I am pleased that for the first time before the Transportation Subcommittee we will be hearing from our newest Secretary of Transportation -- Norman Mineta. Mr. Mineta is well known to many of us. We had the opportunity to work with him not only at the Department of Commerce but when he served as Chairman of the House Committee on Public Works during the development of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or ISTEA. I welcome Mr. Mineta here this morning.
I'd like to start off this morning by mentioning how much TEA-21 has helped our nation address our infrastructure needs and our employment needs. This is especially true in my state of Montana. TEA-21 has been a crucial tool for us. The bill is not perfect, but it's a very good bill that an overwhelming majority agreed upon, at the end of the day. Along with Senators John Chafee and John Warner, I was directly involved in drafting TEA-21 in the Senate. I consider it a priority to make sure that TEA-21 is implemented intact until it expires in 2003.
I must point out that the documents provided by the Department of Transportation assert that the Bush Administration's budget proposal actually funds TEA-21 intact. The Administration claims that their budget funds the guaranteed levels for surface transportation as prescribed in TEA-21. I do not agree. The Bush budget includes several new statutory proposals which, if enacted, would change TEA-21 in several fundamental ways. Taken together, these proposals have the effect of prioritizing research programs and discretionary grant programs at the expense of highway construction dollars to the states. Under this budget. the states would receive almost $430 million less in direct highway construction funds than they would under TEA-21. I cannot and will not support proposals that would take critical highway construction dollars, guaranteed by TEA-21, away from the states and divert those dollars to other programs. When we enacted TEA-21 we said that we were putting the trust back into the Highway Trust Fund, and I'm not prepared to change TEA-21 in ways that would detract from that promise.
I can understand why the administration feels the need to fund these programs. They have merit. They're good programs. In fact there are additional programs out there that are meritorious. However, all these worthy programs have one thing in common - they are not part of TEA-21 or at least not consistent with the prescribed funding levels in TEA-21. Any deviation, regardless of its merit, is outside the scope of a bill that achieved a delicate balance. Any small change could open the door to an even bigger one.
I emphasize that I don't reserve this criticism solely for this year's budget proposal. I have been equally critical of budget proposals in recent years that only loosely resembled TEA-21. In fact, one thing I can say about this year's budget proposal is that it shows some restraint. Past proposals by the administration have called for even fewer construction dollars to the states in exchange for other programs. Thankfully, those budgets were not enacted.
I'd like to quickly mention two other areas in which I intend to question the secretary about after his statement. First is the concept of repealing all or part of the federal gas tax. Bad Idea. If the 4.3 cent fuel tax is repealed, there will be terrible consequences to this country. again.
I am against repeal for two main reasons. First, any repeal would undermine TEA-21 which is so important to economic development in Montana and throughout the country. Second, repeal of the gas tax will not reduce the price of gas at the pump.
On this subcommittee Senators Voinovich, Warner Reid and I fought repeal on the Senate floor on 3 separate occasions last year. On each occasion, reason prevailed. There was no gas tax repeal. I hope that we can count on Secretary Mineta to help us prevent repeal if this issue comes up.
The next issue I'd like to speak about is environmental streamlining. To your credit, Mr. Secretary, you have made repeated statements regarding the need to streamline the process by which environmental approvals are obtained to construct new runways for airports. I applaud this initiative but I emphasize that equal attention should be spent on streamlining the approval process for highways. At present, the process for allowing highway projects to move forward is painfully long. The rule that was issued last year missed the mark. It is my hope that you will go back to the drawing board, as they say, and issue a regulation that will help states expedite the project approval process without and I emphasize without weakening environmental protections.
Thank you for being here today Secretary Mineta. I look forward to your remarks.