[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9811-9820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration H.R. 3, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Inhofe amendment No. 605, to provide a complete substitute.
       Allen/Ensign amendment No. 611 (to amendment No. 605), to 
     modify the eligibility requirements for States to receive a 
     grant under section 405 of title 49, United States Code.
       Sessions Modified amendment No. 646 (to amendment No. 605), 
     to reduce funding for certain programs.
       Reid (for Lautenberg) amendment No. 619 (to amendment No. 
     605), to increase penalties for individuals who operate motor 
     vehicles while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol 
     under aggravated circumstances.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am very happy we finally got to this 
point. We are operating under unanimous consent at this time.
  We will have for the next 45 minutes a discussion and then a vote on 
the Allen amendment at 12 o'clock. We will have this 45-minute period 
of time to talk about the highway bill, and hopefully we can confine 
arguments to that, with the exception of 5 minutes for Senator Landrieu 
right before the vote takes place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 611

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I am 
glad we are going to be voting on my amendment around noon. I had 
thought it was going to be 11:30, but it is now noon.
  Let me share with my colleagues the rationale behind amendment No. 
611 to the underlying bill.
  I first thank my colleague, Senator Ensign of Nevada, for 
cosponsoring this amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to make 
sure that safety belt incentive grants are awarded based on a State's 
seatbelt use rate, not based upon a prescriptive mandate from the 
Federal Government that would make the States enact a primary seatbelt 
law to receive their Federal funds.
  The way this bill came out of committee, in effect, for the States to 
get their money, they have to enact a primary enforcement seatbelt law. 
Seatbelt laws generally, whether you have a law such as 29 States do, 
which is secondary enforcement, or in some cases not even secondary 
enforcement laws, or some States have primary enforcement laws, this is 
an issue under the purview of the people in the States.
  This is not an issue for the Federal Government to get involved. This 
is not an issue of civil rights. It is not an issue of interstate 
commerce. It is not in the Constitution. There is no way Thomas 
Jefferson and James Madison would ever envision the Federal Government 
worrying about such matters. I know they did not have automobiles in 
those days, but they were not coming up with worries about what kind of 
saddles they had or making sure folks on horseback laced up their 
saddles correctly with a buck and strap or whether there were seatbelts 
on buggies.
  The underlying bill clearly tramples on the jurisdiction that has 
long been held by the people in the States. I don't believe ``nanny'' 
mandates such as this initiative should come from Government. But if 
they must, the government should be that of the State legislature and 
not the Congress. State legislators provide a much closer 
representation of the views and beliefs of their respective 
constituencies in our country.
  I am a firm believer that the laws of a particular State reflect the 
philosophy and principles under which the citizens of that State should 
be governed. The people in the States do not need fancy Federales 
telling them what to do. Moreover, I doubt a single Senator ran for 
this office of Senator promising to enact primary seatbelt laws, 
trampling on the laws of their States.
  This chart shows a minority of States, 21 States, the States in red, 
have primary safety belt laws; 29 States do not, the States in white on 
the chart, and New Hampshire. I surmise this issue has been considered 
by every one of the State legislatures in all our 50 States. In 29 of 
those States, primary enforcement of seatbelt laws was rejected.
  Why were they rejected? Each State may have their own reasons. Some 
may believe it is more important for law enforcement to worry about 
drunk drivers or impaired drivers rather than craning their necks 
trying to figure out what is in someone's lap as they are driving 
otherwise safely down the road. There are others that may have concerns 
about driving while black, a concern of racial profiling. Regardless of 
the reasons, 29 States have rejected primary seatbelt laws.
  Given that a majority of the States has declined such laws, it seems 
inappropriate for the Federal Government to devise a grant program that 
essentially compels the States to enact primary enforcement laws, and 
if they do not, they lose Federal gas tax dollars the people in these 
States paid into the Federal highway trust fund.
  My amendment revises the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program 
to grant awards on 85-percent belt use rate--the national average is 
about 80 percent. Eighty-five percent would, of course, be a 
significant increase. People are safer wearing seatbelts. It is a good 
idea to wear seatbelts, but instead of compelling States to enact 
primary seatbelt laws, the grants should be awarded solely on seatbelt 
use attainment. The point is to get people to wear seatbelts, not to 
have prescriptive micromanagement from the Federal Government.
  For me, it is difficult to understand the logic of an incentive 
program that provides Virginia, with its high safety belt use, far less 
funding than a State with far lower seatbelt use rate but

[[Page 9812]]

with a primary seatbelt law. Yet that is entirely possible under this 
bill if the State with a lower seatbelt use rate has enacted a primary 
seatbelt law.
  For example, a State could have 70-percent seatbelt usage and receive 
Federal funds under this grant program only because it has enacted a 
primary seatbelt law. However, another State could have 89-percent 
seatbelt usage rate but not qualify for this grant funding because it 
does not have a primary seatbelt law. That makes absolutely no sense 
unless one is an officious meddler who wants to dictate and meddle in 
the prerogatives of the people in the States.
  If the goal is to attain higher safety belt usage rates, incentive 
grants should be awarded based on a specific goal. In our amendment, it 
is 85 percent. This amendment is similar to one already included in the 
House version of this highway bill legislation. My proposal is a much 
more equitable way to provide incentives and reward States for 
increasing seatbelt use rates. It makes the proposed program fair by 
making requirements the same for all States, but does not compel States 
to enact primary seatbelt laws.
  How do you get people to wear seatbelts if you do not have a law? As 
if everyone carries the code of their State around in the glove box or, 
for that matter, carries around the United States Code. There are a 
variety of ways. In some States with secondary enforcement, with higher 
usage rates than those with primary enforcement laws, there can be 
advertising, there can be incentives. There are a variety of programs 
creative people can devise as well as just common sense.
  I wear a seatbelt. My kids wear seatbelts. Everyone ought to. But the 
point is, Should this Senate be telling the States to pass primary 
enforcement laws?
  I urge all my colleagues to consider the laws of your State. If you 
are in one of the 29 States that does not have a primary seatbelt law, 
what in effect Senators are saying is, we do not trust you in South 
Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Arizona, or Montana to make 
these laws. I don't agree with this. Moreover, you are telling people 
from Alaska to Arizona to Florida and South Carolina, Virginia, and on 
up to New Hampshire and Maine, sure, you all are paying Federal gas tax 
revenues into the Federal Government highway trust fund from your 
gasoline purchases, but you are not going to be able to get this 
approximately $500 million portion back unless you pass a primary 
enforcement seatbelt law.
  The people in the States should determine whether this Federal 
Government incentive plan should reward States that have high usage 
rates or whether it should be used to promote a certain meddling nanny 
philosophy.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to stand up for common sense, 
principled respect for the will of the people in the States. Stand up 
for the principle that the law ought to be fair to those across the 
country. If any of those States can reach 85-percent attainment rate, 
depending on how it gets calculated in the States, let them have access 
to these funds and grant them the broad authority, also, to use those 
funds for roads and adding on to roads, as well. Finally, rather than 
official Federal nannyism, stand up for trusting free people. They can 
make these decisions perfectly well, and have heated and vigorous 
debate in their State legislatures if necessary. We should not trespass 
on the will, desires, and views of the people of 29 States with this 
officious nannyism and the federales planting their finite wisdom over 
the will of the people in the States.
  I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the Allen amendment.


                     Amendment No. 761, as Modified

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday when we passed our substitute 
amendment, which was No. 761, there were some technical inaccuracies in 
obligations and limitations for the 5 fiscal years. I ask unanimous 
consent to make those technical corrections to the amendment 761. This 
has been agreed to by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 761) was agreed to, as follows:

       Strike section 3103(b) and insert the following:
       (b) Mass Transit Category.--For the purpose of section 
     251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)), the level of obligation 
     limitations for the mass transit category is--
       (1) for fiscal year 2005, $7,646,336,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2006, $8,900,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 2007, $9,267,464,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 2008, $10,050,700,000; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2009, $10,685,500,000.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know there are a lot of Members 
interested in the Allen amendment. We are close to final passage. We 
may have a couple of amendments after we return at 2 o'clock, at which 
time we will want to debate those. We will be limited to 2 minutes on 
each side for those amendments. I encourage Members who want to be 
heard on those amendments that we will be considering after 2 o'clock, 
this is the time to do it. This is the only time Members will have.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we stand on the verge of passing the 
highway bill, I once again praise Chairman Inhofe for his leadership. 
We would not be at this point without the chairman's persistence and 
hard work. And I personally thank you and Senators Baucus and Bond for 
their excellent efforts.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been an effort that has been 
bipartisan all the way around. It has been 3 years in the making. For 
all of us to get along this well for 3 years--I hope it does not end 
after this is over.
  I compliment you and Senator Baucus, along with Senator Bond, and the 
Democrats and Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee 
who are so cooperative.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. We have proved it can be done.
  The highway bill before the Senate is important for the Nation.
  It will authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs through fiscal year 2009.
  This bill will make our roads safer. This bill will reduce traffic 
congestion. This bill supports mass transit.
  This bill will create jobs. This bill will have an impact on every 
town, every city, and every State.
  The legislation includes a provision by Senators Grassley and Baucus 
that boosts funding in this bill by $11.2 billion or about 4 percent 
over what the White House has requested.
  That funding makes all the difference in allowing us to draft a 
funding formula that ensures that all States benefit in this 
legislation.
  That funding helps level the playing field for many States that feel 
they are being treated unfairly at the White House prescribed funding 
level of $284 billion.
  I urge President Bush to reconsider his veto threat against this 
legislation.
  It is a good bill that helps every Sate and will impact every 
American.
  There are no differences between the House and Senate versions of 
this bill that cannot be overcome with good, honest negotiation, and 
compromise.
  But we should not enter those negotiations with a proverbial ``gun at 
our head'' with the threat of a veto.
  The White House should not enter the negotiations with a ``my way or 
the highway'' approach.
  There is a storm brewing in the Senate of mammoth proportions.
  It is a storm I hope we can avoid for the sake of this great 
institution.
  I urge the President and the Republican leadership in the Senate to 
change the course of this storm.
  This bill, and others like it, are too important to get caught in the 
political hurricane on the horizon.
  Despite the gloomy forecast, I remain hopeful we can maintain the 
momentum we have made on the highway bill and reach a final agreement 
quickly and fairly.


                              Smart Growth

  This highway bill, although not a perfect bill, is a step forward in 
the smart growth arena.
  We have included some modest provisions in this bill to encourage 
smart growth, like safer routes for our children to get to school, 
encouraging more physical activity through walking and biking for all 
Americans, measures to improve traffic congestion,

[[Page 9813]]

funding for stormwater, and just plain smart planning.
  The Safe Routes to Schools Program helps ensure our children are 
safer as they walk to and from school.
  By improving sidewalks and crosswalks for both pedestrians and 
bicyclists, we are providing a healthier alternative to riding the bus 
or using a car. We are encouraging students to get out there and walk 
or ride their bike to school.
  In the 1960s, over 60 percent of our children walked or rode their 
bikes to school. Today, it is less than 10 percent.
  According to the National Institutes of Health, the number of 
children who are overweight has doubled in the last two to three 
decades; currently one child in five is overweight. Increasing the 
opportunities for children to walk or ride their bikes to school can 
help combat the obesity problem.
  I would Like to see more funding for this important program.
  Even we, as adults, need to increase our physical activity. The 
provision for bicycle and pedestrian safety grants will promote the 
benefits of walking and bicycling, and how to stay safe while doing so.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
bicycling and walking currently account for nearly 13 percent of 
traffic fatalities, that is over 5,000 a year. Yet States are spending 
less than 2 percent of their Federal safety funds on bicycle or 
pedestrian projects.
  The biking and walking programs also help minimize traffic 
congestion, a common problem of urban sprawl.
  The increasing amount of time that Americans spend in their cars in 
traffic has encouraged manufacturers to supply larger, more comfortable 
trucks and cars. These huge, gas-guzzling cars and trucks are a symptom 
of a failure to make our homes and workplaces more accessible to other 
forms of transportation.
  Other provisions that incorporate smart planning, multi-agency 
coordination, and encourage public input early in the planning process, 
help ensure that the improvements meet the specific needs of the area. 
Improved planning also addresses local concerns and makes for more 
efficient enhancements to the community, without costly mistakes.
  Even the Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program provides 
much needed assistance to our States and local communities by helping 
them deal with the impacts of highway stormwater discharges.
  This important legislation increases our investment in our regional 
transportation agencies so they can consider the choices that will 
build stronger and more sustainable regions and local communities.
  And, that is what smart growth is all about. Making smart, educated 
decisions on how to handle the growth of our communities.
  Such planning promotes growth that improves the economy, revitalizes 
neighborhoods, protects farmland and environmentally sensitive areas, 
and improves public health.
  Smart growth offers a range of transportation options, provides parks 
and play areas for our children, and provides accessible options for 
those with disabilities. All of these use energy more efficiently and 
are good for the environment.
  Many of the provisions in this bill help ensure that we develop 
transportation projects in smarter ways.
  I hope the conference committee produces an agreement that respects 
these important resources, be it our historic and cultural assets and 
parks and protected open spaces.
  Since the 1960s, I have been involved in the smart growth debate. As 
Vermont's attorney general, I drafted what became the first, and is 
still today, the most comprehensive, State level environmental review 
regulation in the United States, known in Vermont as Act 250. In 1999, 
I established the Senate smart growth task force. Today, I serve as 
cochair, along with my colleague, Senator Levin, on the Senate's 
bipartisan, multiregional task force for smart growth.
  A number of you also serve with us to ensure that we assist those at 
the State and local levels with the growth of their communities. If you 
are not already a member, I encourage you to join our task force today 
to broaden the efforts in the Senate.
  Land use and development affects each and every one us, regardless of 
party affiliation. And with energy prices on the rise, transportation 
and land use planning are critical tools for conserving energy and 
promoting more fiscally sound development practices.
  The task force needs your help to incorporate smart growth principles 
into the budget and appropriation processes, to build better 
relationships with our State and local partners, and work with the 
administration to support State and local efforts to plan for growth.
  Our Nation has only recently begun to recognize that sprawl is 
unhealthy--whether it is contributing to obesity in America or 
multiplying the number of roads that are dangerous and unfriendly to 
pedestrians or harming the habitat of endangered species.
  Smart growth is about providing transportation choices, including 
transit, pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes and paths, and of course, 
highways and roadways.
  This highway bill is a move in the right direction. While funding is 
limited for these programs, I am encouraged to see provisions like 
these are moving forward.
  In these times of high gasoline prices, Vermonters and all Americans 
want to know what Congress is doing to reduce our dependence upon 
foreign oil.
  Constituents who are paying steep prices at the pump want to know 
that we are working to promote technologies that use gasoline more 
efficiently.
  I would like to talk about some of the provisions of the highway bill 
and the managers' amendment that have the potential to do just that.
  The bill provides additional incentives to use hybrid vehicles on our 
Nation's highways and the managers' amendment builds on those 
provisions.
  While I think these provisions represent a good initial starting 
point for important discussions to come in the conference on this bill, 
I think more can and should be done through this legislation to 
encourage hybrid use, and to expand their benefits for consumers and 
the environment.
  Some argue that we do not need to do any more to promote hybrid 
purchasing and use by consumers.
  They suggest that the price of gasoline itself has been a strong 
driver of hybrid purchases. Certainly, in part, that is the case.
  At the end of April, the Associated Press reported that the hybrid 
market has grown by 960 percent since 2000.
  New hybrid vehicle registrations totaled more than 8,300 in 2004, an 
81 percent increase over the year before.
  Even though hybrids still represent less than 1 percent of the 17 
million new vehicles sold in 2004, major automakers are planning to 
introduce about a dozen new hybrids during the next 3 years.
  I have personally joined the thousands of Americans, and several 
other members of this body, in becoming a hybrid owner.
  I purchased a Ford Escape hybrid last year.
  Simply allowing gas prices to increase is not the best way to promote 
hybrid use. That is a poor policy solution.
  We should also provide significant non-financial incentives to 
stimulate demand for these vehicles.
  One important incentive in the bill before us is to allow these 
vehicles access to the high occupancy vehicle lanes, or HOV lanes, on 
our highways.
  We will be saving our commuters time, in addition to reducing 
gasoline use.
  In doing so, we need to carefully consider and maintain the other 
societal benefits of HOV lanes.
  Those benefits include: encouraging transit and shared car use, and 
promoting dedicated alternative fuel vehicles.
  Mr. President, our last highway law, TEA-21, gave States the 
authority to allow what is called a high occupancy vehicle lane, or HOV 
lane.
  Many commuting Americans are familiar with these lanes, and thousands

[[Page 9814]]

commute into the District of Columbia every day using them.
  I want to give my colleagues some of the history behind allowing less 
polluting vehicles in HOV lanes.
  Under TEA-21, if a vehicle was certified under Federal regulations as 
an ``inherently low-emission vehicle'' it could be used in the HOV lane 
with only one occupant.
  The law authorized States to implement this policy through September 
30, 2003, and granted each State the right to revoke this policy if it 
increased HOV lane congestion.
  EPA established the low-emission vehicle standards.
  They did so in order to recognize that certain types of fuel and 
vehicle technologies have low emissions and to encourage their use.
  Only vehicles without evaporative fuel emissions meet EPA standards.
  Consequently, a vehicle that bums any quantity of gasoline or diesel 
cannot meet the standards.
  That includes hybrid vehicles that operate on a combination of 
gasoline or diesel and electric batteries.
  Vehicles that operate entirely on alternative fuels with no 
evaporative emissions, such as compressed natural gas, liquified 
natural gas, or purely electric vehicles, are the only ones that are 
able to meet the standards.
  We should promote the use of those vehicles.
  However, such vehicles are a very small percentage of the on-road 
fleet, and, as a consequence, few motorists have been able to take 
advantage of the HOV lane benefit provided in TEA-21.
  Since the passage of TEA-21, there has been growing interest among 
motorists, the vehicle industry, and some States in renewing the HOV 
lane benefit and expanding it to hybrid vehicles, which are more widely 
available.
  The bill before us includes provisions that would renew and expand 
the HOV lane exemption for low-emission vehicles.
  Specifically, the managers' amendment would allow ``low emission and 
energy-efficient vehicles'' access to HOV lanes.
  The bill would make that access permanent.
  A vehicle would qualify as a ``low emission and energy-efficient 
vehicle'' if it meets EPA's ``Tier II'' emission standards that were 
phased in beginning in model year 2004.
  In addition, EPA would have to certify that the vehicle gets at least 
50 percent better fuel economy than a gasoline vehicle in the city or 
that it is a ``dedicated alternative-fueled vehicle'' as defined in the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  Current hybrid vehicles are clean enough to comply with the new tier 
II standards. Some hybrids also meet the threshold for fuel economy 
ratings in the bill.
  This change would result in expanding access to HOV lanes to include 
hybrid vehicles.
  I reassure my colleagues who may be concerned that congestion in HOV 
lanes might arise as a result of the policy change contained in this 
bill.
  The bill before the Senate requires States that allow hybrids on HOV 
lanes to establish a program for qualifying and labeling such vehicles, 
and monitoring and evaluating their use in HOV lanes.
  States also would be required to develop policies and procedures for 
limiting the single-occupancy operation of hybrids if their use led to 
increased traffic congestion.
  While there are benefits to this language, I hope that my colleagues 
consider strengthening the language.
  We should be mindful when we allow single occupant vehicles in the 
HOV lanes, even if they are hybrids.
  The managers' amendment simply implements the tier II emissions 
standards that were effective last year.
  Hybrids easily meet these standards today, so this language has no 
practical impact.
  If it is the determination of Congress to allow hybrids to use the 
HOV lanes, we should be promoting the most fuel-efficient and cleanest 
hybrid vehicles on the road. I would like to go further.
  This bill takes a good step toward promoting single occupant HOV 
access for hybrid vehicles.
  We make sure that there are only dedicated alternative fuel vehicles 
in HOV lanes, those that run on 100 percent alternative fuels.
  But we need to make sure that we don't overburden our HOV lanes. And 
we need to make sure that our goals of lowering pollution that we set 
in our last highway law are maintained.
  It is my hope that we do so in the conference on this bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on final passage 
of H.R. 3, the highway bill. Of course, we have talked about how long 
this has been in the making. We are finally to that point. The product 
is a good product. There are some who still today are not happy with 
the way the formula has treated their States.
  There is nothing more difficult than dealing with a formula. This is 
a formula that deals with so many different factors. We have donor 
States, donee States, large States, small States, passthrough States, 
we have States with unusually high delegate rates. All these things are 
a consideration. During this debate we have discussed these at length 
the last 3 years.
  A lot of people think we are spending too much. I put my conservative 
credentials up against any one of the 100 Members. I have been rated 
No. 1 as most conservative Member in this Senate. Yet there are two 
areas where we need to spend money: One is the national defense and 
infrastructure is the other one.
  This is a life-and-death bill. We have to do something to save some 
lives. People who are saying we are spending too much on this, I think 
they forget that we have had two very great Senators in the Finance 
Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, who we went to and 
said: This is what we really need to have for America. Can you make 
sure it is paid for and make sure we can do it without a deficit? They 
assured us that we can.
  I see Senator Baucus is here to speak. Of course, I repeat one more 
time how much I appreciate him and Senator Grassley for the work they 
have done so that this is a bill that is paid for, this is a bill that 
is not going to add to the deficit, and I want to make sure that people 
understand that.
  By the way, the work they did has been ratified by the Joint Tax 
Committee. That is the proper body. They have said yes, they can come 
up with--actually, the amendment is $11.2 billion more in contract 
authority--they said they can do it and it is not going to add to the 
deficit; it is not going to be deficit spending.
  Before we run out of time, I do wish to thank some other people. I 
will let Senator Jeffords and Senator Baucus thank their staff, but I 
just want to say I wish the American people really knew the hours that 
are put in on something like this. I am talking about all night long 
and many hours. I start with Ruth Van Mark, who has been with me for 17 
years now. I know there have been many sleepless nights working on this 
bill; Andrew Wheeler, James O'Keefe, Nathan Richmond, Greg Murrill, 
Marty Hall, Angie Giancarlo, John Shanahan, Rudy Kapichak, James 
Gentry, Alex Herrgott, Dave Lungren, Alex Marx, and many more who put 
in countless hours.
  But also on Senator Frist's staff, if you look back all during the 
consideration of this bill, we have had the help of Libby Jarvis, who 
is always there; Dave Schiappa has been there on a daily basis, Eric 
Ueland, Dan Dukes, Laura Dove; and the people from the Department of 
Transportation, who have been over here spending their hours on the 
Senate floor with us: Susan Binder, Edward Ross Crichton, who has done 
over 1,000 formula runs for us over the last 3 years. He will be glad 
when this thing is finally passed, I think; Dedra Goodman, Carolyn 
Edwards, Thomas Holian, Sue Anna Celini, and, of course, I thank the 
hard-working people of the legislative counsel because they have 
actually drafted this 1300-page bill and the hundreds of amendments. 
They include Carcie Chan, Heather Arpin, Michelle Johnson-Weider, 
Heather Burnham, and Gary Endicott.
  Anyway, this has taken a lot of hours, a lot of years working on 
this. It

[[Page 9815]]

is going to finally be a reality. I will just say we are going to have 
an amendment that will come up this afternoon, the Sessions amendment. 
I would suggest it is very important for people to understand that it 
would only cut contract authority, it has nothing do with spending more 
or less money. It is not going to have any effect on the deficit, and 
it is very important people understand that.
  So it is a good bill, and I appreciate working with so many people on 
this so closely to make this come to the point where we are today.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I also join in thanking a lot of people 
who have worked very hard on this bill. Certainly the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Inhofe, deserves primary credit. It has been a long 
road, no fun. He has done a great job, and I commend him as well as the 
ranking Democrat of the committee, Senator Jeffords from Vermont. They 
worked very closely together. And that is what makes good legislation. 
This is not a partisan bill. This is a transportation bill. Of course, 
Senator Bond from Missouri has done yeoman's work, and I thank Senator 
Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee.
  I wish to make a few comments as we prepare to vote on final passage. 
I think that vote will occur in several hours. I start by 
congratulating all those who have worked so hard on this issue, and I 
thank some people back in my home State of Montana.
  Jim Lynch is director of the Montana Department of Transportation. He 
is a terrific director, a very good man. I have known him for many 
years. He has his heart and soul in this work. I also thank members of 
his team: Sandy Straehl, Jim Currie, Jim Skinner, Dick Turner, and Mike 
Tierney, just to name a few. They are terrific people, and many of them 
were also helpful in TEA-21. They know highways. They know this bill. 
They know the program. Believe me, they do a good job in helping us.
  The bill we will vote on in a few hours is a good bill It is a solid 
bill. It is one that will move the country forward over the next 5 
years. Every State will benefit from this legislation, the so-called 
donor States, donee States, urban, rural, large and small, every State.
  In my state of Montana, this bill will provide $2.1 billion over the 
next 5 years. This is an increase in highway funding over $500 million 
of historic levels of TEA-21. This means that more than 16,500 good-
paying jobs will be sustained in Montana each and every year of this 
bill. In many respects, this is our economic development program, the 
highway program. It provides so many good-paying jobs as well as 
excellent transportation.
  I am very proud of the funding levels we have achieved working 
alongside my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. I believe we 
developed a reasonable and fiscally responsible funding package. I am 
pleased that the Senate voted strongly to approve our efforts to 
increase the funding by $11 billion. The vote last week was 76 to 22 to 
waive the budget point of order, that is, in favor of that $11 billion. 
I hope the administration will take a long serious look at this. I hope 
they will reexamine their earlier opposition to increasing 
transportation investments. It is a good solid effort. The Senate has 
again publicly made its desires known with regard to funding levels. We 
did not go over the top. We could have gone with more, to 318, but we 
did not. We stayed under $300 billion--very responsible, very 
reasonable--and I hope the President will understand this is good 
legislation for the country, it helps our infrastructure, it is all 
paid for, and it is necessary to help America be competitive.
  In a moment, we will vote on an amendment to reduce the funding in 
this bill by almost $11 billion. That is stripping away the funding 
that we worked so hard to identify and that the Senate voted to 
support.
  I have here with me a stack of letters from a diverse group of 
organizations that strongly oppose the amendment being offered by the 
Senator from Alabama. I will not go through all of them, but it is 
really stunning, the number of organizations that have written us in 
opposition to the Sessions amendment. Every organization you can think 
of from the ACT--that is, the Association for Commuter Transportation--
the Transportation Construction Coalition, the Surface Transportation 
Policy Project, signed by Anne Canby, who is the President; AASHTO, 
signed by John Horsley, executive director, and many environmental 
organizations as well have written in opposing the Sessions amendment: 
National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, United 
States Conference of Mayors. It is just a representative sample of the 
large number of letters that have been written.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have some of them printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     May 16, 2005.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the nation's local governments, 
     we urge you to maintain your support for the Senate-approved 
     $295 billion, six-year surface transportation bill by 
     rejecting the cuts contained in Amendment #646 offered by 
     Senator Jeff Sessions (AL) to H.R. 3.
       The Sessions Amendment exacerbates state and local 
     governments struggle with increasing congestion, crumbling 
     and unsafe transportation infrastructure and federal clean 
     air mandates. This occurs through the reduction of the 
     Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 
     (CMAQ) by $4 billion, Transit Formula Grants and Research by 
     $5 billion, Surface Transportation Enhancements by $1.1 
     billion, Transportation and Community and System Preservation 
     Program by $100 million, Transportation Infrastructure 
     Finance and Innovation Act by $100 million, and Federal 
     Highway Administration by $400 million.
       Under this amendment, the costs to meet the federal clean 
     air mandate will be borne largely by local property tax 
     payers. A $4 billion reduction in the CMAQ Program is an 
     unfunded mandate for state and local governments. CMAQ is 
     intended to help states and cities address the degraded air 
     quality from cars and trucks. The 1990 Clean Air Act 
     amendments require EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality 
     Standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health 
     and the environment. As a result, EPA has required that state 
     and local governments achieve attainment status for an 8-hour 
     ozone and a 2.5 micron Particulate Matter (PM 2.5) standard 
     by 2008-2015.
       We believe $295 billion will help address the pressing 
     outstanding transportation infrastructure and federal clean 
     air mandates of state and local government. We also believe 
     this funding level will also expedite the passage of SAFETEA 
     so that the Senate-House conference committee can begin its 
     work as soon as possible. America's state and local elected 
     officials urge you to oppose amendment #646 offered by 
     Senator Jeff Sessions.
       Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
           Respectfully,
     Tom Cochran,
       Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors.
     Donald J. Borut,
       Executive Director, National League of Cities.
     Larry E. Naake,
       Executive Director, National Association of Counties.
     Robert O'Neil,
       Executive Director, International City/County Management 
     Association.
                                  ____

                                    American Road & Transportation


                                         Builders Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
       Dear Senator: The Senate may soon vote on an amendment by 
     Senator Jeff Sessions to the federal highway and transit 
     program reauthorization bill, H.R. 3, that seeks to reduce 
     the measure's total investment level by $10.1 billion. The 
     bipartisan leaders of the Senate transportation committees 
     have repeatedly said the investment levels in H.R. 3 are 
     necessary to write a reauthorization bill that does not pit 
     states or modes of transportation against one another. 
     Consequently the American Road & Transportation Builders 
     Association (ARTBA) urges you to oppose this amendment.
       The funding reductions in the Sessions Amendment would come 
     from the following programs:
       $5,000,000,000 transit formula grants and research
       $4,000,000,000 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
     Program

[[Page 9816]]

       $1,100,000,000 Transportation Enhancement Program
       $400,000,000 Federal Highway Administration expenses
       $100,000,000 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 
     Innovation Act Program
       $100,000,000 Transportation and Community and System 
     Preservation Program
       Some--but certainly not all--of the proposed investment 
     reductions under the Sessions Amendment would come from non-
     infrastructure activities. Rather than reducing H.R. 3's 
     overall investment levels, it would be more appropriate to 
     transfer funds from the non-infrastructure expenditures to 
     core federal construction and maintenance programs to ensure 
     these funds are used to improve roadway safety and alleviate 
     traffic congestion.
       Last week, 76 senators voted to support the deficit-neutral 
     financing proposal for H.R. 3. It's time to complete action 
     on the TEA-21 reauthorization measure. Please oppose the 
     Sessions Amendment and support final passage of H.R. 3.
           Sincerely,
                                                   T. Peter Ruane,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____



                                                  Sierra Club,

                                                     May 16, 2005.
     Re oppose Sessions Amendment #646 to SAFETEA (S. 732).

       Dear Senator: The TEA-21 transportation reauthorization 
     bill (``SAFETEA,'' S. 732) that sets policy and funding for 
     highways and transit through the end of the decade contains 
     critical provisions to improve transportation planning and 
     development at the state and local level. We strongly urge 
     you to reject an amendment by Senator Sessions that would 
     substantialIy undermine these programs.
       Specifically, the amendment would:
       Cut $4 billion from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
     (CMAQ) improvement programs--provides funding for projects to 
     reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. Such a 
     funding cut would greatly harm the ability of municipalities 
     to comply with air quality requiremnts under the Clean Air 
     Act.
       Cut $5 billion from formula grants and research for 
     transit--provides funding for security, planning, capital 
     purchase and maintenance, facility repair and construction, 
     and operating expenses where eligible. The program includes 
     grants specifically targeted to urbanized areas, to non-
     urbanized areas, and to transportation providers that address 
     the special transportation needs of the elderly, low-income, 
     and persons with disabilities.
       Cut $1.1 billion from Surface Transportation Enhancement 
     activities--provides funding for projects that add community 
     or environmental value to transportation projects. This 
     includes historic preservation, community development, and 
     water pollution mitigation due to highway runoff. This is a 
     crucial community building program widely acknowledged as the 
     most popular TEA-21 program.
       Cut $100 million from transportation and community and 
     system preservation (TCSP) programs--provides funding for a 
     comprehensive initiative to improve the relationships and 
     synergy between transportation, community, and system 
     development, and to identify useful private sector 
     initiatives. This program has been a testing ground for many 
     key local innovations, underpinning new directions in local 
     and regional transportation planning.
       Cut $100 million from projects being built under the 
     Transportation Infrastructure and Finance and Innovation Act 
     (TIFIA) of 1998--provides federal credit assistance to major 
     transportation investments of critical national importance. 
     The TIFIA credit program is designed to fill market gaps and 
     utilize private sector investment.
       America's mobility is critical to our economy and our 
     national security. The transportation programs that would be 
     cut by this amendment have a long history of successful 
     implementation, and state and local transportation officials 
     have come to rely on them to effectively manage 
     transportation demand. We urge you to reject Senator 
     Sessions' shortsighted amendment that substantially 
     undermines the ability of local and state governments and 
     communities to effectively solve transportation problems.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Debbie Sease,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                                   Association for


                                      Commuter Transportation,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK),
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inhofe: I write to you today to ask your help 
     in defeating an amendment to SAFETEA that has been offered by 
     Senator Sessions (R-AL). The amendment, as I am sure you are 
     aware, would reduce SAFETEA by $11.1 billion, but perhaps 
     more importantly, would greatly reduce and in some cases 
     eliminate core highway programs. In essence, the Sessions 
     amendment undercuts the success of ISTEA and TEA-21 by 
     drastically altering the make up of Federal-Aid Highway 
     Assistance.
       The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), in cooperation 
     with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), recently 
     released its annual report on congestion. While the report 
     paints a grim picture, it also provides proof that we can 
     reduce congestion by getting more out of our existing 
     transportation system.
       The annual report indicates that congestion is growing 
     quicker than states and local governments are able to build 
     the roadways and transit needed to handle increases in travel 
     demand. The study finds that American's spent 3.7 billion 
     hours and 2.3 billion gallons of fuel stuck in traffic 
     congestion--producing a ``congestion invoice'' for the 
     national economy of $63.1 billion in 2003. Congestion is not 
     only a problem for those who live in the nation's largest 
     metropolitan areas, but also for those in small to medium 
     sized cities. No longer is congestion just a New York and Los 
     Angeles problem, now it is Savannah's and Birmingham's as 
     well.
       The TTI report further quantifies the role efficient 
     operating roads can have in reducing congestion. The report 
     estimates that projects to improve the efficiency of existing 
     capacity provided 336 million hours of delay reduction and 
     $5.6 billion in congestion savings for the 85 urban areas 
     studied with 2003 data. If these treatments were deployed on 
     all the major roads in every area, an estimated 613 million 
     hours of delay and more than $10.2 billion would be saved.''. 
     The Sessions amendment would reduce, rather then enhance, a 
     States ability to deploy these treatments.
       For your consideration we have attached the recommendations 
     that the TTI report makes. The Sessions amendment would cut 
     those programs that aim to increase the efficiency of the 
     transportation system. Thus we urge you to opppose the 
     Sessions amendment and protect those programs that help get 
     the most out of our transportation system.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Kevin Shannon,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                     May 16, 2005.
       Dear Senator: The 28 national associations and construction 
     unions of the Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC) 
     urge you to oppose an amendment to H.R. 3, the federal 
     highway and transit program reauthorization bill, to be 
     offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that would cut as 
     much as $10.7 billion from the $295 billion authorized in the 
     bill through FY2009. The amendment would undermine the 
     Senate's overwhelming vote last week in support of an 
     additional $11 billion for highways and transit over the next 
     five years.
       This additional funding is critical to help states maintain 
     and improve their aging and congested highway system and 
     improve safety. The additional funding is also necessary to 
     provide an equitable return on user fee revenue collected in 
     each state. Moreover, the proposed cut to the transit program 
     represents nearly a year's worth of funding which would 
     severely impact the ability of states and localities to 
     provide public transportation services to their citizens, 
     especially the elderly and disabled populations.
       The Sessions amendment would cut the federal transit 
     program by $5 billion and the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
     Quality (CMAQ) program by $4 billion. In addition, under the 
     Sessions amendment your state would lose National Highway 
     System (NHS), Surface Transportation Program (STP), and 
     Metropolitan Planning funds.
       Attached are charts prepared by the Federal Highway 
     Administration that illustrate how the Sessions amendment 
     would affect the amount of highway funding your state would 
     receive.
       The TCC urges you to oppose the Sessions amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                The Transportation
     Construction Coalition.
                                  ____

                                            Surface Transportation


                                               Policy Project,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
     Hon. James Inhofe,
     Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim Jeffords
     Ranking Minority Member, Senate Environment and Public Works 
         Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kit Bond,
     Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Ranking Minority Members, Senate Subcommittee on 
         Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond, Jeffords and 
     Baucus: On behalf of the STPP Coalition, I am writing to 
     express our strong opposition to amendment #646 by Senator 
     Jeff Sessions, proposing to reduce funding for many critical 
     elements in the SAFETEA legislation before you.
       The amendment threatens the basic structure of the current 
     federal surface transportation program, disrupting program 
     elements and policies first established in the 1991 ISTEA 
     law. Among these is the effective reversal of a longstanding 
     commitment under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
     Improvement (CMAQ) program to assist local compliance efforts 
     with applicable federal air quality standards. Now, with

[[Page 9817]]

     new and more rigorous standards for ozone and particulate 
     matter coming on line, this amendment proposes dramatic 
     reductions in CMAQ funding--by a total of $4 billion or more 
     than 37 percent--that are certain to disrupt compliance air 
     quality efforts in local areas where about one-half of the 
     nation's population resides.
       The amendment also threatens funding for transit programs, 
     specifically commitments to transit research and transit 
     formula grants. Ironically, this $5 billion reduction in 
     transit funding in these investments not only eliminates the 
     funding gains just approved by the full Senate last week but 
     withdraws another $2.7 billion from the transit account. 
     Undeniably, this amendment effectively reverses longstanding 
     federal commitments to balanced funding between highway and 
     transit programs. Importantly, the amendment also cuts the 
     very successful Transportation Enhancements program by $1.1 
     billion and the TCSP program by $100 million, threatening 
     both programs which now generate substantial benefits for 
     taxpayers and their communities.
       Taken together, this package represents an assault on 
     continuing state and local efforts to deliver better 
     transportation solutions and cheaper and more efficient 
     travel options for the public and businesses, threatening 
     public support for this transportation legislation. We urge 
     your strongest opposition to the Sessions amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Anne P. Canby,
     President.
                                  ____

         American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials,
                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Minority Member Baucus: On behalf of the 
     American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
     Officials (AASHTO), which represents the State transportation 
     agencies in the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and 
     Puerto Rico, I am writing to express opposition to an 
     amendment offered by Senator Jeff Sessions that would reduce 
     funding for certain highway and transit programs by $10.7 
     billion over the remaining five years of the bill.
       The Sessions amendment would completely reverse the funding 
     increases, which were crafted by the Finance Committee and 
     contained in your substitute amendment, by severely reducing 
     funding for selected programs, including $5 billion from the 
     transit formula program, $4 billion from the congestion 
     mitigation and air quality program, $1.1 billion from the 
     Transportation Enhancements Program, $400 million from FHWA's 
     administrative expenses, $100 million from the Transportation 
     Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program; and $100 
     million from the Transportation and Community and System 
     Preservation Program. We not only oppose the funding 
     reduction altogether, but also believe that these programs, 
     which enjoy broad support, should not be singled out in this 
     manner.
       We applaud the 76 Senators who voted to support the 
     deficit-neutral financing proposal for H.R. 3. We urge you to 
     oppose the Sessions Amendment, complete action on the hill 
     and move to conference as quickly as possible.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     John Horsley,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. BAUCUS. These groups are many. There are at least 28 national 
associations and construction unions that make up the Transportation 
Construction Coalition. I mentioned AASHTO. I didn't mention the 
Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club, which are also in 
opposition to the Sessions amendment. You don't see that many groups 
together, construction groups, unions, environmental groups, local 
governments, all standing together on the same amendment; that is, in 
opposition to an amendment, in this case the Sessions amendment. This 
is one such occasion.
  I have heard it said that we should not increase funding for this 
bill because the House will not agree to it. I ask my colleagues, are 
we not a separate body? That can be turned around. The House should not 
pass something because we might not agree to it. They are a body, we 
are a body. We have just as much right as they to indicate what we 
should do.
  As I have said in this Chamber many times, legislating is the art of 
compromise. It is time for the administration and the House to 
demonstrate a willingness to work with the Senate on this bill. We are 
now ready to go to conference. We have less than 2 weeks until the 
expiration of the current extension of these programs. We have to get 
moving. The only chance we have to get this bill done is if we act 
quickly, reach an agreement soon on the funding levels in this bill, 
that once we have reached an agreement on the funding levels, I think 
virtually everything else will fall into place.
  I urge my colleagues in the House and in the Senate, also in the 
executive branch, to work with us, find an agreeable funding level for 
these programs. We cannot afford to argue for months about this issue. 
We have tough decisions to make, and the time is now to make them. We 
cannot afford to govern by extensions. States and local governments and 
the construction community are already feeling the pain from six 
extensions we have had to date. The time is now to roll up our sleeves, 
get to conference, and send a bill to the President. Then we can help 
the American people in doing so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am pleased to be on the Senate floor today to talk about this long 
overdue Transportation reauthorization bill. We need to pass this bill, 
and we need to pass it this year. We have not had a transportation bill 
in more than 2 years for America. The delay has caused the State 
departments of transportation across America and in Colorado to operate 
under a series of short-term extensions. That is unacceptable while we 
deal with the major issues that are facing the country, including the 
issue of transportation. The delay in the passage of the new 
transportation bill has cost the country about 100,000 jobs and created 
real uncertainty for States that are trying to make construction 
decisions at a time when they are also trying to recover from a 
devastating fiscal crisis.
  The passage of a new transportation bill is central. In fact, there 
is nothing like the passage of a new transportation bill to create 
those jobs and provide the much needed funding to jump-start the 
economic picture in Colorado and in many other places across our 
country. In fact, it is exactly the kind of business the American 
people expect us to be conducting.
  This important legislation will create thousands of jobs in Colorado 
as well as across the country and support important transportation 
infrastructure needs on roads in our cities, in rural areas, on our 
transit systems, and our bridges. The legislation will also lay the 
groundwork to provide important high-priority projects across my State. 
These are essential projects that will simply not get completed without 
the passage of this legislation.
  This legislation will reinvigorate our economy and make our Nation 
stronger. The first step toward this goal was with our vote to increase 
the funding level to $295 billion. I highly commend my colleagues, 
Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, for working to increase funding 
without adding to the national deficit. This additional funding will 
give an increase to my State of Colorado of about $156 million more 
than we receive under current law and about $26 million more than the 
House-passed transportation bill. That is $26 million more a year than 
the House-passed transportation bill.
  Here is what this additional $26 million will do for my State of 
Colorado. It will allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to 
invest in important projects across our State such as our new transit 
initiative, TREX, as well as investments in U.S. Highway 160, 
Interstate 70, and Interstate 25. This is what the $26 million increase 
will not do, however. It doesn't add to our Nation's deficit. The 
additional funding is completely paid for. These are the types of 
choices I am proud to make for Colorado, and these are the choices we 
should all be making for America.
  In Colorado, 30 percent of our major roads are congested, 43 percent 
of our roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and almost 20 percent 
of our bridges are structurally deficient. We need this increase in 
transportation dollars, and I will continue to work with my colleagues 
to ensure that the highest level of funding for our transportation 
infrastructure is maintained. Nonetheless, as many other States here, 
Colorado is a donor State. That is

[[Page 9818]]

Washington-speak about those States that put more money into the 
highway user trust fund than what we get back.
  There is a real issue of fairness I would like my colleagues to take 
a hard look at over the years ahead, fairness for the people of 
Colorado and all of the other States who pay the same gas tax as the 
rest of the country every time they fill up at the gas pump, and then 
at the end of the day we don't get back the same return when the 
Federal Government returns that money to the States. In Colorado today, 
for every dollar a Coloradan puts into the highway trust fund, our 
State receives about 90 cents back. Under the Senate proposal, in 2009, 
Colorado will receive 92 cents back. That is a move in the right 
direction, but that is still much less than what is equitable for 
Colorado and other donor States.
  We need to pass this bill, and while the proposal being considered in 
the Senate certainly is a step in the right direction, it does not 
provide the level of investment that would address Colorado's growing 
transportation needs as well as the needs of donor States.
  To correct this unfairness, we need to take some important steps. 
First, I am proud to support the increase in the overall funding of 
this bill without adding to the deficit. As I have said, this is a 
first step in the right direction. Secondly, we have to make sure we 
protect that increase in conference with the House. The President has 
indicated he will veto this larger investment, leaving Colorado with a 
level of funding that will not support the needs of our State. We must 
convince the President not to veto this additional money. Keep in mind 
the rising cost of steel and oil have also driven up the cost of 
construction, and the President's own Department of Transportation said 
the country needs a level of funding $100 billion more than the 
President has said he supports.
  The third step we need to take is to correct the unfair formula that 
disadvantages States such as ours. I hope my colleagues will help us 
continue to look for ways to provide adequate investment that will give 
donor States such as Colorado the rate of return we need and deserve.
  Having a first-class transportation system is critical to the Nation 
and to Colorado. I look forward to the passage of this very important 
bill. I will continue to work to see that the most basic level of 
infrastructure funding is not only maintained but improved so we can 
have safe roadways and robust economic development throughout the 
State.
  Finally, let me say this is the kind of legislation the Senate should 
be working on. Because at the end of the day, this is about doing the 
work the people of America care about. They want us to work on their 
behalf every day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are 12 minutes away from the vote that 
will be taken and then recessing until 2 o'clock and coming back and 
finishing probably two votes and then final passage. There won't be 
time to debate the point. There will be a couple minutes equally 
divided. The Senator from Arkansas wants to participate in that.
  Since I will not be able to talk about the Sessions amendment, let me 
make a couple of points. I don't have a better friend in this body than 
Senator Sessions. He and I are both very conservative, always ranked 
that way. He has an amendment to cut the transportation bill by $10.7 
billion and the intent is for $5 billion of that amount to be taken 
from mass transit and $5.7 billion to be taken from the highway 
program.
  The interesting thing about this is the amendment would only cut 
contract authority, which is the upper limit of what may be spent on 
the program. There is no reduction in guaranteed spending. Everybody 
knows last year in our bill, there was $318 billion in contract 
authority and $303 billion in guaranteed spending. That is the figure 
you are concerned with. There is no reduction in guaranteed spending on 
the Sessions amendment. Guaranteed spending is the amount the bill 
requires to be spent on the program. So there is no change in actual 
spending or the deficit.
  The amendment also ignores the complexity of the formula. As a 
result, the amendment drops the contract authority of some donor States 
below the minimum rates of return identified in the bill. For example, 
Arizona's rate of return would drop below 90.3 percent in 2005 and 90.9 
percent in 2006 as opposed to 92 percent. It is a huge difference. Keep 
in mind that is contract authority.
  It is not just the donor States that are hurt by the amendment. 
Pennsylvania, an older State, for example, would lose $258 million in 
contract authority and drops from a 15-percent increase over TEA-21--
that would be 7 years ago--down to 11 percent, undoing the gains they 
received at that time.
  Finally, I remind everybody that Senators Grassley and Baucus 
increased the amount of money. The Sessions amendment is supposedly 
going to take back that $11.2 billion increase. But when we passed that 
amendment, the Finance Committee--and it is their job; read the Senate 
rules, that is what the Finance Committee is supposed to be doing, go 
in there and find the money--they said: Yes, we know we can spend the 
additional $11.2 billion. It is not going to increase the deficit. And 
then they came along, and that fact was verified by the Joint Committee 
on Taxation. They are the ones who said what the Finance Committee said 
is right.
  Senator Sessions and I are always in the top three most conservative 
Members when the ratings systems come out of all 100 Senators. I want 
people to know my view on the amendment. I know the Senator is well 
meaning, but it is one I will be opposing for those very reasons.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand there are 6 minutes 
remaining on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 3 of the 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in very strong 
opposition to the Sessions amendment. It is a bad idea, both from the 
standpoint of process and policy. First, it would undo the carefully 
balanced package developed by the four committees of jurisdiction. Four 
committees have worked putting this package together: the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, the Finance Committee, the Banking 
Committee, and the Commerce Committee. All have been involved in this 
process. They have spent literally years laying the groundwork for this 
bill, working ever since passage of the last bill. When we went through 
the last session of congress, we could not get a bill passed. We have 
since had interim extensions which were of concern.
  The chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the 
ranking member have spent countless hours trying to put together a 
sensible and reasonable package, making tough decisions regarding 
funding allocations among the various programs. This amendment would 
begin the process of unraveling those committee decisions, both as they 
affect highways and transit. I warn my colleagues at the outset, this 
is a bad way to proceed on a complicated and important piece of 
legislation which is important to every single Member of this body--
important to their Governors, important to their county officials, and 
right on down the line.
  We know as a matter of policy there is tremendous stress on our 
transportation system. The costs we pay in congestion have been 
detailed by the Texas Transportation Institute. My own view is we need 
even more investment in our transportation system, and it is provided 
for in this bill.
  I understand the practicalities of the situation in which we find 
ourselves. Failure to make the needed investment in transportation 
systems would constrain our economic competitiveness and leave us at a 
disadvantage in world competition.
  There are very few bills that are so essential to the economic well-
being of

[[Page 9819]]

our country as this bill. This transportation infrastructure bill is 
critical to economic development and economic competitiveness in all 50 
States. Failure to make the investment that is necessary will 
constitute a setback to our efforts to build a better and stronger 
economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 more minutes to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator from Montana.
  The transportation industry is strongly opposed to this amendment. 
For example, to take one instance of a group we deal with, given the 
jurisdiction of our Banking Committee over mass transit, the American 
Public Transportation Association, which represents 1,500 transit 
agencies across the country, observes that the Sessions amendment would 
undo the bipartisan and widely supported efforts in the Senate in 
support of increased and balanced transportation infrastructure 
investment and should be strongly opposed.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to Chairman Inhofe in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SARBANES. Let me again underscore how vitally important the 
programs authorized in the underlying bill are for the economic and 
social health of our Nation. As with any large and complex piece of 
legislation, not everyone will be satisfied. I think this bill 
represents a reasonable approach to meeting our urgent transportation 
needs. The pending amendment would begin the process of unraveling that 
approach to which so much effort has been devoted by so many people.
  I particularly thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords and 
Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their involvement in 
trying to shape a good piece of legislation. I didn't agree with every 
decision that is in this package, but I see it as a significant forward 
step in dealing with a very important national priority. I hope my 
colleagues will reject the Sessions amendment and that we will then go 
on to approve the Inhofe substitute amendment and final passage of this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                    American Public Transportation


                                                  Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inhofe: On behalf of the American Public 
     Transportation Association (APTA) and its more than 1,500 
     member organizations, I write to express our strong 
     opposition to the amendment Senator Sessions offered--#646--
     to H.R. 3. That amendment would sharply reduce funding of a 
     number of programs in H.R. 3 by some $10.7 billion over six 
     years.
       It is critically important that H.R. 3 be passed by the 
     Senate at the enhanced level of funding included in the 
     Inhofe substitute amendment. The Inhofe substitute amendment 
     is a balanced and carefully crafted measure that has strong 
     bipartisan support from the leadership of the Senate Banking, 
     Environment and Public Works, and Finance Committees. Transit 
     and highway needs are critical and have been documented by 
     the American Association of State Highway & Transportation 
     Officials and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. The Inhofe 
     substitute amendment addresses those needs in a balanced 
     approach supported by a broad range of affected groups and 
     coalitions. In contrast, the amendment offered by Senator 
     Sessions would dramatically cut a number of programs across 
     the board, including the transit formula program by $5 
     billion, the congestion mitigation and air quality program by 
     $4 billion, and other programs that enjoy broad bipartisan 
     support.
       In short, the Sessions amendment would undo the bipartisan 
     and widely supported efforts in the Senate in support of 
     increased and balanced transportation infrastructure 
     investment and should strongly be opposed.
       If you have questions on this matter, please have your 
     staff contact Rob Healy of APTA's Government Affairs 
     Department at (202) 496-4811 or email [email protected].
           Sincerely yours,
                                                William W. Millar,
                                                        President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Allen 
amendment. We had this discussion last week, but we have a couple 
minutes each to sum up what is at stake.
  The language in the Senate Commerce Committee bill guarantees funding 
if a State does one thing, and that is have or pass a primary seatbelt 
law. We need to give incentives for people to use their seatbelts. We 
need to give incentives to the States if they do that. This is about 
doing the thing that would have the greatest effect on saving lives of 
anything we could do in this legislation, and we should go forward with 
it.
  Under the Allen amendment, a State has no certainty that any actions 
it takes to increase seatbelt use will result in an 85-percent or 
higher use rate. So that is a worthy goal, but very few States have 
been able to do that. We are trying to encourage more States to do 
better than they are. My own State only has a 63-percent seatbelt use, 
and I think we need to encourage more activity in the States. Only 
three States have ever reached the 85-percent use rate.
  The language we have in the bill has near unanimous support 
nationwide among traffic safety organizations from USTA to the 
Automobile Manufacturers Association to the American Automobile 
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics.
  One thing I was impressed with when we had the hearings in the 
committee was the National Highway Safety Transportation Safety 
Administrator Jeff Runge, who is a doctor with expertise in this field. 
He said the Commerce highway safety bill will ``save more lives, and do 
it faster and cheaper than any other highway safety proposal Congress 
is likely to consider this decade.''
  It would be a huge mistake to take away this incentive but in effect 
set a goal most States can't achieve and, therefore, we would not be 
able to save an estimated 1,200 or more lives a year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in these few moments before the vote, I 
commend the chairman of our Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Inhofe, along with Senators Jeffords and Baucus, for 
a job well done. We can't forget Senator Reid, whom we consider an 
emeritus member of the EPW Committee, who has helped a great deal.
  Tremendous staff work has gone into this. I appreciate the great work 
of my staff: Allen Stein, John Stoody, Heideh Shahmoradi; Senator 
Inhofe's staff, Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keeffe, Andrew Wheeler, Nathan 
Richmond, Greg Murrill, Alex Herrgott, John Shanahan, Angie Giancarlo, 
and Rudy Kapichak; Senator Jeffords' staff, JC Sandberg, Allison 
Taylor, Malia Somerville, JoEllen Darcy, and Chris Miller; and Kathy 
Ruffalo with Senator Baucus. Kathy brings a great deal of expertise to 
this effort.
  We urge passage of this bill. It doesn't go as far as most of us 
would like, but it certainly moves us in the right direction. We 
appreciate the great work of all who cooperated on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, after nearly 3 years and 6 temporary 
extensions, the Senate is on the verge of passing a monumental highway 
bill. We will provide over $295 billion that will create thousands of 
jobs and keep our transportation infrastructure healthy.
  This legislation did not happen by itself--it took hard work and 
perseverance. First, I want to thank Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Jeffords, from the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as 
Senator Bond, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. They provided excellent leadership and I know their 
staff stayed up many a sleepless night.
  For Senator Inhofe's staff, I want to thank Ruth Van Mark, James 
O'Keeffe, Nathan Richmond, Angie Giancarlo, Andy Wheeler, Marty Hall, 
Greg Murrill, Alex Herrgott, Rudy

[[Page 9820]]

Kapichak, John Shanahan, Frank Fannon and Michele Nellenbach.
  For Senator Jeffords' staff, I want to thank JC Sandberg, Ken 
Connolly, Alison Taylor, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Chris Miller, Margaret 
Wetherald, Mary Francis Repko, Malia Somerville, and Carolyn Dupree.
  And for Senator Bond's staff, I want to thank Ellen Stein, John 
Stoody, and Heideh Shamoradi.
  Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes also deserve recognition. They 
played an important role developing the transit title in this bill. I 
also want to thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, for his commitment to the transportation program.
  Let me take a moment and speak about the hard work of the Finance 
Committee staff. The House bill simply did not provide enough money for 
our highway infrastructure. The Finance Committee faced a difficult 
task. We needed to find additional revenue, but we also needed to pay 
for it. As is the rule on the Finance Committee, we worked in a 
bipartisan spirit to find an extra $7.8 billion for the highway trust 
fund, and all of it is paid for.
  I also want to thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate 
the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan 
Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Ed McClellan, Dean 
Zerbe, John O'Neill, and Nick Wyatt.
  I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate 
Legislative Counsel for their service.
  I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, 
including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Kathy Ruffalo-
Farnsworth, Matt Jones, Jon Selib, Anita Horn Rizek, Judy Miller, 
Melissa Mueller, Ryan Abraham, and Wendy Carey. I also thank our 
dedicated fellows, Mary Baker, Jodie Cruz, Cuong Huynh, Richard Litsey, 
Stuart Sirkin, and Brian Townsend.
  Finally, I thank our hardworking interns: Rob Grayson, Emily Meeker 
and Waylon Mathern.
  This legislation really was a team effort. I hope that we can keep 
working together as we move to conference and hopefully get this 
legislation done before the end of the month. 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                           Amendment No. 611

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate evenly divided 
on the Allen amendment.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, let me know when 1 minute is left, please.
  My amendment sets a goal of 85 percent usage of seatbelts, and if a 
State achieves that, whichever way they may achieve it, they would get 
these incentive grants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is reminded that he only has 1 
minute.
  Mr. ALLEN. Thank you.
  The purpose of my amendment is to not have the Federal Government as 
an officious nanny telling the States how to achieve seatbelt usage 
rates. Twenty-nine States don't have primary enforcement of seatbelt 
laws and 21 do. Seven States have 90 percent usage. Fifteen States have 
over 85 percent. The underlying proposal will actually reward States 
that have lower seatbelt usage only because they have primary 
enforcement seatbelt laws, while others that do not have primary 
enforcement seatbelt laws have a higher use rate.
  I don't think the people in the States who have paid into the highway 
trust fund ought to be dictated to by officious Federal nannies; we 
should trust the people in the States to make these decisions as 
opposed to trespassing on those prerogatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to make four points.
  First, I voice my opposition to the Allen amendment. NHTSA, in every 
study I have found, says the best way to reduce fatalities on the 
highways is for States to enact primary safety belt laws.
  Secondly, this bill provides an incentive, not a penalty. That is 
something we need to remember and understand. This is maybe a departure 
from past policies, but the bill, as currently written, provides 
incentives, not penalties.
  Third, years ago, the Department of Transportation set an attainment 
goal of 90 percent. This amendment would move us back to 85 percent. We 
are moving backward instead of moving toward our goal; we are backing 
off of the goal.
  Fourth, it is not so much about equity or fairness, but it is about 
saving lives. When you look at the safety groups and listen to the 
studies and look at the statistics--whatever measure you want to make--
this is about saving lives and States having primary safety belt laws.
  I thank the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time under rule 
XII is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 611 proposed by the 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 86, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]

                                YEAS--14

     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bond
     Collins
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Nelson (FL)
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Vitter

                                NAYS--86

     Akaka
     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 611) was rejected.

                          ____________________