Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment unties the hands of States which were handcuffed by a provision added in committee last year and is still in the bill, a provision on which debate was cut short last year, but now we can finish the job, and I hope we will. This provision will cost the States nearly $900 million in highway, bridge, and transit construction or rehabilitation funding unless we adopt the amendment. The provision binding our States, section 1620 of the bill, mandates that every State, regardless of whether it needs it or not, set aside 2 percent, or nearly $900 million, for use for the life of the bill only on storm water mitigation activities. My amendment strikes this mandatory set-aside. Without the amendment, States will be directed to set aside over $740 million from their Surface Transportation Program funds, funds that otherwise could construct or rehabilitate highways, bridges, or transit systems. Without this amendment, States would be forced to set aside over $125 million from the Equity Bonus Program set up by this bill to help States receive more highway dollars. Without this amendment, the States will be forced to use nearly $900 million only on storm water mitigation, regardless of the need of such activities. Every State will lose highway dollars under this set-aside. We have tables available. Alabama, the set-aside would cost it $19 million; Alaska, $10 million; Arizona, $17 million; Arkansas, $12 million. I ask Members to look at how much the Federal Government would dictate how their highway funds would have to be spent. Every office will receive a list, and we will have copies available. I urge every Member to look to see how it affects their State. We are fighting extremely hard on the Senate floor to provide States with more transportation funds. This is something the chairman and the ranking member, my subcommittee ranking member, Senator Baucus, and I have done. We are working with the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, to get the money. I know we will be inundated by Members wanting transportation projects in this bill. I know in my new role as chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee I will be inundated with requests for projects in their State, but a Member voting to take funding from highways, bridges, and transit and set it aside for storm water would seem to indicate that their State has more than enough funding that they can afford to divert highway funds to storm water so the State may not need more highway funds. Now, do not get me wrong. I support States having the ability to address their storm water needs if they must do so, and if they choose to do so. With my amendment, the States will remain fully authorized to use their highway funds to mitigate storm water problems. Indeed, this bill preserves and actually expands the ability of States to spend highway dollars on storm water mitigation, on a highway project if that is what is needed in their State. Current law allows States to spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost using STP funds on storm water mitigation. That is unchanged. The bill also expands storm water eligibility by allowing States to spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost under the National Highway System funds on storm water mitigation. That is unchanged by this amendment. I seek only to strike the mandatory set-aside; the Federal Government big daddy knows better than the States how to spend their funds to assure adequate transportation and protection of the environment. There is no one in this body who has fought longer and harder than I have, my former colleague, my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for Federal funding for water quality and drinking water. When we served as head of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funded EPA, we restored hundreds of millions of dollars in proposed cuts to the clean water and safe drinking water funds. Every year we appropriated millions of dollars to protect, sustain, and restore the health of our Nation's water habitats and ecosystems. We spent millions funding water projects for the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, and the Great Lakes. Last year, we sent hundreds of millions of dollars more to Members' States for targeted investments and water infrastructure. We do that every year for our colleagues because we believe so much in providing clean and safe drinking water for our families and local communities. Forcing another arbitrary mandate on States, taking precious highway and transit construction dollars and diverting them for another purpose does not make sense. Decisions should be made by each State on a case- by-case, project-by-project basis, not as a result of another one-size- fits-all Federal mandate sent down from Washington. Let me repeat, this amendment strikes only the set-aside mandate and leaves fully intact storm water funding eligibility. I urge my colleagues to let States keep $900 million for highway bridge and transit construction and to turn back this new Federal mandate on States. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this amendment from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the Transportation Construction Coalition, a coalition of builders and union representatives; the Associated General Contractors of America; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; and a list of other organizations and unions supporting this amendment be printed in the Record after my remarks. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I didn't vote for that. I will address that at some point.

Mr. BOND. I thought I had the floor.

Mr. BOND. All good things come to an end. I appreciate the comments. I was going to address the need for clean water, but my good friend from Virginia is saying we need to make this into a water bill. He said we need to fund local water projects for Governors. I thought this was a transportation bill. I have already pointed out that the States can use up to 20 percent of STP in the national highway funds on storm water mitigation. But there are lots of unfunded mandates that this body has put, in the past, on our local governments to clean up local water. Do you know something. For the last dozen years, I have fought as chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee, with my colleague and very good friend, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, to provide the funds we need to try to help States and local governments meet their obligations. There is something called the State revolving funds, and every year the Office of Management and Budget--it does not matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat--cuts it. Those are the most important funds we can provide. We put in over $2 billion each year. It gets cut. We put it back in the next year to go into the State revolving funds. Senator Mikulski and I have funded hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of water cleanup projects in various States--including Virginia, I am proud to say, a State of which I am very fond--and helping them deal with their clean water needs. This is a transportation bill. I hear a lot from mayors and local government officials. They need transportation. There are waters needs, yes, but these water needs are about $200 billion--$200 to $250 billion--and unfunded. We could take the entire transportation budget, dump it into water, and still not meet the needs. He has talked about how important safe drinking water is for health. And I agree. Really, it is one of the best environmental investments we could make. But when you are talking about public health, let's talk about the slaughter on the highways. The whole purpose of this bill is called SAFETEA. The administration says, and I believe, we need to make our highways safer. We kill three people a day or more on Missouri highways. Over 365 of those people die every year because our highways are inadequate. We have narrow two-lane roads that really should be divided four-lane highways, and people get killed on them. Jobs do not come to town when we do not have adequate roads. We contribute to pollution when we tie up traffic on these roads. We need to put these dollars to work. As I said, the good Senator from Virginia mentioned the mayors support it. Well, my mayors support money for highways and bridges and transportation. But I can tell you, the States strongly support my amendment. They do not want their hands tied by a new Federal mandate. We have too many mandates in this bill, and I would be willing to take a look at some of the others. But the State departments of transportation want and need the flexibility to spend their own highway dollars. That is why the organization of State highway directors, AASHTO, said: ``We need your immediate help.'' They absolutely want the help of every person in this body to support the Bond amendment to strike section 1620. They say: Section 1620 mandates that States set-aside 2%. . . . This will divert $867 million from a core program that provides funding for highway, bridge and transit construction, rehabilitation and repair. If this provision is removed, any State can continue to spend up to 20% of a project's cost on storm water activities--but at the discretion of the State. So here we are asking this body to be, again, a ``daddy knows best.'' We are going to tell States they have to spend $900 million--which is not much in ``Washington speak,'' but it is an awful lot in my ``home State speak''--for storm waters. I have already submitted the letters of support. Let me give you some more of the organizations, in addition to AASHTO: the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Laborers- International Union of North America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Council of Engineering Companies--and the list goes on. These people understand how badly we need these highway dollars. Anybody who thinks the $284 billion that we were able to get to bring this bill to the floor is adequate has not gone home and listened to the people.

Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BOND. Do you want 2?

Mr. BOND. Go ahead, please.

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. BOND. To conclude my opening comments, I would note that the administration, in its statement of policy, says: The inclusion of a mandatory 2-percent set-aside from the STP program to support a highway storm water mitigation program is opposed. Storm water discharge mitigation costs are already eligible under STP. I very much appreciate the assistance of the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe, who supports my amendment and spoke eloquently earlier on it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and now turn the floor over to----

Mr. BOND. April 26, 2005.

Mr. BOND. You may find it at the top of page 2.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, all of the labor organizations, the State highway officials, all of the groups that provide those funds strongly support my amendment and would oppose the motion to table of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, obviously, my good friend, the Senator from Virginia, and I view this very differently. I will outline some of the differences we have. Let me clarify. The Senator from Virginia noted that the bill passed last year in the Senate with the storm water provision included. I ask my colleagues to recall that we did so only with the agreement that I would not raise it in the Senate in order to get it to conference, and we would address it in conference. I did so out of deference to my colleagues to get the bill off the floor and to conference in what turned out to be the vain hope we could get a conference agreement on the bill which we badly needed last year. I did not want to hold up progress on the bill last year. We did not have time to debate it fully. But this year, we have time to debate it fully. It is appropriate we do so. First, let me address the concept that this is a modest amendment, a small amendment. Back home, $900 million is not a small amount. I live in a State where $900 million means a whole lot. Do you know to whom it means a lot? It means a lot to the mayors. The mayors want safety for their citizens. These are community leaders who come to Washington to talk to me about how badly they need the money for their roads. I don't think $900 million is small. I don't think we should take $900 million from the highway, bridge, transit construction budget. But if Senators think their State has more than enough highway dollars and can afford to give money away for storm water, I would be glad to know that as we move forward on appropriations matters and other matters dealing with transportation. With respect to what this underlying bill will do, section 1620, which was sponsored by the Senator from Virginia, mandates States set aside 2 percent of the funds in their main highway accounts--nearly $900 million total over the life of the bill--to be used only, regardless of need, on storm water mitigation activities. If allowed to remain in the bill, the mandatory set-aside would force all States to divert $740 million from their Surface Transportation Program funds. The mandatory set-aside would also force States to divert over $125 million from the Equity Bonus Program set up to help almost every State receive more transportation. That is where I get the $900 million figure. However, if this figure is struck, if the State of Virginia or any other State wants to use it, storm water mitigation activities are already eligible for funding. States can spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost using STP funds on storm water mitigation if they choose. The underlying bill also expanded funding eligibility for storm water mitigation by adding it to the eligible activities. The National Highway System program states they will be able to spend up to 20 percent of a project's costs using NHS on storm water mitigation if they choose. I have already listed what the impact of the mandatory set-aside would be. The occupant of the chair is from Minnesota. That would be a $17.7 million hit on Minnesota. In addition, the State of Virginia would have to set aside $23 million. But I guess they would want to use that money on storm water anyhow.

Mr. BOND. I would like to respond and finish my presentation. Then we can get into a discussion.

Mr. BOND. You have no conscience.

Mr. BOND. I didn't support that.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. This particular mandate of the good Senator from Virginia is one that I don't like. He put in another mandate to increase funding for metropolitan planning organizations. If we could pass a Clear Skies bill, we wouldn't need to waste all that time on planning activities because we would clean up our air with a heavy restriction on utilities. That is a debate for another time. But just because there are too many mandates in this bill already does not justify keeping $900 million in State budgets out of transportation needs and putting it into storm water. Don't forget, as we have said, the States now can spend up to 20 percent of their STP and the National Highway System money on storm water cleanups. Granted, there are tremendous needs for cleaning up the water, wastewater and drinking water. We need to address those. I wish we could address them more generously in the water cleanup bills. But this is taking money away from the lifeblood of transportation lifesaving highway construction that we need in our States. Our mayors--in Missouri, the ones I have talked to--and community leaders are very strongly in favor of it. I guess the good Senator and I will have dueling charts showing how much money is set aside from the State budgets. We know the amounts set aside in the State budgets pale by comparison to the water needs, but the needs for highways go far beyond that in our States. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to table because we need better, safer transportation to meet the goals of SAFETEA.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe; to the ranking member, Senator Jeffords; and my colleague, the ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Baucus. This is a job well done under the constraints we face. We have worked long and hard to get to this point, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of proceeding. The bill, S. 732, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, is long overdue, 2 years past due. Our roads are deteriorating and safety is deteriorating unless and until we can get this bill up. My thanks to the leader for allowing us to call up the bill. It has a lot of moving parts. Every time you move one part, you make somebody slightly happy and several more very unhappy. But I believe it is a good step forward in attempting to meet our goal of completion prior to expiration of the current extension of the authorization on May 31. If we do not proceed to move to this debate, Senators should be aware we may not be able to pass a seventh extension, and our States may cease to let additional contracts, and thousands of jobs may be at stake. We called up S. 1072 a little over a year ago, and final passage of that bill last year was 76 to 21. Today's bill, S. 732, is nearly identical to last year's bill, with one major problem: To comply with the President's budget request of $284 billion, we have taken a proportional cut across the board of approximately 10.7 percent. During conference last year, we were presented with $299 billion in contract authority and $284 billion in guaranteed spending. Today, our obligation limit and contract authority numbers are both the same, at $284 billion. I do not think that will work. Last year, $284 billion was not sufficient to meet the transportation and safety needs in my State and, I think, many other States. I thought then, and continue to believe, more money is necessary. I understand the Finance Committee will be offering an amendment which we on the Environment and Public Works Committee will be supporting. During the budget resolution debate, my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent, along with the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, offered an amendment that any revenue that does not add to the deficit should be spent. It passed with more than 80 Senators supporting it. I think the Senate will have a similar position when we provide for additional revenues with defendable efforts. The bill we are bringing to the floor has several major goals. First, equity. While previous authorizations have talked about equity, our bill carefully balances the needs of the donor States, while also recognizing the needs of the donee States. There are many sections of the bill I am proud of supporting, such as the fact that all donor States will receive, at the minimum, a 92-percent rate of return by the end of the authorization. My State of Missouri is a donor State which essentially means that for every dollar we spend on transportation, we receive less than a dollar in return. In 2004, it was 92 cents. There are many States that fall under the $1 rate of return-- unfortunately, only about 20 of them, which means there were 30 votes for the donee States that got back more than a dollar, and that is where our problem was. Last year, with the more robust funding, we were able to get all States up to 95 cents, but we were unable to achieve this rate of return as a result of going from $318 billion down to $284 billion. Donor States that support additional revenue above $284 billion can expect an increase in their rate of return to bring the bill more in line with last year's bill, but I do not think anybody is talking about $318 billion anymore. I worked diligently with Chairman Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Baucus to ensure the bill remains as fair and equitable as possible among all States. I am aware some of the donor States, which we commonly refer to as superdonors--it is nice when you get to select the epithet by which you are called. I wish I had thought of being called a superdonor or a deserving donor. Senator Inhofe and I come from deserving donor States. We will add Senator Thune into the deserving donor States. But superdonors are concerned they hit the growth caps and do not achieve a 92-cent return right away. But the average rate of growth from the highway trust fund for all States is about 24.38 percent. The average rate of growth of Texas and Arizona is 31.79 percent. Senators from States that are growing below average are the ones who, it seems to me, should be complaining. We were unable to bring up donor States as early as we might have wished due to budget constraints, as well as balancing the needs of the donor States with the needs of the donee States. For this reason, as most donor States grow, the donee States see a gradual decline to bring greater equity between the States. Nevertheless, all States will grow at not less than 10 percent over the previous bill, TEA-21. We are hopeful that with additional revenue, we will be able to raise that floor. Safety is another key feature. We will go a long way toward saving lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous locations, sections, and elements. Safety in this authorization is, for the first time, being elevated to a core program. Our bill mirrors the administration's proposal, continuing our commitment to our motoring public's safety. This is accomplished by providing much needed funding to reduce highway injuries and fatalities, all without the use of mandates. In my State of Missouri, we know inadequate roads not only lead to congestion, pollution, lack of economic growth, and they delay, deny, and derail economic opportunity, but they also kill people. We have averaged more than three deaths a day on Missouri highways and probably close to 40 percent, if not more, can be attributable to inadequate roads. I have driven all the Federal highways and all the State highways and a lot of the county roads in Missouri, and I can tell you we have Federal highways which are two-lane highways which have traffic that everybody agrees should be on four lanes. What happens? We have rear- end collisions, passing on blind curves and hills, and we have fatalities. My home State of Missouri, as many other donor States, has some of the worst roads in the Nation. We are among, unfortunately, that distinguished group that has the highest fatalities per million miles driven on the roads. That is a distinction we do not like. Recent reports say we have the fifth worst roads in the Nation, with 65 percent of our major roads in fair to poor condition requiring immediate attention. We also rank fourth from the bottom in deficient bridges in the Nation. Our committee has heard voluminous testimony from the administration that nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last year alone. I am glad this bill reflects a continued commitment making not only investments in infrastructure but for the general safety and welfare of our constituents. The bill addresses several environmental issues, such as easing the transition under new air quality standards. The conformity process is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as streamlining the project delivery process by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during environmental reviews. Another accomplishment of our package will ensure transportation projects are built more quickly because environmental stakeholders will be brought to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape projects. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured environmental review process, more efficiently, with fewer delays. The bill also ensures that transportation projects will not make air worse in areas with poor air quality while giving local transportation planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air quality responsibilities. The bill will put transportation planning on a regular 4-year cycle, require air quality checks with projects large enough to be regionally significant, and reduce current barriers that local officials face in adopting projects that improve air quality. The final goal is jobs. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates 47,500 jobs. To the Associated General Contractors, the same $1 billion investment yields half of that in new orders from manufacturing and half of that spread through other sectors of the economy. Construction pay averages $19 per hour, 23 percent higher than the private sector average. This comprehensive package is a good step forward to creating jobs, but as a Governor of the State where we placed a high emphasis on economic development, it is not only the jobs that are created in construction, it is the jobs that are created by the existence of adequate, safe transportation that assures continued growth. We have spent a lot of time in this body talking about how we get our economy to grow, how we create jobs. Passing this bill to create jobs now and facilitate the creation of jobs in the future is the best thing we can do. I am hopeful our colleagues in the Senate will agree to move this bill quickly in order to pass this legislation prior to the current May 31 expiration date. I thank the Chair and I reserve the remainder of the time for the leader on this side.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there have been some new factors that have come out. In the interest of full disclosure, Missouri has moved up to fifth worst in roads and fourth worst in bridges. As I understand, Oklahoma still occupies a place of dishonor with even worse roads and bridges. I was hoping those new studies would not come out that we are still right at the bottom. As two States that are in the heart of the Nation with major interstates crossing our States and traffic going east, west, southwest, and northeast through our States we are essential arteries for transportation for the Nation.

Mr. BOND. Well, the States are absolutely frustrated beyond all means that we have not been able to reauthorize the bill. Merely extending the bill does not enable us to go forward with major planning. The extensions keep existing projects in line and allow the Department of Transportation to continue to operate, but if we have another extension it means the money that this bill would make available will now not be made available until the construction season. For most of the United States, the construction season is spring, summer, and fall. Not a lot of work can be done in the winter. So with the necessary contract times, 90 days to let contracts, if we do not make the May 31 deadline with new authorization, we are going to lose a tremendous amount of road construction necessary for economic development and safety.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Will the minority leader yield for a question?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to ask the minority leader--I came down here to talk about the highway bill. Is it his understanding that we are on the highway bill?