[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 133 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11292-S11297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3074, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the
Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended
be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments,
and that no points of order be waived for purposes of this agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The substitute amendment (No. 2790) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is now
debating the Senate amendment to H.R. 3074. This is the Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for this coming
fiscal year. This bill has been supported by the broadest possible
bipartisan majorities. The Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development Appropriations subcommittee has 21 members, more than one-
fifth of the Senate. It is one of the largest subcommittees in the
Senate. Despite the diversity of views on our very large subcommittee,
back on July 10 we voted unanimously to report the bill to the full
Appropriations Committee, and 2 days later, each and every one of the
29 members of that committee voted to report this bill to the Senate.
This bill has broad, bipartisan support because it addresses
pragmatically the very real housing and transportation needs of
American families across all regions of the Nation. Rather than endorse
the many arbitrary and destructive cuts called for in the
administration's budget, we worked in this bill to target our limited
resources on getting citizens out of traffic jams and home to their
families; keeping our low-income tenants in their homes and out of
shelters; providing housing for the elderly and the disabled; investing
in crumbling infrastructure, and improving safety on our runways,
highways, and railways.
Much has been said recently about a looming battle between the White
House and Congress over spending priorities and the funding levels in
these appropriations bills. There is no question that the bill before
us spends more than the level sought by the Bush administration, both
for transportation and for housing. Yet this bill still has broad
bipartisan support, and I believe the Senate would benefit greatly from
a detailed explanation as to why that is the case.
More than any other reason, this bill spends more than the
administration's budget because it rejects many of the most punitive
and misguided cuts that were proposed by the White House. The
President's budget that he sent us for fiscal year 2008 proposed cuts
across the board. Those included cuts that would put low-income tenants
and their children on the streets. It proposed cuts that would
undermine transportation safety, especially when it comes to aviation
and railway safety; cuts that would worsen congestion on our Nation's
roadways and runways; and cuts that undermine the community development
efforts of mayors and county executives and Governors across this
country.
So this bill spends more than the President's budget, not because it
includes vast new spending initiatives but because it simply refuses to
acquiesce to the President's reckless cuts. These are the very same
cuts that have been proposed in recent years by the Bush administration
and rightly rejected by the then-Republican-led Congress. That is why
every member of the Appropriations Committee voted to support this
bill.
In addition to restoring funding to the cuts that were proposed in
the President's budget, there are a limited number of selected funding
increases in
[[Page S11293]]
this bill. Those increases are targeted on efforts to maintain the
current service levels for the HUD section 8 program, so tenants do not
lose their homes. It continues to make investments in highway
infrastructure so we can address our crumbling bridges and highways. It
addresses the critical housing needs of homeless veterans, including
veterans who are struggling after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it addresses the current crisis in the mortgage market by boosting
funding to counsel subprime borrowers who are today facing default and
foreclosure.
As appropriators, we have an obligation to ensure that with our
limited resources we are addressing the most critical and current needs
we face in transportation and in housing. I believe we can all agree
the needs of our returning veterans, especially those in need of
housing while they struggle with physical or mental illness, have to be
paramount. I believe we can all agree that with billions of dollars of
mortgages about to reset to higher interest rates in the next few
quarters, we have to do everything we can to help our borrowers keep
their homes.
I have been greatly fortunate to be joined by my ranking member,
Senator Bond, in crafting this package. Senator Bond's long service on
the Appropriations Committee, as well as his work on the Public Works
and Banking Committees, has made him one of our leading experts in the
areas of both transportation and housing. Senator Bond's leadership and
his commitment to the mission of HUD takes a back seat to no one. I
could not have a better or more experienced partner in this effort.
The bill that Senator Bond and I put together contains
congressionally directed earmark spending. Consistent with the
instructions of Senator Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran, those earmarks
have been substantially reduced from prior years.
For the first time in a great many years, the committee has reported
a bill that will leave dollars available to initiate national
competitions among all eligible applicants for discretionary
transportation programs. For the first time in several years, this bill
requires every earmarked project to be fully eligible under the basic
authorizing statute for the pertinent program in which it is earmarked.
Those projects must also conform to other strict criteria newly
imposed by our subcommittee this year.
Now, as I said earlier, this bill spends more money than the
President's request, principally because it rejects a great many of the
cuts that were proposed in the President's budget cut, that by the way
have been rejected year by year by Republican Congresses.
I want to take a few minutes of the Senate's time today to discuss
those cuts in greater detail. The President proposed to cut community
development efforts in all our States and communities across the Nation
by slashing the CDBG Program by $735 million or 20 percent.
Now, at a time when our changing economy is imposing unprecedented
challenges to our mayors and our governors in preserving their
struggling cities and towns, the President wanted to slash this effort
by almost three-quarters of a billion dollars.
I have yet, personally, to meet a mayor or governor of any political
party who endorses that approach. So our bill restores every penny of
that cut. The President's budget also proposed to cut housing funding
for the disabled by $112 million, almost 50 percent. At a time when our
social service networks are trying to give our disabled citizens the
chance to live independently, the Bush administration wants to slash
that program in half.
Now, if that is not bad enough, at a time when the number of senior
citizens is growing, the President's budget for HUD seeks to cut
housing for low-income seniors by $160 million or 22 percent. So the
bill before you restores every penny of those cuts.
The bill also rejects the President's proposal to completely
eliminate funding for the very successful HOPE VI Program. Senators
Bond and Mikulski deserve a great deal of credit for the success of
that program. We have again restored funding for it so we can demolish
some of the most decrepit and crime-ridden housing projects with new
mixed-income developments that are cleaner, safer, and promote stable
community living.
The bill before us rejects several punitive cuts proposed for the
Department of Transportation. The President's budget proposed to slash
funding for Amtrak by almost $500 million or 40 percent in a single
year. This subcommittee heard testimony back in late February that a
cut of that size would cripple the railroad and push it into certain
bankruptcy. That was not just the view of Amtrak supporters, that was
the view of the DOT inspector general who audits Amtrak's books every
quarter.
The bill before us also rejects the President's proposal to cut
subsidies for the Essential Air Service Program, which would eliminate
all flights to dozens of rural and midsized communities in about every
State.
At a time when our commercial airlines are terminating air service to
small- and medium-sized cities, the President's budgets worsens the
situation by slashing subsidies to keep some of those cities on the
national aviation map.
As anyone who has taken a flight recently can attest, the number of
air travelers has now well exceeded the levels we experienced prior to
September 11. Flights are packed and are too often delayed. Planes are
landing to find there are no gates to accommodate them. Consumer
complaints are growing. Our air traffic control infrastructure is
increasingly showing its age, with equipment outages and near misses
occurring with frightening frequency.
Yet, as in past years, the President's budget for the FAA proposes to
slash over $800 million from our programs that invest in airport
capacity, safety projects, and modernizing the air traffic control
system.
Maybe if the President flew commercial instead of on Air Force One we
would see a much different budget here. But thankfully, as was the case
in past years, our bill that is before us today rejects those proposed
cuts.
Finally, as I mentioned before, the bill before us includes some
select but critically needed funding increases. The President's budget
proposed an absolute freeze on the amount of money available for tenant
housing vouchers for the coming years, completely ignoring inflationary
costs and rising rents. This bill provides a $500 million increase for
tenant-based rental assistance. That is the amount we estimate will be
needed to ensure that all currently federally assisted tenants can stay
in their homes.
Senator Bond and I joined forces to add $78 million for the HUD-VASH
Program. That program was designed to target both housing assistance
and support services to our homeless veterans, including our veterans
who are returning today from Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have coordinated this increase in voucher funding with a
comparable increase in supportive services funding in the
appropriations bill for the VA and military construction. This is a
program that has not received funding for several years. I am very
proud to say that our new initiatives will provide critically needed
funding to support at least 7,500 homeless veterans.
This bill has also included small and selected increases to address
critical and worsening problems with transportation safety. Small
increases above the President's budget are provided to hire more air
safety inspectors. At present, these inspectors cannot inspect all the
maintenance facilities they are responsible for, and we are especially
concerned about these facilities that are overseas.
We have also provided small increases for rail safety, highway
safety, and pipeline safety. Our subcommittee, in fact, had a special
hearing on the rising level of highway fatalities. We have worked to
respond to some of the needs that were cited during that hearing.
We have also provided increased funding to enable the Department of
Transportation to investigate the growing backlog of customer service
complaints by airline passengers.
In summary, this bill rejects reckless and misguided cuts that
Republican-led Congresses have also rejected before, cuts that would
harm our infrastructure, our communities, and our citizens. It also
contains modest targeted increases on programs that are tackling
emerging and growing problems, programs that will help our veterans,
[[Page S11294]]
our safety and our efforts to keep our families in their homes.
In doing all this critical work, this bill does spend more than the
President's request. But in that sense, it is no different from the
transportation and housing appropriations bills that were passed by the
House and Senate when my Republican colleagues across the aisle chaired
our committees.
This bill has broad bipartisan support because it takes a practical
approach in addressing real needs we found in the transportation and
housing sector. I urge all our Senators to support this bill and move
us rapidly to final passage.
Amendment No. 2791
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before I turn to my colleague for his
opening remarks, I would offer an amendment to the bill to clarify the
authority of the Secretary of Transportation to collect damages.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin.) The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 2791.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike a provision of the bill and insert authority for
the Secretary of Transportation)
On page 129, strike section 218 and insert the following:
``Sec. 218. The Secretary of Transportation may receive and
expend cash, or receive and utilize spare parts and similar
items, from non-United States Government sources to repair
damages to or replace United States Government owned
automated track inspection cars as a result of third party
liability for such damages.''
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 2792 to Amendment No. 2791
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to my
amendment on behalf of Senator Landrieu and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself and
Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 2792 to
amendment No. 2791.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To expand the extension of authority of the Secretary of
Transportation and provide additional obligation authority for the
highway bridge program)
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
``Sec. 218(a). The Secretary of Transportation may receive
and expend cash, or receive and utilize spare parts and
similar items, from non-United States Government sources to
repair damages to or replace United States Government owned
automated track inspection cars and equipment as a result of
third party liability for such damages, and any amounts
collected under this subsection shall be credited directly to
the Safety and Operations account of the Federal Railroad
Administration, and shall remain available until expended for
the repair, operation and maintenance of automated track
inspection cars and equipment in connection with the
automated track inspection program.
Additional Obligation Limitation
Highway Trust Fund
(b) For an additional amount of obligation limitation to be
distributed for the purpose of section 144(e) of title 23,
United States Code, $1,000,000,000; Provided, That such
obligation limitation shall be used only for a purpose
eligible for obligation with funds apportioned under such
section and shall be distributed in accordance with the
formula in such section; Provided further, That in
distributing obligation authority under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall ensure that such obligation limitation shall
supplement and not supplant each State's planned obligations
for such purposes.''
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment that I sent
to the desk further expands the Secretary's collection authority and
provides additional funding for the bridge rehabilitation program. I am
going to be discussing this amendment in detail later this afternoon
after Senator Bond has completed his opening statement.
I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for his work and
his staff's work on this very complex and very important bill. Again, I
urge all our colleagues to bring their amendments to the floor. As
everyone knows, we are in a very short timeframe this week because of
the Jewish holidays. We are going to be working late in getting our
amendments done. We encourage everyone to get to the floor. I thank my
colleague for his work on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to Senator Murray for
being such a good partner on this bill. It is a very challenging bill,
particularly under the constraints in which we are supposed to work. It
is always a difficult bill and many complex and controversial issues.
I begin by echoing her comments; we know there will be amendments. We
urge our colleagues to come down as soon as possible and offer those
amendments so we can deal with them. We have a hard deadline of
Wednesday noon. I hope we can get the issues resolved before then. But
that is a deadline which the Senate schedule imposes on us. We do want
to get it completed.
Senator Murray deserves a great deal of credit for balancing the
tough issues that are included in this bill; she referred to them.
These are important programs that help build our communities and
without which a lot of persons would been placed at the risk of
homelessness.
This would have been particularly harsh on seniors and persons with
disabilities. I also especially am grateful for the programs Senator
Murray described that we were able to include $75 million in Section 8
funds for the VA Supportive Housing Program.
I think it is a critical program that calls attention to some of the
many needs that face our returning service people. There are far too
many returning service men and women who come back and are without
housing. This is a start on dealing with this serious problem that I
know the VA and HUD are familiar with.
We want to give them the authorization and the direction to move
forward on it. I think the worth of this program will become even more
evident as young disabled service men and women try to make the
difficult adjustments to civilian life.
Now, the next item that is going to be discussed is the Minnesota
bridge collapse. This was surely a catastrophic event. Our hearts go
out to all of those families who lost loved ones in that horrific
tragedy. In response to the bridge collapse, Congress immediately
authorized $250 million in emergency relief spending to rebuild this
vital infrastructure in Minnesota.
I think a welcomed awareness has arisen from this event, brought a
higher degree of understanding and appreciation that new methods for
inspecting and rating our bridges are necessary. People are even
talking about infrastructure and the need for infrastructure.
Well, that is what we have been talking about in this committee and
on this floor for many years. We are delighted to have our long-time
supporters and some new friends agreeing with us on it.
Now, as far as this bridge collapse, we are anxiously awaiting
further information from the National Transportation Safety Board on
what the root cause of this tragic accident was and how we can further
improve our Federal oversight of critical infrastructure. There are a
number of items which have been raised which may point out specific
causes for this collapse and which will be a warning to other States
and other localities as well of steps they must take and things they
must do to avoid bridge collapses.
But I understand why my colleague, Senator Murray, has offered the
amendment that would add $1 billion in obligation limits for bridges in
reaction to this tragic event. I share that concern. But I do have a
feeling we should not overreact to the Minnesota bridge collapse by
spending more money out of the highway trust fund than is available
until we have time to work on a comprehensive reauthorization of the
underlying legislation, SAFETEA.
Part of this process must be a comprehensive review of our Nation's
infrastructure problems, including how best to prioritize and fund
those needs. Obviously, we are going to be looking at bridge safety as
well as the other aspects of transportation safety.
I know in my home State of Missouri, and I assume in every State
[[Page S11295]]
transportation department across the country, this event brought
renewed attention to bridge inspection. In my State, the department of
transportation is embarking on a major program to rehabilitate 800
bridges that are of varying levels of deficiency. But while we need to
avoid and prevent a future repeat of the Minnesota tragedy, we also
must minimize the risk of death or injury posed by the broad spectrum
of our aging infrastructure.
This measure would cause serious problems with the declining balance
in the highway trust fund and leave us with an additional $1 billion
greater shortfall for highway trust fund funding in the 2009
appropriations cycle. Everybody in this building, all my colleagues
know or should know that we have significant problems in the highway
trust fund because we have seen the impact of higher gas prices on fuel
consumption. People are driving less. Economics does work. But when
they drive less and use less gasoline, use more efficient conservation
measures, which is all to the good, it results in less money coming
into the highway trust fund than had been anticipated and lessens the
amount of revenue we have available to use on bringing our highway and
bridge infrastructure up to the needs of the 21st century. We are not
there yet.
Chairman Murray and I held a hearing in April on the question of
rising highway fatalities. We agree--and everybody would agree--we
cannot ignore the fact that 43,443 Americans were killed on the
highways last year and some 2.7 million more were injured. From my
State, our highway transportation department estimates that one out of
three of these people is killed by reason of inadequate infrastructure.
In our State, the major problem is too many two-lane roads carrying
traffic which should properly be on four-lane roads. I suspect other
States are fighting that problem.
The vast majority of highway fatalities are not on the Nation's
bridges but, rather, on the highways. The best estimate we have from
the U.S. Department of Transportation is that approximately 2,200 out
of the 43,000 deaths occurred on bridges. This leads me to suggest that
we cannot overreact to such a horrible and tragic event such as that in
Minnesota by micromanaging our Federal aid dollars solely to bridges,
unless that is where a State, through its unique local vantage point
and knowledge of its situation, wants to focus its efforts in Federal
apportionment.
So this is something we will be discussing further. We are both
concerned about safety on highways and bridges. We look forward to
working with our colleagues to see how this can be resolved.
With respect to the Federal Aviation Administration, I again thank
Senator Murray and her staff for their close cooperation in working
through these issues. The chronic delays experienced by numerous
travelers this year and specifically this summer have not gone
unnoticed by the committee. As ranking member, having spent a wonderful
2\1/2\ hours sitting on an airport runway after we landed, I have a
personal interest in dealing with this. The bill continues to support
the beginning stage of the NextGen Air Transportation System, which we
believe is a much needed step toward providing additional capacity and
relieving many of the delays at our Nation's airports. The bill also
contains funds above the administration's request for flight inspection
and certification personnel. Almost all of us use airplanes frequently,
and we understand the need the flying public has for greater assurance
of safety. We think these funds will ensure continued safety for the
National Airspace System.
I also note additional funds for the Airport Improvement Program.
That remains an important bipartisan priority for this subcommittee. I
can't tell my colleagues how many small airport operators and community
leaders in those cities and towns around my State have expressed their
strong support for the program.
There are some issues we will have to address as the bill moves
forward. For example, we include revenue aligned budget authority, that
which we call RABA. When Members hear the term ``RABA,'' it is not the
name of a dog or somebody's pet name; it is ``revenue aligned budget
authority.'' This was not included in the President's budget.
The bill also contains a $2.89 billion rescission of highway contract
authority apportionments to the States used as a budgetary offset to
meet the other pressing needs my colleague already described. The bill
includes an additional $43.359 million in administrative contract
authority and another $172 million in the unused transportation
innovative financing infrastructure account--the TIFIA--contract
authority, for a total offset of spending of $3.495 billion. In the HUD
section, we include a rescission of $1.1 billion.
Finally, I raise one issue we have not been able to address; namely,
HUD and OMB's failure to provide adequate funding for HUD's section 8
project-based housing program for fiscal year 2008. To my colleagues
and to OMB and to HUD, I say: Let's get serious. This is a critical and
important program which serves many of our most vulnerable citizens--
low-income families, extremely low-income families, seniors, and
persons with disabilities. If we don't fund it, they are out on the
street. None of us wants to see that result. HUD has been unable to
fund in a full and timely fashion many of these contracts during fiscal
year 2007, and this problem is only going to get worse in 2008 to the
extent that HUD could have a shortfall in its budget of as much as $2
billion or more which is needed to meet its obligations to these
contracts in the next fiscal year. If we don't act in this bill, we are
going to see a $2 billion shortfall. Think of the number of people who
would be put out on the street if we don't solve that problem. It is
unacceptable.
I know this program enjoys wide support, and I expect and hope that
OMB will provide the necessary funds for the program through a budget
amendment or as part of a continuing resolution or through emergency
supplemental legislation. To my good friends at OMB, I say: You cannot
walk away from this problem. This problem is real. It must be addressed
or we are going to see a tremendous tragedy for the Nation's lowest
income and most needy housing residents.
While I am pleased with much of the bill, especially spending in
critical programs, I have to say that we are on a collision course with
the White House on the spending levels contained in this bill. Both
sides are going to have to make adjustments. Some of the adjustments we
have outlined are absolutely essential, and we cannot lose the benefit
of the positive investments we have made in this bill. This is a very
important bill. It is a very difficult bill because we have some
extremely serious challenges to face. We understand the need to be
sensitive to the budget needs, but there are real pressing human
problems we must meet in this bill.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks my
colleague made regarding the HUD tenant-based housing. I will have more
to say on that later. I appreciate his comments.
We do have now before the Senate a pending amendment about which I
would like to make a few remarks. I am hoping we can set a timetable
for a vote on that fairly shortly. I do want my colleagues to know
about the amendment now pending.
Less than 6 weeks ago, our entire Nation--really, the entire world--
watched in horror as the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, MN, collapsed
into the Mississippi River. Given the scope of that disaster, it is
miraculous that the fatalities were not greater. Thirteen people lost
their lives and over 100 were injured on that horrible day. We are all
going to remember the horrendous vision of that yellow schoolbus full
of children that came within a few feet of tragedy.
The National Transportation Safety Board is still, of course,
conducting its investigation into the exact cause of the bridge
collapse, but the horror of that incident has appropriately focused the
Nation on whether we are investing adequately in a national highway
system that is fragile and aging. The troubling conditions of our
Nation's highways and bridges should not have been a surprise to the
media or to policymakers. This has not been a story kept under wraps
for years. This is not a case where the true conditions were
[[Page S11296]]
suddenly revealed in a groundbreaking study.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has by law been required to
publish regular reports on the conditions and performance of America's
highway infrastructure. That report is submitted to Congress and posted
on the Web. The DOT's report was used extensively in the debate we had
with the Bush administration 4 years ago over the appropriate amount of
funding that should be authorized in the highway bill. This report from
the DOT is amplified by regular annual report cards published by the
American Society of Civil Engineers, along with regular studies by
other groups. The difference today is that the nightmare became a
reality for the people of Minnesota and Americans across the country as
we watched it live on television.
We have built a national highway system that is the envy of the
world. But it is now no secret that our Government has failed to
adequately fund the maintenance needs of that system. Increasing
traffic has put added stress on a system that simply was not designed
for it. As a result, our bridges are deteriorating far faster than we
can finance their replacement. This is why more than one in every four
bridges on U.S. highways is rated as deficient. Put another way, fully
27 percent of our 600,000 bridges have aged so much that their physical
condition or their ability to withstand current traffic levels is
simply inadequate. Roughly half of these deficient bridges or about
78,000 across the Nation are structurally deficient. That means the
Department of Transportation considers the physical condition of these
bridges to be poor or worse.
These bridges require immediate attention, and many of them will need
to have weight limits to keep them in service. For a portion of these
bridges, their physical condition is so bad that they are unsafe and do
need to be replaced. The other half of deficient bridges or another
80,000 across the Nation are functionally obsolete. They don't meet
today's design standards. They don't conform to today's safety
requirements, and they are handling traffic far beyond their original
design.
These deficient bridges are not just found off the beaten path, by
the way. In fact, over 6,000 bridges considered deficient are located
on the National Highway System, the roadway system that is designated
as most important to our Nation's economy, defense, and mobility. There
are deficient bridges found in every State in the Nation. My home State
of Washington has more than 2,300 deficient bridges. But certain of our
States are struggling a lot more than others. Iowa has more than 6,600
deficient bridges. Oklahoma has more than 7,400 deficient bridges.
Pennsylvania has almost 9,600 deficient bridges. Texas has more than
10,000 deficient bridges. California has more than 7,000 deficient
bridges, with more than 2,000 on the National Highway System.
The Department of Transportation evaluated the complete picture
across the Nation last year when it published its Conditions and
Performance Report for 2006. That report concluded that there is a
$65.3 billion backlog of repairs needed on U.S. bridges by all levels
of government. Unfortunately, the challenge of addressing this issue
comprehensively is going to have to wait for the next highway
reauthorization bill. But today I have offered an amendment to this
bill that will add $1 billion to the resources available to all 50
States to help address their most critical bridge replacement and
repair needs.
This amendment will not bust the budget. It can be accommodated
within the budget ceiling that governs our subcommittee bill. It does
not bust through that ceiling or through the discretionary spending cap
that has been imposed by our budget resolution.
Working with Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran, our
subcommittee was allocated additional outlays that were not used by
other subcommittees specifically to accommodate the cost of this
amendment I have offered.
My amendment would distribute the $1 billion strictly according to
the formula that already exists in the code for the bridge replacement
and rehabilitation program. That formula by law takes into account the
physical conditions of the bridges in each State, the cost to
rehabilitate or replace the deficient bridges, current safety standards
and traffic demands, and the role of the bridges in the overall
transportation system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
distribution of this funding to all 50 States be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION AUTHORITY UNDER THE MURRAY AMENDMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Oblig. (Murray
Amendment)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ 15,555,494
Alaska......................................... 3,039,702
Arizona........................................ 3,928,042
Arkansas....................................... 12,472,923
California..................................... 100,000,000
Colorado....................................... 7,465,758
Connecticut.................................... 33,545,876
Delaware....................................... 3,028,428
District of Columbia........................... 7,058,550
Florida........................................ 22,508,320
Georgia........................................ 13,900,183
Hawaii......................................... 5,398,718
Idaho.......................................... 4,125,863
Illinois....................................... 28,349,052
Indiana........................................ 12,756,193
Iowa........................................... 14,572,001
Kansas......................................... 10,848,673
Kentucky....................................... 13,366,925
Louisiana...................................... 40,207,373
Maine.......................................... 7,512,716
Maryland....................................... 23,292,258
Massachusetts.................................. 42,442,187
Michigan....................................... 23,539,287
Minnesota...................................... 6,849,173
Mississippi.................................... 13,486,737
Missouri....................................... 26,396,149
Montana........................................ 2,822,240
Nebraska....................................... 5,692,805
Nevada......................................... 2,500,000
New Hampshire.................................. 5,569,814
New Jersey..................................... 37,919,229
New Mexico..................................... 2,978,426
New York....................................... 100,000,000
North Carolina................................. 25,321,588
North Dakota................................... 2,500,000
Ohio........................................... 32,918,739
Oklahoma....................................... 15,962,296
Oregon......................................... 18,096,746
Pennsylvania................................... 93,887,593
Rhode Island................................... 15,224,139
South Carolina................................. 11,626,086
South Dakota................................... 2,880,383
Tennessee...................................... 12,035,612
Texas.......................................... 32,362,327
Utah........................................... 2,568,480
Vermont........................................ 7,013,688
Virginia....................................... 20,440,584
Washington..................................... 34,839,647
West Virginia.................................. 11,554,093
Wisconsin...................................... 5,138,903
Wyoming........................................ 2,500,000
------------------------
Total...................................... 1,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, consistent with the rules that are
already in law for the bridge program, these additional funds we are
covering under this amendment will be available to the States for
bridge replacement, bridge rehabilitation, preventive maintenance,
seismic retrofitting, bridge inspections, and the installation of
countermeasures designed to protect bridges and extend their lifespans.
Importantly, my amendment does include one restriction that is not
included in current law. My amendment will require the Secretary of
Transportation to ensure these additional funds be used to enhance
planned expenditures by the States for bridge construction and repair.
Under current highway law, States have the flexibility to use
obligational authority for many different uses. States may transfer
funding between program activities so they can target Federal funds on
their most urgent needs. My amendment would not disturb that
flexibility for the over $40 billion we are allocating to the States in
regular Federal aid funding. However, my amendment would require the
States to use the additional $1 billion we allocate with this amendment
solely for their most critical bridge activities.
This amendment is a very measured response to a very big problem. I
know our States need even greater resources to address their bridge
repair needs, but my amendment will allow for an historic increase in
Federal bridge funding--a boost of 25 percent. And it will do so while
working within the constraints of our budget resolution.
I urge our Senators to support this amendment. The American people
deserve to feel safe on our roads and our bridges. We should be taking
every step necessary to ensure they are.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S11297]]
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Ohio is recognized.
____________________