[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Page 10113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT


                             I-49 and I-69

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of great 
importance to my State, one that I hear about every time I go home. 
Economic development and job creation is something that every Arkansan 
is concerned about. One surefire way to generate economic development 
and create jobs is through highway construction. The U.S. DOT estimates 
that for every $1 billion of investment in highways, 47,500 jobs are 
created, but the benefits go far beyond that. It does Arkansans no good 
to have good health care, education, and jobs if they don't have the 
roads to get there. Furthermore, business investors do not want to 
place their companies anywhere that does not have ready access to 
interstate roads.
  My State is in the process of building two new interstates that would 
jumpstart economic growth, relieve congestion, and provide two 
additional freight corridors between our two largest trading partners.
  Future Interstate 49 connects Canada with New Orleans and would 
provide the only north-south corridor within 300 miles, cutting through 
Kansas City, MO and Western Arkansas. 1-49 is extremely important to 
Arkansas, as it traverses the fastest growing part of my State, which 
is home to Wal-Mart, Tyson's, JB Hunt Transportation, and numerous 
other transportation companies. The potential for freight movement 
along this corridor is enormous. However, the State of Arkansas has 
lacked the funds to make significant progress along the most expensive 
part of the corridor.
  Future Interstate 69 connects Canada with Mexico through Michigan, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. It also 
has enormous potential for freight movement, but it also cuts across 
the poorest region of my State where economic development is vitally 
important to the future of local communities. The amount of jobs a 
project such as I-69 would create has the potential to lift these areas 
out of poverty.
  During debate on the highway bill, I have requested amounts that 
would provide Arkansas with a sufficient amount of money to make 
significant progress on these two extremely important roadways.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I want to first commend the Senator for his continued 
work on transportation issues. He is a real leader in this area and I 
appreciate his hard work on behalf of the State of Arkansas. I am aware 
of the Senator's requests and I understand the importance of these 
projects to Arkansas and the country. My colleague has been very 
persistent and we have worked hard to include a formula in the bill 
that provides a significant increase in funding to Arkansas so that the 
State may be able to accomplish this task. Specifically, Arkansas 
stands to gain over $550 million over the 5 years of this bill, a 30 
percent increase from the levels they received under TEA-21. Would this 
amount be sufficient to make progress on the two important interstates 
Senator Pryor has mentioned?
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator from Montana for his question. My 
understanding is that this amount would be enough to make substantial 
progress on both projects until the next reauthorization. However, 
since this bill does not include references to specific projects, the 
difficulty would be to make sure these projects did indeed receive a 
large portion of this increase. Since the increases are largely through 
apportioned programs to the State, could my State use the increases to 
fund these interstate projects?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct that the bill in the Senate does 
not have specific funding for projects. However, it is up to the State 
of Arkansas to make the decision on how to spend this increase in 
funding and the additional money to the State can certainly be used to 
make progress on these projects. I would expect that many States would 
consider projects such as the ones described in Arkansas that are 
nationally significant. It would be up to the State to set those 
priorities and move forward. I believe the projects in Arkansas, both 
1-49 and 1-69, are in various stages of development and construction. 
It is my understanding that both projects are eligible for Federal 
funding under this reauthorization bill we have written.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank Senator Baucus for his hard work as a manager of 
this bill and the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW and ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, and I compliment him for this strong bill he has helped put 
together. The Senator always listens to my concerns, and I appreciate 
his willingness to include such robust funding for my home State.

                          ____________________