Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Pursuant to section 904, I move to waive all Budget Act points of order for consideration of the pending substitute in its current status and the underlying bill as amended by the substitute.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to debate the measure, waiving the Budget Act point of order. I would point out the chairman of the Commerce Committee, who has just spoken, is talking about the reckless fiscal insanity in this 1,300-page bill. A good portion of that is the Commerce Committee title, his committee's title. We don't know what is in that title. We have laid out our bill. We have taken it through the committee. Our committee voted on it. We brought that bill to the floor. We have had it out here. We are still trying to find out what is in the Commerce Committee bill. We are told it is very different than what was passed out of the Commerce Committee. We have just tried to make an analysis of it and, as best we can tell, the budget resolution authorized the Commerce Committee to spend $4 billion and it appears the Commerce title before us spends about $6.5 billion. So we hope we could help the Commerce Committee by waiving the Budget Act point of order. Let me talk a minute about why this vote is so important. The vote is on two very important issues. The first is the size of the highway bill--$255 billion for highways, $56 billion for transit. The second is firewalls ensure highway trust fund dollars are spent on this Nation's transportation needs. Last year, during consideration of the budget resolution, the Senate voted 79 to 21 in favor of funding the highway bill at $255 billion, and mass transit at $57 billion. That vote seemed to me to be a resounding victory for adequate funding levels for these two very important subjects. The administration's proposed bill would fund highways at under $200 billion over the next 6 years, and to cut that would cut $4.5 billion. Furthermore, the highway funding would not reach the level included in the 2004 Omnibus bill until 2008, the second-to-last year of the bill. This would result in a net loss of 850,000 jobs compared to the CBO baseline, because that is how far the level would fall under that which the House-Senate budget resolution authorized. The funding levels in this Senate transportation bill are responsible. When the budget was adopted there was a provision in there saying the level for highways would be $231 billion unless other funds could be put into the highway trust fund. I commend the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Baucus, who have taken steps to ensure that they have closed loopholes; they have directed into the highway fund new highway fund measures, and as a result, according to the Finance Committee, this bill will not add to the deficit. Now, in fact, not only will this bill not add to the deficit, it will be a huge economic stimulus. Everyone knows $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 new jobs. In addition, in the last year for which we have statistics available, over 42,000 Americans lost their lives on our Nation's roadways in motor vehicle accidents. Roughly 35 percent, or 14,000, of these are a result of road conditions. It is likely our State may be higher than 35 percent because we have many narrow, two-lane roads, with far more traffic than we have highway to accommodate. In other words, if you have 15,000 cars a day using a two-lane, two-way road, people try to pass at times that are not appropriate, and many other risks are taken by drivers with a result that there are head-on collisions and traffic fatalities. This is a safety measure. The figures we have are figures that match the initial representations, the initial 79-Member vote in this body. The additional funding above the House-Senate joint resolution is achieved because the Finance Committee put additional funds into the highway trust fund. That is a very sound way of going about it. I urge my colleagues to support the Budget Act waiver. The Senator from Arizona also raised questions about why we are going to write it in the conference. We have been in touch with the White House and just learned after the bill had been brought to the Senate they were reluctant to accept the figure we had. At this point we need to work with the House and the White House to come up with a final figure. I cannot imagine anyone thinking a bill we pass out of here, which has so many different interests, will not be changed when it comes back from the conference with the House. We are not the only body. I have worked on a lot of conference reports and if it comes back looking very much like what we pass out of the Senate we have done a good day's work. I have never seen it come back looking exactly the way it left the Senate. That is how this place works. We have to have compromise when we go to the conference committee between the House and the Senate. When the White House feels strongly about it, they have a great say because they have the final say. They have the final say whether it is signed or vetoed. We have worked too long and too hard to get a good bill. The chairman, the Senator from Oklahoma, the distinguished ranking members, the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Nevada and the members of the committee, worked on the EPW portion. The other portions have been worked on in their committees. We will do the best we can to follow the outlines we have and come up with our proposal. We should remind those who criticize this measure, who say they want to know more about it, that we marked up our bill before Congress recessed for Christmas and have used the base text throughout this entire process. For the past 2 weeks, we have consistently urged our colleagues to come to the Senate and offer amendments. Our staff, my staff, the other principal staffs, have been here late every night. We announced last week that the staff was available to discuss amendments throughout the week. Many Members took advantage of it. We tried hard to be open and accommodating to every Senator. That is why it is extremely frustrating to be criticized by Members who have never come to the floor to offer an amendment, let alone send their staff to meet with the EPW Committee staff to discuss changes or to offer amendments for consideration. Even more frustrating, the fact that rather than offering suggestions or amendments, we are criticized for deficit spending. I remind my colleagues, the point of order was raised by a colleague who cosponsored an amendment we defeated this morning that would add $7 billion to the cost of the bill. It would add more to his State and several other States. It is beyond what is paid for in the bill. It is beyond what is available in the bill. There has to be some consistency. People say consistency is the bugaboo of small minds, but when we take a look at budget numbers, we ought to be making adjustments in the numbers based on what is available. Second, when we are criticized for not being open with our bill, I urge the chairman of the Commerce Committee to bring his substitute for the committee bill to the floor to discuss it, to let us know what is in it so we might make meaningful suggestions and directions. As I said, we have not been able to review it in detail. It is not the same title as reported out of the Commerce Committee. That Commerce Committee bill which had allocated $4 billion under the budget resolution came in at over $6 billion.

Mr. BOND. I will yield in a moment. I want to conclude my comments. I urge my colleagues to waive the provisions of the Budget Act as outlined in the motion to waive previously submitted. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Certainly.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader for his very solid views. Once again, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Jeffords and Senator Reid, for working in a bipartisan way to produce a bill that is extremely important for the long-term economic growth and well-being of our country. Everybody agrees we need to put much more money into roads, highways, bridges, and mass transit. This bill does that. This bill also would create significant numbers of jobs right away if we get it passed. If this bill passes, 90,000 jobs will be created this year. For every billion dollars spent on highways, it creates 47,500 jobs. There are some on our side of the aisle and some others who have said, well, this bill is too much. The President has recommended $256 billion in obligation limits. Obligation limits are what is spent under the bill. The contract authority is authorizing language that allows spending up to the higher amount. That is subject to the normal process in appropriations and subject to limits imposed by the budget on transportation. This bill is at $290 billion. The President was at $256 billion. I believe clearly they have indicated there has to be negotiations. There have to be negotiations with the House. Whatever bill we pass is going to be changed because we have to negotiate with the House. Obviously we want to hear the concerns of the White House so we can develop a bill that will be signed by them. We did not go through this drill for over a year not to get something through. Make no mistake about it, this is the last and only chance to get started on the kind of major construction we need on highways, roads, and bridges this year, and to do what is needed for mass transit this year. If we do not invoke cloture and pass this bill this week, there will be no highway bill. We will be stuck at the old level at best, even if we get an extension, and that extension does not do us any good. That extension does not increase the building of roads and does not increase the assistance for mass transit that is so important. There will be amendments. We look forward to having healthy debates. I am sure after people have rested up for almost 2 weeks they will have lots of good ideas. We look forward to having a busy day, but we cannot work on this bill unless we invoke cloture. Whatever the Senate decides, we will take that to conference. We need to pass this bill. I believe this is going to be the most important economic development bill and job-creating bill in this session of Congress. Furthermore, it is, as its title says, a major contribution to safety on our highways. The administration has named it SAFETEA and we have included almost all of their safety proposals in this bill. Having traveled the roads of Missouri and traveled the two-lane highways that are marked with white crosses where somebody's family member, somebody's friend, somebody's spouse has died, because there is too much traffic on a two-lane road and somebody has taken a chance, fatalities result. They passed where they should not have. They had gotten out of their lane. That is why we have four-lane highways. We do not have them in Missouri. There are many provisions that are going to be important for this Nation. I know the distinguished President pro tempore has a proposal to help connect communities in Alaska that have not been connected by roads. I believe that is a high-priority item. There are many other priority items that must be dealt with in this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's invoke cloture; let's get about the business of voting on amendments. We are ready and open for business, but we will have to negotiate with the House and the White House before we bring back a final version, which I hope can be passed very shortly, perhaps by the end of the month, to get highway construction going, improve safety, and improve the job situation in the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I echo what my good friend, the chairman of the committee, stated. The amendment does not keep the balance between donor and donee States. Our staff has run through many of these options, 300-plus runs from the Federal Highway Administration, to come up with a fair balance between donor and donee States. When you take a look at what is fair, we have heard complaints about the increase, that they are not getting enough percentage increase, but when you look at the State of Texas, over the 6 years of the bill, it gets a 42-percent increase. That is $5.3 billion. If you look at the State of Arizona, it gets a 40.23-percent increase, or $1.11 billion over the 6 years. California has a 40.14-percent increase, or $6.1 billion. There are a couple of States that even get 40-percent increases. This amendment purports to increase fairness by giving an even greater share to some of the States that have the largest share of the increase already. That does not have much to do with fairness. This is a very ill-advised amendment. As the chairman has pointed out, there is not money in the bill. This would add approximately $7 billion to the cost of the bill. I find it passing strange that some of the cosponsors of this bill were ones who opposed the Bond-Reid amendment to set the figure at $255 billion, and they have been very vocal in saying this bill spends too much. They would add about $7 billion to the bill. We are going in the wrong direction. We are being asked to reward those States that are already doing better than almost any other State in terms of the increase in the money that is coming back. This bill followed the formula as best we could. We did get all States to increase by at least 10 percent. We got all donor States up to 95 cents on the dollar. But nobody, other than about two States, has made it up to a 40-percent increase. To say certain States who are already in the 40-percent increase need more is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. BOND. The original proposal in the bill agreed on by the budget conference committee between the House and the Senate was below the Senate number. It came in at $231 billion. The Finance Committee has fulfilled its obligation to raise enough funds in the highway trust fund to enable us to reach the level of $255 billion, the amount originally adopted by a 79-to-21 vote in the Senate. Rather than argue about that detail and the other details, I want to put the measure to waive that and we can debate the Finance Committee and other questions as they arise.

Mr. BOND. I suggest that my colleague ask the Commerce Committee chairman by how much his title exceeds the budget resolution. I believe our number is at $255 billion. I want to help out the Commerce Committee by getting a waiver for what I understand--I cannot be sure-- is a 50-percent increase over the budget allowed to the Commerce Committee.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to answer my colleague, it appears that the Commerce Committee is over the limit and we are going to have this vote at some point. This is a good time to have it. There will be questions raised about the Budget Act. My understanding is that the Commerce Committee is over its $4 billion allocation.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BOND. All right.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to answer the question once more, he said how much was it over the budget. As to the original budget passed by this body, it is right at the budget, 255. How much is it over the joint House-Senate budget? It is $24 billion over, but that Budget Act specifically said additional money put in the highway trust fund can be used for trust fund purposes. That is what we have done. The reason we asked to waive the Budget Act points of order is so we can stop the dilatory tactics that have dragged this out without getting a vote for almost 2 weeks. I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire if he intends to continue to delay, to attempt to prevent votes on the substantive amendments which may be brought to the bill. If he could give us some assurance that he will not continue to use dilatory tactics and raise points of order, should we not waive the budget?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we object. It is not a germane amendment. That was the problem.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe many questions were raised about financing. I see the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, in the Chamber. I will just note that he could answer those questions, if he is recognized.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment to S. 1072 preserves the basic expansion of eligibility for storm water mitigation projects but removes a mandatory 2 percent set-aside for storm water which was added in committee. While I protect storm water mitigation project eligibility for funding from highway programs, I oppose sending another Federal Government mandate to the States, telling States they must set aside 2 percent of their surface transportation programs for storm water activities regardless of the actual need in the State. There are few greater champions of Federal funding for water quality and drinking water in the Senate than myself and my colleague from the State of Maryland with whom I chair and serve as ranking member-- depending upon who is in control--of the appropriations subcommittee which funds water projects and programs in the EPA budget. Senator Mikulski and I year after year have squeezed the rest of the budget to put badly needed funding for clean water and safe drinking water measures into our bill because we know there are great needs. Every year we have to restore hundreds of millions of dollars that OMB, on a bipartisan basis, always takes out of the State revolving fund. Last year we appropriated $1.35 billion to States for the clean water funds and $850 million to States for their drinking water funds. Every year we appropriate millions of dollars to protect, sustain, and restore the health of our Nation's water habitat and ecosystems. We spend millions of dollars funding water programs for the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, and the Great Lakes. Last year we sent hundreds of millions of dollars more to member States for targeted investments in their water infrastructure. We do that every year for our colleagues because we believe so much in providing clean and safe drinking water for our families and local communities. In this highway bill, I was also proud to join my colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid, in expanding the eligibility for storm water mitigation projects. Current law allows States to spend surface transportation program funds on storm water mitigation needs. In S. 1072, section 1601, we expand storm water eligibility to allow States to spend National Highway System funds on storm water mitigation needs. States can spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost on environmental restoration or pollution abatement such as storm water mitigation. However, that amount will be left up to the State and the individual conditions at the site of each project. We should not set an arbitrary number in Washington and force States to set aside that amount. We are not talking about a small amount of money. A mandatory 2 percent set-aside equals almost $1 billion over 6 years. That is $1 billion States must divert from their surface transportation programs regardless of need. By now, many of you have heard from State DOTs that they oppose a mandatory set-aside. Almost none of them, and nobody who is running highway programs, likes to have mandatory set-asides. Our States certainly do not appreciate mandatory set-asides from Washington. We also must remember that not every State has the same environmental conditions or needs. A State's need to spend highway funds on storm water will differ depending on the individual conditions in each State or each part of the State. States in the upper Midwest, States in the West, States in the Great Plains will not see the same rainfall nor storm conditions as States in the East. Nonetheless, all States will be forced to set aside 2 percent of their STP funds for storm water unless this section is struck. What sense does it make for a State which has tremendous highway needs but relatively few storm water needs to set aside 2 percent? Let me repeat, with my amendment, storm water mitigation projects are still eligible for funding from highway programs. We preserve and expand storm water funding eligibility. States will be free to spend the amount of money they believe necessary to address storm water needs in their State. There may be years in which Missouri spends more than 2 percent on storm water needs. But our State has heavy rainfalls. This vote is about whether we want to impose another mandate on our States. I urge my colleagues to turn back this Federal Government mandate to say what the needs of every State are. There may be many States for which this is not appropriate. I urge my colleagues to let States decide how best to spend their highway dollars, and I urge support of my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have at the desk amendment No. 2502. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my cohort on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. We have worked together over the years. I raise this point for the entire Senate so they know we are going to have to address it in the Congress, because there are many States that I am sure we will hear from that do not need this. In order to move the bill along and to avoid causing our colleagues to have another vote--perhaps those who need to get away--I withdraw my amendment.