RSS Home > news > Floor Speeches

House Should Pass a Bipartisan Transportation Bill


 Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II.

Transportation policy has been and should be bipartisan. In fact, it's largely considered nonpartisan across our country, where mayors and county commissioners rely on and expect certainty from Washington with regard to necessary investments in infrastructure and mass transit.

Yet, instead, here again, with this bill, politics has been injected into a process that has long been both bipartisan and an engine of our economic dynamo that ties our country together through our transportation infrastructure. Instead of creating jobs and advancing our economy, here we are with a bill that offers further delays, crippling States' and localities' ability to plan and fund projects and put Americans back to work.

The bill before us provides yet another short-term extension, the 10th extension since the last highway law expired in 2009. The facts on the ground aren't changing. Whether we extend this for 2 months or 3 months or 1 month, we'll be back here again with the same facts on the ground, the same looming fiscal crisis at the Federal level, the same need for infrastructure at the State and local levels.

So what facts are new? And what's the justification for such a short-term extension?

As we stand here today to vote on another transportation extension, 50 percent of our roads have been identified as in disrepair; 70,000 bridges are structurally deficient and potentially dangerous.

We need to make investments in our Nation's highways and transit projects--that much Republicans and Democrats can agree on--to bring our infrastructure into the 21st century. Yet, instead, this short-term bill before us represents another missed opportunity to make these critical investments for our country's future.

The impact of voting on another short-term extension is not insignificant. As a former small business owner myself, I know very well the importance of certainty in business planning. Rather than providing States with the confidence they need to pass long-term projects planned for them and plan their highways, and for construction companies to gear up, this bill prolongs the uncertainty, which only increases costs, contributing to the deficit and contributing to taxpayers getting a worse deal for their investment at the State and local levels.

The underlying bill only allows States and localities to plan for one short construction season. What guidance do they have for the next construction season? How can bidders and contractors offer their best pricing when they don't even know if there will be a paycheck after this building season?

As the bipartisan National Governors Association has said, a string of short-term extensions will only increase uncertainty for State and local governments and the private sector. Yes, this approach will actually increase costs, rather than decrease costs.

We should be voting, instead, on the bipartisan comprehensive transportation bill that the Senate has already passed that, if this House brought to the floor, I'm confident would pass and that President Obama would sign. It passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 74 22.

The Senate bill maintains critical investments in our highways and public transportation, improves accountability through asset-management plans, and establishes performance measures so States are accountable for using their funds efficiently.

Extremely disappointing is the transportation policy, an issue that has long been bipartisan in its support, which has turned into a political football in this Congress. The House majority has continued to offer partisan bills that would weaken our economy and create uncertainty. This time, the majority has crafted a transportation bill by linking it to unnecessary and unrelated politically motivated riders. It is a completely unrelated Christmas tree of a bill that we see before us with elements that have nothing to do with our transportation and infrastructure.

Almost as appalling as the riders in the bill are the restrictive rules before us. This rule only made in order three Republican amendments, completely shutting out all Democratic, and even some Republican, ideas. When it comes to transportation policy, this body should be considering amendments under an open process that allows Members of both parties to bring forward their ideas to save taxpayer money and to invest in infrastructure. Unfortunately, thoughtful amendments were not made in order in this process, including some that I will discuss later in the debate.

Because this rule and the underlying bill represent some of the worst partisanship that I've seen in the 3 years I've been here, I strongly oppose them both. I urge my colleagues in the House to reject this approach, to reject this rule, to reject this bill, and to bring up the Senate bill and to bring it quickly to passage in the House so that we can send it to President Obama in order to reauthorize transportation in a bipartisan way, one that reflects our values as Americans.

Print version of this document

En Español