[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6046-S6055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 22, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the
Veterans Administration from being taken into account for
purposes of determining the employers to which the employer
mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act.
Pending:
McConnell modified amendment No. 2266, in the nature of a
substitute.
McConnell amendment No. 2421 (to amendment No. 2266), of a
perfecting nature.
McConnell (for Inhofe) amendment No. 2533 (to amendment No.
2421), relating to Federal-aid highways and highway safety
construction programs.
McConnell amendment No. 2417 (to the language proposed to
be stricken by amendment No. 2266), to change the enactment
date.
McConnell amendment No. 2418 (to amendment No. 2417), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the business before the Senate is the
construction of highways and bridges and the operation of mass transit
and buses across America. How important is that to our economy? I know
in my home State it is critically important, but I think it is
important across the Nation.
Our infrastructure, our roads, and bridges are critical for business
to operate profitably and for people to have good-paying jobs. We all
know the tragedies that occur when bridges collapse or are closed, and
we know that thousands across this country need repair.
When it comes to mass transit, come on down to the Loop in Chicago in
the morning and stand with me and watch the folks streaming out of the
train stations and off the CTA and off the buses, headed to work every
day. It is essential to the economy of Chicago and Illinois, the State
I represent.
The fact is that on Friday the authorization to build these highways
and bridges and maintain mass transit and buses expires. It is the 33rd
short-term extension of the highway trust fund--the 33rd. There was a
time when we would pass with regularity and predictability a 5- or 6-
year highway bill on a bipartisan basis, and we are anxious to do it.
There was a time when Members of the House and Senate knew the needs
back home and knew that the Federal Government played a critical role
in filling those needs, and so they voted for the highway trust fund
reauthorization.
In my State of Illinois, 80 percent of the highway construction is
paid for by the Federal Government. When the Federal Government stops
paying, folks stop working. You have seen it; haven't you--the
potholes, the highways that aren't finished? You wonder why in the heck
did they put all those blockades up and slow down the traffic and
nobody is working.
The problem has to do with the way we are currently funding our
highway program. We are doing it in bits and pieces. My colleague and
friend from California, Senator Boxer, draws a pretty interesting
analogy. She said that if you were setting out to buy a home and went
to the bank, and the bank said that, of course, we will offer you a
mortgage, and here is a 60-day mortgage to buy your home, you would
say: Wait a minute; I am not going to make an investment such as buying
a home if I can only get a loan for 60 days. That is what has happened
to the highway trust fund. The expiration of this temporary
authorization on Friday is the end of a 60-day mortgage which we have
offered to America to build highways.
Well, several Members of the Senate decided to do something unique--
not totally unique but unusual, let's say--to try to find a bipartisan
compromise that can move this country forward, try to break through
some of the rhetoric and debate on the highway trust fund and find
something that works.
I wish to especially salute Senator Barbara Boxer of California for
leading this effort on the Democratic side and joining with Senator
Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Inhofe
from Oklahoma, who is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
This is indeed an odd couple, Barbara Boxer and Mitch McConnell, but
they have come up with a plan--a compromise--to solve a problem.
When I go home to Illinois, what I hear over and over from the people
I represent is, Senator, when are you folks in Washington going to stop
squabbling? When are you going to stop fighting? Can you basically sit
down and reach an agreement to solve a
[[Page S6047]]
problem we face? That is what Senator Boxer and Senator McConnell have
done, and I have joined in the effort. Here is what they are proposing:
Instead of a 60-day extension of the trust fund, it would be a 3-year
extension. Six years of authorization but 3 years where the money is on
the table. I wish it was longer, but at this point I will jump at that.
It has been more than 10 years since we have had a highway bill that
long. So it is for 3 years. There is a modest growth each year in
spending. I wish it was more. It ultimately is going to give the
resources back to the States and localities so they can start building
the infrastructure America needs to be successful and to compete.
We have worked long and hard on it. It is controversial. It has
divided caucuses. There are 46 Democrats in the Senate and 21 of us
voted last night to move forward on this bill. So even within our
ranks, there is a difference of opinion. I am glad the Senator from
California is here to keep me on my toes. She said 22 Democrats last
night voted to move forward. I wish all of them were on board, but some
of them have their own legitimate concerns for not being there.
The point I am getting to is that when it came to the necessary vote,
we needed 60; we had 62. I have to check with Senator Boxer to make
sure I am correct. There were 62 votes to move forward and 22 were
Democrats. We stepped up and made the difference to help move this
process forward.
So here we are. We are close to the finish line. We are not quite
there. Because of the procedures of the Senate, we can't do it as
quickly as we would like because we have to follow the rules. The rules
tell us we are likely to get this wrapped up perhaps tomorrow--I hope
as soon as tomorrow--and then we say thank goodness. With a Friday
deadline, we will get something done this week before we go home for
the August recess. I would say from the Senate point of view, that is
exactly right. It means I can say to not only the mayors back home but
also to the Governor, the contractors, the workers: OK. Here are the
resources to move forward for 3 years. I can also say we have done what
we were sent to do, to solve a problem and to do it on a bipartisan
basis.
There is a problem. The problem we have is that Senate action alone
is not enough. We need the House of Representatives to take the same
action. There was an announcement yesterday from a Congressman from
California that the House is not going to take up this measure. They
want to go home. They want to start their August recess earlier than
any other August recess has been started in 10 years. They want to
leave. The Republican majority has decided they don't want to take up
this bill; they just want to leave, and that is truly unfortunate.
This is our chance to solve a problem for America on a bipartisan
basis. This is our chance to invest in our country and put people to
work building roads and bridges and expanding mass transit, buying the
buses we need to serve our communities. This is our chance. Yet what we
hear from the Republican side in the House of Representatives is,
Sorry, we are going home. We will see you in September.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a
question?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Rhode
Island for a question.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The Senator from Illinois has just said the House is
planning to bug out this week before the Friday deadline when the
highway trust fund collapses for the August recess.
May I ask the Senator from Illinois, through the Chair, the following
question: Is it even August? Isn't it July 28 today?
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to take judicial notice that according to
the Calendar of Business, it is still July; Tuesday, July 28, 2015.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. In the past, have we not worked into the early week
or weeks of August before taking the so-called August recess?
Mr. DURBIN. For the past 10 years, the August recess has started in
August. The House of Representatives wishes to start it in July.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And Friday is when the funding for our highways comes
to an end. It appears to be the intention of the House to have gotten
out of Dodge by then in order to, I guess, dodge any consequence for
not having met us on bipartisan terms with a bipartisan 6-year bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Apparently, they need a rest and they want to go home for
that purpose, but I wish they would stay and finish this business
before they go.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. Of course. I yield to the senior Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would observe, after just walking in,
that we are talking about the actions that have not been taken formally
but that several Members of the House have talked about--we are going
to bail out of here.
My feeling is this--and I am asking a question through the Chair if
the Senator from Illinois would agree with my observation. One of the
reasons I think those statements have been made in the House is because
they never believed we were going to be able pass a 6-year highway
reauthorization bill in the Senate.
Now, once that realization is there--and I am going to make an appeal
to whoever is trying to string out this debate to shorten the time so
we can have the vote that is pending right now take place and get on
with the last and final vote, so we would actually have that ready
while the House is still in session. They could very well take it up at
that time.
Now, if the individuals have placed themselves in a corner so that is
not going to happen, I don't know. But is it worth a try? That is my
question.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, through the Chair, let me respond to my
colleague from Oklahoma, to first thank him for his bipartisan
leadership on the committee. He and Senator Boxer are an outstanding
example of bipartisanship when it comes to this issue. They have
produced a 6-year authorization, and though I may not agree with some
of the particulars, I thank him for that leadership on his side on a
bipartisan basis.
As far as the efforts of the Senator from Oklahoma to speed up the
vote in the Senate so we can catch our House colleagues before they
leave, I would support it completely, but the Senator from Oklahoma and
I both know that any single Senator can divert and stop that effort. I
will support the Senator in bringing this forward as quickly as
possible.
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. The only other question I have is the
second part that I will ask. There is time to do this. I am going to
personally make every effort--and I think Senator Boxer shares my
anxiety over getting this bill into a position so we can vote.
All we have to do is move this up so we are not going to be voting at
the expiring time of 4 o'clock in the morning, when that could just as
easily be tonight, and that would give us time to allow the House to
look at it and perhaps come up with a better judgment than they have
expressed so far.
Mr. DURBIN. I would just say through the Chair to the Senator from
Oklahoma, we have to appeal to the better angels of our colleagues'
nature, and a cooperative effort would be somewhat miraculous but worth
a try. I am happy to support him in that effort.
Let me just close and yield the floor to whoever would like to speak.
This is a chance to do what America expects us to do. Why were we sent
here? Why did we get elected? I am proud to represent Illinois, but I
was sent to solve problems, make life better, and create an economy
that is growing.
There is nothing more bipartisan and more important than the
infrastructure of this country. If people wonder about that, go visit
China and look at what is going on there. There are building cranes in
every direction. Highway and train routes are being built in every
direction because they are preparing their Chinese economy for the 21st
century. Is America? I don't think so. What we are doing is passing
short-term extensions of the highway trust fund. We cannot patch our
way to prosperity. We cannot, on a short-term basis, have a long-term
plan to build America's economy. Because of the hard work on both sides
of the aisle, compromises being made, we are at a point where we can
have a 3-year highway bill, and it is time for us to do it, no excuses.
[[Page S6048]]
I support what the Senator from Oklahoma said: Let's accelerate this
in the Senate, if we can, and then pray that our colleagues in the
House decide to hang around long enough to take up this bill, which I
believe would be a worthy alternative to another short-term extension.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one last
question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator join me in reaching out to try to see
if we can get unanimous consent to go ahead and move forward? I know
what we are doing is more significant than other things that are going
on. If they don't like the bill for some reason, that is one thing, but
bring it forward so this can be done. I am inclined to hope we could
encourage any of those who are just killing time right now to join us
in doing this.
It is my intention to go ahead and make that request, and I will ask
if the Senator from Illinois would join me in that effort.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, through the Chair, I would say to my
colleague from Oklahoma, let's sit down and put this UC together. Then,
the Senator from Oklahoma can take it, as we do by custom, to his
cloakroom and I will take it to mine and let's see if we can get this
moving forward. I wish to protect the rights of Members, but I think
many of them would like to join us in accelerating this process so
there is activity on the floor which is productive. I am happy to work
with the Senator from Oklahoma.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from
Illinois and the Senator from Oklahoma for their efforts on the floor
today. I think this continued progress toward a bipartisan 6-year deal
to make sure our highways and bridges are funded and repaired is a very
important piece of the work.
I wish to join the Senator from Illinois in saluting the efforts of
my ranking member, Senator Boxer, who has worked so hard through the
Environment and Public Works Committee to get to a place where we now
have a Senate bipartisan compromise for a 6-year bill, with 3 years
fully funded, and the prospect for all of our State departments of
transportation to be able to take on big projects, knowing that funding
is out there.
We are taking up this conversation while our own American Society of
Civil Engineers gives our American roads the grade of a D. I don't know
about the Presiding Officer, but if my kids came home with a D, I would
not be amused and pleased about that. So when our own engineers tell us
our roads are a D and our Federal highway program has limped along, 2
months, 6 months--these tiny, little steps forward--and now we have a
chance to put a serious slug of money on the table so our departments
of transportation can do the work our roads so desperately need, why
not go forward with that? Across this country, Americans pay more than
$500 a year in car repairs as a result of our terrible roads--so $500
out of their pockets getting their wheels realigned or their tires
repaired because they have been banged by potholes and bad roads
hurting their vehicles. There is a real pocketbook consequence for
Americans if we fail to act.
We have a bipartisan compromise. We should push it forward. What the
House is doing is not helpful. I hope, as the distinguished Senator
from Oklahoma, my chairman on the Environment and Public Works
Committee said, they come up with a better judgment than they have
expressed so far. I think that under these circumstances, bugging out
and starting the August recess before this problem is solved--indeed,
before it is even August--is a pretty serious misjudgment.
So let's hope we can keep after this. We do have strong support for
getting this done. Whether it is the American Association of General
Contractors, whether it is the National Association of Manufacturers,
whether it is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are a lot of
organizations that customarily support the Republican side that want to
get this done. I hope they will be having conversations with Speaker
Boehner and with Majority Leader McCarthy to ask them to have better
judgment about what to do in this circumstance, other than to bug out
for an August recess before it is even August and leave Americans high
and dry without a bipartisan 6-year bill that is being fashioned in the
Senate right now.
Again, I wish to express my appreciation to my Ranking Member Barbara
Boxer, who has worked so hard to bring us to this point and our
chairman, Senator Inhofe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the DRIVE
Act. I was a supporter of this bill from the first vote we had in the
last week. There were some changes made immediately that I thought were
important. I think this long-term bill is incredibly important to our
country's future. Time and again, we have had these short-term
extensions, and that is what the House of Representatives is talking
about again.
We have an opportunity here. Americans, as we know, can't fix a road
in 2 months. In a State such as Minnesota, where we have two seasons,
one road construction season and one winter, citizens cannot plan ahead
and our State cannot plan ahead when we continue to have these short-
term extensions. They also want to do bigger things and better things
for transportation in our State, and this funding and this bill will
allow them to do that, instead of this Mickey Mouse short-term
extension time after time after time.
As we have heard from my colleagues, ranking member Senator Boxer,
our chairman, Senator Inhofe, Senator Durbin, and Senator Whitehouse
today, I think it is incredibly important that we move forward with
this bill.
This Senator came to this issue in a very tragic way; that is, when a
bridge fell down in the middle of a summer day. The anniversary of this
bridge collapse is coming up in just a few days. It was a beautiful
summer day, rush hour, and there were tons of traffic going over one of
the most heavily traveled bridges in our State. This wasn't just a
bridge; this was an eight-lane highway. It was something you wouldn't
even notice as a bridge because there were so many cars on it. It was
the I-35W bridge.
On that day, I was in Washington. I remember trying to call some
people in Minnesota. The cell phone services wouldn't work, and I was
wondering what was wrong with the cell phone service. What I found
about 5 minutes later is that people were calling, panicked about their
loved ones because tens of thousands of people were traveling near that
bridge that day. In fact, when that bridge collapsed, tragically, 13
people died and dozens of cars were submerged.
Heroes who came to the front that day didn't run away from that
bridge. They ran toward it. No one will forget the off-duty firefighter
Shanna Hanson, who was going in and out, in and out on a rope tethered
to the side of the bridge, trying to get people, trying to find people
in the murky water. The fact that 13 people died--tragic as it was--was
something of a miracle, given how many people were injured. Over 100
people were injured in the collapse.
A schoolbus sat precariously on the edge of the bridge. A Tasty
truckdriver literally veered out so the schoolbus wouldn't go over the
edge and ended up tragically dying himself when the truck caught on
fire. The schoolbus was labeled the ``miracle bus'' because youth
workers on the bus had the presence of mind to take these little kids
who were on the bus going out for a summer outing and get them out the
back and to safety. That happened. All of that happened on August 1.
As I said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle
of America--not an eight-lane highway, not a bridge which is literally
8 blocks from my house and which I drive on every day with my family,
with my daughter. That is the bridge that fell down.
So what did we do in Minnesota? In 13 months, we rebuilt that bridge.
On a bipartisan basis, just like you see with this bill with the DRIVE
Act, we worked together across the aisle. We got the Federal funding,
and we rebuilt that bridge, but that is not where the story ends.
[[Page S6049]]
Because of what happened, because of the design defect that caused
that bridge to fall, in addition to two other issues NHTSA found, which
are that there weren't adequate inspections and they also found there
were problems with construction guides because there was construction
work going on--but the bottom cause was a design defect.
If we had adequate highway funding, adequate inspections, and we were
able to go back in and look at bridges, as we did after the fact in
Minnesota, and found that others had the same defect and that they had
to be replaced--our State put more money into infrastructure, which
helped us--I should add for my colleagues in this Chamber that it was
one of the major reasons CNBC rated Minnesota as one of the best States
to do business in the country, the best State to do business in,
followed by Texas, Georgia, and Colorado. Two of the major factors they
looked at were the quality of life and infrastructure.
After this collapse occurred, we invested, and that is what this bill
is about. It is about making a safer America. As Senator Whitehouse
just outlined, our country is getting D's for infrastructure. It is
about a safer America. It is about reducing congestion, but it is also
about our economy, as shown by what has happened in Minnesota since the
bridge collapse. It is about building our economy. When we are building
our economy based on exports, we have to have a way to get goods to
market. The way you do that is to upgrade railways and upgrade locks
and dams, as we did in an earlier bill last year when we updated
highways and we updated bridges.
I am very excited about this bill. I love the fact that this leads us
to a 21st century transportation system. I love the fact that we were
able to get my distracted driving provisions in there, with the help of
Senator Thune, Senator Nelson, and I had worked on them with Senator
Hoeven.
Distracted driving is a major safety risk in this country that we are
finally going to be able to find a way to get the money out to the
States so it is not just sitting and piling up and going nowhere, so
States can start educating people about distracted driving.
There is the work in the bill on graduated driving that I worked on
so hard, on licenses as well as drunk driving. There are a lot of good
measures in this bill.
Mostly this bill is about the long term. It is about looking at the
long-term economy and looking at the long-term safety issues, instead
of just putting on a bandaid every 2 months, every 3 months, every 6
months. This is an opportunity that can't be missed.
I ask my colleagues for their strong support. We have strong support
for this as well as the Ex-Im Bank. I ask my colleagues across the way
in the House to support this bill, do the right thing, and come up with
a long-term solution.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question from the chairman?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask the Senator, How many people were killed in that
bridge collapse?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. There were 13 people killed that day.
Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that around the same time that
happened, in my State of Oklahoma, we were in the process of the last
long-term bill in 2005. A mother with three children was driving below
a bridge in Oklahoma City. Some concrete dropped off and killed the
mother. We corrected that in the 2005 bill.
But the question I would ask you is, Why do we wait until people die
before this happens? I have a list of bridges that are in need of
attention, and later today I will read it for the third time. We can
avoid things such as this from happening, but if we don't do something,
if we are not going to do it, then large projects cannot be done with
short-term extensions. My question is, Why do we wait until death is at
our door?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I appreciate that question from the Senator from
Oklahoma. I thank the chairman for his work on this bill, for his
chairmanship on the committee, and his willingness to work across the
aisle on this bill.
I would say this is a major problem. If we do just a short-term
extension, then maybe a project gets funded here and there, but we
don't do the long-term maintenance, which is never as glamorous as
building new projects.
This is about long-term maintenance and work that needs to be done on
our existing roads and bridges as well as exciting new opportunities.
But when we don't have that kind of clear funding source for our States
to see that we have a window, as the Presiding Officer knows with her
leadership in the State of Nebraska, you just can't do projects in a
State when the funding is not going to be there 3 months later. One is
not able to invest in the maintenance and long-term work that needs to
be done, and that is why this Senator thanks the chairman and the
ranking member, Senator Boxer, for her incredible work on this bill as
well because this is about long-term funding for planning, for safety,
and also for our economy.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend because she has been such a leader. I
was listening to every word she said, as well as Senator Inhofe talking
about the mother who was killed because of a bridge collapse. This
touches our hearts as family members. Yes, as Senators, but as family
members we know those families will never be the same--the family, the
children of that mother, the families of those who are grieving the
loss of their relatives.
I ask my friend, who was so early on a supporter, is she aware that
seven States have either canceled projects or completely shut down
their highway and transit spending? Is she aware of that?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes, I am.
Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to say that I have a chart here that shows the
States that have either canceled or delayed highway projects. These
projects are valued at over $1.6 billion. Think about the jobs and the
businesses that are suffering. They are in Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
Montana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.
I have a further question. I know my friend has heard me say this. Is
my friend aware that the Associated General Contractors of America came
out with a new study? They were just in the New York Times stating that
because of our, I will use the word ``dithering''--because we haven't
come up with the long-term bill, which we are now attempting to do--25
States have lost construction jobs just in the last month. Is my friend
aware of this study?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes, I have heard of that study, and I think it mimics
what we have seen in other studies. If we don't plan ahead, people will
start cutting off the work.
Mrs. BOXER. I will just say before I yield that the States that lost
construction jobs last month, according to the general contractors, are
Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. I
wanted to read those off.
I will talk about that later, but I wish to thank my friend because
the point--when she talked about what happened on this bridge, my
friend didn't have to read one word of any statement. This was a
heartbreaking memory she will always have. We all go through this in
our time here, when there are earthquakes, floods, fires, and bridge
collapses.
I would ask my friend this last question: Does the Senator think this
is important enough that the House should stay an extra week or even a
few days to take up our bill, pass it or if they don't like it, amend
it, send it back, and let's get this done for the American people.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I say to Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, I think
that is why we are here today, to talk about the fact that we have come
together across party lines with people from completely different
political ideologies to agree that we need a long-term fix to our
transportation problem.
As the Senator mentioned the people, I think sometimes people think
about transportation as bricks and mortar or something very esoteric,
but it is not; it is about the people who use the system. Senator
Inhofe talked about the
[[Page S6050]]
people who died in the bridge collapse in his State. There is a
memorial for the 13 people who died in our State. I would suggest, if
you ever come to the Twin Cities, come and look at it because it
shows--as Senator Inhofe knows--everyone uses the roads and bridges.
These people came from vastly different backgrounds. They were young
people. There was a man who died. He and his wife had just decided they
wanted to have a baby. Of all things, after he died, she decided to
adopt children by herself, and she decided to adopt them from Haiti.
Then the tragedy happened in Haiti, and we actually helped her get
these children home. These are people who worked all kinds of different
jobs. Some were coming home from work, some were students, some were
moms busy in their car. Those are the people who died. They were
America. America uses our bridges and roads and trains. We have to
remember this is about the people who work construction, this is about
the people who use the roads and bridges, and this is about our economy
moving forward.
Sometimes we get so into facts and figures and what one House does
and what the other House does that we forget why we are spending money
on our bridges and our roads and what this means for our future
economy.
I thank the leaders of this bill for what they have done, their
willingness to take a lot of heat for working across the aisle, for
making sure that what we are using to pay for this bill are things that
make sense for our country and continue to allow us to move forward,
and also for making changes to the bill when other Members had problems
with it. That is why they are gaining so much momentum, and I am sure
our friends over in the House are looking at this bill. They have
examined the pay-fors--they have now had weeks to do that--and they
have also looked at the safety provisions and other things in the bill.
So at some point they are going to have the ability to decide if they
are for this bill or against it or, as Senator Boxer mentioned, if they
want to make some changes. But the key is that we have a good base bill
which has brought people together from across the country, from
different ideologies, which they can use and look at. If they just want
to do another one of these short-term fixes--it is never going to get
us where we need to be so we don't have another one of these bridges
collapse on August 1, in the middle of a summer day. That happened in
this country in this century. It will happen again if we keep this up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I
would like to thank her again. What I want to say to her is something
she has said to me over and over; that is, the importance of finding
common ground when we can. We all know we cannot give up our
principles, but we have to search for common ground.
And everyone knows--and Senator Inhofe and I kind of joke about it--
we could not be different in terms of our ideology. We really could
not. But on this one, on this piece, the need to have a strong
infrastructure, we are as one, as progressives, as conservatives.
Frankly, I think everyone in the Senate and in the House should come
together around the principle that you cannot have a strong economy if
you cannot move goods. That is why my friend Senator Inhofe put
together a great new freight title in our bill this time, part of the
formula. It is hugely important. If we cannot move goods, if we cannot
move people, we are going to fall behind.
Clearly, when bridges collapse, there is devastation. I have shown
this particular bridge collapse, along with the one on which Senator
Klobuchar was so eloquent. This is a bridge in my great State. We have
40 million people. We take in about 40 to 50 percent of all the imports
into our Nation; they go into trucks and trains and planes. They use
our roads, and they go across the country to deliver goods to everyone.
Well, the bridge that collapsed in California a few days ago--maybe a
week or two ago now--was deemed to be obsolete because it was built for
very light traffic. It is the bridge between California and Arizona.
There was very little traffic at the time it was built. Now we have a
huge amount of traffic. This bridge collapsed. Thank the Lord no one
died, so I can stand up here and say that.
This, to me, is the poster child of the work we are doing together.
This is the poster child. There is a list of bridges--there are more
than 60,000 deficient bridges in America. This is America. They are
deficient--some worse than others, but they are deficient.
I have listed just a few here--just a few: Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin. This is just a
handful--a couple of handfuls of the 60,000-plus bridges that are
deficient.
Senator Inhofe, in your State we have listed as an example the I-40
bridge over Crooked Oak Creek. As I was saying yesterday, when I was a
country supervisor a very long time ago, we found out as supervisors--
and we were a very bipartisan group--that our civic center was at risk
of collapse in an earthquake. In those years, we did not know that much
about how to reinforce. It was just coming to light. It is a Frank
Lloyd Wright building, a gorgeous building, a historic building. We
were told that if we did not fix it, there was a possibility that we
could be held personally liable if something happened.
Clearly, no one here is going to be personally held liable if a
bridge collapses, but morally we need to understand that now that we
know we have 60,000-plus bridges in bad condition and that 50 percent
of our roads are not up to par, we have an obligation to fix it. It is
very clear that we must do so.
I am proud that almost half of the Democratic caucus has come
together with a larger percentage of the Republican caucus to put
together a transportation bill. I am proud of that. It is on the road
to passage. Last night, at a crucial moment late in the evening, we got
62 votes. That was not an easy thing to do because, as the Presiding
Officer knows, there were things she wanted in that bill, and there
were more things I wanted. I wanted things out of the bill and other
things added. Each one of us, of course--we are people who are
passionate about these issues. We would have written the bill
differently. I would say that anyone in America, having the chance,
would write it differently. But the art of compromise is something we
should not be afraid of. You are not compromising your principles; you
are seeing where you can find a sweet spot. I believe we did that.
I am urging the House not to leave on their summer break and to stay
and work on this bill. We have done a lot of the heavy lifting. We have
done a lot of the heavy compromising. They can do more. They can take
out things they do not like, add things they want. We can sit down in a
conference. We can get this done.
My opinion: They should take it and pass it. When a bill has 62 votes
here, that is pretty darn good. If they want to tweak it, they can do
it. But I think they need to stay.
I served proudly with my friend Senator Inhofe in the House. I served
for 10 years. It has been 10 years since the House has had this long of
a break. They have not left before August for the August recess. I
think they should stay. They should stay.
You know, the average American, when they are about to go on their
summer break, the boss says: Clean up your desk, please. Finish your
work, please. Don't just pile everything on one side of the table,
please. Take care of it.
The House ought to finish its work. Take up our bill, amend it, send
it back, and we will get it done. Most of the work is done. Most
Americans have to tie up loose ends before they take a long break. I
might add, I think it is a 5-week break--a 5-week break. Do your work.
Maybe you can only go on a 4-week break. That would still be twice the
time most Americans get. Do your work.
When I say bridges are in poor condition, that is not hyperbole, that
is fact. This is not some study put out by a
[[Page S6051]]
Democrat or a Republican; it is put out by the engineers. Our
infrastructure is rated--I believe it is a D overall. If our child came
home and said ``Mom, I have a D,'' we would not be happy. Well,
taxpayers are not happy that our infrastructure is rated a D.
So I ask the House: Please stay and do your job. Roll up your
sleeves. We will work with you. We can resolve these things. You have
had time to look at our bill.
I will close with just two more points. I want to give the highlights
of our Transportation bill on which we worked so hard across party
lines--Senator Inhofe; myself; the Banking Committee, chairman and
ranking; the Commerce Committee, chairman and ranking; the Finance
Committee, which paid for this bill.
Some people are voting against it because they do not like the way it
is paid for. They say it is better to find some long-term answer in
international tax reform. Personally, I think that is a great idea, but
you have time to pay for the last 3 years in that fashion. We have paid
for 3 years; this bill is 6 years. Pay for the last 3 years.
As for me, I am a lonely voice here. There are about five of us who
say: A penny a month for 10 months on the gas tax. We don't have the
votes. So what do I do? Go in my corner and cry? I don't have the
votes. No, we have to put a bill together. So this is a $50 billion-a-
year bill for 6 years. Three years are paid for. Every State gets more
formula funding for both highways and transit. There are two new
programs: a formula freight program that my friend Senator Inhofe,
working with Republicans and Democrats, put together; and a new grant
program for major projects called the AMP Program. Senator Whitehouse
worked across the aisle for that program. All of our States are
eligible.
It includes the McCaskill bill. It is the McCaskill-Schumer bill that
says rental car companies cannot lease out cars that are under recall.
I think this is important because we see a lot of the problems with the
Takata air bags.
Because Senator Nelson has worked so hard on that, we have tripled
NHTSA fines. We have used that money in the bill to help put positive
train control on the commuter rails. This is important. People are
dying because we do not have positive train control.
Is the bill the perfect bill on safety? In my view, it is not. In
somebody else's view it is. It is a compromise. But I think, overall,
it is solid. Every State will see an increase in their highway dollars,
in their transit dollars.
In closing, I wish to thank Senators on both sides of the aisle,
including the Presiding Officer because we did work together. We did a
good job. It was hard to do. I know my friend had one provision she
wanted. She had to scale it back. It is hard to do that. I had a
program I wanted. It got scaled back. We all have to give and take, but
that is what the people expect of us. Whether they are Democrats,
Republicans, Independents, it does not matter--they want us to get
something done.
I am proud of the Senate. We are not done yet. We still need some
more votes on this, so everyone stay tuned. But if the House will stay
an extra few days and take up our bill, we can get this done for the
American people. We can save businesses, we can save jobs, we can keep
this recovery going, and we can feel proud that we fixed our bridges,
that we fixed our highways, and that we did the work we are supposed to
do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, well, I am going to have to disagree
with my partner over here on one thing; that is, the insistence that
the House stay. In my opinion, they are not going to stay. That is
done. But this can still be done with their targeted adjournment date
for them. The way that can happen is for us to right now--we are
waiting out the vote. If nobody yields backs--it is on the Inhofe
substitute. That is what we are doing right now. That vote can take
place at 5 o'clock in the morning. If you moved that up--and right now
we are asking unanimous consent to do that. If we are able to do that,
that could happen this afternoon. That means we could have the next
step, which would be to move to the bill. That could be done while they
are still here.
What I do not want to happen is to have them--you know, we are
successful and done with our bill and then send it over to the House
and they are gone. So I think we can still do it while the House is
still here.
I have to say--and I am not sure the ranking member of my committee,
Senator Boxer, agrees with this, but I think they never believed we
would be able to get the bill done. That being the case, they staked
out early and said they--for any number of reasons, they are going to
be gone. Well, we can do it. All we have to do is to move this up and
to get time yielded back. We can do the same thing then on final
passage. We could have the bill over there in good enough time--
Wednesday; that is tomorrow--that they could still act on the bill.
That would be my goal on this because I think that is the only way.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. INHOFE. I will yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I would love to get this done in 5 minutes. So let me be
clear about where I stand. But has my friend received confirmation from
Speaker Boehner that he would take up the bill tomorrow? My
understanding is that they moved up their--this is what I heard. I
can't swear to it, I don't know exactly, but what I heard is they are
actually moving up their adjournment from Thursday to Wednesday so they
can escape from having to take up our bill.
Does my friend believe that if we could get this bill done, they
would stay 24 hours and deal with our bill?
Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, I don't know what they would do, how
long they would stay. If we don't finish it until they already are
gone, then we know that.
Mrs. BOXER. OK.
Mr. INHOFE. But I still think that can be done. There is this
urgency. We have worked long and hard. People say they haven't had time
to get into this thing. We passed our bill. They have had 5 or 6 weeks
to absorb this. And this argument that we have a 6-year bill with only
3 years of funding--this is kind of a phony argument because we have a
valve that doesn't exist anywhere else that if we go through and start
a 6-year bill, that would allow us to get into the major projects which
the Senator from Minnesota was talking about and which the Senator and
I have been talking about that you cannot get into with short-term
extensions.
Mrs. BOXER. That is right.
(Mr. CRUZ assumed the Chair.)
Mr. INHOFE. We all understand that. So we can start those projects.
Given 3 years, I can assure you that we would have the opportunity to
find offsets that would be acceptable. We were operating under the gun
before. This would take that away. We can go ahead and accept the fact
that we have 3 years funded.
For those individuals--and I am speaking now of my colleagues on this
side of the aisle--who are conservative who have had the argument that
we will then have to borrow money in order to finish the 6 years.
We can really have it both ways. We start the projects, and then
there will be enough pressure on and we will be able to do--
incidentally, I have to keep reminding my friends that there is a
conservative position, and that is to pass this bill.
You know, I get so tired of people--there are a lot of people out
there who actually voted for the $800 billion--way back at the
beginning of the Obama administration--the $800 billion stimulus bill
that didn't stimulate. We tried to put an amendment on there. I know
the Senator from California and I cosponsored amendments. They were all
rejected.
Then along came the $700 billion bailout, and a lot of my Republican
friends voted for that.
Now they complain that the money isn't there. Well, the money can be
there. And if it hadn't been for those two things, we wouldn't be
having this conversation today. But the money can be there. We need
time to let that happen. Certainly, as we pass this bill, start the
major projects that are going on, then we will be in a position to do
that. The key to making that happen, to allowing that to happen--I am
not going to give up because the House
[[Page S6052]]
hasn't left yet. They say they are going to leave tomorrow afternoon.
Well, if we go ahead and yield back enough time to get this vote this
afternoon, we could do the same thing on the final vote.
By the way, those individuals who want to have amendments, you can
still have germane amendments that would not be treated as an
amendment, but we would consider putting those into the managers'
amendment. If that happens, that would become part of the vote we would
be voting on tomorrow. To allow that to happen, we have to go ahead and
yield back time so that we can have this vote take place and start
working on those amendments that are germane to see which of those we
are going to be in a position to consider.
Anyway, that is what I am hoping will happen. I think there is an
opportunity.
Again, people who make statements--and I have a lot of friends in the
House. I spent 8 years in the House. These individuals who are speaking
now--one of them made kind of an off-the-cuff statement about, you
know, we are just not going to consider it. Well, I really believe most
of them over there felt we weren't going to be successful in passing a
bill. So it is still possible we can do that. We do have the time left,
and we know what we have to do to do that.
Let me talk a little bit about the sense of urgency.
First, I appreciate the fact that this conversation took place. The
Senator from Minnesota had some pretty graphic pictures of what
happened that took the lives of 13 people, a bridge falling down.
The DRIVE Act contains some other key provisions outside of
prioritizing bridge safety and stability.
Today, the National Highway System carries more than 55 percent of
the Nation's highway traffic and 97 percent of the truck freight
traffic.
We have never had a freight provision. This is my sixth bill that I
have worked on--actually going all the way back to the House days--and
we have never had a freight provision to take care of this problem.
Of the 4 million miles of public road, the National Highway System
represents 5.5 percent of the Nation's most heavily traveled miles of
road. Americans depend upon a well-maintained National Highway System
that provides critical connections between urban and rural communities.
American businesses pay an estimated $27 billion a year in extra
freight transportation costs due to the poor condition of public roads.
Look at it. Look at that. How many lanes are there on this one? There
are six lanes, all of them stopped. What happens when they stop? The
engines keep going. The air is polluted. Gasoline costs a lot of money,
and the freight cannot go through. Well, that is why we have this.
Recognizing that it is the foundation of the Nation's economy and the
key to the Nation's ability to compete in the global economy, it is
essential that we focus efforts to improve freight movement on the
National Highway System. Incidentally, if we don't pass this bill and
if we go back to extensions, that ain't going to happen. It can't
happen.
I always have to pause to remind my conservative friends--and I can
say this because I have had the ranking of the most conservative Member
probably more than anybody else has--the Constitution tells us what we
are supposed to be doing. We are doing a lot of things the Constitution
never contemplated. It says in article I, section 8 that we in the
House and the Senate are supposed to be defending America and roads and
bridges. That is what we are supposed to be doing. So I would just say
I have to remind people that the conservative position in the
Constitution is to go ahead and do what we are trying to do with the
DRIVE Act today.
The DRIVE Act includes two new programs to help the States deliver
projects that promote the safe movement of consumer goods and products.
The first new program is the National Freight Program. That is what
we are talking about right now.
That is what is bogged down in traffic right here.
It is distributed by a formula that will provide funds to all States
to enhance the movement of goods, reduce costs, and improve the
performances of businesses. The program would expand flexibility for
both rural and urban areas.
A lot of the reason this hasn't been handled before is that States
send in their priorities. You know, one of the few things in government
that do work is what we are going through right now. When we set up a
formula, we take into consideration what the people at home want, what
the people in my State of Oklahoma think is the most important thing in
terms of roads, bridges, highways, and maintenance. There are some
liberals here in Washington who think there has never been a good
decision unless it came out of Washington. But we always emphasize what
they consider to be the greatest concern within their States.
The reason that freight doesn't often get the high priority it should
is because a lot of the freight moves in and out of a State and the
States don't evaluate that as an economic benefit. That is shortsighted
because States on either side provide that kind of traffic, and it does
add to the economy of the State, it is just not direct the way the rest
of the projects are.
So we have this type of congestion taking place.
Secondly, it will improve efforts to identify projects with a high
return on investment through State freight plans and State advisory
committees.
The second new program is the Assistance for Major Projects Program,
which creates a competitive grant program to provide funds for major
projects of high importance to a community, a region, or to the Nation.
The program includes a set-aside for rural areas and it ensures an
equitable geographic distribution of the funds. The State of Oklahoma
is a rural State, so that is very important.
One thing you cannot do with the short-term extensions--keep in mind,
the last time we had a long-term bill, the reauthorization bill, was
2005. By the time 2009 got here, we were working on just the short-term
extensions--33 short-term extensions. So you can't do those major
projects that have to be done sooner or later in our country.
In Chicago, IL, the I-290 and the I-90/I-94 intersection is the
intersection we have been looking at with the congestion. It is the No.
1 worst freight bottleneck in the United States. The average speed
slows down to 29 miles an hour. Morning and evening rush hour speeds
have been known to drop below 20 miles an hour. It carries about
300,000 vehicles a day. That is the Chicago I-29.
Houston, TX, the I-45 at U.S. 59--and certainly the occupier of the
chair is fully aware of this and I am sure has been bogged down in
traffic many times on the Texas I-45 at U.S. 59 exchange. Houston, TX,
is the home of 5 of the top 20 freight bottlenecks in the Nation. Texas
is home to 9 of the top 25 freight bottlenecks. Freight bottlenecks
cost the freight industry in Texas $671 million annually and 8.8
million hours of delay.
This is what we are looking at, looking at Houston. It happens that I
was stopped there going there one time. That is why I always fly down
to South Texas rather than drive--to avoid that.
So I-45 at the intersection is ranked third in the Nation by the
congestion index. It is the same I-45 at 610 North that is ranked 15.
There is an average speed slowdown to 39 miles per hour, and there they
are, out there wasting valuable time.
Fort Lee, NJ. The I-95 you are looking at right now connects Fort
Lee, NJ, to New York City. It is the second worst freight bottleneck by
congestion index in the Nation. The average speed slows to 29 miles an
hour. Rush hour speeds in the morning and evening slow down to about 15
miles an hour.
The nearby I-95 Cross-Bronx Expressway is the most congested corridor
in the country. By the way, anyone from here in Washington who is going
up to anyplace along the coast, Connecticut on up North, has to go
through that, and I have had to do that. I had an occasion just the
other day to give a commencement talk up at the Coast Guard Academy. To
get up there, I had to go all the way across that bridge, and it almost
made me late. So that is one that is well known.
The George Washington Bridge is the world's busiest motor vehicle
bridge, carrying over 106 million cars a year.
[[Page S6053]]
Anyway, that is what we have right now. We have a freight program to
alleviate this type of congestion and increase America's ability to
conduct commerce on our highways.
We have another talk that we have given several times where we go
over all of the bridges. The Senator from Minnesota was talking about
the tragedy of the bridges. But if you look and you see, it is not just
confined to the east coast. If you look and you see, in my State of
Oklahoma, in the northeastern section, we have more deficient bridges--
probably ranked No. 3 in the Nation, I would say--and those bridges are
not going to be addressed until we have a chance to do it.
Simply look at this Eisenhower quote, a republican president who
understood the need for federal investment in our military and our
highways. I always like this because I chair the Environment and Public
Works Committee and have been ranking member of the Senate Armed Forces
committee. I think it is deplorable, what President Obama has done to
our military. I call it the disarming of America.
Yet the guy who started this whole thing--I don't think even the
Chair is aware of the fact that the reason Eisenhower started this way
back in 1956 was to defend our Nation. He said: As it is right now, we
don't have any type of a system where you can take goods and services
and move them across either coast to be sent out in the defense of this
country.
So I am hoping that we all realize the need to reauthorize this long-
term bill. Right now, we are in the middle of not doing anything, not
getting done, but it is a 30-hour delay. If we can just move that up so
that instead of voting on that at 5 o'clock in the morning, we can vote
on it this afternoon--which would be just as easy to do, and I am going
to ask unanimous consent that we be able to do that--then we could move
on and do the same thing as we move toward the bill.
Now, if that happens, for those individuals--and I would hope the
staff is listening to this--who have germane amendments, we can't take
up amendments after passage. This is going to pass. We know this is
going to pass, but is it going to pass this afternoon or is it going to
pass tomorrow morning? If so, we then would not be in a position to do
anything if the House has already adjourned.
If this happens, if Members will bring amendments down, we will
consider germane amendments. We still have the managers' amendment we
will be able to put these in, and so we will consider these. So there
is an opportunity for that to take place, and I wouldn't want anyone
voting to deny this opportunity to finish this bill and let the House
at least look at it, thinking they will not be able to get their
amendments in.
We haven't had an opportunity to get amendments in for a long time. I
always hasten to say this because how long has it been now. It has been
6 weeks since we passed this out of our committee and it passed
unanimously--every Democrat and every Republican. I have to say the
Republicans on the committee I chair are among the most conservative
Republicans and the Democrats are among the most liberal Democrats.
That is a holdover from when the Democrats had control of the Senate,
and the Environment and Public Works Committee was chaired by my
colleague, who refers to herself as a very proud progressive, which
means liberal, and I am a very proud conservative. So we all have this
in common.
Just to have this opportunity to have this up so we can consider it,
we would have to move this up and get this vote today instead of
tonight. So I am hoping that will still be the case. We are making our
case on that. Again, that would allow us to get this done in a way--or
at least to let the House look at this and see whether it is an option
they may want to pursue. I know several have painted themselves into a
corner, but nonetheless we could do this if we can hurry this up.
I know there are other speakers on the floor, so I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator from
Oklahoma for his great work on this legislation. He has been a fierce
advocate for transportation funding, for doing highway bills on more
than a short-term basis. As he has mentioned numerous times, since 2009
we have had 33 short-term extensions--patches, if you will--which make
it very difficult to run a highway program.
The Senator from Oklahoma has been, as I said, a fierce and
persistent advocate that one of the responsibilities we have around
here is to make sure we are building the infrastructure in this country
that keeps our economy competitive, that allows people and freight to
move in an efficient way and to ensure our economy is strong and
vibrant.
I can tell you, as someone who represents a rural State in the middle
of the country, the supply chain we have between our highways and
bridges, our railroads, our ports, is critically important for us to
get our products, the things we raise and grow in South Dakota, to the
marketplace. Agriculture is our No. 1 industry. It drives our economy.
It is incredibly dependent upon transportation. So a strong, vibrant,
robust economy depends upon transportation.
Obviously, we want to have a system that is safe, and that is one of
the issues I want to speak to with regard to this bill as well. I
appreciate the great work Senator Inhofe and his team, working with
Senator Boxer, have done on this bill.
We are going to continue to debate this. I hope we can bring it to a
close. As the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out, if we did that, we
would have an opportunity to at least put it before the House and give
them a chance to act on it, whether they choose to or not. I would
certainly hope the House of Representatives would take a hard look at
this bill and consider taking it up and moving it because there has
been a lot of work that has gone into it. We have a deadline ahead of
us, and if we don't do this, we are going to be stuck with yet
another--the 34th--short-term extension, which just kicks the can down
the road and makes it more difficult for those who are in the position
of having to make decisions about planning and designing our
infrastructure in this country to do that.
Obviously, there are a lot of people and a lot of jobs that depend
upon the decisions that come out of Washington with regard to this
bill. So I, too, encourage our colleagues in the Senate to move as
quickly as we can to complete action on the Senate bill and to allow
the House of Representatives to take a chance at considering it and
perhaps getting this issue resolved and a long-term bill in place.
These bills are nothing new in the Senate. The bill before us today
is notable because it is the first Transportation bill, as I mentioned,
in almost a decade to provide more than 2 years of funding for our
Nation's infrastructure needs. Since 2009, Congress has passed more
than 33 short-term funding extensions. That is an average of
approximately five funding extensions a year. That is not a good way to
manage our Nation's infrastructure and it wastes an incredible amount
of money.
Around the country, hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of
thousands of jobs depend on funding contained in transportation bills.
When Congress fails to provide the necessary certainty about the way
transportation funding is going to be allocated, States and local
governments are left without the certainty they need to authorize
projects to make long-term plans for transportation infrastructure.
That means essential construction projects get deferred, necessary
repairs may not get made, and the jobs that depend on transportation
are put in jeopardy.
My home State of South Dakota has been forced to defer important
construction projects thanks to the lack of funding certainty. No
individual or business would start building a house or an office
building if it could only promise a contractor 3 months of funding. In
the same way, Congress can't expect a State to begin construction of a
new bridge or highway without the certainty that their project is going
to be fully funded.
The highway bill before us--the DRIVE Act--reauthorizes
transportation programs for 6 years and provides 3 years of guaranteed
funding. All 3 years of funding have been paid for without raising the
gas tax and without adding a dime to the deficit. This bill will give
States and local governments the certainty they need to plan
[[Page S6054]]
for and commit to key infrastructure projects.
The bill will also help to strengthen our Nation's transportation
system by increasing transparency in the allocation of transportation
dollars, streamlining the permitting and environmental review processes
and cutting redtape.
Mr. President, over the past few years of Democratic control, the
public has grown increasingly skeptical of Congress being able to
function. When Republicans took the majority in January, we promised
the American people we would get the Senate working again, and we have
been delivering on that promise.
This Transportation bill is another major legislative achievement and
the result of hard work by several committees that put together key
provisions to spur important infrastructure investment and safety
improvements. Republicans and Democrats alike got to make their voices
heard in this process, and the resulting bill is stronger because of
it.
As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, I had the opportunity to work on the commerce section
of the bill. Our focus was on enhancing the safety of our Nation's
cars, trucks, and railroads, and the bill we produced makes key reforms
that will enhance transport safety around the country.
Over the past year, the commerce committee has spent a lot of time
focused on motor vehicle safety efforts. Last year was a record year
for auto problems, with more than 63 million vehicles recalled.
Two of the defects that have spurred recent auto recalls--the faulty
General Motors ignition switch and the defective airbag inflators from
Takata--are responsible for numerous unnecessary deaths and injuries,
at least 8 reported deaths in the case of Takata and more than 100
deaths in the case of General Motors. Indications point to the Takata
recalls as being among the largest and most complex set of auto-related
recalls in our Nation's history, with more than 30 million cars
affected.
Given the seriousness of these recalls, when it came time to draft
the highway bill, one of our priorities in the commerce committee was
addressing auto safety issues and promoting greater consumer awareness
and corporate responsibility. The commerce section of the DRIVE Act now
triples the civil penalties the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration can impose on automakers for a series of related safety
violations--from a cap of $35 million to a cap of $105 million--which
should provide a stronger deterrent against auto safety violations such
as those that occurred in the case of the faulty ignition switches at
General Motors.
Our portion of the bill also improves notification methods to ensure
that consumers are made aware of recalls.
In the wake of the recall over the GM ignition switch defect, the
inspector general at the Department of Transportation published a
scathing report identifying serious lapses of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, the government agency
responsible for overseeing safety in our Nation's cars and trucks.
The concerns raised included questions about the agency's ability to
properly identify and investigate safety problems--a concern that is
further underscored, I might add, by the circumstances surrounding the
Takata recalls.
In addition to targeting violations by automakers, our portion of the
highway bill also addresses the lapses at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration identified in the inspector general's report.
In its typical fashion, the Obama administration claimed NHTSA's
problems could be solved by simply throwing more money at the agency,
but based on the expert testimony from the inspector general, it is
clear money alone is not going to solve the problem. We need to ensure
that the agency fixes what is broken before we provide a significant
increase in funding authorization with taxpayer dollars.
Our bill makes additional funding increases for NHTSA's vehicle
safety efforts contingent on that agency's implementation of reforms
called for by the inspector general, ensuring that this agency will be
in a better position to address vehicle safety problems in the future.
I appreciate that NHTSA's current administration and Administrator
have pledged to implement all of these recommendations.
Another big focus of the commerce committee this year has been rail
safety. Nearly half of the commerce section of the DRIVE Act is made up
of a bipartisan rail safety bill put together by the Republican junior
Senator from Mississippi and the Democratic junior Senator from New
Jersey. Their work on important rail and Amtrak reform was almost ready
for a committee markup at the beginning of May, but after the tragic
train derailment in Philadelphia, these two Senators opted to delay the
markup and then added even more safety provisions to the bill they
crafted.
Their bill, which passed the committee with unanimous support from
committee members of both parties, include provisions to strengthen our
Nation's rail infrastructure and smooths the way for the implementation
of new safety technologies.
Our transportation infrastructure keeps our economy and our Nation
going. Our Nation's farmers depend on our rail system to move their
crops to the market. Manufacturers rely on our Interstate Highway
System to distribute their goods to stores across the United States.
All of us--all of us--depend on our Nation's roads and bridges to get
around every single day. For too long, transportation has been the
subject of short-term legislation that leaves those responsible for
building and for maintaining our Nation's transportation system without
the certainty and the predictability they need to keep our roads and
highways thriving.
I am proud of the bill we have on the floor before us. I hope we can
pass this legislation as soon as possible and work with the House to
develop a final bill that will allow us to fund our Nation's
transportation priorities on a long-term basis. We can't afford to
continue this path we have been on of passing short-term extensions--33
already in the last 5 years, more than 5 a year--and all the
uncertainty that comes with that. That jeopardizes jobs across this
country that are related to construction of these projects. It
jeopardizes the planning and engineering and design work that our
departments of transportation across the country do, and it puts at
risk all of the transportation infrastructure that moves the freight,
that moves people across this country, which our economy depends on.
So I simply want to say that as a Member who represents a rural
State, South Dakota--where we have 77,000 square miles, home to 800,000
people--we depend heavily on roads and bridges to get to and from our
destinations. We have people who drive long distances to work. We have
people who come into our State every single year.
This time of the year we will have a million or so people descend
upon a little town in South Dakota called Sturgis, which will be the
place where the annual motorcycle rally is hosted. We have people who
come by the thousands to our State every single year to visit the Black
Hills and Mount Rushmore. We depend upon a good, viable, robust
transportation system.
As I mentioned earlier, we are an agricultural economy which drives
the jobs in our State that keeps our Main Streets going. That
agricultural economy depends upon getting those things we raise and
grow to the marketplace. That means good highways, railroads, ports--
all the things that are essential to make sure our agricultural
producers can get the things they raise and grow to the places and
destinations they need to get to.
This is truly important work we are doing. I thank the Senator from
Oklahoma for his hard work. I certainly hope we can push this across
the finish line soon, so we will be able to present it to the House of
Representatives, notwithstanding the statements that have been made
there. Perhaps they can look at this body of work and think, as we do,
that this gives us an opportunity to put something on the books, the
longest term bill we have had literally now in 10 years, and do
something important for our economy and for jobs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
[[Page S6055]]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the comments made by
the Senator from South Dakota, emphasizing what can't be done on short
terms. I think we have been talking about that all morning.
Last week, 100 mayors from across the Nation wrote to the Senate
leaders urging for a long-term transportation bill. They said, ``If the
status quo continues, deficient transportation infrastructure will cost
American businesses $430 billion by 2020.''
Then there are the 31 construction and transportation groups that
sent a harsh reminder to Congress that ``past extensions have not led
to a lasting solution to the Highway Trust Fund's repeated revenue
shortfalls.''
I remember because I have been around here for a while, and I have
been through six of these transportation reauthorization bills. In the
interim, we always end up with short-term extensions. People don't
realize we can't do major projects with short-term extensions.
Now, I hear the argument sometimes that in this one we have a 6-year
bill, but we are paying for only 3 years. That is fine. Make the
argument. But there is something unique in the transportation system,
which is that in the event we get through halfway--even though it is a
6-year bill--and the funds are not available to the existing shortages
of what we have added, then all projects stop. Not a penny can be
spent. This isn't true anyplace else in our government, and I think
people have to realize that if we are going to do it.
When the Senator from Minnesota was talking and showing these very
graphic pictures of the bridge that collapsed killing 13 people, that
really sends something home. We can't wait until that happens before we
do the responsible thing.
I have to remind my conservative friends it is our constitutional
duty. When we were sworn into office, we swore to uphold the
Constitution of the United States. The Constitution in article I,
section 8 tells us what we are supposed to be doing: We are supposed to
be defending America, including our bridges and roads. That is what we
are supposed to be doing.
There is a way. I hope the people who--unless they just don't want to
take care of these big, serious problems and want to continue with the
short-term extensions, there is a way we can do this. We will be asking
for unanimous consent to go ahead and make a vote on what we are voting
on right now and considering. If all time has to expire, it would be 5
a.m. tomorrow on the Inhofe substitute for the bill. That means we then
wouldn't get around to having this bill passed until Thursday, and
Thursday would be after the House is gone. So it is over. That is it.
This would be a very easy thing to do.
Again, I am going to remind people that while we don't have the
chance for amendments after this vote takes place, we can still have
the manager's amendment, where I personally will consider every one of
the amendments that comes forth. I am hoping that will happen.
That is what we are faced with right now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________