[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19473-19483]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2015--
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 22, which will be stated by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the amendment of 
     the Senate to the bill (H.R. 22), to authorize funds for 
     Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit 
     programs, and for other purposes, having met, have agreed 
     that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment 
     of the House and agree to the same with an amendment and the 
     House agree to the same, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees on the part of both Houses.

  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of December 1, 2015.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to clarify today a provision 
included in the FAST Act conference report.
  In order to build and restore the Nation's highway infrastructure 
without breaking the bank to do so, we are going to need the best and 
latest in cost-saving construction technologies to help us attain that 
goal.
  I supported a provision in the Senate bill that would do just that 
with regard to construction for key highway components, such as bridge 
abutments, erosion control on highway waterways, and sound walls. My 
language specifically identified ``innovative segmental wall technology 
for soil bank stabilization and roadway sound attenuation, and 
articulated technology for hydraulic sheer-resistant erosion control'' 
as technologies for research and deployment action by the Federal 
Highway Administration, FHWA.
  A core value shared by all three technologies is that they can save 
taxpayer dollars. And we should certainly encourage FHWA to engage in 
research and deployment on them.
  For example, one of the practical and expensive problems with highway 
construction is moving and dispensing with excavated dirt. Segmental 
retaining wall, or SRW, technology can reduce transportation 
construction costs to the taxpayers by allowing the use of in situ 
soils in building segmental retaining walls rather than treating the 
excavated dirt as waste and hauling it away. Using the native soils for 
bank reinforcement can save the hauling costs and time for dirt 
removal, also reducing construction time. Similar segmental unit 
technology can be used to provide additional choices that are also 
aesthetically appealing for transportation designers to consider for 
sound attenuation.
  And articulated segmented unit technology for erosion control, known 
as ACB for the concrete blocks usually used for this purpose linked 
together in a durable matrix, is especially durable and resistant to 
overtopping in high-water events. Overtopping is a major problem in 
high-water events that can degrade or ruin the existing erosion control 
measures. Rebuilding and replacing is always a huge cost that we should 
seek to avoid.
  While the conference report does not retain my provision, we still 
have options to save the taxpayers money. I would like to point out 
that provisions appear elsewhere in the conference report that can give 
FHWA essentially the same mission, albeit articulated in a different 
way.
  Section 1428 of the conference report states that ``the Secretary 
shall encourage the use of durable, resilient and sustainable materials 
and practices, including the use of geosynthetic materials and other 
innovative technologies, in carrying out the activities of the Federal 
Highway Administration.''
  Section 1428 might be an alternate means of articulating the same 
concepts I supported with regard to the innovative segmental wall, or 
SRW, technology. SRW walls use concrete block facing materials that are 
obviously highly durable, resilient, and sustainable. These facing 
units are anchored into the soils using geosynthetic ties that are also 
highly tough and durable and described in Section 1428.
  In passing the conference report, I would like to clarify for FHWA 
staff to consider SRW technology, using the durable, resilient, 
sustainable materials anchored with geosynthetics as one of the 
technologies envisioned in Section 1428. ACBs and segmental block sound 
walls also fit the definition of durable, resilient, and sustainable 
materials and techniques set forth in this section and should enjoy a 
similar favorable view under the umbrella of Section 1428.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the highway 
trust fund, HTF, and the conference report we will be considering 
shortly to accompany the surface transportation reauthorization bill, 
which is called the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, FAST 
Act.
  First, I am pleased to see that this bill provides 5 years of funding 
for our Nation's transportation infrastructure. That is the kind of 
long-range certainty our State and local officials and the private 
sector need to plan transportation infrastructure projects in a 
thoughtful and responsible way.
  While there are many excellent provisions in the bill, I do have 
significant concerns about the way our Nation's surface transportation 
infrastructure is being funded.
  First, I will speak about the policy within the bill. I am pleased 
that the conference committee has retained this Nation's commitment to 
transportation alternatives. This bill includes more than $4 billion 
for bike and pedestrian infrastructure, making our roads safer for 
everyone who uses them. My bill creating a dedicated program for 
nonmotorized safety is also included in the reauthorization, which will 
support

[[Page 19474]]

things like bike safety training programs for both bicyclists and 
drivers, again making our streets safer for all who use them.
  Furthermore, the section 5340 bus program has been kept intact. This 
program is for high-density areas like Baltimore and Washington, DC, 
which cannot simply widen a road to accommodate extra travelers. The 
FAST Act provides more than $2.7 billion to high-density areas. This is 
significant for Maryland in particular. Over the life of this bill, 
Maryland should receive more than $4.4 billion in Federal Highway 
Administration, FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration, FTA, funding 
combined. That is an extraordinary amount of funding for a State that 
sorely needs it.
  I am concerned, however, that the FAST Act undermines the public 
input, environmental analysis, and judicial review guaranteed under the 
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. If Congress wants Federal 
agencies to approve more permits faster, then we should appropriate the 
requisite funds for sufficient staff and other necessary resources. We 
should not undermine the integrity of important project reviews. 
Moreover, the argument that the permitting process takes too long is a 
red herring. More than 95 percent of all FHWA-approved projects involve 
no significant impacts and therefore have limited NEPA requirements. If 
we really want to speed project development, we should recognize the 
known causes of delay and not use this bill
as a Trojan horse to dismantle our
Nation's foundational environmental laws. So while I support many of 
the policies in the bill, I am still very concerned about the impact it 
will have on our environment.
  While I have mixed feelings about the policies in this bill, I am not 
conflicted with regard to how it is funded. I am extremely disappointed 
in the hodgepodge of questionable pay-fors that we are using in this 
bill. We certainly needed to address the problem of funding our 
Nation's highway and transit systems beyond the myriad short-term 
extensions that Congress has approved in the past. But instead of 
opting for a reliable and permanent future revenue stream to pay for 
this critical government function, the FAST Act falls back on 
provisions completely unrelated to highways and mass transit. It relies 
on one-time pay-fors that are simply digging a deeper hole for the next 
reauthorization. That is a troublesome precedent.
  I think we have missed an opportunity here to stick to the ``user 
pays'' principle with regard to the Federal gasoline excise tax, which 
hasn't been raised since 1993. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the tax would fully fund the 
bill for 5 years.
  Gasoline prices are plunging around the country, with the national 
average falling in 24 out of the past 30 days, according to the 
American Automobile Association, AAA, earlier this week. The price of a 
gallon of regular gasoline now stands at $2.04 nationally, down 14 
cents compared to 1 month ago and 74 cents lower than this time last 
year. AAA officials and others anticipate that the national average 
price will dip below the $2.00 threshold within a matter of days.
  So, as I said, I think we may be missing an opportunity here to put 
surface transportation infrastructure funding back on a solid 
foundation, appropriately based on the ``user pays'' principle.
  It is also important from a policy perspective that we price carbon 
more appropriately to reflect its total costs, promote fuel efficiency, 
and accelerate the absolutely essential shift from fossil fuels to 
cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy. Lower gasoline prices let 
motorists keep more money in their pockets in the short term. But we 
have to think about the long term, too, and if we needlessly delay 
making that inevitable shift, the long-term costs to human health and 
the environment will dwarf any perceived short-term gains.
  There is one so-called offset in the bill that I adamantly oppose: 
the use of private collection agencies, PCAs, to collect tax debt. I 
oppose this provision not only because it simply will not raise revenue 
but also because it is terrible tax policy that puts a target on the 
back of low-income and middle-class families. The Treasury Department, 
the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and the National Taxpayer Advocate 
all join me in opposing this provision.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, scores this provision at over 
$2.0 billion over 10 years, but since JCT only takes into account 
incoming and outgoing tax revenue, its score doesn't take into account 
the IRS's implementation and oversight costs and the opportunity costs 
of farming collections out to private collectors.
  Twice before, from 1996 to 1997 and from 2006 to 2009, Congress 
required Treasury to turn over some tax collection efforts to PCAs with 
miserable results. The first attempt resulted in the loss of $17 
million and contractors participating were found to have violated the 
Fair Debt Collections Practice Act. Under legislation enacted in 2004, 
the IRS again attempted to use PCAs to collect Federal taxes in 2006. 
In September of that year, the IRS began turning over delinquent 
taxpayer accounts to three PCAs who were permitted to keep between 21-
24 percent of the money they collected. While the program was supposed 
to bring in up to $2.2 billion in unpaid taxes, data from the IRS 
showed that the program actually resulted in a net loss of almost $4.5 
million to the Federal Government after subtracting $86.2 million in 
administration costs and more than $16 million in commissions to the 
PCAs.
  In analyzing the PCA offset last year, the IRS prepared a preliminary 
estimate of the percentage of individual taxpayers who have ``inactive 
tax receivables'' that would be subject to private debt collection and 
who are low-income. After reviewing collection data for fiscal year 
2013, the IRS found that 79 percent of the cases that fell into the 
``inactive tax receivables'' category involved taxpayers with incomes 
below 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. So nearly four-fifths 
of delinquent taxpayers were almost surely in the ``can't pay'' 
category and would be unlikely to make payments when contacted by a PCA 
instead of the IRS.
  Not only are low-income taxpayers more vulnerable to begin with, PCAs 
actually provide fewer options for them to meet their tax obligations. 
IRS employees, unlike the PCAs, have a variety of tools at their 
disposal they can use to help delinquent taxpayers meet their tax 
obligations, especially those facing financial difficulties. These 
tools include the ability to postpone, extend, or suspend collection 
activities for limited periods of time; making available flexible 
payment schedules that provide for skipped or reduced monthly payments 
under certain circumstances; the possibility of waiving late penalties 
or postponing asset seizures; and offers in compromise, OIC, which are 
agreements between struggling taxpayers and the IRS that settle tax 
debts for less than the full amount owed.
  In contrast, the PCAs' sole interest is to collect from a taxpayer 
the balance due amount they have been provided. They have no interest 
in whether the taxpayer owes other taxes or may not have filed required 
returns. They cannot provide any advice or use any of the tools IRS 
employees have, such as extensions or offers in compromise.
  In October, I joined 15 other Senators--including several of my 
Finance Committee colleagues and Ranking Member Wyden--in signing a 
letter the senior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, sent to leadership on 
the dangers and shortcomings of this provision. Unfortunately, our 
message was not heard. So, because we refuse to turn to obvious and 
commonsense financing solutions for our transportation infrastructure 
problems, we have decided instead to use an offset that has 
historically lost money, all on the backs of low-income taxpayers.
  Mr. President, the FAST Act conference report is a bipartisan, 
bicameral achievement. I congratulate the House and Senate conferees 
for reaching an agreement; I know it has been an arduous process. The 
reauthorization contains many good provisions and provides 5 years of 
desperately needed funding for our Nation's crumbling transportation 
infrastructure. I

[[Page 19475]]

will vote for the conference report, but I will do so with serious 
reservations about how this bill is funded. Our surface transportation 
infrastructure is a crucial component of our national security and 
economic competitiveness. Reauthorizing our surface transportation 
programs used to be a relatively routine matter; now it is becoming 
harder and harder to do and we are relying more and more on gimmicky 
funding mechanisms. These are worrisome precedents.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, over the past few years, the public has 
grown increasingly skeptical of Congress being able to function.
  When Republicans took the majority in January, we promised the 
American people we would get the Senate working again, and we have been 
delivering on that promise.
  This Transportation bill conference report is another major 
legislative achievement and the result of hard work by several 
committees in the House and Senate who put together key provisions to 
spur long overdue infrastructure investment and safety improvements.
  This bill will give States and local governments the certainty they 
need to plan for and commit to key infrastructure projects. It will 
also help strengthen our Nation's transportation system by increasing 
transparency in the allocation of transportation dollars, streamlining 
the permitting and environmental review processes, and cutting red 
tape.
  Republicans and Democrats alike got to make their voices heard during 
this process, and the final conference report is stronger because of 
it.
  As chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I 
had the opportunity to work on various sections of the bill with 
Ranking Member Bill Nelson. The provisions under our committee's 
jurisdiction comprise roughly half of the 1,300 pages of legislative 
text.
  One particular focus was on enhancing the safety of our Nation's 
cars, trucks, and railroads, and the final bill we produced makes key 
reforms that will enhance transportation safety around the country.
  Over the past year, the Commerce Committee has spent a lot of time 
focused on motor vehicle safety efforts. Last year was a record year 
for auto problems, with more than 63 million vehicles recalled.
  Two of the defects that have spurred recent auto recalls--the faulty 
General Motors ignition switch and the defective airbag inflators from 
Takata--are responsible for numerous unnecessary deaths and injuries--
at least 8 reported deaths in the case of Takata and more than 100 
deaths in the case of General Motors. Indications point to the Takata 
recalls as being among the largest and most complex set of auto-related 
recalls in our Nation's history, with more than 30 million cars 
affected.
  Given the seriousness of these recalls, when it came time to draft 
the highway bill, one of our priorities at the Commerce Committee was 
addressing auto safety issues and promoting greater consumer awareness 
and corporate responsibility.
  The conference report includes our committee's work to triple the 
civil penalties that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
can impose on automakers for a series of related safety violations--
from a cap of $35 million to a cap of $105 million--which should 
provide a much stronger deterrent against auto safety violations like 
those that occurred in the case of the faulty ignition switches at 
General Motors.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes the Motor 
Vehicle Whistleblower Safety Act, which I introduced with Ranking 
Member Nelson and others to incentivize auto companies to adopt 
internal reporting systems and establish a system to reward employees 
who ``blow the whistle'' when manufacturers sit on important safety 
information. The conference report also improves notification methods 
to ensure that consumers are made aware of open recalls.
  The new notification requirements include a provision incentivizing 
dealers to inform consumers of open recalls when they bring in their 
cars for routine maintenance, as well as a grant program to allow 
States to notify consumers of recalls when they register their 
vehicles.
  Our committee also worked with the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee during the conference process to incorporate a modified 
provision from my Democrat colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, 
which will prevent rental car companies from renting unrepaired cars 
that are subject to a recall.
  In the wake of the recall over the GM ignition switch defect, the 
inspector general at the Department of Transportation published a 
scathing report identifying serious lapses at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration--or NHTSA--the government agency 
responsible for overseeing safety in our Nation's cars and trucks.
  The concerns raised included questions about the agency's ability to 
properly identify and investigate safety problems--a concern that is 
further underscored by the circumstances surrounding the Takata 
recalls.
  In addition to targeting violations by automakers, our portion of the 
highway bill also addresses the lapses at NHTSA identified in the 
inspector general's report. While the conference report does increase 
funding for NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation, that will only 
happen contingent on the agency's implementation of reforms called for 
by the inspector general, ensuring that this agency will be in a better 
position to address vehicle safety problems in the future.
  Combating impaired driving is also a priority. I am pleased to 
announce that the conference report creates a grant for States that 
provide 24/7 sobriety programs. I have been a long-time champion of 
these programs, which have been very effective in States, like my home 
State of South Dakota, where it originated.
  This provision is intended to allow States to certify the general 
practice on minimum penalties which can meet the definition under the 
repeat offender law, and we expect that NHTSA should reasonably defer 
to a State's analysis underpinning such a certification.
  Another significant portion of the final conference report is made up 
of a bipartisan rail safety bill put together by the Republican junior 
Senator from Mississippi and the Democrat junior Senator from New 
Jersey that we merged in conference with the passenger rail bill that 
the House passed earlier this year.
  The resulting passenger rail title includes a 5-year reauthorization 
of Amtrak that includes a host of safety provisions that our committee 
adopted following the tragic train derailment in Philadelphia. I know a 
number of my colleagues are very pleased with various provisions that 
will strengthen our Nation's rail infrastructure and smooth the way for 
the implementation of new safety technologies.
  Our transportation infrastructure keeps our economy--and our Nation--
going. Our Nation's farmers depend on our rail system to move their 
crops to market. Manufacturers rely on our Interstate Highway System to 
distribute their goods to stores across the United States.
  And all of us depend on our Nation's roads and bridges to get around 
every day.
  For too long, transportation has been the subject of short-term 
legislation that leaves those responsible for building and maintaining 
our Nation's transportation system without the certainty and 
predictability they need to keep our roads and highways thriving.
  I am proud of the final conference report that passed the House 
earlier today by a strong vote of 359-65. I urge my colleagues to join 
in passing this long-overdue bill so it can be signed into law by the 
President without further delay.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Commerce Committee's 
related provision be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Commerce Committee Provisions in Five-Year Surface Transportation Bill

       Below is an extended summary of key provisions in the 
     Senate Commerce, Science,

[[Page 19476]]

     and Transportation Committee's titles in the five-year 
     surface transportation bill:


   IMPROVED PROJECT DELIVERY AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) 
                               MANAGEMENT

       Project Streamlining--Provides additional authority to 
     streamline project delivery and consolidate burdensome 
     permitting regulations (similar to the administration's GROW 
     AMERICA proposal).


                        IMPROVING HIGHWAY SAFETY

       Keeps Drug Users Off the Roads--Allows for more effective 
     drug testing for commercial truck drivers. Also increases 
     federal cooperation with state efforts to combat drug 
     impaired driving and directs a study on the feasibility of an 
     impairment standard for driving under the influence of 
     marijuana.
       Prohibits Rental of Vehicles Under Recall--Prohibits 
     covered rental companies from renting or selling an 
     unrepaired vehicle under recall. Based upon the Raechel and 
     Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act of 2015 (S. 1173).
       Incentivizes Crash Avoidance Technology--Adds that crash 
     avoidance information be indicated on new car stickers to 
     inform vehicle purchasing decisions and foster competition in 
     the marketplace.
       Tire Pressure Monitoring--Requires the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to update the rule 
     governing tire pressure monitoring technologies; modified in 
     conference to avoid unintended consequences and clarify that 
     the rule should not be technology specific.
       Improves Information on Safety of Child Restraint Systems--
     Improves crash data collection to include child restraint 
     systems.


                  IMPROVES VEHICLE RECALL NOTIFICATION

       Improves Consumer Awareness of Recalls--Requires NHTSA to 
     improve the safercar.gov website and the consumer complaint 
     filing process. Provides a study on the technological 
     feasibility of direct vehicle notification of recalls. Also 
     requires manufacturers to identify and include applicable 
     part numbers when notifying NHTSA of safety defects, making 
     this information publicly available.
       Incentivizes Dealers to Notify Consumers of Open Recalls--
     Incentivizes auto dealers to inform consumers of open recalls 
     at service appointments.
       Creates Program for States to Notify Consumers of Recalls--
     Creates a state pilot grant to inform consumers of open 
     recalls at the time of vehicle registration.
       Improves Tire Recall Efforts--Increases the time tire 
     owners and purchasers have to seek a remedy for tire recalls 
     at no cost to consumers. Creates a publicly available 
     database of tire recall information. Also includes a 
     provision adopted in conference to direct NHTSA to study the 
     feasibility of requiring electronic identification on tires 
     in order to facilitate registration and ease the burden on 
     small businesses.


                                FREIGHT

       Develops a National Freight Strategy and Strategic Plan--
     Sets goals to enhance U.S. economic competitiveness by 
     improving freight transportation networks that serve our 
     agriculture, retail, manufacturing, and energy sectors. 
     Focuses freight planning efforts in the Office of the 
     Secretary with the Undersecretary for Policy to provide 
     multimodal coordination.
       Requires Additional Freight Data--Establishes a working 
     group and an annual reporting requirement to collect 
     additional freight data to help improve the movement of 
     freight throughout the country.
       Improves Freight Planning--Improves freight planning 
     efforts to ensure that freight planning is multimodal and 
     addresses the links between highways, railroads, ports, 
     airports, and pipelines.


                         FLEXIBILITY FOR STATES

       Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Grant 
     Consolidation--Consolidates state trucking enforcement grants 
     to provide additional flexibility to states to administer 
     enforcement programs.
       NHTSA Grant Flexibility--Increases emphasis on ``Section 
     402'' highway safety grants to address each state's unique 
     highway safety challenges. Also increases opportunities for 
     states to obtain grants for implementing graduated drivers 
     licensing, distracted driving laws and impaired driving. 
     Creates a new non-motorized grant to create programs to 
     enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.


                    REGULATORY REFORM & TRANSPARENCY

       Petitions--Requires FMCSA to respond to stakeholder 
     petitions for review of regulations or new rulemakings.
       Transparency--Requires FMCSA to maintain updated records 
     relating to regulatory guidance, and provides for regular 
     review to ensure consistency and enforceability.


              NHTSA OVERSIGHT & VEHICLE SAFETY ENFORCEMENT

       Vehicle Safety Enforcement--Triples penalties for auto 
     safety violations per incident and triples the overall 
     penalty cap to $105 million, provided that NHTSA conducts a 
     previously-required rulemaking on penalty assessment factors.
       Whistleblower Incentives--Incentivizes auto employees to 
     come forward with information about safety violations by 
     authorizing the Secretary to award a percentage of certain 
     collected sanctions to whistleblowers. Based upon the 
     bipartisan Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act, which 
     passed the Senate by voice vote in April (S. 304).
       Increases Funding for Vehicle Safety--Following the record 
     number of auto recalls in 2014, the bill authorizes 
     additional funding increases to GROW AMERICA levels for 
     vehicle safety efforts, but only if the DOT Secretary 
     certifies that certain reforms have been implemented 
     following the scathing inspector general (IG) audit of NHTSA 
     following the GM ignition switch defect.
       Increases Corporate Responsibility--Requires rules on 
     corporate responsibility for reports to NHTSA and updates 
     recall obligations under bankruptcy; increases the retention 
     period during which manufacturers must maintain safety 
     records and expands the time frame for remedying defects at 
     no cost to consumers.
       Provides Increased Oversight of NHTSA--Requires DOT IG and 
     NHTSA to provide updates on progress to implement IG 
     recommendations to improve defect identification, requires an 
     annual agenda, clarifies the limits of agency guidelines, and 
     directs IG and Government Accountability Office GAO audits of 
     NHTSA's management of vehicle safety recalls, public 
     awareness of recall information, and NHTSA's research 
     efforts.


                            CONSUMER PRIVACY

       Driver Privacy--Makes clear that the owner of a vehicle is 
     the owner of any information collected by an event data 
     recorder. Based on the bipartisan Driver Privacy Act, which 
     the Committee approved in March (S. 766).


                    TRUCKING REFORMS & IMPROVEMENTS

       CSA Reform--Addresses shortcomings in the Compliance, 
     Safety, and Accountability (CSA) program following concerns 
     raised by the DOT IG, the GAO, and a DOT internal review team 
     about the reliance on flawed analysis in the scores used to 
     evaluate freight companies, while maintaining public 
     information on enforcement data and consumer information on 
     the scores of intercity buses.
       Beyond Compliance--Establishes new incentives for trucking 
     companies to adopt innovative safety technology and 
     practices.
       Commercial Driver Opportunities for Veterans--Establishes a 
     pilot program to address the driver shortage by allowing 
     qualified current or former members of the armed forces, who 
     are between 18 and 21 years old, to operate a commercial 
     motor vehicle in interstate commerce. Currently, 48 states 
     allow 18-21 year olds to drive intrastate on county, state, 
     and Interstate highways.


                                  RAIL

       Passenger Rail Reform--Reauthorizes Amtrak services through 
     2020, empowers states, improves planning, and better 
     leverages private sector resources. It also creates a working 
     group and rail restoration program to explore options for 
     resuming service discontinued after Hurricane Katrina. Many 
     of these provisions are based on the bipartisan Railroad 
     Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act (S. 1626), which 
     passed the Commerce Committee by voice vote in June.
       Railroad Loan Financing Reform--Reforms the existing $35 
     billion Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
     Program to increase transparency and flexibility, expand 
     access for limited option freight rail shippers, and provide 
     tools to reduce taxpayer risks.
       Rail Infrastructure Improvements--Improves rail 
     infrastructure and safety by consolidating rail grant 
     programs, cutting red tape and dedicating resources for best 
     use. It also establishes a Federal-State partnership to bring 
     passenger rail assets into a state of good repair.
       Expedites Rail Projects--Accelerates the delivery of rail 
     projects by significantly reforming environmental and 
     historic preservation review processes, applying existing 
     exemptions already used for highways to make critical rail 
     investments go further.
       Dedicated Funding for Positive Train Control (PTC)--
     Establishes a new limited authorization with guaranteed 
     funding for the Secretary of Transportation to provide 
     commuter railroads and States with grants and/or loans that 
     can leverage approximately $2+ billion in financing for PTC 
     implementation.
       Testing of Electronically-Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) 
     Brakes--Preserves the DOT's final rule requiring ECP brakes 
     on certain trains by 2021 and 2023, while requiring an 
     independent evaluation and real-world derailment test. It 
     requires DOT to re-evaluate its final rule within the next 
     two years using the results of the evaluation and testing.
       Liability Cap--Increases the passenger rail liability cap 
     to $295 million (adjusting the current $200 million cap for 
     inflation), applies the increase to the Amtrak accident in 
     Philadelphia on May 12, 2015, and adjusts the cap for 
     inflation every five years going forward.
       Cameras on Passenger Trains--Requires all passenger 
     railroads to install inward-facing cameras to better monitor 
     train crews and assist in accident investigations, and 
     outward-facing cameras to better monitor track conditions, 
     fulfilling a long-standing recommendation from the National 
     Transportation Safety Board.
       Thermal Blankets on Tank Cars Carrying Flammable Liquids--
     Closes a potential loophole in Department of Transportation 
     regulations and reduces the risk of thermal tears,

[[Page 19477]]

     which is when a pool fire causes a tank car to rupture and 
     potentially result in greater damage.
       Real-Time Emergency Response Information--Improves 
     emergency response by requiring railroads to provide 
     accurate, real-time, and electronic train consist information 
     (e.g., the location of hazardous materials on a train) to 
     first responders on the scene of an accident.
       Grade Crossing Safety--Increases safety at highway-rail 
     crossings by requiring action plans to improve engineering, 
     education, and enforcement, evaluating the use of locomotive 
     horns and quiet zones, and examining methods to address 
     blocked crossings.
       Passenger Rail Safety--Enhances passenger rail safety by 
     requiring speed limit action plans, redundant signal 
     protection, alerters, and other measures to reduce the risk 
     of overspeed derailments and worker fatalities.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would also like to conclude by 
underscoring my appreciation regarding the collaborative work with my 
friend from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, ranking member of the 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and his Committee 
staff.
  I would also like to thank the following Senate colleagues and staff: 
Leader McConnell; Senator Inhofe; Senator Boxer; Senator Hatch; Senator 
Cornyn; Senator Fischer, who chairs the Surface Transportation 
subcommittee and who also served on the conference committee; Neil 
Chatterjee, Hazen Marshall, Scott Raab, Sharon Soderstrom, and Jonathan 
Burks in Leader McConnell's office for helping to guide this bill 
through the Senate and ultimately through conference with the House; 
Dave Schwietert; Nick Rossi; Rebecca Seidel; Adrian Arnakis; Allison 
Cullen; Patrick Fuchs; Cheri Pascoe; Peter Feldman; Katherine White; 
Robert Donnell; Andrew Timm; Ross Dietrich; Jessica McBride; Paul 
Poteet; Jane Lucas; Frederick Hill; and Lauren Hammond.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermonters take great pride in our historic 
downtowns and small communities. In our cities and towns, we have a 
culture of getting things done--and finding a way to accomplish our 
shared goals. That is why, like many Vermonters, I have been frustrated 
with the back-to-back short-term patches to keep our highway trust fund 
afloat. I have consistently advocated for a long-term solution that 
will give States the ability to move forward with building and 
repairing roads, bridges, and byways; to promote rail safety and 
transit and to invest in the critical infrastructure that supports our 
cities and towns; to enable interstate and intrastate commerce; and to 
create jobs for American workers. The time to pass a plan for long-term 
transportation funding has finally come.
  The FAST Act will bring stability where, for too long, there has been 
uncertainty. This bill ensures that Vermont will receive the funding it 
needs, more than $1.1 billion over the next 5 years, to allow 
Vermonters to move forward on infrastructure projects that have been 
waiting in the wings. In Vermont, the construction season is short and 
the need is great, and a series of stopgap measures to kick the can 
down the road was never the right answer. I am pleased there will 
finally be the stability needed for Vermont and all States to move 
forward to bolster our country's infrastructure.
  This legislation also reverses changes made to the Federal Crop 
Insurance program, which was a careful balance first struck in the farm 
bill, sending a clear message that we should not thoughtlessly tamper 
with the farm bill until its next expiration in 2018. And while I am 
glad that the harmful Freedom of Information Act exemptions that we 
eliminated in the Senate bill remain out of this conference report, I 
am concerned that a new exemption was added. Nowhere is the free flow 
of information more important than when the safety of every Vermonter 
and every American is at stake.
  We Vermonters know that, in a democracy, demanding 100 percent of 
what you want and refusing to negotiate effective compromise is a 
formula for stalemate and paralysis. As a result, Vermonters know that 
to actually get something done, compromise is a must, and we have 
advanced the ball a long way down the field. This legislation provides 
stability to move our infrastructure forward to support our economy. It 
supports safety provisions to protect the well-being of those traveling 
America's highways and rails.
  Frankly, to facilitate the thriving communities, commerce, and 
economic growth that we want and need, we should be doing far more to 
rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. This process should not be 
reduced to ``searching under sofa cushions''--as some have described 
it--to scrape together the budget to pay for the vital roads and 
bridges that are so important to us in so many ways. But with this 
bill, we finally are providing our States and communities with longer 
lead times to plan and accomplish this work on our infrastructure, and 
that signals at least a flicker of progress. We have had enough kicking 
the can down the road and generating year after year of uncertainty. It 
is time to bring stability and certainty back to our infrastructure and 
transportation.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I intend to support the surface 
transportation bill before us. It has been more than a decade since we 
have had a true multi-year transportation bill. And while this bill 
gives State transportation and transit agencies funding certainty for 
the next 5 years, it is not all that it could or should have been.
  I worked hard to retain the transit density formula, which the House 
had tried to eliminate. If the House had prevailed, the Rhode Island 
Public Transit Authority, RIPTA, would have lost upwards of $8.5 
million of its Federal allocation each year--about one-third of its 
yearly Federal funding. The loss of funding would have been devastating 
to RIPTA and to the thousands of Rhode Islanders who rely on bus 
service to get to work, to the store, and to medical appointments. 
Nonetheless, the funding increase provided under this part of the 
formula is disappointingly low in comparison to the increase provided 
to rural and growing States, as well as to States that have established 
fixed guideway systems.
  I am also pleased that the bill addresses some key priorities for 
transit workers, including mandating new rules to protect drivers from 
violent assaults, as well as dedicating funding to frontline workforce 
training. And overall, the bill continues critical worker protections, 
particularly under the Davis-Bacon Act.
  On the highway side of the ledger, the bill includes a vital increase 
in formula funding that will give the Rhode Island Department of 
Transportation a baseline from which it can begin to address the high 
percentage of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges 
in the State, as well as the high percentage of roads with unacceptable 
pavement conditions.
  In addition, both the transit and highway titles of the bill each 
have new competitive programs, including the restoration of a 
competitive bus and bus facility program for transit agencies and the 
establishment of a grant program for nationally significant freight and 
highway projects, those that typically exceed $100 million.
  The bill also includes other important matters, including a long 
overdue reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which has 
essentially been shuttered since July due to opposition to an extension 
by some on the other side of the aisle.
  On the other hand, there are provisions in the bill that are 
concerning, beginning with how it is paid for. Rather than relying on 
the gas tax or another predicable and related funding source, the bill 
is built on a hodge-podge of offsets like outsourcing tax collection to 
private debt collectors, which has been tried before and wound up 
costing revenue rather than generating it. It also calls for selling 
off portions of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under the assumption 
that oil prices will increase, and it taps into funds held by the 
Federal Reserve--something current and former Fed officials have 
cautioned against.
  In addition, the bill has a number of extraneous provisions, 
including a measure that preempts a State's ability to regulate Small 
Business Investment Companies, SBICs, and allows

[[Page 19478]]

certain fund advisers with significant assets under management to 
escape Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, registration 
altogether. In the wake of the financial crisis, it remains unclear to 
me why we would be so hasty to weaken investor protections. The bill 
also restores a wasteful agricultural subsidy that I have long fought 
against and that was just cut under the bipartisan budget agreement 
last month.
  That leads me to a larger point concerning the double standard that 
is being applied to important legislation that invests in our people, 
our economy, and our national defense on the one side and to special 
interest benefits, primarily offered under the Tax Code, on the other. 
For years, Congress has tied itself in knots to develop offsets to buy 
down the sequester, to reduce student loan interest rates, to cover 
emergency unemployment assistance, and to pay for infrastructure 
investments like this surface transportation bill; yet without a second 
thought, deficit ``hawks'' in the majority shrug off billions of 
dollars in tax cuts and tax extenders with little regard for the cost. 
Both types of expenditures have an impact on the debt and deficit. We 
should be honest about it and account for both in the same way.
  Despite these concerns, I believe that after years of work and 
waiting, we should adopt this bill so that transportation agencies can 
move forward with their plans with the confidence that Federal funding 
will be there.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, America's infrastructure was once the envy 
of the world. But for decades, we haven't maintained these public 
works.
  The quality of U.S. infrastructure now ranks just 16th in the world, 
according to the World Economic Forum.
  The dismal state of our outdated roads, bridges, and railways is 
costing Ohioans valuable time, money, and energy.
  To create jobs and keep America on top of the global economy, 
Congress must pass a long-term bill that invests in a world-class 
infrastructure.
  The bill that the Senate will soon consider does not contain the 
robust investment that the President and most experts think we need, 
but it does make progress over the next 5 years.
  In Ohio, a quarter of our bridges are ``structurally deficient'' or 
``functionally obsolete.'' Forty-five percent of our State's major 
urban highways are congested, costing our drivers $3.6 billion a year 
in additional repairs and operating costs.
  During the negotiations on this legislation, I fought to include 
provisions important to Ohio, and we have made progress on my State's 
top priorities.
  The bill would create a new competitive grant program to fund job-
creating projects of regional and national significance, like the 
replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge between Cincinnati and Kentucky.
  Each year, 4 percent of America's GDP crosses the Brent Spence, which 
was built more than half a century ago.
  Replacing this bridge isn't just a top priority for the region's 
business community--it is a safety issue for the hundreds of thousands 
of cars that drive over it every week.
  The bridge would be eligible for funds from the $800 million per year 
pot of funding, which would grow to $1 billion annually in fiscal year 
2020. It is a big win for the Brent Spence project and Ohio jobs.
  The legislation would also boost funding for Ohio's highway and 
transit programs.
  Nationwide, overall highway spending would increase by 15 percent 
compared to current law, and annual transit spending would grow 18 
percent.
  By 2020, that growth will deliver more than $200 million of new 
highway investment to Ohio each year.
  In addition to repairing roads, the bill will help Ohio's many 
transit agencies, providing up to $20 million of new funds each year. 
In Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus, our transit systems carry more 
than 250,000 passengers every day.
  The bill also provides up to $340 million annually for a new 
competitive bus program I championed. This was a top priority for 
Ohio's transit providers, and I am pleased they will have a much-needed 
source of funding for bus replacement.
  And as a long-time supporter of Buy America, I am pleased that the 
legislation would increase the amount of American-made steel and other 
components that will go into buses and subway cars.
  The bill also would finally reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which 
is critical to helping Ohio companies create jobs and sell their 
products around the world.
  After some on the far right allowed the Ex-Im Bank to expire in 
June--for the first time in the Bank's history--we heard stories of 
lost contracts, risks to future export business, and manufacturing jobs 
moving out of the United States to Canada and Europe.
  This is about ensuring that U.S. manufacturers can be competitive in 
a global marketplace.
  While we argued about funding U.S. infrastructure and allowed the Ex-
Im Bank to expire, China announced that its export-import bank will 
provide a $78 billion credit line to China Railway Corp to support its 
infrastructure projects at home and abroad.
  With countries like Brazil and China investing in 21st century 
transportation systems, we cannot let the U.S. fall behind.
  This is no way to run a global economic power.
  In addition to renewing Ex-Im, the Transportation bill also contains 
important provisions for community banks and credit unions.
  It includes changes to the bank exam cycle for small banks, a bill 
that Senators Donnelly and Toomey introduced.
  It streamlines privacy notices for financial institutions--a bill 
that Senator Moran and I introduced last Congress and that had the 
support of 97 other senators and which Senators Heitkamp and Moran 
reintroduced this year.
  The bill also allows privately insured credit unions to become 
members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, a proposal I introduced 
last Congress and Senators Donnelly and Portman spearheaded this 
Congress.
  Since May, Senate Democrats have been pushing for a package of 
modest, bipartisan proposals like these to help community banks and 
credit unions. We have resisted efforts to rollback important Wall 
Street reforms.
  The House agreed with this approach, and that is why these provisions 
were added to the Transportation bill.
  So when you hear that we need to attach ``community bank regulatory 
relief'' to must-pass appropriations legislation, don't believe it.
  Relief for small banks and credit unions is already in the 
Transportation bill.
  Let me be clear: I will not support riders to undermine Wall Street 
reforms in legislation to fund the government.
  Like any bill of this significance, the long-term transportation 
measure isn't perfect. I have strong concerns with the process that led 
to this agreement and with some of the proposals used to pay for it.
  I think it was a mistake to tap Federal resources that have nothing 
to do with transportation to cover the bill's cost.
  Under this bill, we are funding highways in part by taking money from 
banks and the Federal Reserve. It is a bad precedent.
  We made real improvements to the bill's language on the use of the 
Federal Reserve Banks surplus fund and to the rate of the dividend paid 
to banks over $10 billion. But these pay-fors are not a sustainable way 
to fund transportation projects.
  Instead of this shortsighted approach that just delays the problem, 
Congress should be looking for a long-term solution to replenish the 
highway trust fund.
  I will support this bill because it is the best option we have right 
now to keep America on top of the global economy and provide the 
investment that Ohio needs. But I hope that Congress won't lose sight 
of the need to identify long-term, robust investment in world-class 
infrastructure.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, Senator Boxer deserves tremendous credit

[[Page 19479]]

for negotiating a long-term funding bill for our crumbling roads and 
bridges. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation, FAST, Act is an 
important turning point in addressing our Nation's infrastructure 
needs, and the bill will create quality jobs and stimulate economic 
growth. The FAST Act ends years of short-term congressional extensions 
and legislative gridlock that prevented our country from making 
critical investments in our roads, bridges, and mass transit.
  The bill reauthorizes Amtrak and provides vital funding for positive 
train control technology and hazmat training programs. This 5-year 
reauthorization will allow our States and communities to finally plan 
for the future and address long-overdue maintenance backlogs. 
Additionally, the FAST Act takes important steps towards addressing the 
growing problem of violence against our transit operators. These hard-
working men and women deserve a safe working environment, and I will 
continue to work with my colleagues to make sure we do everything we 
can to achieve that.
  However, I must oppose the bill because Republicans have used this 
strong bill as a vehicle to roll back rules that protect consumers and 
our financial system.
  This is the third time in the last year that Republicans have used 
this hostage-taking approach. Last December, Republicans used the 
government funding bill as a vehicle for a provision written by 
Citigroup lobbyists that would repeal a critical anti-bailout rule in 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Weeks 
later, Republicans used a broadly popular, bipartisan bill extending 
the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act to jam through another provision that 
weakened Dodd-Frank's rules on risky derivatives trading. And now, in 
the FAST Act, Republicans have handed out more than a dozen goodies to 
financial institutions, including a requirement that does little but 
bog down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with needless 
paperwork and administrative tasks.
  If Democrats continue to support bills that include these kinds of 
rollbacks, it will simply encourage Republicans to use other must-pass 
bills to repeal or weaken even larger portions of Dodd-Frank and our 
other financial rules. That is why I must oppose this bill--and why I 
hope the American people weigh in with their representatives against 
this kind of cynical hostage-taking.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a joint statement by the chair and ranking member of the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Representative 
Shuster and Representative DeFazio, and the chair and ranking member of 
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, myself and 
Senator Boxer, to clarify an issue with the Joint Explanatory Statement 
of the committee on conference for H.R. 22.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
  


 Joint Statement of The Honorable Bill Shuster, The Honorable Peter A. 
DeFazio, and The Honorable James Inhofe, The Honorable Barbara Boxer on 
the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference H.R. 22, 
              Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act

                            December 3, 2015

       Title XLIII of the Joint Explanatory Statement provides a 
     summary of section 43001 concerning requirements in agency 
     rulemakings pursuant to this Act. Section 43001 of the House 
     amendments to H.R. 22 was not agreed to in conference and 
     does not appear in the conference report to accompany H.R. 
     22. The summary of section 43001 in the Joint Explanatory 
     statement therefore appears in error. Accordingly, title 
     XLIII of the Joint Explanatory Statement has no effect.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under rule XXVIII 
that section 32205 exceeds the scope of conference for the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 22.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order raised 
under rule XXVIII that section 32205 of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 22 exceeds the scope of conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The waiver is debatable.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could just be heard for 30 seconds or 
less. Please, please don't alter this, because if this passes and we 
don't waive the point of order, this bill is gone. The House bill 
didn't even have an extension. So if this bill goes down, we have no 
highway system.
  Please vote with Senator Inhofe and myself. It is urgent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, both sides have agreed to have 5 minutes 
equally divided.
  How much time did the Senator from California take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California used 30 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize Senator Roberts for 45 
seconds.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to address the point of order 
raised against the highway bill.
  Among the many provisions of the bill, the legislation realizes a 
commitment made by House and Senate leadership to restore egregious, 
harmful, counterproductive, contract-breaking cuts to the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program. The commitment we reached with the House was to 
reverse these damaging cuts and policy changes in order to protect our 
producers. That is their No. 1 priority for risk management.
  The message from farm country couldn't be more clear: Do not target 
crop insurance. The point of order would not only strip out much of the 
needed crop insurance fix, but it could also prevent the timely 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize the junior Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. Flake, for such time as he wants to use of his 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, what we are doing is targeting a specific provision 
that was air dropped into the highway bill. This isn't an attack on the 
highway bill. It is an attack on a provision that increases crop 
subsidies $3 billion over what is in the budget deal.
  We are often accused in this body of reversing cuts that we make 
before the ink is dry. In this case, we actually made a deal to reverse 
the cuts before the ink was even put to paper.
  Now, if we are ever going to get serious about controlling our 
deficit and addressing our debt, then we actually have to stick to some 
of the cuts that we have made. That is what this point of order is all 
about.
  I urge support of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from Michigan, 
Senator Stabenow, for 15 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to support the transportation 
bill and crop insurance. We made a deal with farmers when we gave up 
direct subsidies that, instead, we would ask them to have skin in the 
game and to have crop insurance to manage their risk.
  They have a 5-year bill that gives them certainty. We should not pull 
the rug out from under them at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from Kansas, Mr. 
Moran, for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the point of order 
and ask my colleagues to support the crop insurance program. In Kansas 
the weather is not always our friend. The most important farm program 
that farmers benefit from is the crop insurance program.
  We have eliminated other farm programs over a long period of time in 
the

[[Page 19480]]

name of reform but have replaced them by crop insurance. Now crop 
insurance becomes the target.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, for such time as she needs to use for her 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. I will be brief.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to challenge the provision in 
this legislation.
  I support the highway bill. I think the negotiators did a great job 
to get us a 5-year bill, but the fact is this provision was not 
included in either the House transportation or the Senate 
transportation bill. It is an indefensible reversal of the bipartisan 
budget bill that became law less than a month ago. It is a $3 billion 
giveaway to the insurance companies, and I think we need to challenge 
this kind of move when it gets dropped into a bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would ask the Chair the time remaining 
for the proponents and opponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 1 minute 
remaining, and the Senator from Oklahoma has 15 seconds.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to end by saying this is not an 
attack on the highway bill. It has its own issues, but this provision 
simply attacks the subsidy--the $3 billion subsidy--that was added back 
in after we had agreed in a bipartisan way to these cuts. We cannot 
continue to go back on the cuts that we have made. In this case we 
didn't even wait 1 month or 2 months. The agreement was made on this 
floor before the bill was even passed. We have to get away from that 
kind of practice.
  So I urge support for this point of order, and I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make sure everyone understands what 
we are doing here. The budget act of 2015 had major cuts in the Federal 
Crop Insurance Program. Some of those were restored in the highway 
bill. Now, if the highway bill is changed--if this should pass--it has 
to go back to the House, which means we could not have it this year. In 
other words, the issue here is not how you feel about crop insurance; 
it is whether or not you want this bill.
  I would suggest to the 65 Members who are here today and who voted 
for the bill that it would be very difficult to explain how you could 
vote for the bill and then turn around and vote for the very order 
against it that would kill the bill for this year in 2015.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 77, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 330 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Markey
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Scott
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Ayotte
     Booker
     Carper
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Perdue
     Reed
     Reid
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Toomey
     Warner
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sanders
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 77, the nays are 
22.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The question occurs on the adoption of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 22.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, everybody. I love everyone tonight. We are 
going to have a great vote. But go. Go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 331 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Carper
     Corker
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Flake
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sanders
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 22 is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to 
congratulate the chairman of our environment committee, Senator Inhofe, 
and his ranking member, Senator Boxer, for an extraordinary job. This 
has been a fascinating experience, particularly for Senator Boxer and 
me. To say that our relationship got off to a rather rocky start is to 
put it mildly. We found ourselves 20-some odd years ago on the opposite 
side of a very contentious issue with a lot of--shall I say--rather 
feisty exchanges on the floor of the Senate. It is also pretty obvious 
that we are not exactly philosophical soulmates. But I had heard 
Senator Inhofe say over the years how much he had enjoyed working with 
Senator Boxer and that there were actually things they agreed upon.
  I made a mental note of that and wondered whether there might be some 
opportunity at some point down the way to team up with Senator Boxer. 
That finally happened this year. As Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer 
would certainly underscore, we had

[[Page 19481]]

challenges. We had the complexity on our side of the Ex-Im Bank issue, 
which created some serious internal Republican problems. We had a 
flirtation among some Members on the other side that we could shoehorn 
a major territorial tax bill into this bill. Senator Boxer and I were 
skeptical about that from the beginning because it is an article of 
faith on our side that tax reform is not for the purpose of taking the 
money and spending it, but of taking the money and buying down the 
rates.
  We had all kinds of odd potential allowances that led to the floor 
debate last summer, for which we had an administration that was less 
than enthusiastic with what Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe and I were 
trying to do. Senate Democratic leadership hadn't exactly bought in on 
it either. In the meantime, our good friends in the House on my side of 
the aisle were calling it the Boxer bill, which of course was really 
great for me to hear.
  We had all kinds of tripwires on the path to getting what we thought 
was important for the country, which was a multiyear highway bill, 
which--I believe I am correct, Senator Boxer--we haven't done since 
1998.
  Mrs. BOXER. Actually, 10 years.
  I am told it was 17 years since we had a bill of this size.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It has been 17 years since we had a bill of this 
duration, which we all thought was important for the States and 
localities, for people who build and repair the roads to have some 
certainty. In the end, there wasn't really a philosophical problem 
here. The question was, How can we pull together these disparate pieces 
into one mosaic that actually had a chance to get somewhere?
  I want to say to Senator Boxer, in particular, that this has been one 
of the most exhilarating and satisfying experiences I have had in the 
time that I have been in the Senate. I never would have predicted 20-
some-odd years ago that I would be having it with Barbara Boxer. But 
this shows, in my opinion--I know Senator Inhofe agrees--the Senate is 
at its best when people can identify common interests and work together 
to get a positive result for the country.
  I want to say to both of these great colleagues how much I appreciate 
their extraordinary work, particularly Senator Boxer because we were 
such opposites in almost every way. What actual fun it was to get to 
know her better and to work on this together. She has a year left. 
Maybe we can find something else. Congratulations to both of you on an 
extraordinary accomplishment for the American people.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is great, Mr. Leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. We have a lot of requests for speakers to be heard. I am 
going to put myself at the end of the line so that everyone else can 
get in there first. The order is going to be Senator Boxer, and I 
understand she might want to share a little time with the Senator from 
Florida. Then Senator Lee from Utah, Senator Enzi after that, and then 
whoever else wants to talk. If nobody else wants to talk, then I will 
wind it up.
  Before I turn it over to Senator Boxer, I am going to tell a story 
because I want to make sure that Senator Sullivan doesn't have to wait 
for 2 hours to hear it. Ten years ago, in 2005, we had the last bill of 
this nature. It was a bill that we passed. I was an author of it, and I 
was very proud. That was 10 years ago. That was the last time we did a 
bill like this. I remember standing here, as I am standing today. The 
chairman of that committee wanted to talk about what a great bill that 
was--the Transportation reauthorization bill--and all of a sudden the 
alarms went off. They said: The bombs are coming. Everybody run. 
Evacuate, evacuate.
  I wasn't through talking. I talked for about 15 minutes. It is very 
eerie when you are standing here and are the only one in the U.S. 
Capitol making a speech with the TV going but no other people are 
around. I made my speech. Afterward I started going down, and I saw a 
great big guy walking down the steps very slowly. I went up to Ted 
Kennedy. I said: Ted, you better get out of here; this place is going 
to blow up.
  He said: Well, these old legs don't work like they used to.
  I said: Let me help you.
  I put my arm around his waist. Some guy had a camera. The front page 
of the cover of that magazine said: Who says that conservatives are not 
compassionate?
  That is my story. We will go on to Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I completely neglected to mention an 
extraordinarily important player in all of this, and that is Neil 
Chatterjee of my staff, who befriended Senator Boxer and Bettina before 
I realized that there might be a possibility that we could do something 
together. Neil has done an extraordinary job. I think I can safely say 
he enjoyed the confidence of both sides and allowed us to work together 
in a positive and constructive way. I want to thank Neil Chatterjee for 
the great job that he did as well.
  Mr. INHOFE. We certainly agree with that.
  Senator Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am hardly ever at a loss for words, as you all know. I 
was so touched tonight. A terrible tragedy happened in my State 
yesterday. You all know about the emotions of that and then the 
emotions of this. I am going to set aside the emotions of the tragedy 
and talk to my friends here.
  What we did was the impossible dream. It was, in many ways, a very 
long and winding road to get to this night. People worked together who 
never thought they would find that common ground. We found it. The 
reason we found it is we were willing to set aside the misperceptions I 
think we had on so many fronts and recognized that our people needed 
this badly.
  As I often say, if you want to buy a house and you go to the bank and 
the bank says ``Oh, you have great credit, but I can only give you a 
mortgage for 6 months,'' you are not going to buy the house. You are 
not going to build a major road if you are worried about the funding. 
What we have done is extraordinary. For the first time in 17 years, we 
have a long bill. We have a bill that lasts 5 years.
  I have to say--and I did not think of it--I think the pay-for was 
brilliant, the major pay-for. There are others who don't like it. Many 
people on my side said we should look at the gas tax. I looked at the 
gas tax. I agreed with the chamber of commerce on the gas tax, but I am 
only one of six people here who probably voted for it.
  When you come up against these barriers, you need to be very 
creative. The international tax reform--Leader McConnell was never 
going to allow that. I got that message. I still encouraged my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work on it, but it didn't work 
out. What are we going to do? Just fold up our tent and say the general 
fund is going to pay for this? We don't have enough in the general 
fund. We have deficits. We all know that.
  What I want to say is that with 60,000 bridges in disrepair--falling 
down, structurally deficient--and 50 percent of our roads in disrepair, 
we have a lot of work to do. This gives our States the certainty.
  The relationships that developed between the staffs--I am going to 
withhold my comments on that until later. When everybody finishes, I am 
going to be here because I am going to mention every single name on 
both sides. I can't thank you enough. They didn't sleep during the 
Thanksgiving break. They worked constantly.
  Let's face it, this bill was the ``Perils of Pauline.'' Even last 
night my senior leader asked me to do something I could never do in a 
million years on this bill. I must have turned so pale that I almost 
fainted. Bettina almost had a heart attack on the spot because we 
thought that maybe we would not have this bill. But he knows me well 
enough to know what I can do, and that makes for a great working 
relationship.
  I will talk about the details of the bill later. Basically, it is a 
5-year bill. Over the period, it is a 20-percent increase, which is 
huge for our States. It

[[Page 19482]]

is roads. It is transit. There are new programs, freight programs that 
Senator Inhofe and Maria Cantwell worked on. Ex-Im is in there. I know 
it is controversial for some, but for our small businesses it is great.
  I predict that this bill is going to give the economy a real boost--I 
really mean it--because of the certainty it is bringing and because of 
the fact that millions of jobs will be created. That always boosts us. 
It helps with our deficits.
  I will yield the remainder of my time--just 2 minutes--to Senator 
Nelson, with the deepest thanks to Senator McConnell; Senator Inhofe; 
Senator Thune; Senator Nelson, who is just a hero; Senator Brown; all 
of the members of the conference committee who signed the conference 
report.
  I yield this time to Senator Nelson, and then we will go back to 
Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding, Mr. 
President. I am going to say two short paragraphs, but first, my 
commendations to the leadership that has already been mentioned by the 
esteemed majority leader; my commendations to my colleague, our 
chairman on the commerce committee, Senator Thune, who has been a 
pleasure to work with; and my thanks to the staff, including Kim 
Lipsky, the staff director for our minority staff on the commerce 
committee.
  I want to echo what you have said. Because of this bill, we are going 
to provide States and communities with over $300 billion over 5 years 
to repair the roads and bridges of this country and greatly improve 
rail and port projects, and as a result, we are going to create jobs. 
In my State of Florida, this translates to $12 million that can be used 
for improvements on Interstate 95, Interstate 75, and projects, such as 
SunRail, Tri-rail, and the streetcars in Fort Lauderdale. This is just 
a small example, and I am so grateful to everyone. I thank everyone 
very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we will go forward with the previous 
agreement and hear from the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, followed by 
Senator Enzi from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the highway spending 
bill before us today--and not just the failed substance of the 
legislation. I rise to oppose the bill's irresponsible and 
unsustainable funding mechanisms and the cynical process that produced 
it.
  We are told this bill fully funds Federal highway spending for the 
next 5 years and that it won't add a single dime to the Federal 
deficit. The math may add up on paper, but does anyone really think the 
pay-fors in this bill are honest, responsible ways to fund a government 
program?
  Let's look at a few examples. Of the $70 billion this bill uses to 
bailout the highway trust fund over the next 5 years, more than $50 
billion comes from an accounting gimmick that steals money from the 
rest of the Treasury's general fund.
  Here is how the shell game works. Normally, the Federal Reserve sends 
the profits from its portfolio assets directly to the U.S. Treasury. 
These surplus profits are actually one of the major reasons our Federal 
budget deficits have fallen in recent years below where they were a 
short time ago. However, this bill would siphon off that money and 
redirect it into the highway trust fund.
  Just today, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen testified before the 
Joint Economic Committee, where she commented on this particular 
provision--on this particular aspect of this bill.
  She said:

       This concerns me, I think financing federal fiscal spending 
     by tapping resources at the Federal Reserve sets bad 
     precedent and impinges on the independence of the central 
     bank; it weakens fiscal discipline, and I would point out 
     that repurposing the Federal Reserve's capital surplus 
     doesn't actually create any new money for the federal 
     government.

  That is not the only funding gimmick found in this legislation. It 
also purports to raise $6.2 billion in revenue for transportation and 
infrastructure projects by selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.
  Let's leave aside for a second that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
was never intended to be a piggy bank for congressional appropriators. 
What makes this pay-for particularly objectionable is that its authors 
assume they can get $93 for a barrel of oil when it is currently 
selling for less than $40 per barrel. Only in Washington could we come 
to love a provision like this. Only in Washington could we come to 
accept a provision like this as somehow acceptable. If we are going to 
start selling Federal assets at fantasy prices--prices that do not 
exist and will not exist in any universe for the foreseeable future--
there is absolutely no limit whatsoever to the number of things that we 
can pretend to pay for. But that is what we will be doing--pretending 
to pay.
  As bad as this bill's funding schemes are, the cynical process used 
to secure votes in its favor might well be far more troubling. For 
instance, this bill adds back $3.5 billion in crop subsidy spending 
that we just cut last month in the budget deal.
  Is this really how we do business in the Senate? We reduce spending 
one month in order to appear fiscally responsible only to reverse 
course the very next month when we think no one is looking? You don't 
need to oppose crop subsidies to see the dishonesty and cynicism of 
this particular maneuver.
  Even worse, this bill would never have had a chance of passing the 
Senate were it not for a deal to include the renewal of the Export-
Import Bank as part of this legislation. I have spoken out against the 
Export-Import Bank many times before, so there is little need to 
revisit the mountain of evidence proving that it is one of the most 
egregious, indefensible cases of crony capitalism in Washington, DC. 
But it is worth highlighting some of the so-called reforms that Ex-Im 
supporters included in the bill.
  First, there is the new Office of Ethics created within the Export-
Import Bank. Presumably, this is supposed to help the Bank's management 
reduce the rate at which Ex-Im employees and beneficiaries are indicted 
for fraud, bribery, and other wrongdoing. Since 2009, there have been 
85 such indictments, or about 14 per year.
  The bill also creates a new position called the Chief Risk Officer 
and requires the Bank to go through an independent audit of its 
portfolio. Only in Washington will you find people who believe that an 
organization's systemic ethical failings can somehow be overcome by 
creating a new ethics bureaucracy or that hiring a new risk management 
bureaucrat is a suitable replacement for market discipline or that 
giving another multimillion-dollar contract to a well-connected 
accounting firm will somehow substitute for real, actual political 
accountability.
  None of these bogus reforms will make an ounce of difference. None of 
them will change the essential purpose of the Export-Import Bank, which 
is to use taxpayer money to subsidize wealthy, politically connected 
businesses.
  Finally, it must be stressed that this bill does nothing to fix our 
fundamentally broken highway financing system. After this legislation 
is enacted, the highway trust fund will spend more money than the 
Federal gasoline tax brings in. And after this series of fraudulent 
pay-fors are exhausted in just 5 years, we will be right back to where 
we have been for the last decade, and that is trying to find enough 
money for another bailout without attracting too much attention from 
the American people.
  Let's not forget that the States are big losers under the status quo 
system too--under the current system that we have. Federal bureaucrats 
divert at least 25 percent of State gasoline dollars to nonhighway 
projects, including mass transit, bike paths, and other boondoggles 
such as vegetation management, whatever that is.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? I have a favor to ask. I will 
give the

[[Page 19483]]

Senator from Utah all the time in the world, but he originally asked to 
speak for 5 minutes. I plan to respond to the issues he is talking 
about, which I don't happen to agree with, but I wonder if the Senator 
from Utah will allow his colleagues to speak in the order we agreed to 
and then come back and allow the Senator from Utah to finish his 
remarks.
  I ask the Senator through the Chair if that will work?
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have less than a page of my remarks that I 
prepared left.
  I ask unanimous consent for permission to have an additional 2 
minutes to complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. As I was saying, Federal bureaucrats divert at least 25 
percent of State gas tax dollars to nonhighway projects, including mass 
transit, bike paths, and other boondoggles such as vegetation 
management. Federal Davis-Bacon price-fixing regulations then 
artificially inflate construction costs by at least 10 percent, and 
Federal environmental regulations, such as those issued under the 
National Environmental Policy Act, add an average of 6.1 years in 
planning delays to any federally funded project.
  I understand that Washington is not ready for a more conservative 
approach to infrastructure funding--at least not yet--one where States 
get to keep their transportation dollars and decide how and on what 
they will spend those dollars, free from interference by Federal 
regulators.
  We can have honest disagreements from policy, and I know there is 
more work to do in making the case for conservative transportation 
reform, but what I refuse to accept is the toxic process that produced 
this bill--the backroom deals, the about-face on crop subsidies, and 
the Export-Import Bank. The American people deserve better than this, 
and I won't stop fighting to ensure that we do better than this in the 
future.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
letting me interrupt at this time. We passed a bill earlier, and 
normally I would have spoken after final passage, but I didn't want to 
hold people up who had transportation plans, so I reserved my comments 
until later. I appreciate this opportunity to speak at this time.
  I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from 
California for the significant highway bill they passed tonight. I know 
there was a lot of work that went into that and a lot of good things 
will come out of it. It will make a difference for the economy in the 
United States.
  As chairman of the Budget Committee, I know if we can get the private 
sector to increase by just 1 percent, we bring in $400 billion more in 
revenue without raising taxes, and raising the economy by 1 percent in 
the private sector is significant.

                          ____________________