[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 2357-2358]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 11, 2004

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, continuing my earlier statement, time is 
again running out in our effort to reauthorize our Federal highway, 
public transit, and transportation safety programs. The Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) expired on September 30, 2003, 
and Congress passed a 5-month extension, which expires on February 29. 
On September 24, during consideration of that extension bill, I stated: 
``I am afraid . . . we will be back here on this floor once again 
pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs 
from once again expiring. . . . I do not want to be back on this floor 
saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out.''
  Well, time is running out and we must again extend the programs. Why? 
Because ideology, not good policy, is driving this debate.
  On November 19, 73 Members of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure introduced H.R. 3550, authorizing $375 billion for the 
highway, transit, and transportation safety programs for the next six 
years. Today, the bill has 137 cosponsors. The Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee was poised to mark up this legislation last 
week, but the Republican Leadership has delayed its consideration.
  Despite the fact that the funding levels included in our bill were 
derived from the Department of Transportation's highway and transit 
needs report, the Administration strongly opposes additional 
infrastructure investment. Last week, the President submitted his 
Budget to Congress and it flat-lined the highway and transit programs, 
and did not include one additional dollar for highway and transit 
investment over the next 6 years.
  Why? When our country's economic strength, improve business 
productivity, and our desire to create a safe, efficient transportation 
system are all dependent upon increasing investment in our Nation's 
infrastructure, why does the Administration oppose such investment? It 
cannot be because of any renewed Republican concern about the size of 
the deficit--the President proposes $1.2 trillion of new tax breaks 
that, if enacted, would result in a total of $3.2 trillion of new tax 
breaks, primarily targeted at the wealthiest Americans, since assuming 
office in 2001.
  When this Administration and the Republican-led Congress have 
presided over an economy that has seen the number of unemployed workers 
increase by 2.4 million workers and the construction industry is 
suffering under a 9.3 percent unemployment rate, why does this 
Administration oppose infrastructure investment that its own Department 
of Transportation estimates will create 47,500 jobs and $6.2 billion 
for every $1 billion of Federal funds invested? I am sure that the 
800,000 construction workers who look for work each month would gladly 
line up for the more than 1.7 million construction jobs this bill will 
create and sustain over the next six years, including 445,000 jobs this 
year alone.
  Why? Because the Administration and some of the Republican Leadership 
would rather kneel at the altar of ``no new gas taxes'' than develop 
the policy necessary to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. A few 
days ago, in an interview, President Bush implied that the highway and 
transit programs were fueling the Federal budget deficit. Nothing could 
be further from the truth. Nearly all of the expenditures from these 
programs are funded by the Highway Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is 
financed by revenues from user fees. It is a ``pay-as-you-go'' program; 
outgoing expenditures are tied to incoming revenues; and the revenues 
may only be used for infrastructure investment.
  The Trust Fund is a model of fiscal discipline. The Byrd Amendment 
serves as an anti-deficiency mechanism that prevents the Trust Fund 
from over-spending. This system of user fees has been well-tested by 
decades of experience. It provides a clear and unambiguous way to 
provide the revenues required to make the necessary improvements to the 
system.
  It is for these reasons that the bipartisan leadership of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee propose to restore the 
purchasing power of the gas tax, which was last increased more than a 
decade ago. Under the Committee's proposal, the gas tax would increase 
by a nickel and the average commuter would pay only an additional $36 
per year. The user fee system has served us well. We should further 
utilize the strengths of that system to generate the necessary revenues 
to meet the needs of the transportation system.
  Regrettably, the reason we are here today with another extension bill 
is because Administration ideology and political expediency is trumping 
good policy. The reauthorization bill is again delayed. As we approach 
the summer construction season, States will be slow to make the 
necessary investments during these uncertain times. Good-paying jobs 
will be lost or never created. Last fall, State transportation 
officials estimated that an extension bill would mean $2.1 billion in 
project delays and the loss of more than 90,000 jobs. This extension 
simply compounds those losses.
  Instead, we now face vigorous behind-the-scenes efforts by the 
Administration and the Republican Leadership to cut the funding levels 
in our bipartisan bill and develop budget schemes that shift money from 
one account to another--to increase revenue to the Highway Trust Fund 
without increasing the user fee. While I will work with all parties to 
ensure that we find the necessary resources to increase our 
transportation investment, I will not support smoke-and-mirror 
proposals that simply further ideological objectives or political 
expediency, but not the long-term interests of the highway and transit 
programs.
  Faced with these current roadblocks, we must again extend the 
highway, transit, and transportation safety programs or face a shutdown 
of both the Department of Transportation agencies and Federal surface 
transportation funding.
  Mr. Speaker, before I close, there is one other very important 
element of this extension that deserves mention. That element is its 
continuation of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) program, 
as that program is set forth in TEA 21. Since enactment of the Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, Congress has included a program 
to aid socially and economically disadvantaged businesses to 
successfully compete for transportation construction contracts. Because 
of this program, we have made impressive strides in increasing the 
participation of minority- and women-owned businesses in Federally-
assisted transportation construction contracts. Today, more than 20,000 
DBE's participate in the program. However, as recent evidence 
demonstrates, there continues to be a compelling need for the DBE 
program.
  The current program is narrowly tailored to allow States to set and 
refine goals for participation of disadvantaged businesses in 
Federally-assisted transportation contracts. These goals must be 
appropriate for the State's population. Further, the current program 
requires States to try and meet those goals by race-neutral means. It 
is only when race-neutral means fail to achieve sufficient DBE 
participation, that race-conscious means may be used.
  Indeed, as recent data provided by the States have shown, the lasting 
effects of discrimination are such that the overwhelming majority of 
States must continue to use race-conscious means to try and achieve 
their participation goals. For example, my home state of Minnesota 
established a goal for 2002 of 10.3 percent DBE participation in 
Federally-assisted transportation construction contracts. Minnesota 
officials determined that only 2.6 percent of this goal could be 
achieved with race-neutral means and 7.7 percent would need to be met 
using race-conscious means. Despite its good-faith effort to achieve 
this self-imposed goal, Minnesota was only able to achieve 6.63 percent 
DBE participation.
  Minnesota's experience demonstrates two important facts about the 
program. First, as courts throughout the country have found, the DBE 
program is truly one of setting goals; it is not a quota system. States 
must make a good-faith effort to achieve its goal. Second, the goal 
setting required by the DBE program is crucial to increasing 
participation of DBE's in Federally-assisted transportation contracts. 
In Minnesota state-funded transportation contracts, where there was no 
DBE goal established, DBE participation was only 4.42 percent.

[[Page 2358]]

  By extending this program today, we specifically reaffirm the 
government's compelling interest in ensuring that States receiving 
Federal funds for transportation construction make a good faith effort 
to ensure participation by minority- and women-owned businesses in 
those construction projects.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3783.

                          ____________________