Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004 February 11, 2004
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2004 FEBRUARY 11, 2004 -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 24, 2004)
SPEECH OF
HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, continuing my earlier statement, time is again running out in our effort to reauthorize our Federal highway, public transit, and transportation safety programs. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) expired on September 30, 2003, and Congress passed a 5-month extension, which expires on February 29. On September 24, during consideration of that extension bill, I stated: "I am afraid ..... we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring....... I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out."
Well, time is running out and we must again extend the programs. Why? Because ideology, not good policy, is driving this debate.
On November 19, 73 Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced H.R. 3550, authorizing $375 billion for the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs for the next six years. Today, the bill has 137 cosponsors. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was poised to mark up this legislation last week, but the Republican Leadership has delayed its consideration.
Despite the fact that the funding levels included in our bill were derived from the Department of Transportation's
highway and transit needs report, the Administration strongly opposes additional infrastructure investment. Last week, the President submitted his Budget to Congress and it flat-lined the highway and transit programs, and did not include one additional dollar for highway and transit investment over the next 6 years.
Why? When our country's economic strength, improve business productivity, and our desire to create a safe, efficient transportation system are all dependent upon increasing investment in our Nation's infrastructure, why does the Administration oppose such investment? It cannot be because of any renewed Republican concern about the size of the deficit-the President proposes $1.2 trillion of new tax breaks that, if enacted, would result in a total of $3.2 trillion of new tax breaks, primarily targeted at the wealthiest Americans, since assuming office in 2001.
When this Administration and the Republican-led Congress have presided over an economy that has seen the number of unemployed workers increase by 2.4 million workers and the construction industry is suffering under a 9.3 percent unemployment rate, why does this Administration oppose infrastructure investment that its own Department of Transportation estimates will create 47,500 jobs and $6.2 billion for every $1 billion of Federal funds invested? I am sure that the 800,000 construction workers who look for work each month would gladly line up for the more than 1.7 million construction jobs this bill will create and sustain over the next six years, including 445,000 jobs this year alone.
Why? Because the Administration and some of the Republican Leadership would rather kneel at the altar of "no new gas taxes" than develop the policy necessary to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. A few days ago, in an interview, President Bush implied that the highway and transit programs were fueling the Federal budget deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly all of the expenditures from these programs are funded by the Highway Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is financed by revenues from user fees. It is a "pay-as-you-go" program; outgoing expenditures are tied to incoming revenues; and the revenues may only be used for infrastructure investment.
The Trust Fund is a model of fiscal discipline. The Byrd Amendment serves as an anti-deficiency mechanism that prevents the Trust Fund from over-spending. This system of user fees has been well-tested by decades of experience. It provides a clear and unambiguous way to provide the revenues required to make the necessary improvements to the system.
It is for these reasons that the bipartisan leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee propose to restore the purchasing power of the gas tax, which was last increased more than a decade ago. Under the Committee's proposal, the gas tax would increase by a nickel and the average commuter would pay only an additional $36 per year.
The user fee system has served us well. We should further utilize the strengths of that system to generate the necessary revenues to meet the needs of the transportation system.
Regrettably, the reason we are here today with another extension bill is because Administration ideology and political expediency is trumping good policy. The reauthorization bill is again delayed. As we approach the summer construction season, States will be slow to make the necessary investments during these uncertain times. Good-paying jobs will be lost or never created. Last fall, State transportation officials estimated that an extension bill would mean $2.1 billion in project delays and the loss of more than 90,000 jobs. This extension simply compounds those losses.
Instead, we now face vigorous behind-the-scenes efforts by the Administration and the Republican Leadership to cut the funding levels in our bipartisan bill and develop budget schemes that shift money from one account to another-to increase revenue to the Highway Trust Fund without increasing the user fee. While I will work with all parties to ensure that we find the necessary resources to increase our transportation investment, I will not support smoke-and-mirror proposals that simply further ideological objectives or political expediency, but not the long-term interests of the highway and transit programs.
Faced with these current roadblocks, we must again extend the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs or face a shutdown of both the Department of Transportation agencies and Federal surface transportation funding.
Mr. Speaker, before I close, there is one other very important element of this extension that deserves mention. That element is its continuation of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) program, as that program is set forth in TEA 21. Since enactment of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, Congress has included a program to aid socially and economically disadvantaged businesses to successfully compete for transportation construction contracts. Because of this program, we have made impressive strides in increasing the participation of minority- and women-owned businesses in Federally-assisted transportation construction contracts. Today, more than 20,000 DBE's participate in the program. However, as recent evidence demonstrates, there continues to be a compelling need for the DBE program.
The current program is narrowly tailored to allow States to set and refine goals for participation of disadvantaged businesses in Federally-assisted transportation contracts. These goals must be appropriate for the State's population.
Further, the current program requires States to try and meet those goals by race-neutral means. It is only when race-neutral means fail to achieve sufficient DBE participation, that race-conscious means may be used.
Indeed, as recent data provided by the States have shown, the lasting effects of discrimination are such that the overwhelming majority of States must continue to use race-conscious means to try and achieve their participation goals. For example, my home state of Minnesota established a goal for 2002 of 10.3 percent DBE participation in Federally-assisted transportation construction contracts. Minnesota officials determined that only 2.6 percent of this goal could be achieved with race-neutral means and 7.7 percent would need to be met using race-conscious means.
Despite its good-faith effort to achieve this self-imposed goal, Minnesota was only able to achieve 6.63 percent DBE participation.
Minnesota's experience demonstrates two important facts about the program. First, as courts throughout the country have found, the DBE program is truly one of setting goals; it is not a quota system. States must make a good-faith effort to achieve its goal. Second, the goal setting required by the DBE program is crucial to increasing participation of DBE's in Federally-assisted transportation contracts. In Minnesota state-funded transportation contracts, where there was no DBE goal established, DBE participation was only 4.42 percent.
By extending this program today, we specifically reaffirm the government's compelling interest in ensuring that States receiving Federal funds for transportation construction make a good faith effort to ensure participation by minority- and women-owned businesses in those construction projects.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3783.