Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This motion is simple: it simply ensures that the minimum rate of return for any State under any new highway reauthorization is 95 percent.
As I'm sure everyone is aware, every gallon of gas sold in your State provides money to the highway trust fund via the Federal gas tax. Trust fund money is then dispersed back to the States using very complex mathematical formulas that are determined with each surface transportation reauthorization. A reoccurring issue is the debate surrounding Federal transportation policy. It's been the historic disparity by which a number of States have received less back in funding than they have invested in the highway trust fund through the gas tax. For years, these donor States have fought for more equity and a higher minimum rate of return to ensure that they recoup as large a slice of their own gas tax dollars as possible.
This motion would increase the minimum rate of return to 95 percent, as passed in the Senate-MAP 21 bill. With the influx of general fund moneys to backfill the highway trust fund over the past couple of years, this donor/donee State issue has been a bit blurred, but the issue going forward can't be ignored.
This is not a partisan issue, I should mention. It's simply an issue of fairness. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion and just tell the conferees to not agree to anything that gives States less than 95 cents on the dollar for what they pay in. As we know, for years and years, there's been this disparity. States like Arizona, California, Texas, and Florida, are donor States. Under SAFETEA-LU, the minimum rate of return is just 92 cents. These are growing States. Why in the world are we giving a dollar and getting 92 cents back?
This disparity has existed for a long time for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons has been the existence of earmarks along the way whereby Members of donor State delegations were convinced to go ahead and accept a lower rate of return for their State in exchange for moneys to spend however they wanted with regard to earmarks. And that has not been a good trade for most donor States.
When you add up all the Members of the House of Representatives who represent donor States, it's over 300. So we can all ban together as donor States and say we're not going to sign off on anything that gives us less than 95 cents on the dollar.
Now we all recognize there are reasons why certain States with very small populations and very big infrastructure needs might receive more than the dollar that they put in. But there is no excuse to, in perpetuity, treat States like Arizona and others to a smaller rate of return year after year after year.
It is simply not right. This is simply telling the conferees, agree at least to what the Senate is doing. I should note that we're going to conference in the House with the extension of SAFETEA-LU which is 92 cents on the dollar. We're saying just take it up to 95.
So that's what this motion is about. I would urge my colleagues to agree to it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FLAKE. It is an amusing discussion what is a side issue or a theoretical issue with no practical application. Sounds just like someone who comes from a State that receives more than a dollar for the dollar they kick in, and that's exactly the case here. It may seem like a side issue or a theoretical issue to somebody else, but it is a very real issue if you come from a donor state.
I suppose by the same argument, when I got here, I think the rate of return was 89 cents. We managed to get it up to 92. That hasn't been theoretical. That's very real dollars that come back to a State that put more in than they are getting back.
So you can strip away everything you just heard and realize that the argument to keep the disparity going is coming from someone who comes from a donee State, a State that is receiving more than they're putting in.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, because we are backfilling, that line is blurred. Everybody is getting back more than they kicked in because the general fund is kicking it in. That won't always be the case; that better not always be the case. We can't afford for that to always be the case.
So when we go back to the highway trust fund used as it was intended to be used, then it's not theoretical at all for a donor State to require--and the gentleman keeps mentioning get a dollar for dollar. We aren't saying a dollar for dollar, we're saying 95 cents on the dollar.
Now, the gentleman says what's the purpose of the Federal Government? Many of us have introduced legislation to say that what should be sent to Washington should be what is required to maintain the interstate highway system, the purpose for which the gas tax was put in place to begin with. But 18 cents a gallon doesn't need to be sent back because so much of it is sent simply by formula back to the States. And when it does come back to the States, it's encumbered with things like Davis-Beacon requirements, other set-asides, mandates and stipulations that drive up the cost of construction projects in every State. And so what was a dollar you sent to Washington spends like about 70 cents once it comes back, and you don't even get that dollar you sent to Washington.
So the gentleman's point about let's refigure how we do this is well taken. And I've introduced legislation, as have several of my colleagues, to do just that, turn back proposals to ensure that, yes, we still send money to Washington to take care of and to refurbish and to replace and to restructure that which is truly interstate. The interstate highway system is a wonderful thing, but to just send it to Washington to be rewarded with only part of it being sent back, and that part of it that is sent back encumbered with so many stipulations and mandates that it spends a lot less than a dollar isn't right. So the gentleman makes a good point, and I hope that he would join with many of us in the legislation to do just that.
In the meantime, let's at least send a signal to the conferees. We all know that these motions to instruct are not binding. All they are is a signal from the House to act in a certain way when you get into conference. What we're saying here, and I think the message should be from the more than 300 Members of this body who represent donor States, is let's be treated a little more fairly here. That's all we're asking.
So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
I think we are talking in circles here. The bottom line is those who are receiving more than dollar for dollar, once the general fund revenue is not supplanting or supplementing what is taken in by the gas tax, those who are
receiving more than a dollar are going to argue to keep the current disparity in place. But those of us who represent donor States are going to want a better return. That's the bottom line. That's what this argument is about.
And so the more than 300 Members who represent donor States who will be coming to this floor soon to vote on this motion, that's all they need to remember: let's send a signal to the conferees to give us a better shake and to treat us more fairly.
The gentleman mentions our decaying infrastructure and whatever else around the country, and it is abysmal to look and see what's happening. But you've got to understand from the perspective of a Representative of taxpayers from Arizona who are receiving only 92 cents on the dollar that they kick in, why in the world would they tell me, their Representative, yeah, go raise the Federal gas tax, we enjoy getting 92 cents on the dollar and we'd like to get less of that. Instead, if Arizona was to impose an additional--raise their own gas tax, they get to keep dollar for dollar everything. Plus, it's not encumbered with Davis-Bacon requirements and all the other set-asides which raise the cost of construction projects.
And so if the gentleman is wondering why there is resistance around the country to raising the Federal gas tax, that's it. People look at this disparity and say: Why should we continue to do that? We're funding somebody else, or we're funding these inequities. So this is what this boils down to: if you're from a donor State, then you're going to be saying, hey, let's instruct the conferees to give us a better deal than we've had.
Ninety-two is better than the 89 we were getting a while ago, but let's at least take it to 95. That's pretty reasonable here. That's all we're asking with this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Again, we're having an argument from somebody who represents a State that's getting a lot more than they kick in, and that's the bottom line. To relate this highway user fee, and it's not a pure user fee because we're kicking money back in from the general fund. But it was meant to be a user fee. To relate that to funding for the arts or whatever is completely an apples and oranges argument. And the notion that because one State receives more in agriculture subsidies than another, some of us don't like those subsidies at all, and we can have that argument on another day.
But we're talking about the highway trust fund here. It's a trust fund that is theoretically supposed to give the States roughly what they put in. Now, like I said, I haven't made the argument at all that every State gets 100 percent of what they put in. The gentleman may have made that argument, but I haven't. What I'm saying is right now the minimum guarantee is 92 cents on the dollar. Can't we just get it to 95? Is that unreasonable?
If the gentleman says that the whole concept of this Federal union is that States share, I understand that, but does that mean that one State should only get 10 percent of what it kicks in? Of course not.
There's a figure at which, a point at which some States, like my own, say, you know, we've been getting 89 cents or 92 cents for decades here. At some point, let's do a little better. And Arizona's not the only State that feels that way.
So again, I would ask those of us who are coming to vote on this later on, check with your offices if you aren't aware and say, Are we a donor State or not?
Is there a minimum guarantee, 92 cents? Isn't it reasonable that that
should be brought up to 95 cents? Is it reasonable for a State, in perpetuity, to be shorted like that? And I don't think it is.
I don't think there's any constitutional justification or theoretic justification or anything. It's just an issue of fairness here. That's all we're asking.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to yield back as soon as the gentleman is.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FLAKE. This has been an interesting discussion. It went about how I thought it would.
Those of us who are donor States want a little fairer shake. That's all we're asking. So, to those coming to the floor, check and see where your State falls. You'll find that most of you coming to the floor to vote are from a donor State, a State that's giving more than it's getting. All we're asking for is a fairer shake here. We're not looking to solve all the world's problems in all other areas. There are a lot of other formulas that should be changed as well, but right now we're dealing with this one. Let's ensure that those who fill up their cars and spend 18 cents every time they put a gallon in get a little more of that back. That's what this is about.
I urge the adoption of the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source