[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S364-S366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        HIGHWAY REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are going to be considering today--and 
I think the rest of this week, and probably into next week--one of the 
most significant things we are supposed to be doing here.
  I wish to start off by saying--in endorsing and encouraging a highway 
reauthorization bill--I want people to know this is coming from someone 
who is a conservative. I think there are a lot of conservative 
organizations out there that have mistakenly thought of this as being a 
big spending bill without realizing this has been, since its inception 
back during the Eisenhower administration, an approach to building 
roads, highways, infrastructure that is necessary in this country, and 
to have that as a top priority.
  There are some problems that have come up with the highway trust 
fund, and I want to share that with my colleagues but, first of all, 
make sure everyone knows, who might be watching--and particularly some 
of the organizations that are conservative organizations--that these 
words are coming from me. I have probably been recognized as the most 
conservative Member of this body as much as anybody else has, maybe 
more. Yet, I have always said--even though I am a leading 
conservative--there are two areas where I am a big spender. One is in 
national defense and one is in our infrastructure.

  For that reason, I say to the Presiding Officer, when I was first 
elected back in 1994, I selected two committees to be on. One was the 
Armed Services Committee, where I could try to keep a strong national 
defense. The other was the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am 
now the second ranking member on the Armed Services Committee and the 
ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Back when 
the Republicans were a majority, I was actually the chairman of that 
committee. That is when we did our last bill.
  Our last highway reauthorization bill was in 2005. It was one that 
went through the process and was very successful. Conservatives and 
liberals alike joined and said this is a major function of America. 
This is what we are supposed to be doing here.
  A strong defense and our infrastructure system are not going to be 
done by anybody else. It is going to have to be done by us. If we want 
to make sure we maintain a strong national defense, which this 
President has not been doing with the cuts he has made--actually, we 
could have as much as $1 trillion in cuts in our defense budget over 
the next 10 years, all due, quite frankly, to one person. That is 
President Obama. So he does not care that much about defending America 
in putting the resources there. Here is a President who, in his own 
budget, has proposed a deficit each year, for four budgets, of over $1 
trillion each year.
  You would think, with these huge deficits, we would not be having a 
problem in defense spending, as well as in our roads and highways, in 
coming up with a bill that would be a transportation reauthorization 
bill. The transportation reauthorization bill for 2005--where I was the 
sponsor of it because I was chairman of the committee--was a $286.4 
billion bill. It was one that even at that time barely maintained what 
was out there already. Certainly I do not have to tell the occupier of 
the chair from West Virginia that I have been through his State and 
there is a lot of room for improvements in the road system, and I know 
he is a strong supporter of this. This is certainly true

[[Page S365]]

in my State of Oklahoma. It happens that my State of Oklahoma is tied, 
the last time I checked, with Missouri as being dead last in the 
quality of our bridges.
  We have actually had deaths in Oklahoma. We had a lady not too long 
ago in Oklahoma City, the mother of three small children, who was 
driving and a chunk of concrete came off a bridge and killed her. This 
is serious stuff. This is what we are supposed to be doing here.
  So we had this bill back in 2005. Since that time, we have been 
operating on extensions. We have done eight extensions. It is kind of 
complicated, but I want to explain how this works. The proceeds of the 
highway trust fund come from the gas tax. About 18 cents, when you buy 
gas at the pump, goes to maintenance of the highways and bridges in 
that program.
  The problem has been that in recent years--it started about 10 years 
ago--we had surpluses in the highway trust fund, and with other people 
who wanted to get their deal in on the highway trust fund, we have 
things that have nothing to do with transportation that are there. That 
is one of the problems we have.
  But the other problem we have is that through the efforts to 
encourage people to use electric cars and get better mileage and all 
that, we do not have the proceeds we had in years past. I think 
probably if we had been smart initially, we would have had the highway 
trust funded by a percentage as opposed to a ``centage.'' If it is 18 
cents, it does not make any difference, it is going to be 18 cents. But 
if the price of fuel goes up, if it had been a percentage, then we 
would not be faced with the situation we have today. So that is what we 
have.
  I applaud, I thank Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, for 
wanting to give it the attention, the priority in getting it on the 
floor so we can talk about it. In a minute, I will also be very 
complimentary of Senator Boxer from California.
  This is something that is kind of interesting that is unique in 
transportation only. Here I am ranked always as one of the top three 
most conservative Members. Senator Boxer from California is a very 
proud liberal. One thing: I do not mind people being liberals if they 
are proud liberals and admit it. Well, she does. She is a liberal. She 
feels the government should have greater control of some of the things 
we do. Consequently, she is doing essentially the same thing as the 
current chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee as I 
would be doing if I had still been chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee; that is, coming up with a highway bill.
  Well, we are looking at it right now. I have to share with my 
colleagues on the right--the Republicans, the conservatives--what we 
are looking at. A lot of people do not realize the bill that is coming 
up is a bill of compromise. We actually passed this out of the 
committee unanimously. All the Republicans and all the Democrats voted 
for it. It is a bill where, I have to say, Senator Boxer worked very 
closely with us. We have reforms in here.
  Going back to my comment about extensions, if we do not pass a bill, 
we have to operate on extending the current legislation, the current 
bill, the remnants, I might say, of the 2005 transportation 
reauthorization bill.
  Now, if we do that, we do not get any reforms. So one of the things 
we did in this bill that gained the support of the Republicans on the 
committee, and most of the Republicans here, was the reforms we had.
  For example, in this bill we gave--the bill that is up for 
consideration now--more flexibility to the States. I have long 
believed--and I served many years ago in the State legislature--the 
closer you get to home the more responsible government is. And I can 
tell you right now, giving the flexibility to the States to make these 
determinations--who are we to say that we, in our infinite wisdom and 
knowledge in Washington DC, are smarter than they are at the State 
level? We are not. Certainly, we do not know the needs like the States 
know the needs.
  So we have the situation in this legislation where we are giving more 
flexibility to the States. We are reducing the number of programs. This 
is a big thing. I cannot tell you exactly how many programs there are 
because I do not have that in my notes. But I do know we have reduced 
the number by eliminating and consolidating programs that might be 
duplicative of each other by two-thirds. In other words, we only have 
one-third of the programs we had before. That is in this bill. That is 
a major improvement.
  Now, looking, also, at the streamlining of project delivery, we have 
something called NEPA. NEPA looks after the environmental concerns when 
we are building roads and bridges. This bill expands the number of 
categorical exclusions available under NEPA and allows for steps within 
the lengthy NEPA process to be combined so we can get things done.
  You have heard the stories--I am sure you have--of problems with 
everything from endangered species to other environmental concerns that 
cause these things to drag on and on and on, and the expense is so much 
greater. Well, we are eliminating a lot of those categorical 
exclusions. We are increasing the number so that we will be able to get 
that much more done.
  Another thing in this law--this is very complicated--is called 
enhancements. I opposed it back years ago when they started putting 
enhancements on the highway bill. I have always said it is a moral 
issue. When people pay their 18.4 cents a gallon, and it goes into the 
highway trust fund, they are led to believe that money is going to be 
going to transportation, for improving the roads and the bridges. That 
is not quite true because other deals have kind of moved in so that 
they are involved with it. So they passed this thing called 
enhancements where 2 percent of the total highway funding would have to 
go to what they called transportation enhancements.
  A lot of people say 10 percent. It is 10 percent of the States' 
surface transportation funding or 2 percent of the total highway 
funding. I would like to do away with the enhancement program 
altogether. Unfortunately, that means we could not get a highway bill.
  Working with Senator Boxer and with the Democrats in the committee, 
we came up with the perfect solution. We do not have to eliminate 
enhancements because the solution under this bill will allow the States 
to make the determination as to how they are going to spend that 2 
percent of their total highway funding. Instead of using it for museums 
and other things that have nothing to do with transportation, we are, 
under the provisions of this bill that we are talking about, able to 
use that money for any other requirements for unfunded mandates--and 
there are plenty of them there, such as endangered species mitigation, 
storm water runoff, wetlands mitigation. They are a part of every 
project. So we can take that 2 percent, and instead of applying it to 
enhancements, we can offset the requirements that are there.
  So for all practical purposes, like in my State of Oklahoma, we are 
not going to have any of that 2 percent for enhancements. It is not 
there. We have solved the problem. But we put that in the hands of 
States. So there will be amendments that would want to do away with 
enhancements. I would say we do not have to do that now because we have 
reformed that process.
  It is a little bit complicated because we are merely saying that we 
have a block of money which constitutes 2 percent of the total highway 
funding, and instead of that going to things that we hear about that 
have nothing to do with transportation, we do not have to do that 
anymore. That will be up to the States. However, some States may feel 
differently. If they do, that is not their problem; that is not my 
problem.
  So that is the type of thing we are doing in this bill that has not 
been there before. If we do not do it, we would be cutting highway 
spending down to the highway trust fund receipts. That calculates into 
a 34-percent cut to the States' road and bridge funding. Right now--to 
put this into perspective so that people will, hopefully, understand 
and listen--we need, and we are in the process of getting, an 
additional $7.2 billion in order to be able to fund this bill as we 
passed it--$7.2 billion.
  Stop and think about that. If we go back to the $800 billion stimulus 
bill that President Obama had--I know Senator Boxer agreed with me--
more of that should have gone to highway funding. Only 3 percent of 
it--3 percent--went to highway funding. So we

[[Page S366]]

are talking about $800 billion which was spent. We are trying to come 
up with $7.2 billion.
  I have to say this and bring it up. We all remember the $700 billion 
bailout. A lot of Republicans ended up voting for that, and right now 
we are down to--the cost is probably going to be leveling out at $130 
billion. That is the bailout that was passed.
  Well, $130 billion, when all we are looking for now is $7.2 billion, 
we cannot say it is not there. As I said when I opened, this President, 
in his budget, has had over $1 trillion in deficit each year for 4 
years. Again, that is not the Democrats, not the Republicans, it is not 
the House, it is not the Senate. That is President Obama. That is his 
budget. That is the way it works.
  I have often said when we look at the hundreds and hundreds of 
billions of dollars--and yet one of the prime functions we have is 
roads and highways, and we are just $7.2 billion short. I think they 
have come up with it. I applaud the Finance Committee which has been 
working on this and recognized it in terms of priority that we ought to 
be able to do it.
  They have come up with a package now that--again, this is not in my 
end of it; this is the Finance Committee. A lot of people think the 
highway bill is all in the Environment and Public Works Committee. It 
is not. We have the Commerce Committee, the Budget Committee, the 
Finance Committee, and our committee. But that end of it is in the 
Finance Committee. They have worked diligently. I appreciate the hard 
work that has came from the Democrats and the Republicans on that 
committee.

  Now, in the event that we do not do this, we are going to go back--it 
will be our ninth extension. When we have an extension, none of these 
reforms I just talked about, none of them will end up being done. It 
will just be major cuts in programs.
  I would only ask this: I would ask any Member of the Senate, before 
you draw yourself into a box where you are going to be opposed to this, 
what you need to do is call your State departments of transportation. 
Talk to them about it. Talk to the chambers. Talk to the labor unions 
back in your States. See what they think. This is one of the few issues 
where they are all in agreement--labor, chambers, all of them. They 
realize we have to have infrastructure in America.
  I know my State is not the only State that has road problems. But I 
am more familiar with them because that is where I live and raise my 20 
kids and grandkids. So I would hope that we look at the opportunities 
that we have in what is called MAP-21. That is the transportation 
reauthorization bill that we have under consideration at this time, and 
that we will do the responsible thing.
  If we do rely, by the way, on extensions, our highway trust fund will 
be totally depleted by this next summer. Then we are going to have to 
do an extension or be forced to bail out the highway trust fund. We do 
not want that to happen. We can preclude that from happening. All we 
have to do is be responsible today.
  Again, this is one of the few areas where back home organized labor 
as well as business is all for it. Here we have the extremes, such as 
Senator Boxer from California and myself. We both agree this is one of 
the two primary functions of government. This is our opportunity to do 
it. I hope there will not be people on the outside looking at this and 
completely disregarding these hundreds of billions of dollars that, in 
my opinion, have been wasted and not pay attention to one of the prime 
functions of government; that is, doing the infrastructure for the 
United States of America.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction on S. 2076 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________