Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. We will go back into a quorum call, then, until the Senator from Pennsylvania arrives.

Mr. INHOFE. He is in the cloakroom. May I inquire about how much time the Senator from Illinois would like to have?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we do not have anyone to speak on the highway bill. There are several people who desire to speak on other matters. We will have no objection, although if we get back on the bill we would like to enjoy some type of priority.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would agree with those comments. However, I think we have the basic formula, and this is something for which I am going to be fighting because once you break into this and change the formula, that is going to change every State. That is something we have spent over a year now working out to get as much equity as possible. We look forward to the input from Members who are not on the committee.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I will conclude by urging my colleagues not to waste any more time. We need to get to this. We should have done this back on September 30. I urge colleagues that we invoke cloture and get right to the bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am very interested in hearing the remarks of the senior Senator from Massachusetts. However, we are right now debating the cloture motion. While I think it is perfectly appropriate to talk about the game last night, I hate to get into another subject when we only have an hour and 20 minutes to be talking about our cloture motion. I, first of all, ask the Senator if this is something that could be postponed until after that motion.

Mr. INHOFE. Which is on this bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated.

Mr. INHOFE. Under the rules, it is my wish, as the chairman of the committee, that we get to this very important bill. The Senator from Massachusetts has agreed, if he could be recognized, he would keep it down to 10 minutes. That would be acceptable to me, if it is acceptable?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts using the time. He has a concern about the extension of unemployment benefits, and we are all concerned about that. A lot of that would be alleviated with the passage of the transportation bill. This is the largest jobs bill we will be considering this year, or perhaps in a 6-year period. It is very significant. Madam President, one of the goals for reauthorization of TEA-21 has been to increase the rate of return to donor States. We have talked about that. We have had several bills in the past in which we wanted to achieve that. In this particular one, we achieved it to a smaller degree in TEA-21. But in this reauthorization, we want to further increase the return to donor States without negatively impacting the growth of donee States. That is where we get into the problem with the State of Texas and the State of Pennsylvania. If we do one, we will negatively impact the other. Our goal has been to streamline the project delivery process to create greater flexibility for States to spend their highway safety dollars in the areas of greatest need. Most Members agree that in Washington we do not have all the answers. The Presiding Officer would admit readily that people in North Carolina know about the needs in North Carolina greater than we do. That is one good thing about this program; we do leave a lot of it to the States. We do more than that in this reauthorization. I have talked to people in a number of States, including people in the State of Texas, who are very pleased with the idea that they are getting more flexibility. This bill recognizes they have a better idea of the needs of their State. I certainly know that to be true in the State of Oklahoma. Finally, the goals were to focus attention on freight movement. This has not been considered. Freight movement is the responsible party for a lot of the congestion referred to by several speakers so far, causing trucks to idle, cars to idle, time wasted when pollution carries on where we are paying for additional gasoline but nothing is moving. Although the proposed bill before the Senate addresses each of these areas, it has not covered all the reforms I would like to cover. However, it is a good start. We made a good start. It has been in the spirit of cooperation. Historically, when we reauthorize a highway bill, it is not partisan. As we worked together, Senator Jeffords, Senator Reid, Senator Bond, and myself, in many hours of putting together our best ideas, there were things I would have preferred to have in here that are not here. This is a good start. The Federal aid highway system is a key component to America's continued economic growth. The free flow and movement of goods, safety for travelers, advancement and use of technology, and security of our borders and freight corridors are essential to our economic stability. Our investment in this critical infrastructure is not only required for people in goods movement but almost the foremost link in creation of jobs and opportunities for all Americans and represents the largest investing in discretionary programs. I remember seeing that familiar square-shaped sign ``Men Working'' and someone very creatively inserted ``Not''--``Men Not Working.'' It is clear, each day we fail to enact a comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the highway program, we continue to erode the ability of our economy to grow. Many colleagues share my strong desire to get this bill passed and sent to the President by February 29. On February 29, the extension we have on TEA-21 expires. No State benefits by prolonging the process through temporary extensions of the current program. It disrupts planning; it disrupts the ability to plan ahead on the availability of workers to get the very most out of it. It is very important we do that. The proposal before the Senate provides the framework for transportation investments needed to accomplish our shared goal of creating new and better economic opportunities. The centerpiece of our bill is the new Equity Bonus Program which replaces the Minimum Guarantee Program. The Equity Bonus Program increases the minimum rate of return for donor States while ensuring fair treatment to donee States, about which we have been talking. All donor States reach 95 percent return on highway trust funds by 2009. That is a huge increase. We remember when it used to be 77 percent and 80 percent. In addition to the fact that we are going to get everyone up to 95 percent return in this bill, all States take home more money than they did under TEA-21. Unlike the current Minimum Guarantee Program, which is in place right now, where the table in section 1104 governed what your State received each year in Federal highway dollars, under the Equity Bonus Program the formulas are the driving force, not the politics. The 1104 section approach, or minimum guarantee, is an approach that was purely politically driven. A lot of people were outraged about it. But they sat down and said we will put some percentages here until we reach 60 votes and we can pass a bill. But that is not fair. Certainly, we correct that situation in this bill. We allow the formulas to work. We recognized there would be some inequities if we allowed the formulas to be the sole factor in distributing dollars to the States. Therefore, we subjected States to growth ceilings in each year; that is, there is a ceiling. So we get the fast-growing States that will not have more than they would be entitled to at the expense of those that are currently donee States. This accomplishes the two goals and keeps the costs of the Equity Bonus Program affordable and ensures that donee States are still able to grow. We also recognized that States with lower tax bases have an added challenge to adequate funding of their transportation system. We define these States as States with low population or low population densities and low income. We guaranteed these States at least their TEA-21 rate of return. Finally, large donor States do not reach 95 percent until 2009. This is a concern for some of the Senators from Florida, California, and Texas. This is because the growth ceilings prevent them from growing too fast at the expense of large donee States. This means they bump into the ceiling. For instance, if we were to increase the growth ceiling in any year to move the large donor States to 95 percent sooner, the increased costs would be at the expense of the large donee States such as New York and Pennsylvania. Since releasing this plan on January 21, I have heard from both large donor State members who are concerned their States do not reach 95 percent until 2009 and donee State Senators who believe their States do not grow as much as they would like. Both sides raise valid concerns. But the cold reality is, in order to get the bill through the Senate-- we are talking about S. 1072, on which there will be a cloture vote an hour from now--it has to take care of both donor and donee States. So there have to be compromises. We have made compromises. As the Senator from Nevada said, there are a lot of things he believed he cannot get for his State that he believed he should have, and the same is true for my State of Oklahoma. After working on this for over a year, Jim Jeffords, Kit Bond, Harry Reid, and I decided the most fair, reasonable, and logical way to balance donor and donee needs was by creating ceilings and floors. Both benefit but both have to give up some growth in order to help others grow. In order to get this bill off the floor, we have to have 60 votes, which means a balance between the donor and donee States. This proposal achieves that. Another new initiative is establishment of a new core funding category for safety. With highway fatalities approaching an unacceptable 43,000 a year, Congress has the responsibility to make the roads safer. That is why we call this SAFETEA. The purpose of the new highway safety improvement program is to increase the visibility and effectiveness in funding for safety projects in such a way as to produce a dramatic reduction of highway fatalities and injury. SAFETEA also addresses the significant challenges involved in intermodal connectivity by creating a set-aside from the National Highway System Program for the completion of ``last mile'' connections. One of the frustrating aspects of freight congestion is the need to complete the last connection between port terminals and highways or the connection between freight rail and highways. This has never been addressed in the previous authorization bills. This proposal not only identifies a funding source for intermodal connectors but also creates room at the planning table for freight interests and concerns. Additionally, this bill lowers the threshold level for assistance under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, TIFIA, from $100 million to $50 million, which I think all four Members thought was a dramatic improvement, to make some structural changes to the program designed to make this financial tool more usable to States. Freight congestion is not the only mobility issue. Personal mobility is also a problem in both urban and rural areas. Reports indicate that on a nationwide scale, road congestion costs the U.S. economy about $67 billion annually, including 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of gasoline that is wasted. Here we are with a fuel crisis, an energy crisis in this country, and we are wasting 5.7 billion gallons of fuel. The committee bill also proposes to give States and localities increased ``tools'' to deal with this problem, by permitting and encouraging the use of innovative techniques such as ``hot'' lanes for single occupants who pay a toll to ride in high-occupancy lanes as well as variable toll pricing, which uses varying peak-hour pricing to control congestion during regular high-volume periods. We have tried to do this in the past. We are just being more innovative in carrying this further. SAFETEA establishes the Intermodal Passenger Facilities Program, which provides grants for making necessary connections between various modes of transportation. Current surface transportation programs fail to address the importance of intercity bus services. In my State of Oklahoma, many people are using the intercity bus services to travel between our two largest cities, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and our rural areas. In many cases, this type of service is the only link rural communities have to larger urban areas where connections can then be made to both national and international destinations. Specifically, this provision would encourage the development of an integrated system of public transportation facilities through intercity bus facility grants. I see that the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, is in the Chamber. I am sure he has a few remarks to make. If I could finish with this before I get into the section-by-section analysis, would that be acceptable with the Senator. Thank you. I will go ahead and do that at this time. During the 107th Congress, we all experienced a cold dose of reality when the revenue aligned budget authority--that is, RABA--was negative for the first time. Hysteria hit. We were all concerned at that time. The principle that dollars into the trust fund should equal dollars out is fiscally sound and responsible and something I strongly support. However, to maintain consistency in the program, we need to even out the swings in revenue projections. Last year, we learned that unless the mechanism to predict future revenues is more realistic, the potential consequences can be disastrous. Some will argue that we should not allow negative RABAs. I disagree. As I stated earlier, I strongly support the principle of ``dollars in equals dollars out.'' If we continue to rely on the system of revenue projections, we must accept the negatives along with the positives. While the pay-as-you-go system of funding highways may be cumbersome, it is also an important fiscal principle we should retain. At the same time, we can and need to make improvements to RABA to make it more reliable in the future. This bill does that by modifying the RABA calculation so that annual funding level adjustments are less dependent on future anticipated receipts and more dependent on the levels of actual receipts to the highway trust fund. We strengthen stewardship of highway trust fund dollars by requiring project management plans and annual financial plans to be submitted for all Federal aid projects above $1 billion or more and requiring annual financial plans for all projects receiving $100 million or more in Federal aid funding. Both of these items were raised in last year's hearings on reauthorization as areas needing additional oversight. I might add that even the States came in and were supportive of this idea. As our system ages and becomes functionally obsolete, extensive reconstruction will need to occur. Typically, these projects are very large in scope and I believe require careful oversight to ensure proper management of funds and fewer opportunities for surprises in the construction process. These changes are designed to give us the information needed to accomplish critical oversight. Colleagues, the bill in front of you represents the culmination of Senate efforts for reauthorizing critical transportation infrastructure needs across America. This bill aims at funding all States equitably and generously, increasing the safety of drivers and pedestrians on our roads, streamlining environmental review processes while protecting critical natural resources, improving program effectiveness and efficiency, and preparing for the transportation needs of the future. I ask my colleagues to consider the significant level of effort put into the preparation of this bill by the several committees involved, the administration's recommendations, and stakeholder input. I believe this bill does that. I would like to make one comment. We do have a vote coming up in 50 minutes from now, and we have several people who want to be heard. I would only say we have been talking a lot about formulas. As most of us know--but sometimes it does not come out forcefully--there are other funds that are going to be available. About 7 percent of the amount that would be in formulas would be found in projects. Anyone who wants this bill should consider voting for cloture so we can get on the bill. We would expect them to certainly support this motion if they have an interest in projects for their States. At this time I will just repeat one thing I said earlier when the Senator, Mr. Jeffords, was not in the Chamber. We have been talking about how Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and, of course, Senator Reid and I have been working very closely, together with our staffs, to get to the point where we are now. So I publicly thank the Senator from Vermont for all the hard work he has put into this bill and for the cooperative method of how we have come to some compromises. Perhaps neither one of us is really excited about it, but we know that is the art of compromise.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1072, the highway bill, at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 3.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank all the main principals involved: Senators Jeffords, Reid, Bond, and the entire committee. I think it was a very good vote. I think we are going to be able to move on to the biggest jobs bill probably in the last 10 years. I thank my colleagues for their strong support.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? I understand the Senator, in addition to being on the committee I chair, is also on the Finance Committee. Would he care to report on what has just transpired in the last hour or so?

Mr. INHOFE. I suggest, we have 24 minutes and we have three people to be heard, including the Senator from Connecticut. That is 8 minutes apiece. Does the Senator object to speaking for 8 minutes?

Mr. INHOFE. I further ask, since I am chairman of the committee, if the Senator who has the floor now will yield to me for a few comments.

Mr. INHOFE. I see Senator Thomas, from a State such as Wyoming, falls into a category we are taking care of in the formulas. That is low- yield or low-population States. They have to be looked after. As he points out, people are driving through, yet they don't have the population base to be supporting large amounts of revenue to pay for the roads. On the other hand, we see Senators such as the Presiding Officer now, from the State of Texas, one of the fastest growing, largest States. He certainly has problems. So being very careful to try to take care of all these diverse needs in establishing a formula to put together something that would take care of the large States, we put in a ceiling and we put in a floor. We put something in there for donee and donor States. It is a very difficult formula. I remind my colleagues who might not feel this is a fair approach to it, to remember, to recall when we tried to do this before under TEA- 21, we had a purely political system. Everybody got a percentage of the amount of money that was there and it was all driven by politics. Once they received 60 votes, they didn't care what happened. We are not doing that. We have a formula that takes care of all these needs. I saw the senior Senator from Pennsylvania coming through just a moment ago and there have been some complaints from that State. I compare that to my State. My State is 20 percent larger than the State of Pennsylvania, yet we have roughly the same number of miles of roads. Yet under this formula, he is receiving some $3 for every $1 we receive. That doesn't look like I do a very good job for my State of Oklahoma. Nevertheless, it is a reality that we have to consider all these things. If you look at some of the compromises we have made, we had four principals who spent more time than anyone else drafting this bill. They were, of course, myself as chairman, Senator Jeffords as the ranking member, Senator Reid as the ranking member on the subcommittee, and Senator Bond on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, subcommittee chairman.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield so I can make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that Patrick Moynihan was born and raised in my city of Tulsa? He was the first one when I came here--not to the Senate but to the other body--to whom I came over to talk. We developed a very close relationship. Someone could wonder, how could this be--you have one who is a dedicated liberal, one who is a dedicated conservative, having that affection. When I was elected to this body in 1994, his office was next door to me. I confess right now before all these people, when the bells rang for a vote, I would go and look down the hall and wait until Daniel Patrick Moynihan was coming up so I could walk and talk with him on the way over. He was just a remarkable person. There is a lot of dedication to him in what we are doing today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Monday, February 2, 2004; to reconsider, pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement on October 1, 2003 the Chairman's Mark entitled, National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act. The Committee will also consider a Chairman's Mark entitled, Extension of Highway Trust Fund Provisions; and, S. 882, the Tax Administration Good Government Act of 2004.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to the following fellows for the duration of floor consideration of the bill: Gregory Murrill, Heideh Shahmoradi, Laura Berry, Mitch Surrett, John Stoody, Wendy Parker, and William Boyd.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.