[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7657-7658]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about 
simple fairness and equity in this highway bill. I commend the chairman 
and managers of the bill for working hard to get it to the floor. Now 
that it is here, I have some serious concerns with the bill, as 
reported, that I would like to share with my colleagues.
  This bill is not fair to the States called donor States that send 
more of their Federal gas tax dollar and get less of it in return. 
Those are called donor States. We donor States--and Florida is one of 
them--are, once again, being cheated out of our fair share of highway 
dollars. Florida and roughly 20 other donor States deserve true equity, 
not simply what the donee States think we should be happy with. They 
send in a dollar of gas tax but they get more than a dollar in return. 
Our States, called the donor States, send in a dollar of gas tax money, 
and we receive less than a dollar of gas tax money in return.
  In the case of Florida over the years, it has been down in the 
seventies. Presently--although it is scored at 90 cents--return on the 
dollar, in reality, when all the formulas are plugged in, is more like 
87 cents. So in Florida we send a dollar of gas tax money to 
Washington, and we get only 87 cents of that dollar back. That is not 
fair.
  The argument I am making is not a new argument. These are arguments 
that the ones who send in a dollar and get back less of their gas tax 
money are pitted against the donee States. Approximately 30 of the 
donee States get back more than a dollar of the gas tax money. So there 
are 20 States that get less and approximately 30 States that get more. 
I am tired of hearing we should be happy with what we get. I am not 
happy with the formula on the redistribution of the gas tax money in 
the highway bill.
  Last year's bill that we passed in the Senate got us a lot further 
toward equity than this year's bill. I was disappointed, even in that 
bill, because although we had a target to get us from 90 percent, which 
is really 87 percent, return on our gas tax dollar, all the way up to 
95 percent, we did not get that 95 cents back on the dollar until the 
very last year of the 6-year authorization of the highway bill.
  Florida is in the category with other States such as Arizona, 
California, and Texas. We were not going to get 90 cents on the dollar, 
boosted to 95 cents on the dollar, until the very last of 6 years in 
the bill. Those States that I just mentioned, mine included, are named 
superdonor States. In reality, it means we are the last in line to get 
our fair share.
  As I look back at last year's bill, I yearn for it because that is 
not what this bill does. This bill gets the States only to 92 cents on 
the dollar, and large States such as Florida, California,

[[Page 7658]]

Texas, and Arizona only get there, again, at the end of the 6-year 
authorization on the highway bill.
  So what am I forced to look at? I am looking at we were getting it up 
to 95 cents on the dollar last year, and under this bill we are only 
getting it up to 92 cents on the dollar. Well, this is unacceptable. 
There is clearly a push from both sides of the aisle to add more money 
to the bill. I support more money in the bill. What we passed in the 
Senate last year was $318 billion for highway construction authorized 
over a 6-year period. What is in this bill is $284 billion over a 6-
year period. If we want to add more money to the bill for highways, I 
am certainly for that, but I support more money if there is an increase 
in the rate of the return for States that are giving more money than 
what they are getting in return.
  It simply does my State and these other States no good to grow a pot 
of money if we are not getting our fair share of the pot.
  I have been told by the 30 donee States--remember, those are the 
States that get more on their dollar of gas tax than they put in--I 
have been told by those States to look at how much money, in actual 
dollars, Florida will receive and how much Florida will grow in an 
overall percentage from the last authorization bill.
  I am happy to know Florida, under the chairman's proposal, gets more 
dollars in this bill than it did in the last authorization, but Florida 
should be getting more money this time around because it is putting 
more money in. The number that is important, and the number that only 
donor States want to focus on, is the rate of return on our gas tax 
dollars. What percentage of Florida taxpayer dollars are actually being 
returned to Florida to build up our infrastructure, our highways, our 
bridges, and our transit? I asked that question not only for my State 
but for 20 other States that are not getting their fair share.
  Why is this particularly sensitive to me? Look at all the folks that 
come to Florida and use our roads. The Orlando area is the No. 1 
tourist destination in the world. We have a $50 billion-a-year tourism 
industry that, in large part, is as a result of our pristine and clear 
waters on the beaches. People go by car.
  What other reasons? Florida is now one of the major growth States 
also because we are a destination during the twilight years of 
retirement. That means not only is our population growing at a rapid 
rate--1,000 people a day net growth in Florida--but on top of that, we 
get 80 million tourists a year, and they are all using those Florida 
roads. We desperately need those roads expanded and improved. I can 
take anyone to parts of Florida and show that if you think traffic jams 
are big in Washington, DC, they cannot hold a candle to some of the 
traffic jams in Florida. States such as mine are the States with the 
greatest need and we are the States that continue to get the least back 
on our highway tax dollars. Our populations are increasing by leaps and 
bounds, yet our highway rate of return is staying relatively the same 
in order to pay for the other States to invest in their roads, and 
those are States that are not growing like Florida, Texas, California, 
Arizona, and 15 other states. Florida is the third fastest growing 
State behind Nevada and Arizona. We will grow by 80 percent in the next 
25 years, becoming the third largest State in the country behind 
California and Texas. Florida will bump New York into fourth place by 
2011.
  We have to have help on our highways. We need, but we also deserve, 
our fair share. States such as mine have, for the last half a century, 
given more than our share of highway funds. The interstate system is 
complete now. It has been for some time. This formula has been 
operating for over 50 years. It is past time that donor States get 
justice and equity and fair shares. We deserve to get 95 cents return 
on each one of our highway dollars.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in a moment we are going to make a motion 
to substitute H.R. 3 so we will be considering the Senate-passed bill 
as it was passed out of our committee on to the floor. I think it is 
appropriate to make a couple of comments--and, of course, invite 
Senator Jeffords to also comment if he wants to--on the time we have 
taken on this bill.
  We have worked on this bill for some 2\1/2\ years. It has been 
bipartisan all the way, all of last year and this year. I think it is 
something that is a product we can be very proud of. It has provisions 
in it that if we do not pass will not be considered. If we are on 
another extension, we will not have the safety provisions. We will not 
have the streamlining provisions that will help us build more roads per 
dollar.
  We are prepared now to proceed. I understand there is no further 
debate on the pending motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the motion to proceed is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________