[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3371-3372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        TOLLING FEDERAL HIGHWAYS

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about an 
important issue that is going to be addressed on the highway bill. I 
have an amendment that would basically say you cannot toll a Federal 
highway unless it is for the production of another free lane. This is 
an effort to curb a State from tolling every lane of a highway that has 
been built with Federal dollars by Federal taxpayers.
  When President Eisenhower established the National Highway System, it 
was on behalf of national security that he made this monumental policy 
decision which has taken us years, tens of years to complete. It has 
had the added advantage of commerce--having a National Highway System 
where all of our States are connected with good quality Federal 
highways has been a huge boon for our country. That has been funded 
through highway user fees. The gasoline tax that everyone pays at the 
pump in our country has funded our Federal highway system.
  However, the Federal highway system has now been completed. For a 
State to come in and toll every lane of an existing Federal highway is 
not only disingenuous, but it breaks faith with the Federal taxpayers 
who, for over 50 years, have paid into the highway trust fund so we 
would have a Federal highway system for all Americans and for the 
commerce among our States for them to use. Now, we have three States 
that have been approved by the Department of Transportation to do 
exactly what I wish to prohibit--toll lanes of an existing Federal 
highway. That would prohibit the free use of that whole highway that 
has been built with Federal dollars. My amendment would keep us from 
going beyond the three. The amendment is two. I would extend it to 
three because there are three that the Department of Transportation has 
approved, but I want to stop this practice from going further. It is 
wrong for the Federal Government to allow it, it is wrong for the 
States to ask for it. Instead, we need to allow the opposite, the opt-
out ability for a State to say we want to spend our highway dollars on 
our priorities. That is what we ought to be doing.
  I do not disagree with tolls that are going to create a new free 
lane. That would keep the faith with the people. It would expand the 
system and the people would be paying to expand the system. That can be 
done in an effective and, frankly, a responsible way. On the issue of 
allowing States to opt-out--Senator Portman has put in an amendment 
that I would support, except that he goes a little bit too far. Senator 
Portman and Senator Coburn have amendments that would allow an opt-out 
from the whole Federal highway fund, which includes transit. I think 
that goes too far.
  I have a bill that would allow the opt-out of States that would be 
able to spend their highway funds the way they believe their priorities 
are set, but the 20 percent of the highway trust fund that goes for 
transit I think should be kept for the urban areas that need that kind 
of bus transportation, as well as intra-city and commuter rail. I think 
we ought to be able to keep that at the Federal level to determine what 
are the worthy grants. That is what the highway trust fund now does.
  The Portman amendment would take that away and put it into the State 
highway department. That sounds good on the surface, but highway 
departments have, in general--certainly I can speak from the experience 
of my State--not focused on or prioritized mass transit. This is one of 
the reasons why our cities in Texas are clogged--and in Houston and 
Dallas and San Antonio and Austin it is getting worse.
  I wish to see those cities be assured that transit funding would go 
forward as it is envisioned or I would be happy to amend my bill to say 
the 20 percent of transit funding could be opted out but it would have 
to go for transit funding in the States and the States could then set 
the priorities. But transit should not be shortchanged by the highway 
departments that have not prioritized mass transit.
  I think we need to work a little more. I could not support the 
Portman amendment the way it is written, but I want to gather the 
people who believe that we should have an opt-out of our highway funds 
and get a stronger mass--which I think Senator Coburn and Senator 
Portman would do, if they would take the transit out of their 
amendment.
  I think we have some work to do. I wish to support the Portman 
amendment but not in the form it is at present. I hope down the road 
other States will want to be able to opt out as well. But for now, I 
hope we will be

[[Page 3372]]

able to stop the tolling of our Federal highways as a first step to 
keep faith with the American taxpayers who, for 50 years, have built 
the Federal highway system and deserve to be able to drive to any State 
on a Federal highway without being shut out by States that decide to 
put a toll on it for their own purposes. These are Federal highways 
built with Federal tax dollars and they should be open to every 
taxpayer in America to use those freeways for commerce. I hope my 
amendment will be considered.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

                          ____________________