else head on, 
and that is a tragedy. Several weeks ago, I attended the funeral of the 
husband of a former staffer of mine who has been incapacitated. He was 
killed on a two-lane road. It was a terrible tragedy and an unspeakable 
loss.
  We heard numerous testimony from the administration that nearly 
42,000

[[Page 868]]

people are killed on our roads and highways each year. I think the bill 
reflects a continued commitment to making not only investments in our 
infrastructure but also to the general safety and welfare of our 
constituents.
  The second feature of this bill which is very important is equity. 
While previous authorizations have talked about equity, our bill 
carefully balances the needs of the donor States while also recognizing 
the needs of the donee States.
  For those who may not be familiar with the terminology, donor States 
such as Missouri and Oklahoma are ones that get less than a dollar back 
for every dollar they put in. Donee States are ones that get back more 
than a dollar for every dollar they put in. We are seeking to get a 
better return on our money, realizing that in this bill we cannot 
overcome the inequities between the donor and donee States.
  There are many sections in the bill I am proud of supporting. One of 
the most important facts is all donor States will receive a 95 percent 
rate of return at least by the end of the authorization. These States 
include 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. There are 24 States 
in total. These have been getting less than 95 cents in the past and 
will be getting up to 95 cents.
  My home State of Missouri, like many of the donor States mentioned, 
has some of the worst roads in the Nation. According to a survey, 
Missouri has the third worst roads. Fifty-nine percent of its roads are 
either in poor or mediocre condition, requiring immediate repair or 
reconstruction. Missouri also has the second worst bridges in the 
Nation.
  I guess I ought to remind people the one State that ranks even worse 
than Missouri is our neighboring State, Oklahoma, the State of the 
chairman of our committee. So obviously we have an interest in bringing 
about some repair and some safety improvements.
  During the reauthorization of TEA-21, the previous currently extended 
highway authorization, donor States did not think it was possible to 
achieve a 95 percent rate of return. Under our proposal, we are able to 
get them there--get all of us there. However, I am aware some of the 
donor States are concerned that they hit the growth caps and they do 
not achieve a 95 percent return in the first year. We were unable to 
bring all donor States up as early as we might have wished due to 
budgetary constraints and balancing the needs of the donor States with 
the needs of donee States. For this reason, as the donor States grow, 
the donee States see a gradual decline to bring greater equity between 
the States.
  I am proud to tell all Senators from all States, however, that every 
State will grow at least 10 percent over the funding provided in the 
current bill TEA-21. This new bill, SAFETEA, also addresses several 
environmental issues such as the need to ease the transition under the 
new air quality standards. The conformity process is better aligned 
with air quality planning, as well as streamlining the project delivery 
process by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate 
unnecessary delays during the environmental review stage.
  The third aspect of the bill which I think is very important is there 
is 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, which 
was adopted on the budget amendment in this body with 79 votes last 
year, was because the administration's SAFETEA proposal came in at only 
$200 billion for highways. During the last year's budget debate, I, 
along with Senator Reid, offered an amendment to fund highways at $255 
billion over 6 years, and that 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.
  Last, I think it is important to note that this is a jobs bill. The 
Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new 
Federal investment creates 47,500 jobs, or more. Accordingly, in 2009 
our comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion will sustain over 2 
million 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 will deprive us of the 
90,000 jobs that would be created.
  Another accomplishment of our package is it will ensure that 
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 the 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 
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 requirements.
  This 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 the requirements for other projects.
  In addition to the benefits of this bill, I want to discuss a couple 
of specific items. I think these benefits are clear, and I think they 
commend the bill to anyone who is interested in good highways, safety, 
and jobs.
  There is an amendment that was adopted in the committee which I find 
troubling. It was adopted in the committee without my support. The 
Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program requires 2 percent set-
asides from highways. That is about $1 billion. It is a mandate that 
tells States what they have to do with their highway money.
  I was hoping we would not get into mandates such as that. It is a 
massive environmental program. As the occupant of the chair knows, 
there are tremendous needs for environmental investment, particularly 
in clean water, safe drinking water, and other water needs. But this is 
a highway bill and I do not think it makes sense to tell all the States 
that they are going to have to set aside 2 percent of the funds 
apportioned to each State under the surface transportation program for 
use only on storm water mitigation activities in a new section 176.
  I think the bill as introduced more than adequately addresses the 
issue of contaminated runoff from highways while also protecting 
States' flexibility to manage their programs to meet their individual 
needs. The bill as introduced increases State flexibilities and 
opportunities to address storm water pollution in two ways.
  First, it makes storm water projects eligible under the National 
Highway System program, whereas under current law these projects are 
only eligible under the STP program.
  Second, the underlying bill extends eligibility to storm water 
mitigation projects that are not tied to ongoing reconstruction, 
rehabilitation, resurfacing or restoration, only to an existing Federal 
aid highway. Therefore, the States have the flexibility. The States 
with storm water problems will know they have those problems and they 
will have the flexibility to direct the money to storm water. They have 
much greater flexibility. The bill as introduced allows those States 
that choose to do so to use their highway money for storm water. The 
States that have other means for addressing storm water and need the 
money for roads can use it for roads.
  I think we ought to address the problems on water issues, clean water 
and safe drinking water, but let's stay with

[[Page 869]]

the highway bill and not try to shoehorn a new environmental program 
into it.
  While roads certainly contribute to contaminated runoff, the 
appropriate place to address storm water runoff is in the context of 
other clean water programs through the water infrastructure bill. If 
gas receipts increase, it could exceed the amount we provide EPA to 
address all other clean water programs combined without ever assessing 
if this is the best place to devote funds.
  To me, this could be a serious problem for States where there is not 
storm water. We have storm water problems in Missouri. We just need the 
flexibility. We don't need a mandate. There are other States that do 
not have storm water problems and they should not have to deal with it.
  Another item that is important: Many of my colleagues will recall 
that in 1974, specific Federal money for grade crossing safety was 
first established, the Rail/Highway Grade Crossing Safety Program. A 
determination was made by Congress that at least one-half of the funds 
provided for the crossing program should be utilized for the 
installation of protective devices--flashing lights, gates, bells, and 
the circuitry that operates these devices.
  The rationale for these provisions was to assure that the constrained 
funds made available by Congress would not just be ``saved'' to install 
costly grade separations. Instead, Congress wanted to assure that the 
funds would enhance safety in the broadest possible way through the 
installation and upgrade of crossing warning devices at many more 
locations would be possible if the funds were reserved mostly for 
crossing separations, particularly in rural areas of the country.
  The committee adopted an amendment in markup that did three things. 
It increased funding for the section 130 program from $100 million to 
$200 million. It included specific funding for other hazards and grade 
separations. But it also eliminated the current law provision that 
requires at least one-half of the section 130 funds be available for 
protective devices.
  In an effort to assure that the maximum level of safety be realized 
at the highest number of grade crossings throughout the United States, 
the current law provision of section 130 that says at least one-half 
the programs be used for protective devices I think should be restored 
to the program.
  The section 130 program has a very credible safety performance 
record. When measured as a percentage of reduction in accident 
fatalities since its inception, the grade crossing program has been the 
most effective highway safety program. This record of accomplishment 
certainly justifies maintaining the existing programmatic structure of 
the program. I hope the Senate will be willing to restore the current 
law requirement for one-half of the section 130 program for grade 
crossing protective devices.
  Let me just tell you my experience in Missouri. There are 3,879 
public highway/rail crossings and 3,011 private highway/rail crossings. 
Only 1,629 of the public highway/rail crossings in Missouri are 
equipped with active warning devices, flashing light signals and/or 
gates--about 42 percent. The remaining 58 percent are referred to as 
passive crossings and are equipped with crossbuck signs only.
  Missouri installed 212 active warning devices between 1997 and 2003 
and spent nearly $24 million on these projects from section 130 funds.
  Currently, the Highway/Rail Crossing Safety Program in Missouri is 
required by the Federal Highway Administration to spend $1,999,000 
annually for protective devices and the same amount for hazard 
elimination. The protective device money can only be used to install 
lights, gates, signs, and/or pavement markings at highway/rail 
crossings. The highway hazard funds have more flexibility to them and 
can be used to build a grade separation, close a crossing, improve the 
roadway at or near a crossing closure in order to reroute traffic.
  It is important to maintain funds in the hazard elimination category 
so our Department of Transportation and departments of transportation 
around the country can continue to work with local communities on 
crossing closure projects and corridor projects.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to 
address these vitally important programs. I see our other members, 
leadership members of the EPW committee, are here to address these 
issues.
  With that, I will yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we do not have 
anyone to speak on the highway bill. There are several people who 
desire to speak on other matters. We will have no objection, although 
if we get back on the bill we would like to enjoy some type of 
priority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, actually my intention was to speak in 
favor of the highway bill and compliment our colleagues for the 
construction of this legislation, but I did also want to comment on 
several other issues. I will be relatively brief. If others present 
themselves to the Senate who wish to speak at length on the highway 
bill, I will accommodate that.
  At a time when our economy has had a pretty tough time, the one 
certain way to produce jobs is through a highway bill. This is the kind 
of legislation that invests in the infrastructure of our country, and 
we know exactly its consequences. It produces jobs and it produces them 
very quickly all across this country. The construction and the 
maintenance of roads and bridges and the basic investment in 
infrastructure in this country is a certain way not only to expand the 
economy but to expand our job base.
  In recent years, we have had a slowdown in the economy. Now we see 
what is called a ``recovery,'' but the recovery does not include a 
recovery of U.S. jobs. That is a major deficiency and a serious 
problem. I believe the legislation brought to the Senate today that 
will be debated for some while dealing with a new highway bill is 
important legislation for this country.
  At a time when we have record budget deficits, if we were really 
producing an accounting system that worked the way it should work, most 
Members of the Senate would recognize this bill is funded by money that 
is put in a trust fund. When people drive up to the gas pumps and fill 
their tank, they are paying an excise tax. There is a specific purpose 
for this excise tax, and that is to improve the roads, bridges, and 
infrastructure of the country. It is important to understand we raised 
the money for this, by and large, through an excise tax.
  I know there is debate about formulas and other issues, but, in my 
judgment, Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords have done extraordinary 
work in bringing this bill to the Senate. I like the bill and intend to 
support the basic construct of what they have done.
  While I mention this bill is largely paid for with excise taxes, the 
tax on gasoline and other similar excise taxes--when you fill up your 
tank you are paying a tax and expect that to be invested in America's 
roads and infrastructure--we have in the rest of Government, in a 
budget released yesterday by the President, serious deficiencies.


                         The President's Budget

  Let me mention in the construct of discussing various spending 
issues, the budget released yesterday is a roadmap and a series of 
choices by the President. I heard the President say last week before he 
released this budget that, with respect to Federal budget deficits, he 
needed action by Congress. It is important to note that the budget 
deficit requested by the President in his own submission yesterday was 
the largest deficit in this country's history of budgets submitted by 
Presidents. This fiscal year, we are now told by the President and by 
his own budget in this fiscal year, the budget deficit will be over 
$520 billion. That, clearly, is a failure of fiscal policy and a 
failure of choices.
  I have said repeatedly the President's construct of fiscal policy 
just does not

[[Page 870]]

add up. I come from a small town and a small school, but mathematics 
works the say same way in a small school or big school as in a big town 
or a small town: Two and two equals four. In budgets where we talk 
about trillions, two and two still equals four. We cannot increase 
defense spending substantially, increase spending on homeland security 
substantially, cut taxes again and again and again, and tell the 
American people it will all work out; that we will just grow 
sufficiently; and it will all be just fine.
  It is not all just fine. In the middle of all of this we ran into a 
recession, an attack against this country on 9/11, the requirement to 
wage a war against terrorism. But then at the same time the President 
is saying, let's increase spending and let's cut our revenue.
  The slowest member of my high school class would have understood 
where that ends up. It ends up in the largest deficits in history. The 
$520-plus billion deficit is, actually, by the way, a faulty number as 
well because that is taking all the Social Security trust funds and 
using them to show that number. The Social Security trust funds also 
belong over here. They are required to pay for Social Security benefits 
in the future and they are being saved for that purpose, and we ought 
not include them in this operating budget. For that reason, the current 
budget deficit is somewhere around $660 billion this year. That is the 
amount of money that our children and their children will be obligated 
to pay in the future.
  There is an urgency and a seriousness that I don't see represented in 
the budget the President sent to us yesterday. In his budget, he 
proposes a very large Federal budget deficit. But his budget also says, 
I will request zero spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At 
the moment, we know we spend $5 billion a month for operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, a little over $1.25 billion a week. Five billion a 
month is $60 billion a year. And what does the President say it will 
cost in this budget? Zero. So this budget is not an honest reflection 
of what he is going to spend, either.
  Frankly, I don't understand that. I don't understand why a budget 
comes with no plan to fix the serious and urgent problems and, in fact, 
will miss the mark on what we will actually spend by well over $200 to 
$300 billion.
  Last year at this time the President said he thought the Federal 
budget deficit for the year we are in would be $307 billion. Well, it 
is not. It is well over $200 billion more than that 1 year later.
  My point is, this is off the track and out of kilter. It needs 
leadership from the President and the Congress to fix it. It starts 
with the first step, which is a budget document that honestly reflects 
what is going to happen to the best of our ability. The budget document 
sent to us, regrettably, is a political budget, not a budget document. 
We need to do better than that.
  On the issue of spending, I also want to discuss the February 2, Wall 
Street Journal article, page 1, ``Halliburton Hits Snafu in Billing on 
Kuwait.'' It says that as a contractor for the Federal Government, 
where the taxpayers pay the bill, Halliburton, was billing the 
taxpayers for 42,042 meals every day but they were only serving 14,000 
meals a day. What is it called? A ``snafu.'' They are overbilling us by 
$16 million and it is called a snafu.
  I am sorry, not in my hometown. This is either the sloppiest 
accounting in the world by a contractor that should not be doing the 
work or it is cheating. One or the other. It is not a snafu.
  The fact is, we are throwing money at these problems. We are 
contracting with companies without bids, and the result is the American 
people are being overcharged. This, too, is contributing to 
overspending and an increase in Federal budget deficits.
  Let me make one more point about overspending and budgets. The one 
area in which the President recommended an increase in funding--I was 
surprised, as I was looking through the small details, cuts in funding 
and things that affect Indian children's health, for example, or Indian 
children's education--the one area where the President recommended some 
increased funding was in the wild horses and burros program. He 
actually put a few million extra in that program.
  I was looking at that. We have 39,000 wild horses and burros, and I 
like horses--by the way, I grew up raising horses--39,000 wild horses 
and burros. Do you know how much the program costs to maintain wild 
horses and burros? Forty-one million dollars requested by the 
President. That is over $1,000 per horse or burro. They could have 
their own apartment in my hometown for that.
  I don't understand. This is all about choices and priorities. I just 
pulled one little issue where increased spending exists, wild horses 
and burros.


  The Food and Drug Administration and the Cost of Prescription Drugs

  Mr. President, let me finally make a point about something that was 
announced in the last 2 days by the Food and Drug Administration. While 
this does not relate to the Federal budget, it relates to the budget of 
every American dealing with the cost of the price of prescription 
drugs.
  The Food and Drug Administration campaign to warn against Canadian 
drugs. It says: ``Next week the FDA will begin a campaign saying it is 
dangerous to import drugs from Canada.''
  I am sorry, this is the Food and Drug Administration which is 
supposed to be a regulatory agency. It is supposed to regulate, not 
represent, the pharmaceutical industry. Yet here we have the FDA doing 
all it can to try to tell the American people that importing 
prescription drugs from Canada is unsafe. It is total nonsense.
  The Canadians have the same chain of custody as we do. The same pill, 
put in the same bottle, made by the same company, is sent to a pharmacy 
in Winnipeg and is sent to a pharmacy in Pembina, ND. The pills are not 
different because they are identical, both FDA approved; the difference 
is price. And often the American is paying double, triple, or 10 times 
the price that is charged in Canada.
  We pay the highest prices in the world, and it is unfair. Those of us 
who are developing plans by which we would have our pharmacists or our 
consumers access the identical prescription drug for a much lower price 
from Canada are now confronting the FDA, which seems to be working full 
time for the pharmaceutical industry.
  I wish Mr. McClellan would take a look at his job description because 
there is not any way on Earth he can describe a system in which--for 
example, in the one I propose, North Dakota pharmacists, in a pilot 
project, buying from licensed pharmacists in Canada FDA-approved 
drugs--there is not any way the FDA can credibly suggest there is a 
safety issue. There is no way they can credibly suggest that. Now, they 
may try, but if they do, they are not being honest with the American 
people.


     The 9/11 Commission and an Independent Commission to Evaluate 
                    Intelligence with Regard to Iraq

  Finally--I know my colleagues are waiting to speak--I want to mention 
two things about commissions. The 9/11 commission is now meeting. It 
has a May deadline. That needs to be extended. It has had to issue 
subpoenas to this administration to get information from the 
administration about events prior to 9/11. What on Earth could people 
in the administration be thinking about requiring the issuance of 
subpoenas to get them to cooperate?
  Besides the issue of subpoenas, they still have not gotten adequate 
cooperation from the White House for interviews and information they 
want. I believe the time for the commission ought to be extended. I 
also believe the administration ought to comply fully with all the 
requests for information immediately. I do not, for the life of me, 
understand why an independent commission investigating 9/11 and the 
information that led up to it should have any problem getting any 
information from anyone in this Government. It makes no sense to me.
  And finally, the issue of an independent commission to evaluate the 
intelligence with respect to Iraq. Mr. Kay, the former chief weapons 
inspector, says our intelligence community failed, failed the 
President. He should

[[Page 871]]

have said failed the Senate, failed the Congress, failed the American 
people. What happened?
  The President is suggesting an independent commission that he 
appoints. I do not support that. I do not think the executive branch 
should or could investigate itself, even with a commission they 
determined independent, especially when they select the commission.
  There should be an independent commission as a matter of Federal law, 
and this Congress ought to pass legislation that authorizes it and 
funds it. And we ought to do so soon. The safety and security of this 
country depends on good intelligence.
  We are told by Mr. Kay that the intelligence community has failed 
this country. We need to urgently get to the bottom of it.
  Mr. President, I will have more to say later. The Senate, I believe, 
is on an abbreviated schedule today for a number of reasons. I know my 
colleague, Senator Kennedy, wishes to speak, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota.


                       Education and Health Care

  Mr. President, I want to make a brief comment about the impact of the 
budget in two important areas; that is, how it relates to the education 
of the children in this country and, secondly, how it relates to the 
issues of health care and health care coverage.
  Just about every age group will be hurt by this budget. This budget 
hurts children, hurts our economy, and I believe, it hurts our 
democracy.
  The latest Bush budget does not help young children start school 
ready to learn. It does not fund public school reform and improvement. 
It does not extend college opportunity. It does not train workers for 
new jobs that are needed because of the Bush Administration's poor 
stewardship of this economy.
  For young children and parents, the President's budget cuts the very 
sound Even Start literacy program. This program helps not only children 
learn to read but it helps their parents learn to read. By helping 
previously illiterate or barely literate parents and children learn to 
read at the same time, you see a quantum increase in both groups' 
academic achievement and accomplishment. It has been one of the most 
successful programs we have in terms of expanding literacy in this 
country. That program is eliminated by the Bush budget.
  Over 1 million children and parents will not get Even Start literacy 
training under the Bush budget. For children in grade school, once 
again, the President has reneged on his pledge to leave no child 
behind. This budget leaves over 4.6 million children behind. They will 
not get better teachers or smaller classes or after-school help they 
were promised.
  In fact, every year President Bush has been in office, he has 
shortchanged by greater and greater amounts his promise to fund the No 
Child Left Behind Act.
  In 2002, President Bush shortchanged No Child Left Behind by $4.2 
billion; in 2003, $5.4 billion; in 2004 by $7.6 billion; and this year 
by $9.4 billion. In total, President Bush has broken his No Child Left 
Behind promise by over $26 billion since the day it was signed into 
law.
  That law provided reform in the education of our K through 12th 
grades. But what we understood when we passed the law was that if we 
were going to have reform in our education system we had to fund it. 
That was what was at the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act, the 
concept of resources for school reform and improvement, and why it had 
very broad bipartisan support.
  If we had reform, in terms of better trained teachers and after-
school programs that provided supplementary services, curriculum 
reforms, and the range of different types of parental involvement, and 
the kind of help and assistance for those needy schools that needed 
help and assistance, it was going to require resources to bring the 9 
million children, who are the children who are basically the target of 
No Child Left Behind, up to proficiency over a 12-year period, and all 
of them had to be included.
  That was the agreement. That is why we spent a good deal of time in 
those negotiations working out what was going to be actually the 
authorization, because we knew those funds were going to be necessary 
to be able to achieve those kinds of reforms. We find out now it has 
been $26 billion short since the time that law was signed.
  This budget eliminates 38 different education programs. It eliminates 
the gifted and talented education. It eliminates the dropout prevention 
programs. We have schools in this country where they have 30 or 40 or 
even 50 percent of their children who drop out between the 8th grade 
and the 12th grade. It is even higher in a number of different schools 
that I know about. We have about 540,000 children who drop out every 
single year.
  The attempt in terms of No Child Left Behind Act was to try to reach 
out and find these children and move them back into the education 
system. When you eliminate any of the dropout prevention programs, you 
are basically giving up on hundreds of thousands of children. We know 
what happens to these children if they are not challenged or helped or 
assisted or given a helping hand to get back into the education system.
  One of the most successful new ideas in education has been in the 
areas where you have very large schools, to try and break those schools 
down to create smaller schools within the larger schools. It has been 
extraordinarily successful.
  I visited those schools myself in a number of cities in this country. 
I can remember visiting them in Chicago, as well as in my own city of 
Boston. We have seen the difference that has made in terms of moving 
into what we call the ``smaller schools,'' which get smaller class 
sizes, more intensive kinds of relationships between the teachers and 
these children. We have seen it has demonstrated to have a marked 
improvement in terms of academic achievement and accomplishment. 
Despite all the research on the value of small schools, President Bush 
wants to eliminate support for smaller learning communities. It just 
doesn't make sense.
  Another program which has had a very significant success has been the 
Star Schools Program. What we recognized in many States, even including 
my own, when the State budget is cramped, it is difficult enough to get 
a well-trained teacher in physics or in the more advanced science 
areas. Nonetheless, you will have some very gifted and talented 
children in that school who have an aptitude for math or for science, 
and the Star Schools Program basically said, with the establishment in 
the school of what it costs--approximately $1,500 for a receptor--you 
have a very highly trained educator who teaches those children by 
distance learning.
  They can teach 2,000 or 3,000 children and provide help to maybe a 
handful of children in a particular school district who have a great 
aptitude in math and science but do not have the kind of academic 
teacher who can help them. The Star Schools Program has been invaluable 
in many different parts of the country. The technology reviews have 
shown that these children can learn almost as well with this kind of 
instruction as they can with a teacher in front of them. That program 
has effectively been eliminated.
  For the college students, I refer to the Department of Education 
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary. Since this President took office, 
public college tuition is up 26 percent, according to the College 
Board. Yet the Bush budget provides zero increase for Pell Grant 
student aid. On page 52 of the Administration's Education Budget 
Summary, it says, Pell grants: 2003, $4,050; 2004, $4,050; 2005, 
$4,050. That zero increase in the face of rising tuition. No help. The 
average income of a Pell recipient is $15,000. These are gifted, 
talented, hard-working young people who can get into any school, any 
college in the country, who have to struggle by nature and by 
circumstances. That Pell grant has been a lifeline to them in terms of 
their ability to go on to

[[Page 872]]

school and to college. And what is the answer of the administration to 
these young people: Go out and borrow more. See what you can do with 
your repayments to the banks.
  That is bad education policy, and it makes very little sense.
  For those out of work or in jobs but seeking to upgrade their skills, 
this budget adds $250 million for community college, but at the same 
time the Bush administration has cut $900 million in job training 
programs over the past three years. For similar programs, they are 
going to get $250 million, but with the other hand we're going to try 
to take $900 million. It just doesn't make sense.
  So whether it is the very young children, whether it is the children 
who are going K-12, whether it is the children who are going to 
college, or whether it is the men and women trying to get new job 
training, these programs, which I believe are a national priority, have 
been reduced.
  If any one of my colleagues at any time went to any hall anyplace in 
America and asked the American people how much out of a dollar of 
Federal money is being spent for education and what would they like it 
to be--I have done that several times--they will find out, after 
national security, which is No. 1, they talk about Medicare and Social 
Security--that is right up there--and right after that comes education. 
They hope it is 20 percent, 15 percent, 18 percent. Then when they find 
out that it is about 2 percent, less than 2 percent and declining, they 
are absolutely appalled. Not that money answers everything, but the 
money is a reflection of a national priority.
  This business about making choices, $2.4 trillion in this budget and 
shortchanging the investment in education of our children, that is what 
this is. I would be glad to debate it in very considerable detail with 
any of my colleagues and will at any time.
  I want to add a word with regard to the health care situation, the 
general concerns that I find in traveling around my own State. People 
are concerned primarily by two issues. One is the cost of health care 
and the other is whether they can find affordable coverage in health 
care insurance.
  There is virtually nothing in this budget in terms of controlling 
cost. We gave up a great opportunity when we passed the alleged 
Medicare reform bill to permit the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to actually negotiate with the drug companies like the 
Veterans' Administration can to bring lower costs to our seniors. But 
that proposal was rejected by the administration and by the Republican 
majority. As a result, we have seen the continued escalation of cost, 
and costs will continue to rise. There is virtually nothing in this 
legislation to do anything about getting a handle on health care costs.
  And with regard to health insurance coverage, we see we have cut 
Medicaid. A million people who qualify for Medicaid are going to be off 
Medicaid. Half of those are going to be children, the poorest of the 
poor. A half a million are going to be without the Medicaid coverage 
that provides very good coverage for the children. National priorities? 
There are close to a trillion dollars in tax breaks in this budget, but 
denying Medicaid coverage to 500,000 children, the neediest of the 
children, that is a matter of choice.
  We will have a chance to debate it. We are now just talking about 
what is in the President's proposal.
  The insurance industry and the trade associations did very well in 
the budget. Health savings accounts will benefit, which are products of 
the insurance companies. Health savings accounts get about $24 billion 
over a 10-year period with the initiative in this budget. Association 
health plans will do very well for the trade associations, even though 
those plans will mean an increase in the cost of premiums for health 
insurance for others. Then we have the proposal for tax credits for 
health insurance. That is really some proposal. The budget includes a 
proposal to give a $1,000 tax credit for health insurance to an 
individual--but the coverage actually costs $4,000. The budget also 
proposes giving families a $3,000 credit, but a family policy costs 
nearly $10,000. That is like throwing someone who is in the river 
needing help a 4-foot line, when they need a 10-foot line to save them. 
Just try to find a family health insurance policy that is worthy of its 
name for $3,000 in this country. We know that is completely 
unrealistic.
  Finally, when we talk about fighting disease, take AIDS or TB, there 
is a cut of some $356 million for CDC. Two major bioterrorism programs 
have been cut $144 million. These programs provide the assistance to 
contain a bioterrorist attack locally. You need the initial help to the 
primary responders, who are police and firefighters and nurses. Then 
you need to contain a disease outbreak. For that, we need to help our 
hospitals and our other health clinics in order to contain disease 
outbreaks so they do not spread. That is particularly important, as 
anybody who has listened to the experts on bioterrorism will tell you. 
Those programs have been seriously cut.
  Then the most amazing reduction is the CDC cut, $364 million, when we 
are confronting the danger of SARS, Ebola, other dangers that come from 
countries all over the world.
  Under Dr. Gerberding, who has been an outstanding public servant at 
the Centers for Disease Control, CDC has been extraordinary in 
protecting the American people and people all over the world. The 
budget provides a reduction in support for the CDC. We are having a 
hearing in our committee on mad cow disease, in the HELP Committee this 
week. You name it, there is another disease that comes from overseas 
every day, and our front line of defense is the CDC. They have some of 
the most talented experts in the world in that agency, and the budget 
undermines it in a significant way. It makes no sense.
  We will have a chance to debate these issues later as we consider the 
full budget. For the average American, who is concerned about their 
job--and they are concerned about their jobs because they find out, 
with all of the uncertainty about our economy, that they lose their job 
and they know if they are able to find another job, they will be paid 
about 22 percent less, average, nationwide than the job they are 
holding--if they are able to find one. They are uncertain about their 
jobs, and they are uncertain about what is happening in schools with 
their children. This budget does little about that uncertainty. They 
are uncertain whether they will be able to save enough to send their 
children to college. That is because of the proposals of the 
administration to eliminate overtime.
  We have to understand the amount that is earned on overtime has been 
used day in and day out to pay tuition for working families for their 
children who go to college, or to pay a mortgage. So people are worried 
about the economy. They are worried, if they are unemployed, that their 
unemployment insurance has been lost. They are worried about that. If 
they are among the 1 in 7 Americans who are making the minimum wage, 
they realize they haven't gotten any increase in the last 7 years. 
Where is anything about that, or anything about education, or anything 
about health care for the children? It has been missing in that budget. 
But the trillion dollar tax break for the wealthy is included. It is 
the wrong priority.
  The American people are going to reflect on these misguided 
priorities as they watch our votes when we debate the budget in the 
Senate. If they don't do it then, they will do it in November.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I spoke earlier to the Senator from 
Oklahoma and he indicated one of his colleagues, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, may be coming to the floor, and perhaps also the Senator 
from Arizona. I wanted to defer to them because we want to go back and 
forth.

[[Page 873]]


  Mr. INHOFE. He is in the cloakroom. May I inquire about how much time 
the Senator from Illinois would like to have?
  Mr. DURBIN. About 20 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. We will go back into a quorum call, then, until the 
Senator from Pennsylvania arrives.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is fine. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the pending highway bill, and also to offer legislation on the 
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program Extension Reform Act of 2004.
  The highway bill is pending, and tomorrow Secretary of the Interior 
Norton will be in Harrisburg to announce the President's program. The 
administration has made available this statute for introduction which 
should be done on a timely basis this afternoon since there will not be 
morning business tomorrow because of the Joint Meeting of Congress.
  First, my comments are directed toward the highway bill. Yesterday, I 
voted against cloture--that is, voted against cutting off debate--
because of my view that there ought to be more consideration to the 
bill before we proceed to take up the bill itself.
  I am concerned about the total cost of the bill in light of the 
position of President Bush's administration where there have been 
concerns raised about the total cost because we are facing such a large 
deficit this year. I do believe that infrastructure--highway 
construction, mass transit, and bridge repairs--is indispensable for 
economic growth and economic development, but in the very complex 
Federal budget all of these matters have to be prioritized.
  We are looking at a budget next year of $2.4 trillion, where there is 
a projected increase of close to 10 percent--9.7 percent--for homeland 
defense, 7 percent for the Department of Defense, and less than 1 
percent for discretionary spending.
  I am concerned about where we are heading on all of those lines, with 
very heavy emphasis of concern about a deficit which is projected in 
excess of $500 billion.
  We faced these problems in the past. I am in my 24th year in the 
Senate, and it is not unusual for us to be facing very difficult 
problems. Two years ago, we did not even have a budget resolution, a 
matter of some considerable concern on the political scales where the 
Democrats were in control and we did not have a budget. Last year, we 
had major problems in the appropriations process. As it is well known, 
we did not pass the omnibus bill until last month. So we are not 
unaccustomed to having major problems as we look forward to the budget.
  I am comforted by the famous words of Winston Churchill that somehow 
we always muddle through and that democracy--paraphrasing Churchill 
again--is a terrible system except compared to all others. I believe we 
will be able to work through the budget problems we have.
  Notwithstanding the economic problems, we now see an upturn, and I 
think we are heading for better days on the economy. I think that will 
have a very profound effect on the deficit in the long run. It is 
difficult to realize, or surprising, perhaps I should say, that less 
than 3 years ago we were projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus in 10 years 
and we were talking about paying off the national debt. Then an 
economic downturn, facing two wars--one against al-Qaida and one in 
Iraq--we have had very substantial problems. But we have a very 
productive country, we have a great work ethic, and I think we will 
have an economic rebound. I think that will have a very profound effect 
on easing the difficulties of the deficit.
  Notwithstanding those factors, we are looking at a tough deficit, and 
I think more consideration needs to be given on this bill as to how we 
are going to face the overall problems and establish priorities.
  With respect to the allocations in this bill, I believe that my 
State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is not being dealt with 
appropriately, not being dealt with fairly. My colleague, Senator 
Santorum, and I wrote to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works on January 28 listing the concerns we 
have. I realize there has not been sufficient time for the chairman to 
respond to this letter, but that is part of the concern.
  Senator Santorum and I wrote this letter as soon as we could after we 
knew what was in the highway bill and knew how Pennsylvania was going 
to be treated. Again, I am not unaware that it is a very difficult 
matter to make allocations among 50 States and it is not possible to 
satisfy everyone. I have heard quite a number of my colleagues express 
concerns that their States were not being appropriately treated. But I 
believe that when the facts are analyzed, Pennsylvania ought to have 
more of a share of this highway bill, or even more of a share of a 
reduced highway bill, if the bill were to be pared down to come within 
the confines of what the President has in mind for the highway bill.
  The allocation that Pennsylvania has is the fourth lowest increase, 
an increase of 19.54 percent over the 6 years. With that limited 
increase, Pennsylvania will not even be able to keep up with inflation.
  Pennsylvania has a very extensive highway system. It is the fourth 
largest highway system among the 50 States. It has some 40,500 miles of 
State highway, totaling more highway miles than New York and New 
England combined. It has some 25,000 bridges, and the highway system in 
Pennsylvania--a frost belt State, an older State by contrast with the 
expansion of the South and the West--has found the highways very 
heavily used and subject to very difficult weather conditions.
  Eighty-eight percent of the nearly $300 billion worth of goods 
delivered from inside Pennsylvania each year arrive on the State's 
highways. Pennsylvania's highways are the prime routes for delivering 
goods imported from ports across the mid-Atlantic region.
  We have many interstate highways. When calculating the appropriate 
share of highway funding, due consideration ought to be given to the 
usage of the highways. If you take some States and areas--Florida, for 
example, or Maine, or the State of Washington, or southern California--
those areas are not as heavily transited. But Pennsylvania has major 
interstates both east-west and north-south: Routes 80 and 90, Route 
480, Routes 95, 81, 79, 83, in addition to a vast complex of highways 
across the State.
  It is my view that Pennsylvania ought to have a higher allocation and 
ought not to be limited to an allocation which will be less than the 
inflation rate over 6 years.
  There has been some justification offered on the basis of the 
contention that Pennsylvania had a very large share in the past when 
Congressman Bud Shuster was the Chairman of the House Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee. It is certainly true that the ways of the 
House and the ways of the Senate accord some special consideration for 
people who are chairmen, who can establish the mark, but I do not think 
that Chairman Shuster's departure from the House of Representatives 
ought to be used as the basis for saying Pennsylvania ought to be 
reduced in its share.
  When one takes a look at the allocation for Pennsylvania, the rate of 
increase is the fourth lowest among the 50 States. Nobody can deny that 
Pennsylvania ranks very high among the States which service the 
country. Traffic coming from the west coast goes through Pennsylvania; 
some of it on the Pennsylvania Turnpike but a great deal of it on 
Interstate 80, some on Interstate 90. There is tremendous traffic north 
to south on Interstate 81, and I-95 is a major highway transiting the 
east coast.

[[Page 874]]

  It is my hope that before this bill is finished we can have an 
adjustment. I know other Senators are equally concerned as am I. The 
vote I cast against cloture to cut off debate yesterday was in the 
nature of a protest vote. I had no illusions in casting the vote. I did 
so late in the proceeding when the requisite 60 votes had already been 
achieved for cloture, so there was no doubt that my vote was not going 
to be determinative or influential. The cloture was going to be 
imposed.
  I have heard many complaints from my constituents who are very 
dissatisfied with the allocation both as to highways, which affects 
bridges as well, and transit. I cast that protest vote. I still think 
we ought to be considering both of those factors. One factor is what is 
the appropriate priority taking into account the views of President 
Bush on the increase in expenditures on this bill over what had been 
allocated or what has been considered appropriate by the President and 
factoring in the priorities we have on the budget which we are now 
considering. I hope yet to be able to support this bill, but I am not 
going to support a bill which does not treat my State fairly.
  My vote and the votes of others who have similar views may not be 
dispositive because there is great public interest in this bill as a 
jobs bill, very important on the infrastructure to facilitate transit 
both on the rail lines and on the highways. But fair is fair and I 
think there have to be some significant modifications to the total 
amount of this bill, the priorities established, and how Pennsylvania 
is treated.
  Mr. President, I believe I have already asked unanimous consent that 
the text of the letter from Senator Santorum, Senator Inhofe, and 
myself, dated January 28, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of 
the comments I made on the highway bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 28, 2004.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Chairman Inhofe: We are writing to express our deep 
     concerns with the recently released highway funding formula 
     to be used in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 
     Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA) proposal. Were 
     this proposal to be enacted, it would have a significant 
     negative impact on Pennsylvania.
       Pennsylvania is a key gateway connecting New England and 
     the Northeast to the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. As such, our 
     roads are by no means limited to Pennsylvanians but are often 
     used by cars and trucks from around the country. Pennsylvania 
     has the fourth largest highway system among the 50 states, 
     with 25,000 bridges and 40,500 miles of state highway, 
     totaling more highway miles than New York and New England 
     combined. Furthermore, Pennsylvania's highways are the prime 
     routes for delivering goods imported from ports across the 
     Mid-Atlantic region. Truly, Pennsylvania is the ``Keystone 
     State'' when it comes to moving goods from East-to-West and 
     North-to-South in our region.
       In addition to heavy use, the extreme weather conditions of 
     the Mid-Atlantic region have taken their toll on 
     Pennsylvania's highway system. 46 percent of the 
     Commonwealth's roads are in poor condition, while 42 percent 
     of the Commonwealth's bridges are structurally deficient. 
     Such conditions have a tremendous economic impact: driving on 
     Pennsylvania's roads in need of repair costs motorists $2.4 
     billion each year in extra vehicle operating costs; traffic 
     accidents and fatalities cost Pennsylvania drivers an 
     additional $2.7 billion annually; and congestion leads to 
     costs totaling $2.3 billion per year.
       Under your committee's proposal, Pennsylvania's funding 
     increases at the fourth lowest rate among all the states. It 
     is unlikely the proposed 19.54 percent increase over six 
     years will keep pace with inflation, amounting to a cut in 
     Pennsylvania's highway funding. Such meager levels do not 
     account for Pennsylvania's disproportionate needs.
       In light of the infrastructure maintenance needs, 
     population, and geographic location of our commonwealth, we 
     find it completely unacceptable for Pennsylvania to be a 
     donor state in the final year (FY2009) of the SAFETEA program 
     and are convinced that the funding levels in other years are 
     insufficient in light of Pennsylvania's place in our national 
     highway network. While we will continue to work on highway 
     and transit issues and will likely be supportive of many 
     provisions in the SAFETEA bill, we could not support a final 
     SAFETEA bill that so unfairly shortchanges Pennsylvania.
       We strongly believe that highway funding must be based in 
     large part on the impact each state's transportation system 
     has on its region and the nation and that a national highway 
     program should direct federal funding to national needs. We 
     welcome the opportunity to work with you to address this 
     matter so that Congress can enact positive federal 
     transportation policy this year.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
     Rick Santorum.

  (The remarks of Mr. SPECTER pertaining to the introduction of S. 2049 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. In conclusion, I compliment the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Inhofe. I know how hard he has worked on this bill. 
I know how many people have come to him with concerns. That is one of 
the vicissitudes of being a chairman. I get the same treatment when I 
post my bill on the subcommittee for Labor, Health, Human Services, and 
Education and I post my bills on Veterans' Affairs.
  I compliment Senator Inhofe and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, 
for what they have done here. It is a major matter, bringing a highway 
bill to the floor. It is my hope that, working together as Senator 
Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Santorum, and I have always done, we 
will be able to at least reconcile some of these concerns.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I listened with great interest. I think he 
has some excellent points, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania. He 
extensively quoted Churchill. I would like to add another quote to 
that:

       Truth is incontrovertible. Ignorance can deride it, panic 
     may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.

  I say that because there are some things--It is only natural when the 
Senator from Pennsylvania is not serving on the committee that he would 
not be quite as familiar with the development of the formula as perhaps 
someone who is on the committee. So I would like to respond to a couple 
of points because I really believe we have a very fair formula.
  First of all, the formula Congressman Shuster put together is the 
basis for this bill. I happened to serve in the other body in the 
committee under Congressman Shuster back during the development of TEA-
21. During that time, of course, he was pretty notorious getting a lot 
for his State. I understand that. I should be more that way myself.
  But I would only like to suggest--if staff would be good enough to 
hold this chart up--this is Pennsylvania. Over here, take 1384 in the 
red, that is the average amount for each year. If you took all 6 years 
in the TEA-21 and averaged them out, that would be the amount. That 
would be $1.3 billion. Then, if you watch each year as it goes up, you 
end up with a substantially higher amount.
  Let's compare that, if we may, with California. I saw an op-ed piece 
by the senior Senator from California in which she was very 
complimentary of the way this worked. If you look, you see they end up 
in almost the same place as Pennsylvania does percentage wise. But it 
all comes in the last year. That is because they are a donor State. In 
order for the large donor States to be able ultimately to reach 95 
percent, it has to be done in the last year. I think we all understand 
that.
  But when you compare the two charts, I would say if she is satisfied, 
then the Senator from Pennsylvania should be elated.
  I would like to share one other thing, too. I chair the committee. If 
you take the total amount of road miles that we have in Oklahoma 
compared to Pennsylvania, it is almost the same, when you take out the 
toll roads. Of course, we are not dealing with toll roads here.
  With the same number of road miles, each year Pennsylvania gets 3.5 
times as much as Oklahoma gets. If anyone should be complaining, using 
that as a criterion, I should be the one.
  I think it is very important you share with your constituents some of 
the things that are in this bill and how well I believe Pennsylvania is 
treated.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania talked about bridges. According to the

[[Page 875]]

surveys that have been taken by the Department of Transportation, 
Oklahoma's bridges are No. 50 in the Nation--way behind Pennsylvania. 
These are things that need to be corrected. Many of these things will 
be corrected in this bill.
  So I would only say formulas are very difficult. There is no magic 
formula that is going to make everyone happy. I remember the formulas 
in TEA-21 and ISTEA, and there were complaints from many States on 
those. No formula is going to satisfy everyone, but I honestly believe, 
when I look at Pennsylvania and compare it to California or Oklahoma or 
some of the other States, that they are very well cared for.
  With that, I yield to any questions the Senator might have.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a comment or two. I did compliment 
the Senator from Oklahoma, the distinguished chairman, for being so 
well prepared. Perhaps he should have charts on all the States. I don't 
know. Perhaps he would have charts on the States where you anticipate 
difficulty or others on a comparative basis. But this Senator is not 
likely to be satisfied, as a general matter, with what satisfies the 
Senator from California. I think if we check the voting records of 
Senator Inhofe and Senator Specter and the junior Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, we will find Senator Inhofe and Senator Specter 
on one side and Senator Boxer is on the other side a lot more times 
than not.
  So, I will take a look at the charts and I will take a look at the 
statistics. I do agree with the chairman that it is a complex matter.
  The first opportunity I have to review it is once I see the bill and 
I will make the analysis with California, and with Oklahoma. I have 
some substantial familiarity with Oklahoma because I have traveled the 
highways of Oklahoma a great deal. As the Senator from Oklahoma knows, 
I am a native of Kansas and went to the University of Oklahoma and 
drove that highway from Wichita to Norman on many occasions. To my 
recollection, it was a pretty good highway, but that has been a while 
ago.
  But I again complement the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman, on 
his diligence, having the charts. We will take a very close look at it. 
The Senator from Oklahoma and I have worked together on many matters in 
the years we have worked in the Senate together. We approach this in 
the interests of our States, as we should, but also understanding the 
needs of other States.
  We will try to come to at least some sort of accommodation as we work 
through the bill. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I in no way want him to misinterpret the comments I made 
as being critical of his analysis. Formulas are very difficult. TEA-21 
is something we know was totally politically driven. That was a 
percentage of the total amount of money, so when they got up to 60 
votes they could just shut the door and say: Fine, we have our bill. We 
tried not to do that, take consideration of donor/donee status, fast-
growing States.
  By the way, you heard the senior Senator from Texas yesterday talking 
about her dissatisfaction with what Texas was doing. When it gets down 
to it, under this formula or any other formula, if you do something for 
a fast growing State that keeps bumping up against the ceiling, you are 
going to be having a problem. If you try to correct that, it is going 
to go into the donee States, of which of course Pennsylvania is one.
  It is a difficult choice. We spent a whole year working on this and I 
hope you have a chance to really look at it closely.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might ask the chairman, you say 
Pennsylvania is a donee State? We are a donor State here in the final 
year of your bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. OK, in the first year, right now, you are a donee State.
  Mr. SPECTER. We have been a donee State. If I hadn't been a donee 
State--for those who do not follow the terms, a donor is one who gives 
more than the State receives. Senator Kyl is bowing. Arizona is in that 
status. A donee State is one which receives more than it contributes.
  Had we really been a donee State throughout the six years of the 
bill--and I understand it was a slip of the tongue, or at least for 1 
year, not the whole projection. But had I been able to hold the 
chairman to donee status, I would have withdrawn all my remarks and 
stricken them from the Record.
  Mr. INHOFE. I was referring to 2003, where it is a very substantial 
donee State, recognizing it goes up and down.
  By the way, Oklahoma has never been a donee State. Oklahoma was 
bumped against the ceilings: 73 percent, 80 percent, and then 90.5 
percent, and of course we are looking forward to getting up to 95 
percent, as I am sure the Senator from Arizona is going to share that 
enthusiasm.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Oklahoma makes up for donee status with 
its football team.
  Mr. INHOFE. On occasions, yes.
  Mr. SPECTER. When you comment about Pennsylvania being a donee State, 
that is for the existing bill, not the entirety of the one we are 
voting on now. We are a donor State in the last year, which is the 
reason for my exchange. I think the exchange has been useful. I see 
Senators waiting.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Penn State and the University of Oklahoma 
have had their share of victories and now it is time for somebody else 
to have their fair share.
  I appreciate the hard work of the chairman, the Senator from 
Oklahoma. I make it very clear I join those who recognize the need for 
improvement of our highways. There is not a road in my State that could 
not stand some improvement. As a very fast growing State, Arizona needs 
to add to our highway miles.
  I appreciate the fact that there is a need to create jobs, and 
highway construction certainly can help to create jobs in this country. 
However, it has always been the case that we prioritized because 
Members would literally ask for everything they could possibly get in 
the way of funding for their States. We have had to set limits. There 
is, after all, a limit on the amount of Federal revenue available for 
all good projects. Certainly, highways are no more important than 
education or health care or national defense or many of the other 
categories which also compete for the Federal dollar.
  So while we acknowledge there is a need for a highway bill and that 
can have some jobs benefits, that should not be the driving force in 
terms of the competition with dollars for other worthwhile projects. We 
have to set a limit, particularly in this case where we have over a 
half trillion dollar deficit, according to the OMB; we have to be clear 
we do not spend more than we are taking in.
  The reason this is a bad bill, and why I oppose it, first, it spends 
far too much money. Second, it spends more money than we collect in 
revenues from the gas tax. Third, it is very unfair to States such as 
mine, which are donor States. Arizona has always contributed far more 
than it has gotten back, and under this bill that gets even worse for 
the next 5 years.
  Let me discuss each of those items very briefly. We start from the 
premise that we do need highways. We also have a huge budget deficit. 
Therefore, we have to clearly be sensitive about the kind of bill we 
pass. In this regard, the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Snow, 
and the Secretary of Transportation, Secretary Mineta, yesterday 
notified the Senate that they would recommend a veto of this bill if it 
raises the gas tax or other Federal taxes or draws money from the 
general fund. They wrote that the bill ``should not use any mechanism 
that conceals the true costs to Federal taxpayers. Highway spending 
should be financed from the highway trust fund, not the general fund of 
the Treasury.''
  The bill before the Senate violates this principle in a significant 
amount, by billions of dollars. Therefore, if my Senate colleagues 
insist on going down the road of passing a bill that violates the 
principles that the President has

[[Page 876]]

laid out, we risk having the President veto this bill. At a time when 
we have this large Federal budget deficit, it seems to me we ought to 
be joining with the President in trying to prioritize our spending and 
constraining it to at least the amount of revenue we take in, a 
balanced budget approach. That is the way we have done it in the past, 
and that is the way we should do it now.
  Just the highway portion--and I make it clear there is a mass transit 
portion of this bill that has not gotten out of the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Banking Committee, and in terms of funding it is in 
the neighborhood of $50 billion; it could be more or less and I do not 
mean to be tied to a specific figure, $49 billion or 50 billion; I will 
leave that part out of the discussion because that part is not complete 
until we know the actual numbers--but the highway portion, the amount 
the Federal Government has to spend over the next 6 years, is $231 
billion. This is what the Bond-Reid amendment from last year in the 
budget resolution called for the Senate to fund. The House is looking 
at a number far higher than this. I even heard today that some people 
in the administration are looking at a number above this.
  In any event, the number that the Finance Committee yesterday raised 
revenue for was $231 billion. I sit on the Finance Committee and our 
job is to try to figure out what kind of revenues we are getting, and 
therefore, whether we could pay for $231 billion of highway funding. 
What we learned was that the gas tax, the use tax, that funds highway 
construction, is only going to bring in $196 billion during that same 
period of time. So the bill that the Senate said we should try to fund 
exceeds the amount of revenues by $35 billion.
  Now, there are four choices. We can reduce the amount we had hoped to 
be able to spend last year when we did not have this big Federal budget 
deficit number staring us in the face, and now that we know the size of 
the deficit, acknowledge that we were just a little bit too optimistic 
last year; we were a little bit too forward leaning, shall we say, and 
trim back to suit the revenues that we are actually going to be 
collecting. That is the first thing we could do. That is what we should 
do and what any family would have to do.
  Because we are the Federal Government, we could raise taxes to make 
up that difference. I don't think that will happen. The President says 
he would veto the bill if that happened.
  We could just go into greater deficit. But on both sides of the aisle 
I think that would be met with great opposition. We do not want to 
increase the size of our Federal budget deficit.
  That leaves the other alternative, and that is to take money from 
other areas in the budget and apply it to highways, to take general 
revenue funds, funds that might be spent on defense or homeland 
security or education or medical care, for example, to take that money 
away from those programs and spend it on highways instead. That is what 
is being proposed.
  But it gets worse because the effort that is undertaken here is to 
confuse the American taxpayer into thinking that it is highway-related 
revenues. It is not. What the Finance Committee concluded yesterday was 
that we could legitimately come up with--and I acknowledge this and 
hope to construct the addition of the funds--that we could come up with 
about $214 billion in revenues that was, in fact, legitimately 
connected, money that was connected to highways or to the trust fund.
  For example, there is $196 billion from gas taxes. There is an 
argument that we should be able to count the interest earned on the 
trust fund balances as part of the trust fund that is currently 
deposited in the general fund. Most would say that we can legitimately 
transfer that from the general fund and put it into the trust fund and 
call that trust fund money, and I agree with that.
  I will not get into detail, but there are four or five other areas 
like that. Some might be a little questionable in some people's eyes, 
but at least in my view, you could justify $214 billion in revenues, in 
real money, being transferred from the general fund to the trust fund, 
but which we could legitimately contend should not belong in the 
general fund, it should belong in the highway trust fund. That is $214 
billion. That leaves a $17 billion deficit. That is just on the amount 
we were trying to mark up of $231 billion.
  So how do we make up the other $17 billion? By sleight of hand, which 
is why I voted against the bill. We came up with phony money, money 
that does not really exist but which, for the purposes of paying for 
this bill, we are going to count in an accounting technique.
  There are two key pieces: one $9 billion and the other $8 billion. 
The $9 billion fund comes from something called the ethanol exemption. 
The gas tax is 18.4 cents but for ethanol we give a 5.2-cents-per-
gallon exemption. We say you do not have to pay that tax. The Finance 
Committee bill proposes to convert this exemption into a tax credit. 
But under the new system, even if the money comes in, it will be sent 
right back to the taxpayer when they seek a refund for it, when they 
seek to apply for the ethanol tax credit, so the net result is that, 
even though the Government may collect the money for an instant, it 
goes right back to the taxpayer who paid it and there is no money, 
then, to be put in the highway trust fund. So what we have is the 
Government will collect 5.2 cents it does not currently collect, it 
will theoretically send that to the taxpayer, and as soon as the 
taxpayers ask for the refund of the credit, the general fund of the 
Treasury sends the money back. So no new money has been raised. We 
collected it; we gave it back. But in the meantime, through an 
accounting gimmick, we say that the trust fund is 5.2-cents-per-gallon 
richer. And that amounts to $9 billion over this 6-year period of time. 
But there is no new money. So that is fraudulent. It is wrong for us to 
suggest we are actually paying with real money for that part of this 
bill.
  The other is called the fuel tax exemption, and it relates to an 
exemption that is provided to tax-exempt entities, such as cities and 
States and schools and churches. They do not pay the gas tax. They 
receive either a full or a partial exemption from the gas tax.
  So the Finance Committee bill just credits the highway trust fund as 
if it had received those taxes, even though the funds will never have 
actually been received. That is $8 billion over 6 years. It reminds me 
of that old riddle Abe Lincoln used to ask. He said: If you call a tail 
a leg, how many legs does a dog have? And he would always fool the 
kids, and they would say five. And he would say: No, four. Calling it a 
leg doesn't make it a leg.
  Well, calling this money part of the trust fund does not make it part 
of the trust fund because it is not ever going to be collected. It is 
an accounting gimmick. So when the Secretary of Transportation and the 
Secretary of Treasury write in the letter that they are going to 
recommend a veto of the bill if it uses mechanisms that conceal the 
true cost to the Federal taxpayers--they go on to say: Highway spending 
should be financed from the highway trust fund, not the general fund of 
the Treasury--I think this is exactly the kind of thing they had in 
mind.
  How does the General Treasury make up this $17 billion? You cannot 
pay for highway construction with fake money. You have to pay with real 
money. So you take that money out of the general fund and you somehow 
have to make that up in the general fund. Do they make it up with a 
highway user fund or fee? No. Instead, there are a series of tax 
changes that have nothing to do with highways. Some close down abusive 
corporate tax shelters, the kind that Enron had used. And there are 
some other kinds of changes like that--nothing that has anything to do 
with transportation or highways. Some of these tax changes, by the way, 
are actually good tax changes and, in fact, we should make the changes, 
but they should be used to fund other things in general revenue that 
are traditionally funded by such mechanisms. They should not be 
transferred from the general fund to the

[[Page 877]]

highway trust fund, thus breaking a precedent that has held ever since 
the beginning of highway transportation.
  My view is we should be very clear that by breaking this precedent, 
by using the general fund against what the Secretary of Treasury warned 
us, that we would be opening up the possibility that the highway fund 
or highway spending would be basically unconstrained by any mechanism 
whatsoever. It would be a honeypot of projects and ways for Members to 
go home and brag about how much they brought home to their States or 
their districts with no financial constraint because no longer would it 
be pegged to the amount of revenues we received through the user fees, 
from the people who actually used the highways.
  So if we go down this road, I think there will be no end to the claim 
we will make on general revenues for highway projects. And I think it 
is a very bad precedent for us to undertake.
  So, first of all, we are spending too much money. Secondly, we are 
not funding it in the proper way. We are now going to be spending 
general revenues to fund the deficit.
  The third thing I want to say is that this is not fair to some 
States. You might imagine that one of them is my State. I am going to 
describe this very briefly. And with the indulgence of the chairman of 
the committee, since our offices are closed down right now, I do not 
have access to the specific information which I wanted to bring to the 
floor. I am going to say this generally, and then, when we have access 
to that data, I will come back to the floor with the specific 
information.
  But a bit of history: Arizona has always been a donor State, meaning 
that Arizonans send a dollar in tax revenue for highways to Washington, 
and we get back 70, 80 cents. In the last few years, we have gotten 
90.5 cents. Just a few years ago that was 83 cents, as I recall.
  A lot of the donor States put their foot down and said: Look, we, at 
least, ought to get 90 percent of what we send. And that is when the 
90.5 cents was put into effect. Arizona is a fast-growing State, the 
fastest growing State in the Union. We have huge new infrastructure 
needs, including highways. We have large areas of Federal land. Only 12 
percent of the land in our State is privately owned. The rest is owned 
by a governmental entity. We have huge border infrastructure financing 
requirements. We are now trying to build a new bridge over the Colorado 
River, below the Hoover Dam, with our sister State of Nevada. We have 
huge expenses with our highways.
  Yet instead of getting back an amount of money that would be 
commensurate with those needs, Arizonans send a dollar to Washington 
and get back 90.5 cents.
  When the debate about the new highway bill began, we had some thought 
that perhaps we would finally get to the point where we could be 
treated fairly relative to other States. But, unfortunately, this was 
not to be the case. In a very general way, what happened was this: The 
Senator from Oklahoma, and others, with very good intentions, said we 
want to try to bring all of the States we possibly can up to 95 cents 
on the dollar. And they set out to try to do that.
  But what they soon learned was there are some States with needs 
growing so rapidly, with populations growing so rapidly--States such as 
Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Florida, the fastest growing States--these 
States are growing so rapidly that it would cost a lot of money to be 
fair to them. In other words, we are behind the other States now. We 
are donor States, and to try to bring us up to parity with those States 
would cost a lot of money because we are so far behind.
  Now, if we had been treated fairly in the past, this would not be a 
problem because, presumably, we would be like everybody else--right 
around the norm. But we have not been treated fairly in the past, which 
is why we are so far behind.
  Now they are saying: Because you are so far behind, and it would cost 
so much to let you catch up, sorry, we are going to take care of 
everybody else, but you all have to stay that far behind for 5 more 
years. That, I suggest, is not fair.
  Now, it might have been fair to say to folks: Look, we can't get to 
95 cents on the dollar. Maybe we can get to 93.5 cents for all of the 
States. I don't know what the exact number was--93, 94, perhaps, 
somewhere in that neighborhood. If all the States had been brought up 
to the same level, then that might be where it is--92, 93, 94, 
somewhere around in there. But, instead, they decided to go to 95 cents 
for most of the States, and then, for four or five of the States they 
say: Sorry, we are not going to bring you up to speed for the first 5 
years of this program. Perhaps in the sixth year we will try to get you 
to 95 cents.
  Well, in the meantime, every one of those 5 years the gap will grow 
wider. And because our populations are growing, because our 
infrastructure needs are increasing disproportionately to these other 
States, because we have been behind for so many years--and, therefore, 
have a backlog that a lot of the other States do not have--instead of 
gradually being brought up to where the other States are, we are 
basically being left in the dust. That is not fair.
  Now, if you only do that to about five States, you can still 
guarantee your bill gets passed because you do not need their votes. 
This is all about vote counting. This is the way the highway formula 
was always developed. And I commend my good friend and colleague, the 
chairman of the committee, for noting the fact that in the past that is 
the way the formula has been derived. That is why his State and mine 
and a lot of others suffered for a lot of years.
  But I suggest that since there now seems to be a will to make things 
right--again, I commend him for that--that we should make it right for 
everybody, not just for those States where we can afford to make it 
right. In fact, I would argue that we really ought to start with those 
States that have been on the short end of the stick all these years. We 
should start with the States that are the furthest behind, start with 
the States, such as Arizona, that have so much further to catch up.
  If we have money to add to the amount of money that donor States get, 
why shouldn't we start with those States that have the biggest 
population growth and infrastructure needs and have received 
relatively, therefore, the smallest amount of money in the past?
  Well, I guess you only get 8, 10 votes out of those States, so we 
start from a different premise. I do not think it is fair. That is the 
third reason I have to oppose this bill and why my friends in Arizona 
are basically saying to me: We can understand why we have to spend more 
money on homeland security and fighting the war on terror and on 
fighting in Iraq, and so on. We can understand why there are some other 
big needs that perhaps could get an increase in funding, such as 
education and the Medicare prescription drug bill last year. But we 
will be darned if we are willing to continue to send our money to 
Washington to be spent by other States when we have such large needs 
here. And they basically tell us, because you have so many needs, we 
cannot afford to bring you up to speed with everybody else and, 
therefore, you are going to have to wait 5 years.
  I cannot go back to my friends in Arizona and say: Gee, I am sorry 
but that is just the way it is in Washington; they expect me to do 
something about it.
  So I hope my colleagues who support this bill will indulge me, and 
those others, and put themselves in my place and ask what they would do 
if they were in this position and not give us too hard a time when we 
ask questions that may be difficult and make sure that from a 
parliamentary point of view, we use all of the options we have to try 
to convince our colleagues the bill should be made more fair than it 
is.
  I would be happy if all of us received less money by reducing the top 
number of this bill down to an amount we can afford, say $214 billion, 
or to simply reauthorize the existing spending levels for 1 year until 
we can go back and get this formula right. I would favor either of 
those two solutions today. I raised them both in the Finance Committee

[[Page 878]]

yesterday. Both were defeated. But I would opt for either one of those.
  What I can't agree to is a bill that spends far too much money, funds 
it with general revenues for the first time, and is blatantly unfair to 
States such as Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say how much I always enjoy the 
junior Senator from Arizona. We were both elected to the other body in 
the same year, 1986. We both came here to the Senate in 1994. Neither 
of us is shy about the fact we are conservatives. He has heard me say 
many times that conservatives in some areas are pretty big spenders--
that is, national defense and infrastructure--believing that is really 
what we are supposed to be doing in Washington.
  I don't think you can find a State that has had more road problems 
than my State of Oklahoma. It is kind of a going joke there. Each 
holiday, so many people come for Thanksgiving, and they say: We could 
always tell when we got to Oklahoma because of the roads. We always 
knew when we left Arizona and got over to Oklahoma because the roads 
aren't nearly as good as they are in Arizona.
  I would suggest a couple of things are worthwhile talking about. I 
have a chart. I want to help the Senator from Arizona when he goes 
home. I will let him take this chart home. When you look at Arizona, 
keeping in mind that the average State increase under SAFETEA is 35.6 
percent, that is 40.23 percent. That is a huge amount over the average. 
The Senator from Arizona says it is because they have been on the short 
end of the stick for a long period of time. I can identify with that 
because being from the State of Oklahoma, we were at the very bottom. 
We had to come up by virtue of formula to 77 percent, to 80, then to 
90.5, and now hopefully to 95. So that is a very large amount of money.
  If you look in the far left of this chart, you have what Arizona 
averaged under TEA-21. That was $463 million. Then it shows each year 
thereafter, for the next 6 years, what happens by comparison. With all 
the difficulties we have in working on any kind of a formula, the 
Senator from Arizona and I have talked about the complexities of 
formulas. We have donee States, donor States, fast-growing States, low-
population, low-density States. Consequently, to come up with some kind 
of a formula that takes care of all that, we took all of those things 
into consideration.
  Contrast that with TEA-21. In TEA-21, they had a formula as a base, 
but they had a percentage. Every State had a percentage. When they 
finally got up to 60 votes, that was it: We don't care what happens to 
the rest of you. We have our 60 votes.
  We didn't try to do that. That would have been easier, I suppose. I 
would probably be making the same number of people mad, but nonetheless 
we didn't do that. We tried to use the logical things to take into 
consideration in developing the formula.
  The Senator talks about a veto. I know this is just a difference in 
interpretation. The Senator from Arizona is on the Finance Committee. I 
am not on it. Consequently, I went to the chairman, Senator Grassley, 
and I said to him, some time ago: This is what I feel we need to do. It 
is up to the Finance Committee to figure out how we get there.
  The Senator from Arizona ran over it pretty exhaustively, and I bow 
to his superior intelligence in terms of the finance package because he 
is on the committee. But when I look over the fuel tax fraud 
compliance, that is something that came along a little bit later. I 
think that is real. My staff says that is a conservative figure, the 
2.5 cents and the 5.2 cents on ethanol.
  The interest, you agree, should go back to the highway trust fund. 
Spending down the balance is reasonable. I can remember back when we 
had balances of $18 billion in the highway trust fund. I spent 8 years 
in the other body on the Public Works and Transportation Committee 
where we started chipping away on that. And we all know the reason that 
was there to start with. It goes back to the Lyndon Johnson days, when 
they were trying to make it look as if the money they were going to be 
spending was not going to have huge deficits. So they said, let's just 
go ahead and apply that when we are drawing up our budget. We have 
changed all that, and we are making great headway in spending that down 
to a reasonable level.
  The $6.5 billion, everybody does agree, is reasonable and I am sure 
the committee did also. Then on some of the clarifications on the 
transfer of the gas guzzler tax to the highway trust fund, it should 
have been there to start with. What we are trying to do is undo some of 
the damage that has been done to the trust fund over the years. We are 
doing that with this bill.
  As far as a veto is concerned, let me share something that goes into 
a little more detail than the Senator from Arizona did. We have a 
letter here that expresses the current feelings, dated February 2, just 
a couple days ago. And in this letter from Secretary Mineta, this is 
the administration's position. They said, yes, we recognize we need 
more money for infrastructure. That is something we all agree and they 
certainly agree is necessary. They said, if you can get to the Bond-
Reid amount without doing three things, then we would support you.
  No. 1 would be you would not be increasing gas taxes. We are not 
going to increase gas taxes. Secondly, we are not going to play around. 
You know the games you come up with. Let's have a bonding program. You 
and I both know most of these bonding programs are nothing more than 
borrowing in some way from the future and encumbering future revenues. 
Or third--this is our biggest controversy with each other--that highway 
spending should be financed from the highway trust fund, not from the 
general fund of the Treasury. I grant you, the last item you talked 
about is coming from the general fund. I contend it should not have 
been. It should have been in the trust fund to start with.
  That is an argument you and I could have a disagreement on, but I 
look at it perhaps with a little bit of bias, sitting on the committee 
and saying: All right, Finance Committee, if you can come up with this, 
this is what is best for America. I felt they did. And the chairman has 
told me he believed they did. We had Senator Thomas on the floor, who 
is one of your colleagues on the committee, who I think is favorably 
disposed to the results of the work of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. KYL. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
  Mr. KYL. As to the first items you mentioned, we are in total 
agreement. Those were items that should have been added to the trust 
fund, and they make up the difference between the $196 billion in gas 
tax revenues and the $214 billion. So there is no disagreement there. 
But as to the last two items, you could argue that the schools and 
churches and States and cities should have been paying the gas tax all 
along and that if they do pay it, it should go to the highway trust 
fund. That is true. You can argue that. But we are not going to collect 
it from them. We are not going to make them pay.
  I suppose what you could say is, from now on churches and schools and 
cities and States have to pay the gas tax. And when they pay it, it 
should go to the highway trust funds. We are not saying that. We are 
going to deem that they have to pay it, but they don't actually have to 
pay it. There is no real money there. It is the same thing with the gas 
tax credit on ethanol. There the tax is actually going to be collected 
but then remitted. So the Government has it for a few days, but when 
they apply for credit, it goes back. Once again, we are going to credit 
the trust fund with the money, but it doesn't in fact get the money.
  That is why the Finance Committee had to use creativity in finding 
these other corporate loophole closings and applying the revenue 
derived from that to make up the difference in the $17 billion or so. 
So it is not revenue we should have been collecting all along and 
putting into the highway trust funds. You can argue whether we should 
have been collecting it or not,

[[Page 879]]

but it is not revenue we are going to be collecting in the future from 
the cities and schools, for example. We are going to have to get it 
from the corporate loopholes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the response. I know the Senator to be very 
sincere. The time that we spent--we are talking about 12 months we have 
been anguishing over this issue to come up with something that is fair. 
It is not perfect. It is better than it was under TEA-21. We went to 
the Finance Committee and said: Can you get us there? It is my 
information that we got there and, consequently, I still stand behind 
the bill. We have an honest disagreement on that.
  Mr. KYL. I ask the chairman to yield. This has to do with the chart 
you showed and the percentage increases. When you talk about percentage 
increases, I start to smile. You can always make a point with a 
percentage. I can remember when I was an associate in a law firm and I 
would be making, let's say, a salary of $25,000 a year. The senior 
partner was making $150,000 a year. We both get a 3-percent increase in 
our salary and he would say: That is fair. In fact, I will tell you 
what; I will take a 3-percent increase and I will give you a 4-percent 
increase.
  At first, I would say that sounds all right. Then I said, wait a 
minute, you get 3 percent on $150,000 and I get 4 percent on $25,000. I 
think the gap is widening, not narrowing here. When I got to be more of 
a senior person in the law firm--and certainly with my Senate staff 
now, I always try to give the people at the bottom a higher percentage. 
Otherwise, the gap continues to widen. We see on the chart here how bad 
the pink or red numbers are, where Arizona is today. I appreciate you 
pointing that out. It is deceptive to suggest that since we are going 
up, we ought to be happy.
  In terms of real dollars, the States that have collected more money 
in the past than Arizona, which have been donee States and haven't had 
this huge gap, are making far more in terms of the collections each 
year than Arizona will. You can show that it is going up, but the 
averages don't help Arizona. It is like the saying, how deep is the 
Mississippi River? The average is 6 feet, but if you get in the middle, 
you are in very deep water. Averages really don't count.
  I would rather be the $150,000 senior partner getting a 3-percent 
increase than a $25,000 associate getting a 5-percent increase. That 
is, in effect, what Arizona is being offered.
  Mr. President, I criticize the product. I do not criticize the 
chairman or other members of the committee. I know this is hard. 
Everybody is looking out for their own States, obviously. You cannot be 
fair to everybody and everybody's view. I appreciate that. So the 
comments are, I hope, in no way to be considered a reflection on the 
good faith of the people who are trying to do the work. My point is 
that I cannot stand here and represent the interests of my State with 
the kind of unfairness that I think is inherent in the bill, and that 
is simply, as the chairman said, something on which we are going to 
have to disagree.
  I thank the chairman.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest that, as the Senator from 
Arizona returns home, he ignore the 40-percent increase and go home and 
say $1.11 billion new dollars. Perhaps they can relate to that.
  I know Senator Corzine wants to speak and several others want to be 
heard but not necessarily on the highway bill. At the appropriate time, 
I will ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning 
business.
  Before I do that, I see the chairman of the subcommittee is here. I 
ask Senator Bond if he has anything further to say insofar as the 
highway bill is concerned.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, the good Senator from 
Oklahoma. He is doing a wonderful job. I have been listening to the 
comments of our friend from Arizona and I understand his concerns. In 
order to achieve equity, in order to get the bill passed, we were only 
able to give certain States, under the formula, an increase that maybe 
in all rights was not adequate. But anybody who gets a 40-percent 
increase is certainly doing better than most.
  I have driven the highways in Arizona, and I know that my colleague 
from Arizona does an excellent job representing his State. I hope the 
additional $1.118 billion will be a help.
  This is a problem we always face on the highway bill. I don't know 
any State that cannot make a compelling case that they have needs that 
are greater. The chairman of the full committee and I are sitting on 
the first or second and third worst roads and the first and second 
worst bridges in the Nation. I am not getting a 40-percent increase. I 
can tell you in detail about friends who have been killed on the 
highways in Missouri because there was too much traffic--10,000, 15,000 
cars a day on narrow two-lane roads. This is a huge problem.
  The State of Oklahoma is a major Southwest-to-Midwest freeway. My 
State is in the center of the States. When you look at a map that shows 
the truck traffic and you identify the major corridors by red lines, 
the center of Missouri is a big red spot, and St. Louis is a big red 
blotch on the map; there is that much congestion.
  We were very proud to have the first interstate in the Nation under 
President Eisenhower's bill, starting through St. Charles, MO. That is 
the good news. But the bad news is that the road is badly out of shape, 
and there is not enough money in this highway bill even to make a 
beginning on repairing it. The Missouri Department of Transportation 
may be able to make some improvements. We are giving them some options 
on how to deal with it in our State, but it is clearly a pressing need.
  I can make a case that Missouri is the demographic center, because as 
many people live north of us as south of us, and as many people live 
east of us as west of us. The national traffic flow is through the 
State. We have needs. We don't increase at 40 percent, but we had to 
stay with the funding formula because this is a compromise. We are 
trying to take care of everyone and meet the needs that are pressing, 
meet the highest priority needs, and we were not able to do it.
  We want to work with our good friend from Arizona. We understand his 
concerns and we thank him for his kind comments. Again, I will have to 
say that the effort we put in was a lengthy effort and much 
compromise--nobody got really all they need, which, unfortunately, is 
the nature of a compromise.
  Again, I appreciate the comments made. I hope all of us can get 
together and move quickly. We are ready to offer an amendment. I gather 
we are urged to wait until tomorrow morning. If others have amendments, 
I hope we can be open for business tomorrow and get going because there 
are lots of pressing amendments and there are issues that need to be 
voted on. I hope we can get up and running and begin a very important 
debate and have votes on these amendments. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. I also 
would like to say that it has been a very difficult task developing 
this legislation. While it seems as though all some colleagues want to 
talk about is the formula in terms of money, there are many other 
issues we dealt with--environmental issues, streamlining issues, safety 
issues, issues that are of paramount concern to everyone. A compromise 
was made on all of those issues--some I don't like, but we did 
compromise.

                          ____________________