Infrastructure

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in a State as big as Texas--as the Presiding Officer knows, having lived in and around Houston for a number of years in his previous life--we rely on a strong network of roads and bridges to travel safely and efficiently.

We have I-35, which spans the entire length of Texas, from north to south, and from Laredo all way to Dallas-Fort Worth. Much of that stretch, it seems like and feels like, is constantly under some construction.

There are bridges that are part of people's daily commutes, like RM 2900 in Kingsland. After this bridge was destroyed by floodwaters a few years back, it didn't just create inconvenience in the community but also risks. It could take a firefighter an hour to get around the water.

Fortunately, the Texas Department of Transportation and construction crews didn't waste any time, and I was able to join the dedication less than a year later. You heard that right. The bridge was destroyed, and less than a year later we dedicated the opening of that bridge.

Then we have critical projects in the works, like the ``forts to ports'' corridor of I-14, which stretches from Fort Hood all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. This will connect our critical military installations to our seaports and provide a serious boost to our military readiness.

These are much more than just roads and bridges. They are vital parts of our daily lives, trade, emergency response, and, of course, national security.

And as we welcome more new Texans every day, things are nearing a breaking point. We can't punch above our weight much longer when it come to our transportation infrastructure. It is time--and I believe it is a bipartisan belief that this is the time--to invest in our Nation's infrastructure, and we know, historically, that this has not been a partisan issue.

I am pro-infrastructure, and I imagine every person in this Chamber would tell you the same thing, regardless of whether they are from a red State or blue State. We have a strong history of working together to fund the networks of roads, bridges, airports, railroads, tunnels, and the ports that the American people rely on. For example, in 2015, we passed a 5-year highway and transit funding bill called the FAST Act, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It received 83 votes here in the Senate and 359 votes in the House, as well as the signature of President Obama. This legislation provided the certainty and stability our States need to make long-term investments in critical projects, and it was the first of its kind in more than a decade.

Last Congress, we were poised to pass a similar bill. The Environment and Public Works Committee developed a truly bipartisan example of an infrastructure bill that built on the success of the FAST Act. That was led by Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, at the time, but it was unanimous. This legislation included provisions to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges and improve road safety, protect the environment, and grow the economy. Once again, it received broad bipartisan support and passed the committee with unanimous support.

As we know, the last year has brought us untold changes and, unfortunately, put this and other legislative goals on pause while we battled COVID-19. But now is the time to pick up where we left off and get a strong infrastructure bill signed into law.

Unfortunately, the proposal by the administration is a far cry from what the country actually needs. For starters, the cost of the plan is beyond comprehension. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates said it will cost $2.65 trillion, nearly nine times the size of the last highway bill--nine times.

When talking about this proposal, one House Democrat said: ``It's gonna to be a kitchen sink.''

The founding director of the Cornell Program in Infrastructure Policy said: Well, the administration certainly has a ``giant definition'' for what constitutes ``infrastructure.''

But even journalists are making fun of the scope of this plan, with one writing: ``Maybe the real meaning of infrastructure is what's in our hearts.''

Well, these aren't just jokes. Only about 5 percent of this proposal is directed at roads and bridges, what some have called core infrastructure. In fact, it puts more money toward electric vehicle chargers than pavement that we drive on every day.

The proposal funds a long list of programs that are a far cry from what most people consider to be infrastructure: caregiving for the elderly and disabled, community colleges, programs to improve diversity in STEM careers. All of these are significant and important issues, but they don't belong in an infrastructure bill--certainly not one that proposes to raise taxes on the American people or to create more debt.

Then there are the most absurd policies that really resemble the Green New Deal, which I note was just reoffered by Senator Markey and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez: more than $200 billion to build or retrofit more than 2 million ``affordable and sustainable'' places to live, a ``Civilian Climate Corp,'' and an unrealistic goal of 100 percent renewable-generated electricity by 2035.

My State is an all-of-the-above State when it comes to energy, but I can tell you that if all you are depending on is renewable energy, without appropriate attention to the baseload you need, you are going to end up like we did, unfortunately, just a couple of months ago, with electricity going down due to extreme weather.

I support efforts to rebuild our infrastructure, but this is not an infrastructure proposal. This is, really, much closer to the Green New Deal 2.0. It is an encore to the nearly $2 trillion wish list that our Democratic colleagues rammed through on a partisan basis earlier this year.

Any attempt to claim that Republican won't work with Democrats on an infrastructure bill is completely disingenuous because this is not a good-faith attempt at bipartisanship.

I would be happy to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to craft an infrastructure bill that addresses our legitimate infrastructure problems, and I think every person on this side would agree with that. That would include traditional transportation, such as roads and bridges, as well as certain forms of nontraditional infrastructure, for example, broadband.

The pandemic has really highlighted the digital divide that exists across our country, and as Americans relied on the internet to work, to attend school, for telehealth, and a long list of other activities, it has become increasingly apparent that we are far from where we should be when it comes to broadband access in this country.

There is bipartisan support for a bill that addresses our most urgent infrastructure needs without tacking on unrelated partisan priorities. As far as the price tag of the bill, I am not married to a particular number. The last highway bill that became law was roughly $300 billion, and I think we all agree there is a need to pursue something bigger and bolder. But that needs to be limited to infrastructure.

The final pricetag of that bill should be the result of bipartisan negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, not in numbers handed down from the administration, unilaterally.

There is one point I want to make abundantly clear: A bipartisan infrastructure bill must exist instead of, not in addition to, our Democrat colleagues' unrelated priorities. We can't work in a bipartisan way to pass one bill only to have our Democratic colleagues then attempt to jam through on a partisan basis on reconciliation another long list of their priorities. In other words, we have to choose, and what I suggest we choose is bipartisan infrastructure legislation.

The choice before our Democratic colleagues is whether to work together or attempt to go it alone. You really can't have both.

We also need to be serious about paying for our infrastructure in a sustainable way. We have just spent trillions of dollars on coronavirus, not to mention the long list of priorities included in the most recent partisan bill.

This is not a time to continue the spending spree. Investments in our roads and bridges are needed, but we need to figure out how they will be paid for. The massive tax hikes that the President has proposed are not a viable option. The burden will be borne by both American employers and workers.

In previous years, the vast majority of infrastructure funding came from the highway trust fund. Every State sends dollars to this fund, which finances infrastructure across the country. But the formula to distribute the funding is out of date and is facing serious deficits.

Making matters worse, Texans are getting short-changed and carrying the weight of these shortfalls, as a so-called donor State. We get 92 cents back on every dollar we send to Washington, DC.

That is not the same treatment for every State. In fact, we receive a lower rate of return than every other State. If we want to have any long-term success in maintaining our roads and bridges, we need to bring this funding formula up to speed as well.

Unfortunately, the administration's proposal fails to do that, and instead of making any repairs to the highway trust fund, it leans on damaging tax hikes to pay for this broad range of unrelated policies.

The President has, indeed, proposed the largest set of tax hikes in more than a half a century. Economics 101 would teach you that tax increases aren't a clear and easy way to boost revenue, especially when your economy is already on fragile footing.

I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will be willing to work with us to pass a true infrastructure bill, one that will, first and foremost, improve roads, bridges, airports, and other critical projects all across the country.

Notably, we must find a responsible way to pay for this, but tax hikes are not the answer. We have always had this idea in the highway trust fund that user fees--the people that buy gasoline and use the roadways--were the ones to pay for them, not pay for them out of general revenue. And I think we need to continue down this user-fee model, as opposed to deficit spending and adding to our debt.

Again, in closing, let me just say, if our Democratic friends want to act in a bipartisan way, there are people on this side of the aisle, including me, that would be happy to sit down and start talking. But, first of all, our Democratic colleagues must agree to abandon their long wish list of unrelated partisan provisions. They can't work with us on an infrastructure bill and then follow it with a reconciliation bill that includes the kitchen sink.

A bipartisan bill to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges is possible. We have done it before, and we can do it again.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source