[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 93 (Thursday, July 8, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7775-S7776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE TRANSPORTATION BILL
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this week we have been talking about a
fundamental standard to guide our debates in the Senate.
As we do our work, we need to ask a simple question: ``Are we doing
right by America?'' We need to ask that question on policies affecting
farmers, seniors, and veterans. And we always need to ask whether we
are doing right by American families when it comes to economic
policies.
While the economy has finally started adding jobs these past few
months, this comes after 2\1/2\ years in which the economy lost jobs
every month. What is clear to many of us is that we still have a long
way to go, and we need to do more to help improve our economy. That is
one of the main reasons it is so unfortunate that we have not completed
the long-overdue transportation reauthorization bill--legislation that
expired at the end of last September.
The ability to plan how roads and bridges will be built has suffered
greatly due to Congress's failure to get this bill completed on time.
Well over 100,000 jobs have been lost due to this delay. And each month
that we do not complete our work brings more job losses.
Job creation will suffer, too--in South Dakota and across the
country. In my State, because our construction season is short, there
is not enough time to plan ahead and put people to work, even if we
passed a bill today. But we will not pass a bill today.
Earlier this year, on February 12, the Senate passed S. 1072, the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act.
It was passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 76 to 21. The
Senate bill would authorize $318 billion over 6 years and is revenue-
neutral. It is fully paid for and does not increase gas taxes.
Nearly 400 organizations, representing the full spectrum of
transportation interests, all support the Senate funding level.
The Chamber of Commerce, the Associated General Contractors, the
governors, the State legislators--the list goes on and on. All attest
to the need for this kind of infrastructure investment.
The Senate bill would create over 1.7 million jobs--new, good jobs
for the millions of Americans who are looking for work. In my State,
the Senate bill would create over 6,500 jobs. It would also provide for
important transportation needs on our rural roads and Native American
reservations, and would allow us to move forward with high-priority
projects in towns like Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Yankton, and Pierre.
These are important projects that simply will not get completed without
the assistance of the Federal Government.
One might ask: ``What was the Bush administration's response to the
Senate's bipartisan job-creating bill?'' Their response has been, a
veto threat--hardly the answer that Republicans and Democrats alike
were hoping for; hardly the response that the economy needs; and hardly
the response that the infrastructure deficit we have in this country
cries out for.
Fast forward to April 2. After a bipartisan House plan to offer a
bill at a $375 billion level was scuttled by the Bush administration
and the Republican House leadership, the House passed H.R. 3550, the
Transportation Equity Act. This bill authorizes only $284 billion over
6 years, and is not fully paid for. Again, one might ask: ``What was
the Bush administration's response to the House bill?'' If it did
[[Page S7776]]
not like the original bipartisan House proposal at $375 billion, and it
did not like the bipartisan Senate bill at $318 billion, how about the
reduced bipartisan House bill at $284 billion? The answer was another
veto threat.
Again, hardly the answer that House and Senate Republicans and
Democrats were hoping for from their President and hardly the response
the economy needs.
Fast forward one more time to June 23, when the Senate conferees
voted in the conference committee meeting with the House to resolve the
differences between the two bills. The Senate made a formal offer to
the House in the amount of $318 billion and requested that the House
respond to the offer at the next meeting on July 7. So, yesterday,
after 2 weeks' time, the House and Senate met again. There had been
hopeful signs that the House conferees might be prepared to accept the
Senate's funding level, and many of us thought we might have a
breakthrough that would move the bill forward. But what did we hear
yesterday? The House was not yet prepared to respond to the Senate's
offer.
What is clear to many of us is that unless the White House and the
Republican leadership in the House release their stranglehold on House
conferees, we will not have a transportation bill this year.
Transportation has almost always been--and has been in the Senate
again this year--a bipartisan priority. Chairman Inhofe has done a
superb job of guiding the bill forward. But he cannot do it alone.
I remain hopeful that the Bush administration will realize that our
economy, our infrastructure, and American families need and deserve a
good transportation bill, a bill that will create good jobs and provide
the investments in our Nation's infrastructure that are so desperately
needed.
We need more than a President who simply says ``no''--a President who
says he will veto a final transportation bill with either the Senate or
the House spending levels.
By continuing to say ``no,'' the President jeopardizes 1.7 million
new jobs in our Nation and 6,500 jobs in South Dakota alone. He puts at
risk necessary improvements for rural and Native American roads.
Next Tuesday, there will be another meeting of the conferees. I hope
this critical issue of the investment level will be resolved, and that
we can get on with the business the American people expect us to
conduct. If we ask ourselves, Are we doing right by America on this
transportation bill? The answer is that the Senate has done right. The
House has made a start. But, unfortunately, without the President's
constructive participation, we cannot complete the assignment. We will
not have a transportation bill. We will not create needed jobs. We will
be failing the American people.
I urge all Americans to let their Representatives in the House know,
and let the President know, that we cannot afford to fail when it comes
to this important bill.
We can do better, and I remain hopeful that the President will
confront the challenge, reverse his continued opposition, and join the
Senate in supporting a transportation bill that makes sense for our
country.
Mr. President, I also want to address a concern that many of us
expressed yesterday about our current circumstances, procedurally and
parliamentarily.
The majority leader threw down the gauntlet again last night in a
very unfortunate decision. That decision, of course, was to file
cloture. Having filled the tree, which means not only are Senate
Democrats precluded from offering amendments before we have even
offered the first amendment or had one vote, it is now the majority's
decision to thwart the effort to have the kind of debate that all of us
anticipated on class action and, simply said, we will have wasted an
entire week in what is a very limited legislative period to begin with.
There is no question the cloture vote will be defeated. We will have
wasted that week. We could have disposed of most of the amendments by
now. Most of my colleagues had already expressed to me a willingness to
offer their amendments with very short time limits. How ironic that in
the name of saving time we have wasted time.
I made a legitimate and bona fide heartfelt offer yesterday that we
limit Democratic nonrelevant amendments to 5, relevant amendments to
10. I thought it was an interesting juxtaposition--the majority leader
actually offered an unlimited list of relevant amendments which would
have prolonged debate perhaps for weeks if that had been agreed to.
We have made a good-faith offer. I am troubled and again frustrated
that we have come to this point. We have wasted a week. We will waste
many more days, if not weeks, in the future with this practice. We have
learned from the past how unproductive these approaches to debate can
be. It is too bad we have to learn all over.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a
unanimous consent request?
Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to.
____________________