[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12547-12548]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             INFRASTRUCTURE

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate begins debate on 
transportation funding this week, it is clear to me that all sides--
Democrats and Republicans--agree that what is needed most is a long-
term plan for rebuilding our country's infrastructure.
  The reality is we simply cannot have big league economic growth with 
little league infrastructure. Unfortunately, all over our country, we 
have potholes and sinkholes, and one of the reasons we are not seeing 
them filled is because there is no long-term plan or a plan that 
provides certainty and predictability for all sides--local government 
and businesses and developers and others--to know the funding will be 
there.
  As we start the discussion that is going to go through the week about 
a bipartisan plan to go forward on transportation funding--as Senator 
Hatch and I and the Finance Committee have brought before the Senate 
today--I want all sides to know it is our view that to get to the long-
term road, you have to have a short-term path, and that short-term path 
is what Senator Hatch and I have pulled together on a bipartisan basis 
which we hope our colleagues will support before the week is out.
  I think all of the Senators understand what is at stake here. 
Allowing the highway trust fund to run dry would slam the brakes on 
critical infrastructure projects across the land. Let's be clear: It is 
nonnegotiable that Congress will prevent that from happening. No 
Senator wants State and local governments to have to pick and choose 
which projects move forward and which ones are to be set apart because 
Congress didn't do its job before the August break.
  The reality is a transportation shutdown would be horrendous news for 
tens of thousands of construction workers facing layoffs. The damages 
would ripple throughout our economy. Businesses would have a tougher 
time getting products to market and customers through their doors. 
Commuters would spend more time sitting in traffic and burning through 
gas. Car owners would have to fork over more cash to replace their 
tires and fix their broken suspensions.
  With all Americans having something at stake, Congress must act, and 
that is why it is so important, in my view, to pass the bipartisan PATH 
Act--Preserving America's Transit and Highways Act--this week.
  As I have indicated, the Finance Committee came together on a 
bipartisan basis to advance this legislation to the Senate floor. 
Senator Hatch and I met regularly on this matter throughout the spring 
to reach a solution. When I first proposed a draft of a chairman's mark 
and announced a committee markup, Senator Hatch and the Finance 
Committee's Republicans asked for more time to reach a bipartisan 
consensus, and I agreed. We continued to talk almost each day, with our 
staffs in constant contact. Every member of the committee pitched in. 
When the committee reconvened to consider the modified legislation, it 
passed with virtual unanimity. This is a truly bipartisan plan.
  Our colleagues in the other body have offered their own legislation. 
I wish to take a brief moment to highlight some of the differences 
between the two bills that, in my view, are quite important. As part of 
our effort to reach a bipartisan agreement, the Finance Committee 
agreed to adopt several of the funding sources proposed by the Ways and 
Means Committee. Those sources included customs user fees and pension 
smoothing. The Finance Committee's bill leaves room for customs user 
fees to continue to support vital trade programs. In the committee's 
view, that is an important tradition to protect.
  The Finance Committee's legislation also leaves room for revenue from 
the pension smoothing provision to help secure multi-employer pension 
plans that face insolvency.
  Finally, the Finance Committee's legislation draws some revenue by 
improving the enforcement of tax laws that are now on the books. I 
bring this up because I have seen some inaccurate accusations about 
what these enforcement provisions would do. Let's be clear: These are 
not new taxes. They are not tax increases. In fact, the Finance 
Committee even received a letter from Grover Norquist and the group 
Americans for Tax Reform saying so. Mr. Norquist is not soft on the 
question of tax increases, and he has indicated that these provisions 
are not tax hikes. What these provisions do is crack down on tax cheats 
and ensure that mortgage lenders provide homeowners with more tax 
information than they are usually getting today.
  By contrast, it is my view that the other body not only missed an 
opportunity to strengthen tax compliance, but also weakened the 
solvency of pension plans and leaves no funds in reserve to address 
that problem down the road. The House approach for paying for 
transportation funding creates another funding problem for pension 
plans that Congress will have to solve in the future. In effect, as one 
colleague indicated to me, we have one challenge on our hands in terms 
of transportation, and if we now take the House approach, we will have 
two challenges on our hands: transportation and pension.
  The Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis, decided through the 
PATH Act to come to the Senate floor as the transportation shutdown 
approaches with tens of thousands of jobs on the line and advance a 
bipartisan proposal.
  What is needed next after this legislation has passed and is safely 
in the rearview mirror is what I touched on at the outset: a long-term 
plan that would rebuild America's infrastructure and end the cycle of 
stopgap funding. That will require more than the bare minimum of fixing 
the highway trust fund. Even in the best of times when there is no 
threat of a transportation shutdown--we are making a little league 
infrastructure investment of less than 2 percent of our gross domestic 
product.
  Our big league competitors are going a different route. In parts of 
Canada they put 10 percent of GDP into infrastructure projects, and 
China invests almost as much.
  With such a small investment, it is getting harder for our country to 
maintain the transportation system it has, much less take up new 
projects that would help America compete with the world's other 
heavyweight economies.

[[Page 12548]]

  For example, in our State the poor condition of many roads costs the 
average driver almost $175 per year. There are more than 1,300 bridges 
functionally obsolete, and more than 400 bridges are structurally 
deficient. The bill for repairs will only grow and grow as Congress 
waits to get serious about infrastructure.
  We ought to look at managing the transportation system like owning a 
car. Responsible car owners don't let them fall into disrepair. They 
change the oil, rotate the tires, and fix the transmission when it is 
needed. It is all part of responsible ownership. Some day, if you want 
to resell the car or give it to your child, the car will be in good 
shape. It is time for this generation to be responsible owners of 
America's transportation system.
  The challenge in the weeks and months ahead will be to find policies 
that can sustain the highway trust fund for good while finding new ways 
to draw investment dollars into American infrastructure. Priority one, 
in my view, ought to be to bring private capital off the sidelines and 
into the game on transportation. With interest rates as low as they are 
today, now is the time to act.
  In that regard, I wish to commend my colleague from North Dakota, 
Senator Hoeven, who has joined me in just such an effort. We call them 
TRIP bonds, transportation and regional infrastructure projects, to get 
more private capital into infrastructure. Senators Warner, Blunt, and 
Bennet have tried another approach.
  As Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, I say to colleagues that 
all of the long-term approaches will be on the table when we get over 
this short-term challenge this week.
  Our colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul, has a very important idea 
with respect to transportation, which is to look at repatriation. 
Senator Schumer, my seatmate on the Finance Committee, has another 
approach. The point is that all of these promising ideas--each of which 
has the opportunity for bipartisan support--deserves consideration, and 
as Chair of the Finance Committee, I commit this afternoon to do that.
  When the Committee approved the PATH Act, there was unanimous 
agreement to work together on a long-term solution to our 
infrastructure challenge. I have talked with a number of Senators on 
both sides, and the message is clear: The Senate is ready to act. This 
will not become another extender issue with Congress kicking the can 
down a crumbling road again and again.
  I will close with this. We have an important job to do this week. I 
hope we will continue the Finance Committee's bipartisan work and pass 
the PATH Act so we can protect thousands of construction jobs and end 
the threat of a transportation shutdown.
  Some people have said there is no time and no room for compromise 
with our colleagues in the House--that the House is saying, it's our 
way or no highway. I disagree. By working together, our colleagues in 
the House and the Senate can reach a bipartisan agreement very quickly, 
and then we will move on to the next challenge and solve our 
infrastructure crisis for the long term.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________