Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users--Motion to Proceed

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT; A LEGACY FOR USERS--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on Friday, the leader filed a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3, the highway bill. I believe the cloture vote has been scheduled for tomorrow at 11:45 am. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote yes.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, expired on September 30, 2003, nearly 19 months ago. Yet we are still attempting to get a bill done. The Federal-aid program has been operating under a number of short-term extensions--a total of six to date.

We need to get this done. The vote on Tuesday on cloture is critical. If we cannot proceed to this bill, we will miss yet another deadline and our States will continue to pay the price. The current May 31 expiration date for the highway, transit and safety programs is fast approaching. The House bill, H.R. 3, has some very significant differences from S. 732 the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, SAFETEA, the bill reported out by the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 16. We will need as much time as possible to work out a compromise. Although we may not all be in perfect agreement here on the Senate floor on each and every provision of S. 732, one thing I believe we are all in agreement on is that we need to get this done. In addition to conversations with colleagues, I have visited with community leaders and outside interest groups and the message is clear ..... get the bill done.

My committee colleagues and I are asking the Senate to consider essentially the same language that 76 Senators voted for in 108th Congress. The Environment and Public Works Committee used as its mark the Senate-passed S. 1072 with the exception that we adjusted the numbers to reflect the President's proposed spending level of $284 billion over 6 years. During our markup we accepted several non-controversial amendments from committee members. None of these amendments substantially changed the policy goals of the bill as passed last year.

Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the pending cloture motion and allow us to move to H.R. 3. We really need to keep this moving. The longer we delay enactment of a long-term bill, we are negatively effecting economic growth. According to DOT estimates, every $1 billion of Federal funds invested in highway improvements creates 47,000 jobs. The same $1 billion investment yields $500 million in new orders for the manufacturing sector and $500 million spread throughout other sectors of the economy.

State contract awards for the 2005 spring and summer construction season are going out to bid. If we fail to send a bill to the President by May 31st, States will not know what to expect in Federal funding and the uncertainty will potentially force States to delay putting these projects out for bid. According to the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials--AASHTO, an estimated 90,000 jobs are at stake. This problem is exacerbated for northern States, such as Alaska, that have shorter construction seasons. Many State transportation departments have advanced State dollars to construct projects eligible for Federal-funding in anticipation of our action to reauthorize the program. Without a new bill, States are essentially left ``holding the bag.''

Over the past 6 years under TEA-21, we have made great progress in preserving and improving the overall physical condition and operation of our transportation system. However, more needs to be done. A safe, effective transportation system is the foundation of our economy. We are past due to fulfill an obligation to this country and the American people.

I am pleased that the President's budget assumed more funding for reauthorization over his previous level of $256 billion. I and along with many of you believe we need more. Certainly that is an issue that will be thoroughly debated on the floor of the Senate, but we can't even have that debate unless we get to the floor.

Again, if we are able to proceed, the language that the Senate will be considering is essentially the same bill that was passed on the Senate floor last year--a bipartisan product of many months of hard work and compromise. This bill remains a very good piece of legislation which I hope will require few, if any, changes here on the floor. However, I am anxious to discuss with Senators their amendments so that we can debate them and hopefully get this bill in conference with the House prior to the recess, but we need to get to the bill first.

S. 1072 passed the Senate last year guaranteed all donor States a rate of return of 95 percent. I can remember that was 75 percent when I first came here. At a lower funding level we were able only to achieve a 92 percent rate of return but kept the 10 percent floor over TEA-21. The scope, or split of percent funding above and below the line, remain the same at 92.5 percent.

In order to get this bill off the floor, we have to balance the needs of donor and donee States. I will be the first to acknowledge that this balance--as with any compromise--is not perfect. My colleagues representing donee and donor States that receive lower rates of return or growth rates than they feel fair have made this fact very clear to me over the past year.

I am very sympathetic to the concerns of both donors and donees in this situation. Both have significant transportation needs that cannot be ignored. Addressing their concerns has become more difficult in the last year due to the fact that we have less money. Providing either group with more money would add significantly to the cost of the bill or take away from other programs. But holding up even consideration of this bill will not solve the problem. We need to proceed to H.R. 3 so that donor and donee States will have the opportunity to offer their amendments on how to improve their State's treatment.

I am certain my colleagues share my strong desire to get a transportation reauthorization bill passed. We must act to get a bill to and through conference prior to the May 31 expiration of the current extension. This will be a very difficult challenge, but if we act quickly we can do it.

Now let's look at the alternative. What will happen if we do not pass a highway bill? There will not be another extension. If we don't pass the bill there will be no chance of improvement on donor State rate of return and no new safety core program to help Spates respond to thousands of deaths each year on our roadways.

Our bill up has many safety provisions, as the ranking Democrat, Senator Jeffords knows. We didn't agree on all these, but we finally agreed on a final product. Without a bill, there will be no real streamlining of environmental reviews, so critical products would be still subject to avoidable delays. There will be no increased ability to use innovative financing, thereby giving States more tools to advance projects.

Out in California, they have done some things that are working very well. We have studied these and put some very innovative provisions in this bill to allow us to get more for the dollar than we can get today. But without a bill, we cannot do that.

Without a bill, we would not have any Safe Routes to School. This is a program many of the Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate have embraced. But without a bill, we will not have that.

Without a bill, the States will continue to have uncertainty in planning, thereby delaying projects and negatively impacting jobs.

It is easy to sit up here in Washington and be indecisive about these things, but the States have to make plans in advance. For each delay, that is less they are going to get.

Without a bill, we have no new border program, which is critical to border States dealing with NAFTA.

Without a bill, we have delay in the establishment of the national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the future. It is something we have been doing essentially the same way year in and year out, but we are studying new methods now as motor vehicles are more fuel efficient and a tax collection system based solely on fuel consumption becomes less practical.

Without a bill, we won't have any increased opportunity to address choke points at intermodal connectors.

The firewall protection of the highway trust fund would not be continued, thereby making the trust fund vulnerable to raids in order to pay for other programs.

It is very important that we move forward. We studied this for a year and a half before coming to the Senate a year ago right now. Certainly the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Jeffords, can remember the months and months we worked on it. We came to the Senate with a good bill, passed it, went to conference, and were unable to get a vote on the conference report. Because of that, all these 10 things I mentioned did not happen this year. For all these things to happen, to move forward, we have to have a bill. We cannot have a bill until we vote on the motion to proceed so that we will be able to move to the bill. That is what this is all about.

I recognize the ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords.

http://thomas.loc.gov/