SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 2003
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I, too, support the amendment of the senior Senator from Texas. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it has been my privilege to work with the Senator from Oklahoma as the chairman and the Senator from Vermont as the ranking member.
While admittedly I was not satisfied with the formula that came out of the committee, based on my belief and the good faith of the chairman and others, we have been discussing ways that we could make this bill fairer to my State. The reason I support this amendment is because I believe it would do that-not just to the State of Texas but to also other what I would call superdonor States such as Florida, California, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and Maryland.
As the Senator from Arizona says, it is a matter of fundamental fairness. Texas contributes a dollar to the gas tax and, all things considered, currently gets back about 88 cents on the dollar. In fact, I have had some of my legislators come to see me and say that our transportation needs are so great in Texas, given our size, given the 10-year lifespan of NAFTA, increased truck traffic on our highways, that we would just simply like to be able to keep that dollar in Texas, spend it on our own roads and not send it to Washington, DC, and have 10 or 12 cents taken off that dollar and the remainder simply sent back to us. I understand this is a national transportation system we are trying to take care of here. But I believe Texas, and I believe all of the superdonor States, the ones that contribute the lion's share for transportation needs in this country, are entitled to greater consideration than is currently reflected in the formula.
I think the senior Senator, Senator Hutchison, has come up with a good idea on how to do that, by using the $9.1 billion that is currently not distributed, which I understand remains in a discretionary spending account which can later be doled out. In other words, this will not add to the cost of this bill. It is money that is already figured into the bill but will simply be distributed according to the formula which she has already laid out, and which I think will not only result in greater fairness to my State but also to other States.
In the end, this does not just benefit the superdonor States-Florida, Maryland, Arizona, Texas, Colorado. Indeed, under this amendment every State would end up with more money, so I think every State would win.
If I can say a couple of more words, though, about the unusual posture of my State when it comes to the transportation dollars. As I mentioned earlier, NAFTA is a big consideration. Obviously, for the 10 years NAFTA has been in effect, it has resulted in tremendous increases in trade and benefits to Americans, to Mexicans, and to Canadians. It has raised the level of the water and all boats have risen. Because of the increased trade, more products from our country were bought in Mexico and Canada, and vice versa.
One of the things we are concerned about-we will have a hearing on it today in the Judiciary Committee-is our broken immigration system. One of the best ways I believe we can deal with the causes of illegal immigration is to increase trade with Mexico, for example, so the prosperity of that country will increase, jobs will increase, so people feel less and less need to immigrate illegally to this country to provide for their own families.
My point is this. Because of our proximity to the border, because we have a 1,200-mile border, because of the number of border crossings we have, Texas transportation infrastructure has simply borne a disproportionate amount of the burden, from which eventually all of the country benefits because of this increase in trade and truck traffic I mentioned a moment ago. As a matter of fairness to Arizona, which is in a similar situation, and Texas, our infrastructure has degenerated. It has been overused, in a sense. The public safety has suffered because we have simply been a donor State and have not been getting back enough of the gas tax dollar to help provide for our transportation needs in the State.
As I say, as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Transportation Subcommittee, I continue to hope-not just hope but also will work toward trying to make this bill acceptable and fair. It is certainly something I hope
I will be able to support in the end. But I do think the proposal of the senior Senator, resulting as it will in a greater distribution of discretionary funds now into a formula that will then result in all States seeing an increase in transportation funds, is a step in the right direction.
Finally, I would like to allude for a moment to the comments of Senator Kyl relative to the cost of this bill. I, too, believe in fiscal responsibility. I don't know ultimately how the Finance Committee will find a way to pay for this bill in its entirety. I think it is clear the President is not going to go for either a gas tax or for deficit spending. But should the overall amount of money be reduced from the current level to a lower level that would not require an increase in the gas tax or an increase in deficit spending, then my understanding is essentially the formulas we are looking at right now are out the window and we are going to have to look to ways to live within our means. But also, at the same time, we have to make sure this bill is fair to all States, particularly, I submit, the donor States that for a long time have paved roads and provided transit systems in other parts of the country from which the citizens of my State get no benefit. That is a matter of fundamental fairness we need to take care of. I believe this bill, with this amendment, would go a long way to doing just that.
I yield the floor.