[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 130 (Monday, September 22, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11756-S11757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bond, Mr. Warner, 
        Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 1640. A bill to provide an extension of highway programs funded 
out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.

[[Page S11757]]

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President. I am introducing today the Transportation 
Extension Act of 2003 which will extend the expiring Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century an additional 5 months. Senators, 
Jeffords, Bond, Warner, Voinovich, Crapo, Chafee, Cornyn, Murkowski, 
Thomas, and Allard join me as original cosponsors on this short-term 
extension.
  As my colleagues may be aware, we are now 7 days from the expiration 
of TEA-21. Despite the best efforts of Senator Bond and myself, we have 
been unable to secure the necessary floor time for consideration of a 
comprehensive 6-year bill.
  This bill provide 5 months worth of the $35.5 billion allowed under 
the Budget Resolution and a corresponding amount of obligation 
limitation. This is a significant, 7-percent increase in highway 
funding over 2003, which will translate into over 100,000 new jobs.
  Of course, the best thing we can do to create economic opportunity is 
enact a comprehensive, 6-year reauthorization. As we all know, highway 
bills are jobs bills. A highway bill drafted at $255 billion over 6 
years as proposed by the Environment and Public Works Committee will 
create about two million new American jobs. This combined with the tax 
cuts signed by President Bush is the best stimulus the economy can 
receive.
  Let me be very clear that my preference is that we would be 
completing a 6-year comprehensive bill, not working on a five-month 
extension, but reality is that the funding needed to do a comprehensive 
6-year bill at $255 billion has not yet been identified. Because of 
that, I believe the best outcome for the long term program is to do a 
5-month extension and continue to work on a comprehensive 6-year bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to make some brief remarks about 
the extension of the Transportation Equity Act, often referred to as 
TEA-21.
  Chairman Inhofe and I, along with subcommittee Chairman Bond and 
ranking member Harry Reid, have been working together on drafting a 
comprehensive, bipartisan 6-year transportation reauthorization bill. 
Unfortunately, that reauthorization effort will not be completed before 
TEA-21 expires on September 30.
  Thus, as with the previous reauthorization of ISTEA by TEA-21, we 
will need to do a short extension of TEA-21. In the interest of time, 
and to avoid any concerns about potential disruptions, we have used 
major portions of the same short-extension language used for ISTEA in 
1997 for this extension.
  It is important that I clarify some aspects of this short extension 
with the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe.
  The purpose of this short extension is to continue the Federal 
surface transportation programs and transportation investment patterns. 
For that reason, we have provided considerable short-term spending 
flexibility to the States.
  However, in a longer term extension, if any were needed, we should be 
consistent with Congressional goals set forth in TEA-21. Thus, I want 
to ensure that if there is a need for another extension we more closely 
adhere to the flexibility provisions set forth in TEA-21. This would 
require, for example, changes to the text used in this short-term 
extension regarding section 133(d).
  In a short-term extension there is little risk that investment 
patterns would be altered in a manner inconsistent with TEA-21 and thus 
the proposed language is acceptable for the short term.
  Senator Inhofe do you agree with my understanding that the bipartisan 
extension we have proposed works well in the short term but would 
require some modification to its flexibility provisions if it were to 
apply for a longer period of time? In addition, will you agree to work 
with me to make changes to the language if we have to do another 
extension to address the concerns I have raised?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I will work with the Senator on his concerns if we 
have to do a longer term extension.

                          ____________________