Investing in A New Vision for the Environment and Surface

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know by now, a bipartisan group of Senators worked with the White House over the last several weeks to negotiate a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, and I know a lot of hard work went into it, a lot of late nights, and I want to thank all of our colleagues who have made a positive contribution in this debate and discussion. It is particularly important at this time, I believe, that we do these things on a bipartisan basis, if we can.

After much anticipation, we finally received the text Sunday night, and a lot of what we expected to see, we saw, like funding for roads, bridges, ports, waterways, airports, and broadband. But what we didn't see were adequate pay-fors for the bill. For example, we learned after the bill was announced that it would be essentially a supplemental to the current infrastructure bill, which would require another $118 billion in general revenue to fill the gap left because of the inadequacy of the highway trust fund funding.

Now, we have all known that that is a problem. We had to use general revenue the last time we did a highway bill. But that hasn't really been part of the discussion, and I think, once people begin to see an additional $118 billion in borrowed money in order to pass this bill, it causes significant concern.

I guess the other part of it is that this bill seems to be moving at warp speed. Under normal circumstances, an infrastructure bill would go through a long and arduous subcommittee process. And I know that the Environment and Public Works Committee has passed a highway bill reauthorization twice unanimously, once under Democratic leadership and once under Republican leadership. So that is a positive sign. But this is really a huge amalgam of legislation that, frankly, only about 20 percent of the Senate is intimately familiar with.

Ordinarily, in a committee, both sides would debate the bill in hearings, markups, evaluate the cost, and offer amendments before we get to this process, but now we know that has not happened. Frankly, I think that is unfortunate because I think our committees are not operating the way they should, which, in turn, I think helps us produce a better, more thoughtful product.

We simply skipped the normal steps that would allow Members to raise concerns about the bill long before we got here and offer changes to improve it. So, as I have said before and I know others have said as well, I hope the majority leader will offer ample time and opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle to debate and amend this legislation. A robust amendment process is essential.

Over the last few days, I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to identify new pay-fors that could be adopted as amendments. We have come up with some, I think, promising ideas, and I hope these ideas can receive a vote on the Senate floor this week.

For example, I have worked with Senator Padilla, the Senator from California, to offer one bipartisan amendment to fund infrastructure projects in communities across the country without increasing the debt. Our amendment would simply give the State and local governments the flexibility to use unspent COVID-19 funding on infrastructure projects. It would eliminate the sunset on the use of those funds, and it would take the guardrails off that say you can only use that money for COVID- 19 because, to be honest, the States and counties and cities have more money than they know what to do with, at least constructively. I think we all would have an interest in making sure that money is spent well on long-term projects.

What I just said is not necessarily a criticism of the bills that we passed together on a bipartisan basis. We were in the midst of a pandemic, and we were all operating in an emergency situation, trying to do the best we could. But we didn't know how long this virus would last, how long it would take to get a vaccine, and how long the negative impact on our economy would last.

Frankly, we overshot the mark, I think, in some aspects of the bill, thus leading to the surplus of funds at many of our State and local governments.

Right now, there are limits on how that money could be spent. Qualifying expenses include things related directly to the pandemic, like COVID-19 testing sites, vaccines, PSAs, and additional bed space for hospitals.

But this funding can't currently be used for expenses unrelated to the pandemic or items that were previously included in a budget. They must be new, pandemic-related expenses.

As I said, in theory, at the time we did this, it made a lot of sense. After all, this funding was meant to bolster the fight against COVID-19 in communities across our country.

But not every community and not every State has the need for these types of projects. In many places, the most urgent needs aren't related to the pandemic, but, rather, the failing infrastructure.

The pandemic interrupted infrastructure improvements across the country and forced many officials to put these projects on the back burner. Repairs, maintenance, and construction projects were put on hold until there was enough funding to get things back on track.

I have heard from State and local leaders in my State who are frustrated by the lack of flexibility--by the handcuffs, frankly--on their use of the Federal funding they have already received. They want the option, not the mandate. They want the option to use this money when and where it is needed most, but right now, as I said, their hands are tied.

Many States and localities have relief funds on hand but no necessary, qualifying expenses. They have to look at this big balance in their accounts knowing they won't be able to spend it on the greatest needs of their communities. Frankly, they are frustrated, because I heard from them.

That is especially the case in rural America. In places where COVID- 19 numbers are low, leaders don't have the need or the opportunity to spend this money within the set timeline for the purposes that Congress has dictated. They don't need the full range of pandemic-related resources that might be necessary in other high-density urban areas with higher case counts.

The amendment Senator Padilla and I have offered would give leaders in rural areas alike the option of spending the funding on necessary infrastructure projects. This does not touch the negotiation between the White House and so-called G-20, the bipartisan group of Senators who came up with the substitute bill, which is the base bill that we are now debating. This would be in addition to it.

And, frankly, this would be the most efficient way to fund many infrastructure projects in our States and communities because, as we know, once Congress appropriates money, frequently, it takes years before that money makes its way to the need. Well, this could mean widening a highway, making safety improvements on a bridge, expanding broadband access. Urban areas could even use these funds for public transit improvement systems.

State and local leaders know the needs of their communities best, and they should have the flexibility to spend this money where it is needed most. The key here is flexibility.

Here is the other benefit. It doesn't cost another dime. This is money that we have already spent and already sent to the States, so the score is a big zero.

How many times do we have the opportunity here to do something big and important that doesn't run up the debt or deficit or cost us a lot more money?

So the key here is flexibility. Our amendment doesn't place a requirement or mandate on State and local governments to spend this funding on anything.

Any place that has new COVID expenses to cover can and should use this funding for that purpose, no questions asked. This simply gives leaders at the local and State level the option to spend those relief funds on urgent infrastructure projects that might otherwise go unfunded or that might not be funded for years to come.

I still remember President Obama, at one point after the Great Recession in 2008 and the recovery, when he talked about shovel-ready projects. He said: Well, I guess shovel-ready doesn't really mean shovel-ready.

The truth is, we have seen it time and time again. Congress appropriates money to State and local governments, and it literally takes years before the money gets to the intended target. This short- circuits that project because the States and local governments already have that money and they can spend it for this purpose if we will pass this amendment.

I am not alone in thinking this is a good idea. Back in March, nearly three dozen organizations wrote a letter to Secretary Yellen urging her to make transportation infrastructure an eligible expense. They talked about the impact of COVID-19 on transportation revenues and noted that, last year, 18 States and 24 localities announced delays or cancellations of transportation improvement projects totaling more than $12 billion.

These same three dozen organizations noted the pandemic has impacted every State and community differently, thus the key flexibility. They said flexibility will be critical to ensuring funds are used expeditiously and with maximum impact. That is really what we are talking about here.

Secretary Biden's own Transportation Secretary suggested as much. In testimony before Congress, Secretary Buttigieg said the American Rescue Plan ``has some flexibility in it'' that he thinks could be used ``to support road budgets that have been impacted.''

States and cities shouldn't just be able to spend this money. They should be able to invest it in projects and resources our communities need the most.

This is simply a commonsense change both sides should be able to get behind. It ensures money that has already gone out the door will be used before it expires. It puts decision-making at the local level and gives leaders more flexibility to decide how to use this Federal funding on their most urgent needs; and it does so, as I said, without increasing the national deficit at all.

This amendment has earned the support of a broad range of organizations across the country, and I am proud to have worked with Senator Padilla to craft this amendment in a way that both sides can get behind it. In the coming days, I hope this will be one of many amendments that will receive a vote on the Senate floor, perhaps as early as today.

We have to ensure infrastructure investments are made fairly and paid for reasonably, and a robust amendment process is the only way to get there.

I would just add in closing, some of my colleagues have said that they support this amendment, but they would be inclined to vote against it because they feel like this somehow violates the agreement that the bipartisan negotiating group had with the White House. But as I described it, it doesn't touch--it does not touch that underlying substitute bill.

What it does is it unleashes these funds in States like Connecticut, Michigan, West Virginia, Texas. And it lets our State and local leaders figure out, if they can't use these funds, if they don't need these funds for COVID-19, how they can use them in a way that will have the biggest, most significant economic impact on the infrastructure in their States.

I hope my colleagues who somehow believe that they have sworn a blood oath with the White House not to support any amendments that change the underlying substitute--I don't know why we are voting on amendments, unless it is to change the underlying substitute because that is our Constitutional function. It is somehow a parallel universe in which the White House--a different branch of government--is telling the Senate what amendments we can and cannot pass.

As we all know, that is not the way the Constitution is written. The Constitution said it is our prerogative, as Senators representing our States, to vote on policies that we think are best for our States and for the country.

Yes, the President has an important role, but his role is to veto it if he doesn't like it, not rewrite it, not to tell us what amendments we can vote on or not vote on. That is a perversion of the constitutional system.

I think, for matters of institutional integrity and pride, Senators would be very jealous about guarding their authorities under the Constitution rather than delegating these to the administration.

I expect this is going to be a long road. We have already heard Speaker Pelosi say she is not going to pass this bill once the Senate passes it until she has a chance to pass the $3.5 trillion-plus reconciliation bill at the same time. This is going to be a very bumpy process.

But the idea that we cut off access that our States and local government have to hundreds of billions of dollars of unused funds to do, in their discretion, what they think needs to be done--not a mandate, but, rather, a permission to do so. To turn down this opportunity to get this money where it is needed most in these big impact infrastructure projects makes no sense to me. I would encourage all our colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source