[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7650-7656]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT; A LEGACY FOR USERS--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to

[[Page 7651]]

proceed to H.R. 3, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill (H.R. 3) 
     to authorize funds for Federal aid highways, highway safety 
     programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am glad this day is here and that we are 
proceeding. I certainly encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion 
to proceed. I have every expectation that it will pass overwhelmingly. 
It seems as though we are always in a lot of controversy when we talk 
about a highway reauthorization bill. It doesn't come along very 
often--about every 6 years. In my tenure here, I have been involved in 
four of them. This is the fourth, and it is very significant.
  It is interesting that even though there is a lot of criticism, when 
it gets down to the vote, the vote is always overwhelming. I remind my 
colleagues that last year's bill was at $318 billion--that was contract 
authority--and there was about $303 billion in guaranteed spending. It 
passed by a margin of 76 to 21. It is something I know people are 
interested in, but there are always problems. First of all, let me just 
say how this is bipartisan. My good friend, the ranking member of the 
committee, Senator Jeffords--back when the Democrats were in the 
majority, he was chairman--and I always agreed on these highway issues. 
It is kind of interesting that those of us who are conservatives really 
believe this is something we are supposed to be doing here--building 
infrastructure, building roads. I am particularly concerned that our 
State Of Oklahoma has not had its fair share. We have been ranked as 
having the worst bridges in the Nation.
  Anyway, we have the bill up. It is going to be essentially the same 
bill as we had last year. We passed it out of committee. There is 
always a problem. Let me mention this because it needs to come out in 
the beginning. There are two different ways to have a highway program. 
One is to do it--and essentially the other body does it more this way--
by taking projects and adding them, and you pass this, so you know what 
projects will be there for the next 6 years. If you do that, then the 
people who are on the inside track would have the best opportunity to 
have theirs, and there is always an accusation of there being pork and 
having special projects.
  In the Senate, we do it the hard way. We have a formula. When you 
have a formula, it takes into consideration so many different aspects. 
There is not one State that could not stand and say, my State is not 
being treated fairly because of this factor or the other factor. If you 
look at the formula factors, you have so many factors, such as 
interstate lane miles, vehicle miles traveled on interstates, 
contributions to the highway trust fund, the lane miles, principal 
arteries, VMT on principal arteries, diesel fuel, donee status, donor 
status, and low-income States. Oklahoma is a low-income State. That 
should be a consideration. You have a low-population State, such as the 
one of Senator Baucus, who has been in the leadership working on this 
issue. They still have to be able to drive even though they don't have 
a large population from which to get the funds. You have the high-
fatality-rate States. You have a factor for the guaranteed minimum 
growth and the guaranteed minimum rate of return for donor States.
  Oklahoma has been a donor State for as long as I can remember. I 
remember when we had written into the law we would get back 75 percent 
of what we have paid in. Now it is up to 90.5 percent. If we passed the 
bill last year at that funding level, it would be 95 percent. It looks 
like with the figure that we passed out of the committee on the floor 
that we will be considering today is one that will allow us to get to 
92 percent.
  I know the formula is not perfect. There are a lot of donor States 
that think they are not getting enough. A lot of donee States think 
they are not getting enough. The unhappy donee States complain about 
the growth rate, but they are ignoring the high rate of return. The 
unhappy donor States are complaining about the rate of return, but they 
are ignoring the high growth rates. I have seen unhappy donors trying 
to rewrite formulas. You cannot do that in a vacuum. I am sympathetic 
with unhappy States; however, they cannot change the formula in a 
vacuum and not affect every other State. One of the States is trying to 
do that right now, and that would adversely affect the rest of the 
States. It is something that is difficult to deal with. When we get to 
conference, there are things we can do that we cannot do on the Senate 
floor. Perhaps some of these things will be done.
  With that, I will yield to Senator Jeffords, the ranking member on 
our Environment and Public Works Committee, for his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those 
calling for the approval of the motion to proceed that we will soon 
vote on.
  For more than 3 years Congress has been trying to pass a highway 
bill. Today we are taking one more step in the long road toward passage 
of this important legislation.
  Mr. President, our Nation needs this bill. We need this bill because 
it will make our roads and transit systems more efficient and safer.
  This year it is estimated that 33 percent of America's major roads 
are in poor or mediocre condition; 27 percent of America's bridges are 
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; 37 percent of 
America's major urban roads are congested; and 42,000 Americans will 
die in traffic accidents.
  We need this bill because a fully funded bill is good for the 
economy.
  The Department of Transportation says that for every $1 billion of 
Federal spending on highway construction nationwide, 47,500 jobs are 
generated annually; and that every dollar invested in the Nation's 
highway system yields $5.40 in economic benefits because of reduced 
delays, improved safety and reduced vehicle operating costs.
  We need this bill to maintain our current highways and bridges than 
ever before, while demand for our roadways only increases.
  The Federal Highway Administration says that 52 percent of highway 
funds spent by States went to preserving highway systems while just 19 
percent went to building new roads and bridges.
  At the same time, traffic congestion costs American motorists $69.5 
billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs and we spend an additional 
3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic.
  This bill isn't perfect. In fact, I think it needs additional 
funding. The White House has suggested an overall funding level for 
surface transportation of $284 billion over 6 years.
  This despite the President's own Transportation Department saying we 
need at least $300 billion to simply maintain the status quo, and 
something well above that level to make progress on conditions and 
performance.
  Thankfully, calls for increased funding have come from Republicans, 
Democrats and Independents; Members of the House and Senate, Governors 
and Mayors. But we will address the funding issue in due time.
  Today we must get cloture on this bill and move forward.
  Once again, I would like to thank the Senate leadership on both sides 
for their support of this bill.
  I would also like to pay tribute to Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond 
and Baucus for their support and cooperation in helping get us to where 
we are today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his 
comments. At this time, I would like to recognize that we have four of 
the real star freshmen, the new Members of this body, on our committee. 
One, of course, is the presiding officer from Louisiana who made very 
clear to us the problem of beach erosion in the

[[Page 7652]]

State of Louisiana. I appreciate his calling that to our attention. 
Then, of course, we have the new Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. 
Senator Thune is also on the committee, and we yield to him at this 
time.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I also rise today to speak in support of 
moving forward with debate on reauthorization of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century. As many of my colleagues know, 
enactment of a long-term, robust Transportation bill is long overdue. I 
credit the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, and the ranking member, 
Senator Jeffords, for their good work in bringing this to the floor.
  It is important work that we are about to undertake. We are in the 
sixth extension of the current bill. We have another construction 
season that is going to be lost in the Northern States if we do not get 
a long-term bill put into place.
  I appreciate very much the chairman's work in taking a very fair and 
evenhanded approach in how he has tried to distribute a certain amount 
of finite funding for this bill. As he mentioned in his remarks, this 
is a balance that must be struck between the large States and the small 
States. Frankly, passage of this legislation is critical not only to my 
home State, but to the Nation as a whole.
  Since my service in the House of Representatives, I have long been a 
supporter of a strong federal role when it comes to transportation 
infrastructure funding. In fact, I believe the transportation 
infrastructure is one of the primary responsibilities of the federal 
government. After all, an adequate transportation infrastructure that 
is safe and affordable helps facilitate the movement of the goods and 
services on which our economy relies. Additionally, investing in our 
transportation infrastructure is a proven way to ease congestion and 
improve the safety of our highway system.
  If we look at the economic impact of what we are talking about today, 
it is profound. For every $1 billion invested in federal highway and 
transit spending, 47,500 jobs and job opportunities are created or 
sustained. For every $1 billion in highway and transit expenditures, 
gross domestic product, GDP, will increase by $1.75 billion, a 
multiplier effect of 1.75.
  So this is important to our economy in terms of the jobs it will 
create, the growth it will bring about in our Nation's economy, and it 
is critical that this legislation, which has been held up since the 
last Congress, move forward. It is one of the most important measures 
the House and Senate must resolve this year. And it is incredibly time 
sensitive as we look at the sixth extension we are operating with today 
and the need to get a permanent bill in place so this construction 
season will not be lost on many of those transportation departments in 
the Northern States.
  I have heard regularly from officials from the South Dakota 
Department of Transportation who are concerned about the tremendous 
uncertainty they face as a result of not having a long-term bill. The 
business community, local officials, tribal leaders, and constituents 
across South Dakota continue to ask me why critical transportation 
projects are delayed from getting off the ground. I recognize that a 
handful of my colleagues from donor States are concerned that the bill, 
as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, does not go 
far enough to boost their overall rate of return. But the bill the 
Environment and Public Works Committee reported out last month, S. 732, 
does more to address the donor issue than the administration's 
reauthorization proposal or the bill as passed by the House of 
Representatives last month.
  The clearest way to address the underlying concern that donor States 
have raised is to add more funding to this bill. In fact, I plan to 
support the amendment I understand Finance Committee Chairman Grassley 
and Ranking Member Baucus intend to offer because boosting this bill's 
overall funding level is the straightforward way to increase the 
minimum guarantee donor States seek without unfairly reducing the 
funding for donee States, such as South Dakota.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the chairmen 
and the ranking members from the various Senate committees responsible 
for this legislation.
  As I said earlier, time is of the essence. It is important we work 
together to pass this bill so that conference negotiations between the 
House and the Senate can get underway, especially in light of the 
extension that is slated to expire on May 31.
  I again commend the leadership of our committee, and the leadership 
on both sides in the Senate for their desire to bring this bill to the 
floor to ensure we are taking the steps necessary, when this current 
extension expires at the end of May, to have a new permanent bill in 
place that will address the critical infrastructure needs of our Nation 
as we move into the future. Many of the highways, interstates, and 
roads across this country are in poor or mediocre condition. Mr. 
President, 27 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or 
functionally obsolete. It is important we get to work on this 
legislation in the Senate so we can get to conference with the House, 
resolve any differences that exist, and get a permanent funding 
solution put in place for the States, the cities, the business 
community, and all the jobs and economic development that go with it.
  Mr. President, I again urge my colleagues to support this motion to 
proceed to the legislation. I thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for their good work. I see Senator Bond, from Missouri, who has also 
been instrumental in crafting this legislation. I appreciate the 
leadership and work this committee has put in to get the bill to the 
floor. It is time we get it voted on and signed into law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if there is time during the course of this 
debate, even though we are operating under 1 hour equally divided, I 
want to go over, so everybody understands, why it is necessary to pass 
this bill instead of going with another extension because we do not get 
all the reforms we need without passing this bill.
  I have to agree with the Senator from South Dakota that in order to 
get up to a higher figure in terms of the donor States--and there are a 
lot of donee States that are supporting us in this effort--it is 
necessary to have a more robust bill. I am sure we will have an 
opportunity to debate that and get to conference and see what we can 
work out.
  The chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation has been such a 
strong, hard worker. The Senator from Missouri has been there every 
step of the way and has been a part of this great bipartisan effort. So 
we yield to him at this time for whatever time he wishes to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Inhofe; to the ranking member, Senator Jeffords; and 
my colleague, the ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Baucus. 
This is a job well done under the constraints we face. We have worked 
long and hard to get to this point, and I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of proceeding.
  The bill, S. 732, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act, is long overdue, 2 years past due. Our roads 
are deteriorating and safety is deteriorating unless and until we can 
get this bill up. My thanks to the leader for allowing us to call up 
the bill. It has a lot of moving parts. Every time you move one part, 
you make somebody slightly happy and several more very unhappy. But I 
believe it is a good step forward in attempting to meet our goal of 
completion prior to expiration of the current extension of the 
authorization on May 31. If we do not proceed to move to this debate, 
Senators should be aware we may not be able to pass a seventh 
extension, and our States may cease to let additional contracts, and 
thousands of jobs may be at stake.
  We called up S. 1072 a little over a year ago, and final passage of 
that bill

[[Page 7653]]

last year was 76 to 21. Today's bill, S. 732, is nearly identical to 
last year's bill, with one major problem: To comply with the 
President's budget request of $284 billion, we have taken a 
proportional cut across the board of approximately 10.7 percent.
  During conference last year, we were presented with $299 billion in 
contract authority and $284 billion in guaranteed spending. Today, our 
obligation limit and contract authority numbers are both the same, at 
$284 billion. I do not think that will work.
  Last year, $284 billion was not sufficient to meet the transportation 
and safety needs in my State and, I think, many other States. I thought 
then, and continue to believe, more money is necessary. I understand 
the Finance Committee will be offering an amendment which we on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee will be supporting. During the 
budget resolution debate, my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent, 
along with the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, offered an 
amendment that any revenue that does not add to the deficit should be 
spent. It passed with more than 80 Senators supporting it. I think the 
Senate will have a similar position when we provide for additional 
revenues with defendable efforts.
  The bill we are bringing to the floor has several major goals.
  First, 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. There are many 
sections of the bill I am proud of supporting, such as the fact that 
all donor States will receive, at the minimum, a 92-percent rate of 
return by the end of the authorization.
  My State of Missouri is a donor State which essentially means that 
for every dollar we spend on transportation, we receive less than a 
dollar in return. In 2004, it was 92 cents.
  There are many States that fall under the $1 rate of return--
unfortunately, only about 20 of them, which means there were 30 votes 
for the donee States that got back more than a dollar, and that is 
where our problem was.
  Last year, with the more robust funding, we were able to get all 
States up to 95 cents, but we were unable to achieve this rate of 
return as a result of going from $318 billion down to $284 billion.
  Donor States that support additional revenue above $284 billion can 
expect an increase in their rate of return to bring the bill more in 
line with last year's bill, but I do not think anybody is talking about 
$318 billion anymore.
  I worked diligently with Chairman Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and 
Senator Baucus to ensure the bill remains as fair and equitable as 
possible among all States. I am aware some of the donor States, which 
we commonly refer to as superdonors--it is nice when you get to select 
the epithet by which you are called. I wish I had thought of being 
called a superdonor or a deserving donor. Senator Inhofe and I come 
from deserving donor States. We will add Senator Thune into the 
deserving donor States. But superdonors are concerned they hit the 
growth caps and do not achieve a 92-cent return right away. But the 
average rate of growth from the highway trust fund for all States is 
about 24.38 percent. The average rate of growth of Texas and Arizona is 
31.79 percent. Senators from States that are growing below average are 
the ones who, it seems to me, should be complaining. We were unable to 
bring up donor States as early as we might have wished due to budget 
constraints, as well as balancing the needs of the donor States with 
the needs of the donee States.
  For this reason, as most donor States grow, the donee States see a 
gradual decline to bring greater equity between the States. 
Nevertheless, all States will grow at not less than 10 percent over the 
previous bill, TEA-21. We are hopeful that with additional revenue, we 
will be able to raise that floor.
  Safety is another key feature. We will go a long way toward saving 
lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous 
locations, sections, and elements.
  Safety in this authorization is, for the first time, 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.
  In my State of Missouri, we know inadequate roads not only lead to 
congestion, pollution, lack of economic growth, and they delay, deny, 
and derail economic opportunity, but they also kill people. We have 
averaged more than three deaths a day on Missouri highways and probably 
close to 40 percent, if not more, can be attributable to inadequate 
roads.
  I have driven all the Federal highways and all the State highways and 
a lot of the county roads in Missouri, and I can tell you we have 
Federal highways which are two-lane highways which have traffic that 
everybody agrees should be on four lanes. What happens? We have rear-
end collisions, passing on blind curves and hills, and we have 
fatalities.
  My home State of Missouri, as many other donor States, has some of 
the worst roads in the Nation. We are among, unfortunately, that 
distinguished group that has the highest fatalities per million miles 
driven on the roads.
  That is a distinction we do not like. Recent reports say we have the 
fifth worst roads in the Nation, with 65 percent of our major roads in 
fair to poor condition requiring immediate attention. We also rank 
fourth from the bottom in deficient bridges in the Nation.
  Our committee has heard voluminous testimony from the administration 
that nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last 
year alone. I am glad this bill reflects a continued commitment making 
not only investments in infrastructure but for the general safety and 
welfare of our constituents.
  The bill addresses several environmental issues, such as easing the 
transition under 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 environmental reviews.
  Another accomplishment of our package will ensure transportation 
projects are built more quickly because environmental stakeholders will 
be brought to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised 
earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape 
projects.
  Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a 
more structured environmental review process, more efficiently, with 
fewer delays. The bill also ensures that transportation projects will 
not make air worse in areas with poor air quality while giving local 
transportation planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal 
air quality responsibilities.
  The bill will put transportation planning on a regular 4-year cycle, 
require air quality checks with projects large enough to be regionally 
significant, and reduce current barriers that local officials face in 
adopting projects that improve air quality.
  The final goal is jobs. The Department of Transportation estimates 
that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates 47,500 jobs. To 
the Associated General Contractors, the same $1 billion investment 
yields half of that in new orders from manufacturing and half of that 
spread through other sectors of the economy. Construction pay averages 
$19 per hour, 23 percent higher than the private sector average.
  This comprehensive package is a good step forward to creating jobs, 
but as a Governor of the State where we placed a high emphasis on 
economic development, it is not only the jobs that are created in 
construction, it is the jobs that are created by the existence of 
adequate, safe transportation that assures continued growth.
  We have spent a lot of time in this body talking about how we get our 
economy to grow, how we create jobs. Passing this bill to create jobs 
now and facilitate the creation of jobs in the future is the best thing 
we can do. I am

[[Page 7654]]

hopeful our colleagues in the Senate will agree to move this bill 
quickly in order to pass this legislation prior to the current May 31 
expiration date.
  I thank the Chair and I reserve the remainder of the time for the 
leader on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first I thank the senior Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Bond, for his hard work and for being so articulate. It 
is interesting that we have heard from Senator Thune from South Dakota, 
a donee State, and Senator Bond from a donor State, and they are both 
equally enthusiastic about the fact that we have something that should 
work, and yet we know that any change in any part of a formula is going 
to have an effect on all the rest of the States. It does not happen in 
a vacuum.
  I will yield the floor to Senator Bond to respond to a question. I 
ask the Senator, would he enlighten this body as to, according to HAWA, 
which two States in America have the worst bridges in terms of their 
state of disrepair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Missouri will be permitted to answer the question.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there have been some new factors that have 
come out. In the interest of full disclosure, Missouri has moved up to 
fifth worst in roads and fourth worst in bridges. As I understand, 
Oklahoma still occupies a place of dishonor with even worse roads and 
bridges.
  I was hoping those new studies would not come out that we are still 
right at the bottom. As two States that are in the heart of the Nation 
with major interstates crossing our States and traffic going east, 
west, southwest, and northeast through our States we are essential 
arteries for transportation for the Nation.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield for another question, he is a 
former Governor of the State of Missouri. He knows a little bit about 
how the construction season goes. What kind of problems would he see--
as Senator Thune mentioned, we are in our sixth extension right now--if 
we were merely to extend this rather than to pass this bill, from a 
State perspective?
  Mr. BOND. Well, the States are absolutely frustrated beyond all means 
that we have not been able to reauthorize the bill. Merely extending 
the bill does not enable us to go forward with major planning. The 
extensions keep existing projects in line and allow the Department of 
Transportation to continue to operate, but if we have another extension 
it means the money that this bill would make available will now not be 
made available until the construction season. For most of the United 
States, the construction season is spring, summer, and fall. Not a lot 
of work can be done in the winter.
  So with the necessary contract times, 90 days to let contracts, if we 
do not make the May 31 deadline with new authorization, we are going to 
lose a tremendous amount of road construction necessary for economic 
development and safety.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, one of the comments was made by I believe 
it was Senator Thune about the extensions. Let me make sure we all 
understand because this is very significant. We have been operating on 
extensions, and when we operate on extensions we cannot plan in 
advance. This bill has more provisions in it affecting safety, 
streamlining, and other factors than any bill of the four that I have 
been exposed to in reauthorization.
  In the event we were to have to go ahead on another extension, there 
would be no chance of improvement on the donor State of return. In 
other words, donor State of return is going to stay at 90.5. It is not 
going to improve. If we were going on an extension as opposed to 
passing this new authorization bill, there would be no new safety core 
program to help the States respond to the thousands of deaths each year 
on our roadways.
  I would say to the Senator from Vermont, this is a life-or-death type 
of a bill before us because more people are going to die if we do not 
pass the bill, if we just operate on extensions.
  If we just do the extensions, there will be no real streamlining of 
environmental reviews, so critical projects will still be subject to 
avoidable delay. We see events that do not make any common sense in 
terms of how many miles can be paved per dollar. We have obstacles that 
are in the way. We have addressed those obstacles, and it has not been 
easy.
  The Democrats and Republicans on this committee had to give and take. 
Frankly, there are some provisions in this bill I do not like too well, 
and I suggest to the Senator from Vermont there are a few he does not 
like, but one of the major things I think has to be done before we 
start any meaningful construction in America is to have these 
streamlining provisions. If we do not have a bill, if we go on with 
extensions, there will be no increased ability to use the innovative 
financing, thereby giving States more tools to advance. We are talking 
about public and private partnerships. We have been building roads the 
same way now for many years.
  I have been notified that the time on our side has expired, and I ask 
unanimous consent that we be given an opportunity to share the minority 
time to whatever extent the Senator would like to give us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the chairman such time as he desires from 
the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I say to the Senator from Vermont, with that very 
generous offer, as soon as he has someone coming and they want time, I 
will cease on this side so they can be heard.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is fair.
  Mr. INHOFE. The bill offers an increased ability to use innovative 
financing methods. Out in California and in Texas, they have been able 
to do some things where they have convinced us they get many more miles 
and much more local participation by the public-private partnership, by 
the TIFIA rule, and it is something that we would not be able to do 
nationwide if we do not get this bill and we just operate on an 
extension.
  There are a lot of people who are very concerned about a provision in 
our bill that is called the Safe Routes to School. I know the Senator 
from Vermont has been interested in that. This is something where we 
would be talking about saving young lives. Right now, the provision is 
not there. So if we have an extension, it is merely an extension of 
TEA-21, the one that we have been operating under for the last 7 years.
  If we are not able to pass this bill, then the States will continue 
to have uncertainty in planning, thereby delaying projects and 
negatively impacting jobs.
  The Senator from Missouri commented that for each $1 billion spent, 
it provides 47,000 new jobs. So this would easily be the biggest jobs 
bill probably in the history of America. But if we operate on an 
extension, there can be no planning. There is not going to be the 
construction.
  The Senator from Missouri is from a northern State and so is the 
Senator from Vermont. In Oklahoma, though, our construction time is 
longer than it is in Vermont, and it is actually longer than it is in 
the State of Missouri. It is something that has to be considered 
because if we have those delays and they cannot plan in advance, we are 
not going to have the construction. We are not going to be able to 
correct these problems.
  That is why I asked the question of the Senator from Missouri, who is 
a former Governor of the State. We need to have certainty in planning. 
I hear every day from Gary Ridley in our Department of Transportation 
in Oklahoma that we have things we need to do and we need to be 
planning right now. We can get so much more for each dollar if we do 
that, and I suggest that other States have the same situation.
  If we do not have a new bill and we just operate on an extension, 
there is

[[Page 7655]]

no new border program for border States to deal with NAFTA and other 
traffic. We hear a lot from the border States--California, Arizona, 
Texas, and Florida--that they like the borders and corridors program. 
We have a borders and corridors provision in this bill that will give 
consideration to the fact that through no fault of their own many 
border States have a lot of traffic that comes up through Mexico and 
other places that is all in conjunction with NAFTA.
  I can recall 10 years ago when NAFTA was voted on I happened to have 
been the only member of the Oklahoma delegation that voted against 
NAFTA. I think I was right and they were wrong, but nonetheless when we 
look at what we are able to do with the borders and corridors program, 
it is something that is very critical for those States.
  My State of Oklahoma is also affected by that because those corridors 
come through the State of Oklahoma. If we do not have the bill, we just 
have an extension, there is going to be a delay in the establishment of 
the national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the 
future. As motor vehicles become more fuel efficient, a tax collection 
system based solely on gas consumption becomes less practical. Right 
now the greatest problem we have is the cost of fuel. We have been very 
much concerned about that. If our taxes were based on a percentage as 
opposed to a number of cents or dollars, then we would not have that 
problem. But in Oklahoma if we are paying $2.20 a gallon for gas 
instead of what it was a short while ago, about $1.40, then people are 
not going to drive as far. When they do not drive as far, that means 
the tax revenues are going to come down.
  There is no reason we have to continue to do business as we have done 
business for the last 50, 60, 70 years and not come up with new and 
innovative ways to pay for our system.
  In this bill we have a provision for a national commission to look at 
different transportation funding in the future. One of my complaints 
when we talk about the highway trust fund is about how we should or 
should not pay for it. Every time this body has a new idea to encourage 
people to use fuel-efficient automobiles, either hybrid or electric 
cars, that ends up with less gallons of gas produced. Yet those cars 
still damage the highways with the wear and tear that another car does. 
I have complained if we are going to have a policy, it should not be 
paid for on the backs of the highway trust fund.
  Anyway, those are issues they can look at. They can look at new ways 
of financing roads and new partnerships. This commission will come 
together and will perform for us.
  If we do not have a new bill and we have an extension, there will be 
no increased opportunity to address chokepoints and intermodal 
connectors. This is not simply a highway bill but an intermodal bill, 
talking about how the highways, railroads, and airlines come together. 
It is a complicated transportation system.
  There was a time in the beginning during the Eisenhower 
administration when we wanted to have a national highway system. I will 
share with my friend from Vermont, when President Eisenhower, during 
the war, was a major, Major Eisenhower, he was the one who realized our 
traffic system, our road system, our network, was not a transportation 
issue as much as a national security issue. He was trying to move his 
troops around from one place to another. So when he became President, 
one of the first things he wanted to do was set up the national 
transportation system. We have had it since that time. At that time we 
were looking at miles of paved roads in America. Now we are looking at 
the intermodal system that covers all transportation and brings all 
transportation together. But we won't be able to do that if we extend 
what we have today because those portions of the bill will not become 
law.
  There are many other provisions we would lose if we do not pass a 
bill, if we only have an extension. The firewall protection of the 
highway trust fund would not be continued, thereby making the trust 
fund vulnerable to raids in order to pay for other programs.
  One of the things we run into in Government I can relate to in the 
State of Oklahoma. In the State of Oklahoma we have had people, when 
you are looking the other way, come in and raid a trust fund. The 
impact aid is a good example. Impact aid was started way back in the 
1950s. The idea was if Government comes along and takes the land off 
the tax rolls, you still have to educate those kids living there, so 
they are supposed to replenish that particular subdivision to the 
amount of money they lost in revenue. That was a good program. We all 
supported it.
  In the 1960s, people realized there was a fund and no one was 
looking, so they took the money out of it. This has happened to other 
trust funds. This has happened to the highway trust fund. I see that as 
a moral issue.
  In fact, when we had our bill out last year, we looked at it as if 
this is something we can afford to do because it was paid for almost 
entirely out of user taxes. Now, if you go to the pump and you pay a 
Federal tax on the gasoline you buy, you assume that will go to 
building roads and maintaining roads and people do not complain about 
it. I have never complained about it. I complain about every other tax, 
but I don't complain about the highway taxes because I know that is how 
we will pay for it. They have been diverting money out of the trust 
fund and putting it into other projects.
  What we did in last year's bill, and it is in this year's bill also, 
is restore that so money will have to go to repairing roads that go 
into the highway system. If we do not pass this bill, it is not going 
to happen.
  To reiterate, regarding the pending bill, 76 Senators voted for it 
last year. Very few changes have been made. We produced a solid project 
last year to go to conference with the House. I suggest that given a 
few changes we would have made, we would have been able to move it out 
and we would not be here today. This should have happened a year ago. 
This should not be happening now.
  The bill managers are ready and willing to discuss Members' 
amendments. We want to work with you on your concerns. We hope you will 
come down and offer amendments. We will have this vote in 9 minutes. 
How quickly time flies when you are having fun. When we have this vote, 
I anticipate it will be a successful vote and we will be able to get on 
the bill and start with amendments. When that happens, I certainly hope 
all those individuals who have said negative things about this bill--
they didn't like part of the formula, they didn't think they were 
treated fairly, they thought they were bumping up to the caps for 
States--come down and offer amendments.
  I don't think any of us in terms of Senator Jeffords, myself, Senator 
Baucus, and Senator Bond, are going to complain. We may not like the 
amendments, but we want to have the amendments offered, if for no other 
reason than it is important so people realize you cannot make one 
change in a bill without affecting everyone else. I know formulas are 
different.
  It would be easier if we had done the easy thing. That is, Senator 
Jeffords and I could go to 60 Members of this 100-Member body and make 
them sweetheart deals, give them what they wanted to get their vote, 
buy their votes, get 60 votes, and tell the rest of them, it is your 
problem. And we would have a bill today. That is not how we want to do 
business. We feel we can do it being fair to our colleagues and do it 
on the basis of a formula.
  We had Members who were going to be heard on the motion to proceed 
and they have not arrived. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support 
invoking cloture on this important legislation.

[[Page 7656]]

  I had a meeting yesterday morning with highway contractors in my 
State. They once again impressed upon me the urgency of passing new 
highway legislation.
  In my part of the country--I represent North Dakota--our construction 
season is a short one. We urgently need action. There are contracts 
that are being held up, actions that need to be taken to improve the 
road network in my State that are being held because there is no new 
highway legislation passed.
  We keep passing extenders. But that does not make adjustments for the 
increased needs across the country. We know much of our bridge system 
is deficient and in serious need of repair. We know many of the roads 
in our country need repair. New highways need to be constructed. Much 
of that activity will not occur unless new highway legislation passes 
the Congress.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the extraordinary 
efforts they have made to advance this legislation. We are being held 
up here because some are unhappy, some are not getting all they would 
like to get. That is pretty much the norm around here. None of us get 
quite what we would like. I would like much more for my State. But I 
know the reality we confront. I know the urgency of the need to act.
  I ask my colleagues, please, let's invoke cloture. Let's proceed. We 
will still have opportunities to amend this bill. Members can come 
before the Senate and offer amendments to change this legislation. They 
can either prevail or lose, but they will have had their chance. I hope 
my colleagues will support the move to invoke cloture on this 
legislation so we can proceed, so the American people can know the 
important business of highway construction, highway repair, bridge 
construction, and bridge repair can move forward.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his good words. 
I hope the Senators viewing this will join so we can expedite passage 
of this bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, again I thank the ranking member, Senator 
Jeffords, who has put so much time and effort into this legislation so 
that all at the table are fairly represented. I thank the chairman, as 
well. The chairman has strived valiantly over an extended period of 
time. I remember last year as we moved, we hoped, toward conclusion, 
our House colleagues had a different point of view than the Senate. I 
thank the chairman and ranking member for their exceptional efforts.
  Now we have a chance to do it, to move forward. We need this cloture 
vote to proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. It is not as great 
a problem in Oklahoma as the problem in North Dakota because your 
construction season is shorter than ours. Right now one of our major 
concerns is that we can get in there and get the contracts in a timely 
fashion so we can get under construction and do the work we are 
supposed to be doing.
  Also, before the Senator from North Dakota came in, we commented this 
is somewhat of a life-and-death situation. Last year, nearly 43,000 
people died on our Nation's highways. This represents the single 
greatest cause of accidental death in Americans ages 2 to 33.
  The core safety programs will be corrected. According to the 
Department of Transportation, time in congestion increased from 31.7 
percent in 1992 to 33 percent in 2000. We had several discussions 
yesterday about the cost of fuel and the fact that if you have all this 
congestion--certainly we know what this is in Washington, DC--the cars 
are out there idling, burning fuel, not getting anywhere. We need to 
get this country moving.
  I appreciate the comments of the Senator from North Dakota.
  We are at the time designated to have the vote. This could be one of 
the maybe two or three most significant votes we have this year. It 
will allow us to do all that we have been talking about for the last 
hour. It is rather refreshing during this time we did not have anyone 
coming down and opposing this motion to proceed.
  The Senator from North Dakota is exactly right. We want to encourage 
people who have a problem to come down. Maybe we can make them better. 
We want to consider amendments. We want to get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 69, H.R. 3, a bill to authorize funds 
     for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and 
     transit programs, and for other purposes.
         Bill Frist, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, Craig Thomas, 
           Mike DeWine, Richard Burr, Susan Collins, Johnny 
           Isakson, James Inhofe, Gordon Smith, Pete Domenici, 
           Thad Cochran, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, 
           David Vitter, Mitch McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that 
debate on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy For Users, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays 
are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Cornyn
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     McCain
     Sununu
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 6. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 
minutes on the topic of the 15th anniversary of the Hubble telescope.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________