Transportation-Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill
| Print This: |
|
September 10, 2007
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to Senator Murray for being such a good partner on this bill. It is a very challenging bill, particularly under the constraints in which we are supposed to work. It is always a difficult bill and many complex and controversial issues.
I begin by echoing her comments; we know there will be amendments. We urge our colleagues to come down as soon as possible and offer those amendments so we can deal with them. We have a hard deadline of Wednesday noon. I hope we can get the issues resolved before then. But that is a deadline which the Senate schedule imposes on us. We do want to get it completed.
Senator Murray deserves a great deal of credit for balancing the tough issues that are included in this bill; she referred to them. These are important programs that help build our communities and without which a lot of persons would been placed at the risk of homelessness.
This would have been particularly harsh on seniors and persons with disabilities. I also especially am grateful for the programs Senator Murray described that we were able to include $75 million in Section 8 funds for the VA Supportive Housing Program.
I think it is a critical program that calls attention to some of the many needs that face our returning service people. There are far too many returning service men and women who come back and are without housing. This is a start on dealing with this serious problem that I know the VA and HUD are familiar with.
We want to give them the authorization and the direction to move forward on it. I think the worth of this program will become even more evident as young disabled service men and women try to make the difficult adjustments to civilian life.
Now, the next item that is going to be discussed is the Minnesota bridge collapse. This was surely a catastrophic event. Our hearts go out to all of those families who lost loved ones in that horrific tragedy. In response to the bridge collapse, Congress immediately authorized $250 million in emergency relief spending to rebuild this vital infrastructure in Minnesota.
I think a welcomed awareness has arisen from this event, brought a higher degree of understanding and appreciation that new methods for inspecting and rating our bridges are necessary. People are even talking about infrastructure and the need for infrastructure.
Well, that is what we have been talking about in this committee and on this floor for many years. We are delighted to have our long-time supporters and some new friends agreeing with us on it.
Now, as far as this bridge collapse, we are anxiously awaiting further information from the National Transportation Safety Board on what the root cause of this tragic accident was and how we can further improve our Federal oversight of critical infrastructure. There are a number of items which have been raised which may point out specific causes for this collapse and which will be a warning to other States and other localities as well of steps they must take and things they must do to avoid bridge collapses.
But I understand why my colleague, Senator Murray, has offered the amendment that would add $1 billion in obligation limits for bridges in reaction to this tragic event. I share that concern. But I do have a feeling we should not overreact to the Minnesota bridge collapse by spending more money out of the highway trust fund than is available until we have time to work on a comprehensive reauthorization of the underlying legislation, SAFETEA.
Part of this process must be a comprehensive review of our Nation's infrastructure problems, including how best to prioritize and fund those needs. Obviously, we are going to be looking at bridge safety as well as the other aspects of transportation safety.
I know in my home State of Missouri, and I assume in every State transportation department across the country, this event brought renewed attention to bridge inspection. In my State, the department of transportation is embarking on a major program to rehabilitate 800 bridges that are of varying levels of deficiency. But while we need to avoid and prevent a future repeat of the Minnesota tragedy, we also must minimize the risk of death or injury posed by the broad spectrum of our aging infrastructure.
This measure would cause serious problems with the declining balance in the highway trust fund and leave us with an additional $1 billion greater shortfall for highway trust fund funding in the 2009 appropriations cycle. Everybody in this building, all my colleagues know or should know that we have significant problems in the highway trust fund because we have seen the impact of higher gas prices on fuel consumption. People are driving less. Economics does work. But when they drive less and use less gasoline, use more efficient conservation measures, which is all to the good, it results in less money coming into the highway trust fund than had been anticipated and lessens the amount of revenue we have available to use on bringing our highway and bridge infrastructure up to the needs of the 21st century. We are not there yet.
Chairman Murray and I held a hearing in April on the question of rising highway fatalities. We agree--and everybody would agree--we cannot ignore the fact that 43,443 Americans were killed on the highways last year and some 2.7 million more were injured. From my State, our highway transportation department estimates that one out of three of these people is killed by reason of inadequate infrastructure. In our State, the major problem is too many two-lane roads carrying traffic which should properly be on four-lane roads. I suspect other States are fighting that problem.
The vast majority of highway fatalities are not on the Nation's bridges but, rather, on the highways. The best estimate we have from the U.S. Department of Transportation is that approximately 2,200 out of the 43,000 deaths occurred on bridges. This leads me to suggest that we cannot overreact to such a horrible and tragic event such as that in Minnesota by micromanaging our Federal aid dollars solely to bridges, unless that is where a State, through its unique local vantage point and knowledge of its situation, wants to focus its efforts in Federal apportionment.
So this is something we will be discussing further. We are both concerned about safety on highways and bridges. We look forward to working with our colleagues to see how this can be resolved.
With respect to the Federal Aviation Administration, I again thank Senator Murray and her staff for their close cooperation in working through these issues. The chronic delays experienced by numerous travelers this year and specifically this summer have not gone unnoticed by the committee. As ranking member, having spent a wonderful 2 1/2 hours sitting on an airport runway after we landed, I have a personal interest in dealing with this. The bill continues to support the beginning stage of the NextGen Air Transportation System, which we believe is a much needed step toward providing additional capacity and relieving many of the delays at our Nation's airports. The bill also contains funds above the administration's request for flight inspection and certification personnel. Almost all of us use airplanes frequently, and we understand the need the flying public has for greater assurance of safety. We think these funds will ensure continued safety for the National Airspace System.
I also note additional funds for the Airport Improvement Program. That remains an important bipartisan priority for this subcommittee. I can't tell my colleagues how many small airport operators and community leaders in those cities and towns around my State have expressed their strong support for the program.
There are some issues we will have to address as the bill moves forward. For example, we include revenue aligned budget authority, that which we call RABA. When Members hear the term ``RABA,'' it is not the name of a dog or somebody's pet name; it is ``revenue aligned budget authority.'' This was not included in the President's budget.
The bill also contains a $2.89 billion rescission of highway contract authority apportionments to the States used as a budgetary offset to meet the other pressing needs my colleague already described. The bill includes an additional $43.359 million in administrative contract authority and another $172 million in the unused transportation innovative financing infrastructure account--the TIFIA--contract authority, for a total offset of spending of $3.495 billion. In the HUD section, we include a rescission of $1.1 billion.
Finally, I raise one issue we have not been able to address; namely, HUD and OMB's failure to provide adequate funding for HUD's section 8 project-based housing program for fiscal year 2008. To my colleagues and to OMB and to HUD, I say: Let's get serious. This is a critical and important program which serves many of our most vulnerable citizens--low-income families, extremely low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. If we don't fund it, they are out on the street. None of us wants to see that result. HUD has been unable to fund in a full and timely fashion many of these contracts during fiscal year 2007, and this problem is only going to get worse in 2008 to the extent that HUD could have a shortfall in its budget of as much as $2 billion or more which is needed to meet its obligations to these contracts in the next fiscal year. If we don't act in this bill, we are going to see a $2 billion shortfall. Think of the number of people who would be put out on the street if we don't solve that problem. It is unacceptable.
I know this program enjoys wide support, and I expect and hope that OMB will provide the necessary funds for the program through a budget amendment or as part of a continuing resolution or through emergency supplemental legislation. To my good friends at OMB, I say: You cannot walk away from this problem. This problem is real. It must be addressed or we are going to see a tremendous tragedy for the Nation's lowest income and most needy housing residents.
While I am pleased with much of the bill, especially spending in critical programs, I have to say that we are on a collision course with the White House on the spending levels contained in this bill. Both sides are going to have to make adjustments. Some of the adjustments we have outlined are absolutely essential, and we cannot lose the benefit of the positive investments we have made in this bill. This is a very important bill. It is a very difficult bill because we have some extremely serious challenges to face. We understand the need to be sensitive to the budget needs, but there are real pressing human problems we must meet in this bill.
I thank the Chair.
|
||||||||||||||
