[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H414-H415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         TEA-21 REAUTHORIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the 
reauthorization of highway funding, the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century.
  Our transportation system in this country has a direct and 
significant impact on the daily lives of all Americans. While the 
United States has benefited greatly from having a strong transportation 
network, we are indeed approaching a crossroads.
  My area, north Texas, has experienced an increase in traffic over the 
past 3 decades, and this is a result of unprecedented population and 
employment growth and the underinvestment of Federal funds in my area. 
In many ways this is a silent crisis, rarely recognized by residents 
until they find themselves in an unbearable commute to work or unable 
to make the necessary connections between home, work, and the countless 
other activities our daily lives demand.
  In Texas, our identified transportation needs outstrip available 
funding three to one. Texas has several specific transportation needs: 
supporting the international trade transportation, more efficient 
environmental processes, and expanding innovative financing techniques. 
Congress and the administration continue to discuss the need for 
increased funding in the transportation reauthorization bill. But we 
need to ensure the current Federal transportation dollars are being 
spent wisely. Our charge as congressional representatives is to protect 
dollars taken from the taxpayer by streamlining and improving the 
activities of our Federal Government. There are many important Federal 
programs such as our transportation programs that are being hurt and 
neglected with expenditures that could be handled with greater care.
  As a member of the committee, I wanted to be certain that the 
Department of Transportation was ensuring the most efficient business 
practices within the agency. Last year, just a few months after being 
sworn in, I met with the Department of Transportation Inspector 
General, Kenneth Mead, to discuss the business practices of the agency 
and how Congress can better facilitate the decrease of inappropriate 
expenditures related to transportation spending. Inspector General Mead 
and I discussed the need for greater stewardship and oversight of all 
of the functions of the Department of Transportation.
  To date, the Department has not changed the way the agency 
distributes transportation funding to State and local entities since 
President Eisenhower was in office. The Inspector General recommended 
that if 1 percent of the $500 billion spent over the last 10 years on 
transportation, if that 1 percent was saved, that would generate an 
additional $5 billion; and, in fact, this $5 billion could equate to 
the amount of funding needed for four of the 11 major transportation 
projects going on in this country right now. I believe this practice 
could better assist the Department of Transportation in spending of 
taxpayers' dollars more wisely.
  There are several successful transportation projects that can be used 
as examples for government efficiency. For example, Highway 15 in Utah 
was rehabilitated ahead of schedule and under budget. In north Texas, 
the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system worked within their budget last 
year and actually returned over $20 million in transit funding to the 
government. Sadly, there are bad examples of transportation projects 
that are over budget and behind schedule. The Springfield interchange 
in Virginia and the Central Artery Project in Boston come to mind. We 
need to address the misuse of Federal transportation expenditures as 
soon as possible.
  Furthermore, the General Accounting Office has estimated that from 
fiscal years 1998 to 2001 the highway trust fund lost over $6 billion 
because of the ethanol tax exemption. And using the Department of 
Treasury's projections of the tax receipts based on current law, it is 
estimated that the highway account will not collect $13 billion because 
of the tax exemption from fiscal years 2002 to 2012 and almost $7 
billion from the General Fund transfer between the same years.
  Prior to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the 
highway trust fund earned interest on its balance. If the highway trust 
fund had continued to earn interest on its balance, the Department of 
Treasury estimates that the highway trust fund would have earned about 
$4 billion from 1999 to 2002.
  Between modifying the Department's practices with State and local 
governments and reevaluating the true purposes of the highway trust 
fund, we can work together to ensure our government is more effective 
and more efficient for the taxpayer.
  I believe we need to have policies included in the TEA-21 
reauthorization bill to allow States flexibility to complete large 
projects in less time and save money. I believe streamlining the 
design-build process will achieve this goal, and I have asked for its 
inclusion in the final reauthorization legislation. More funding and 
modifications of current transportation programs will equate to better 
roads, bridges and transit facilities, ultimately less congestion, and 
ultimately a safer environment for our constituents.
  I remain committed to working with Federal, State, and local 
officials during the reauthorization this year to address the long-term 
needs while ensuring that our Federal Government wisely spends the 
taxpayers' dollars on infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, it is important to me because constituents in 
my district spend so much time in traffic jams, and my goal is to make 
certain that they have just as much time at the dinner table for family 
discussions as they spend waiting patiently in traffic.

[[Page H415]]

                              {time}  1930
             ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS SHIFT OF JOBS OVERSEAS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Beauprez). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, even though I come from Ohio, I 
picked up the Los Angeles Times today and just could not believe the 
headline. It said, ``President Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.'' 
``The loss of work to other countries,'' this is the sub-headline, 
``while painful in the short-term, will enrich the economy eventually, 
the President's report to Congress says.''
  I thought, that cannot be it. It is some overzealous headline writer 
that really did not understand this.
  Well, then I started looking at some other papers. I saw the Seattle 
Times writes, ``Bush report: Sending Jobs Overseas Helps U.S.''
  Then I looked at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, just down the road a 
couple hours from where I live in Lorain, Ohio. The headline was, 
``Bush Economic Report Praises Outsourcing Jobs.''
  Then the Orlando Sentinel in the home State of the President's 
brother, Governor Bush, the headline was, ``Bush Says Sending Jobs 
Abroad Can Be Beneficial.''
  Now, this is pretty hard to understand. The President of the United 
States, his top economic adviser would issue a report saying it is a 
great thing we are sending jobs overseas. I began to read about this, 
and it says, ``The movement of American factory jobs and white-collar 
work to other countries,'' according to the Bush administration, ``is 
part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy 
over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation.''
  Gregory Mankiw, the chief economic adviser for the President, the 
chief economic adviser for the United States of America, said, 
``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. That is a 
good thing.''
  Now, I want Mr. Mankiw, I want him to look in the eyes of a 
steelworker in Lorain, Ohio, and look in the eyes of a computer 
programmer in Palo Alto, California, and look in the eyes of a 
telephone operator in Akron, Ohio, or look in the eyes of a radiologist 
and say that outsourcing is a good thing.
  But Mr. Mankiw has something today about radiologists, too. Do you 
remember when we passed other trade agreements in this Congress, past 
trade agreements, I always said if you get enough education, then you 
are all set. You just get ahead. You go to school, you get an 
education, you got a job. That is the way it works.
  Well, Mr. Mankiw, the chief economic adviser for the President of the 
United States, said, ``Maybe we will outsource a few radiologists. What 
does that mean? Well, maybe the next generation of doctors will train 
fewer radiologists and will train more general practitioners and more 
surgeons. Maybe we've learned we don't have a comparative advantage in 
radiologists.''
  Obviously, Mr. Mankiw has been reading economic textbooks. He has not 
been talking to the computer programmer in Palo Alto, he is not talking 
to the steelworker in Lorain, he is not talking to the telephone 
operator in Akron, and he is not talking to any radiologists.
  Now, why would President Bush's economic adviser say that outsourcing 
is a good idea? These are the same people that support the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, that support PNTR, the most-favored-
nation trade advantages for China, the same people that support trade 
promotion authority, Fast Track, and now the same people that are 
pushing the Central American Free Trade Agreement and are pushing the 
Free Trade Area of the Americas, which will quadruple, quadruple, the 
size of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Every time there is an economic problem in this country, every time 
another report comes out about unemployment, President Bush's economic 
advisers and the President himself says, all we got to do is do more 
tax cuts for the most privileged, then the benefits will trickle down 
to the rest of the country, and all we have to do is more trade 
agreements.
  You know what happens? Every single time they promise 200,000 
increased jobs a month, and every time these tax cuts for the rich, 
they do not trickle down. In fact, we have seen job loss in 
manufacturing every month of the Bush administration. We have seen with 
this President the first President since Herbert Hoover to have job 
loss during his time in office.
  In my State, one out of six, as the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) knows, one out of six manufacturing jobs in my State has 
disappeared since George Bush took office. But every time there is a 
problem, every time there are more bad news statistics about jobs lost, 
the President says, let's do more tax cuts for the rich, let's do more 
free trade agreements and hemorrhage jobs overseas.
  You know why? Because the people who benefit from these kinds of 
predictions, the people who benefit from these kinds of job losses, the 
people who benefit from this outsourcing of jobs, are the investors. 
And those are the people, the wealthiest investors in the country, 
those are the people that contribute money to George Bush's campaign, 
those are the people that benefit from the tax cuts, those are the 
people that benefit from trade agreements, as they line their pockets. 
But it might help the wealthiest in this country, it might help George 
Bush, but it hurts workers, it hurts families, it hurts communities, 
and it hurts our Nation.

                          ____________________