[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18370-18372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the Collins substitute amendment No. 2812.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 2812, the substitute amendment to H.R. 2577, an act 
     making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, 
     and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Susan M. Collins, Jerry Moran, John 
           Boozman, Steve Daines, John Hoeven, Cory Gardner, Dan 
           Sullivan, Joni Ernst, Daniel Coats, Johnny Isakson, 
           Orrin G. Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Mike Crapo, Richard 
           Burr, Shelley Moore Capito, Michael B. Enzi.

                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk for the underlying 
bill, H.R. 2577.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     138, H.R. 2577, an act making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation,

[[Page 18371]]

     and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Susan M. Collins, Jerry Moran, John 
           Boozman, Steve Daines, John Hoeven, Cory Gardner, Dan 
           Sullivan, Daniel Coats, Johnny Isakson, Orrin G. Hatch, 
           Lamar Alexander, Mike Crapo, Richard Burr, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, Michael B. Enzi, Joni Ernst.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call under rule XXII with respect to the cloture 
motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment I 
plan on offering tomorrow to the Transportation bill we are working on 
right now on the Senate floor. It is a commonsense amendment. It is an 
amendment about safety. It is an amendment about protecting our 
citizens. It is an amendment about cutting through redtape. It is an 
amendment about what the vast majority of Americans want us to do in 
the Senate, which is to start to get things done in this body. It is a 
simple amendment.
  This is what my amendment does. It would allow States and communities 
throughout this country of ours the ability to expedite the Federal 
permitting process, the regulatory process on the construction and 
rebuilding of bridges. It is pretty simple. It doesn't get much more 
simple than that.
  Everybody needs infrastructure. Every community in America needs 
bridges. It would only apply to bridges--critical pieces of 
infrastructure--bridges that are built in the same place, the same 
size, bridges that in the United States are falling apart.
  We have talked about this on the Senate floor for the last several 
months. Our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling. The American Society 
of Civil Engineers gives America's infrastructure a D-plus. We are 
failing. For our infrastructure, in the classroom, we are the D-plus 
students.
  This is, of course, bad for our Nation's economy. There is nothing 
more central to a country that wants to grow its economy, that wants to 
compete globally, than sound infrastructure for transportation. In a 
country of our size facing economic challenges, America's 
infrastructure can either drive growth and opportunity or it can slow 
down growth and opportunity and undermine it. Right now, that is what 
we are doing. We are slowing it down. We are undermining it. It is 
worse than that. It is worse than just undermining our own economic 
opportunity. The state of our infrastructure is actually dangerous for 
our citizens.
  I agree that we must have stable funding for infrastructure. That is 
why I have been a strong supporter of the DRIVE Act and this bill, in 
terms of a 6-year highway bill, under the DRIVE Act. But we also need 
to focus on something else that is driving up the cost of our Nation's 
infrastructure: redtape that is stopping critical projects in America 
from moving forward. Like so many construction projects in this 
country, the environmental review process our bridges face is deathly 
slow and cumbersome and enormously expensive. We live in a redtape 
nation, particularly when it comes to infrastructure. We can't build 
the way we used to in this country.
  Consider just a few statistics. The average time for environmental 
reviews for a major transportation project in the United States in 2011 
was 8 years. That is up from 3\1/2\ years just 10 years earlier. The 
average environmental impact statement when NEPA was written was 22 
pages. Now the average environmental impact statement is over 1,000 
pages.
  Let me give one example that came up in the Commerce Committee. We 
were talking about airport infrastructure--again, critical to the 
country. Seattle had built a new runway. When I asked the witness who 
was in charge of that runway how long it took to build, he said 3 
years. That is a pretty long time, but it is a big runway, kind of 
complicated. Then I asked how long it took to get the Federal permits 
and regulatory permission from the Federal Government to build that new 
runway. The answer: 15 years. Fifteen years. The entire room gasped.
  No American wants this. We need to do a lot more to get back to 
commonsense permitting and regulatory reform for America's 
infrastructure.
  So we are starting on critical pieces of infrastructure that 
everybody can agree with. That is what this amendment does. It focuses 
solely on bridges. Our bridges are an increasingly important issue. One 
in 10 of our Nation's bridges--roughly 607,000 bridges in the United 
States--is structurally insufficient. Let me repeat that in a different 
way. In the United States, there are more than 600,000 bridges in need 
of repair. The average age of our bridges is 42 years old. So we need 
to repair them. We need to rebuild them. But what we don't need is the 
Federal Government taking 6 to 7 or 8 to 9 years to give us permission 
to rebuild bridges. There is not one American who thinks that would be 
a good idea. Yet, if we keep the law the same, that is exactly what is 
going to happen.
  Communities need to rebuild bridges, and it is going to take several 
years to get permission from agencies in this town to allow them to do 
it. To do what? To build on the same land, to just build a bridge. We 
need to change that.
  Thousands of communities across the country are simply keeping their 
fingers crossed when Americans cross structurally deficient bridges 215 
million times a day. Let me repeat that. In this great country, 
Americans cross structurally deficient bridges 215 million times a day. 
So we need to fix them. They are being crossed by our trucks, carrying 
our Nation's commerce, our children in schoolbuses, parents trying to 
get home in time for dinner. These are people we should be protecting.
  That is what my amendment does. It says that we are going to work to 
fix this infrastructure with the bill that we are working on, that my 
colleague from Maine is leading on with the DRIVE Act. But we are also 
going to be smart. We are not going to require Americans to take half a 
decade to get permission from the Federal Government to rebuild a 
bridge.
  These bridges sustain our economy, they connect our communities, they 
connect us, they keep us safe, and we need to expedite the ability to 
fix our infrastructure in this country, starting with our bridges. That 
is all this amendment does. It is simple. It is common sense. I hope 
that if I can bring this to the floor, we will get a unanimous vote in 
favor of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me commend my colleague from Alaska 
for raising this important issue.
  First, it is important to understand that his amendment only applies 
to structurally deficient bridges. These are bridges that are 
deteriorating and that need extensive renovation or replacement. And it 
is important that we address the problem of structurally deficient 
bridges before they become unsafe to use. That is the risk, and that is 
what my colleague from Alaska is attempting to address with his 
amendment. He is proposing that if we are replacing a structurally 
deficient bridge in exactly the same place, that we do not need to 
start all over again with an environmental impact statement that may 
delay the replacement of this structurally deficient bridge for 
literally years, not to mention the enormous cost that is undertaken 
when with an environmental impact statement and all the attendant 
studies are done. He is correct that the amount of time to do this kind 
of analysis, as well as the length of these studies, has grown 
enormously in recent years, and that, too, is a problem when we are 
dealing with a structurally deficient bridge.
  I believe this is a commonsense amendment. I would not want to waive 
environmental impact studies if the bridge were going to be built in a 
new location. Then we would need to do that kind of careful 
environmental analysis and review to make sure the environmental impact 
is well understood. But that is not what Senator

[[Page 18372]]

Sullivan is proposing. He is proposing that for this one category of 
bridges, we would not have to do the environmental impact statement if 
it is being rebuilt in exactly the same place. I think this makes 
sense. I think this is the kind of common sense that my colleague from 
Alaska has brought to Washington, and I commend him for his amendment.
  I do know there are some concerns, I believe, on the other side of 
the aisle, and I appreciate the Senator from Alaska working with us. 
But I, for one, believe his amendment does make sense. It is narrowly 
tailored, and I believe it should be adopted by this body.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Maine 
for her comments. I very much appreciate her support. We will work with 
the others if they have questions.
  I have worked on a number of issues now in my first year in the 
Senate with my colleague from Rhode Island, and I certainly want to 
make sure he is comfortable with this commonsense amendment. But I 
guarantee my colleagues, whether it is in Maine or Alaska or Rhode 
Island, if our citizens look--it doesn't matter; Democrat or 
Republican--at an amendment like this, I think the vast majority of 
them would say: Of course. Of course that is what we should be doing--
protecting our citizens, building infrastructure, protecting the 
environment, but not making things take forever. That is what we are 
trying to do.
  So I appreciate the kind words of the Senator from Maine about the 
amendment, and I am hoping we can move forward on this tomorrow.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________