Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been an effort that has been bipartisan all the way around. It has been 3 years in the making. For all of us to get along this well for 3 years--I hope it does not end after this is over. I compliment you and Senator Baucus, along with Senator Bond, and the Democrats and Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee who are so cooperative.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on final passage of H.R. 3, the highway bill. Of course, we have talked about how long this has been in the making. We are finally to that point. The product is a good product. There are some who still today are not happy with the way the formula has treated their States. There is nothing more difficult than dealing with a formula. This is a formula that deals with so many different factors. We have donor States, donee States, large States, small States, passthrough States, we have States with unusually high delegate rates. All these things are a consideration. During this debate we have discussed these at length the last 3 years. A lot of people think we are spending too much. I put my conservative credentials up against any one of the 100 Members. I have been rated No. 1 as most conservative Member in this Senate. Yet there are two areas where we need to spend money: One is the national defense and infrastructure is the other one. This is a life-and-death bill. We have to do something to save some lives. People who are saying we are spending too much on this, I think they forget that we have had two very great Senators in the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, who we went to and said: This is what we really need to have for America. Can you make sure it is paid for and make sure we can do it without a deficit? They assured us that we can. I see Senator Baucus is here to speak. Of course, I repeat one more time how much I appreciate him and Senator Grassley for the work they have done so that this is a bill that is paid for, this is a bill that is not going to add to the deficit, and I want to make sure that people understand that. By the way, the work they did has been ratified by the Joint Tax Committee. That is the proper body. They have said yes, they can come up with--actually, the amendment is $11.2 billion more in contract authority--they said they can do it and it is not going to add to the deficit; it is not going to be deficit spending. Before we run out of time, I do wish to thank some other people. I will let Senator Jeffords and Senator Baucus thank their staff, but I just want to say I wish the American people really knew the hours that are put in on something like this. I am talking about all night long and many hours. I start with Ruth Van Mark, who has been with me for 17 years now. I know there have been many sleepless nights working on this bill; Andrew Wheeler, James O'Keefe, Nathan Richmond, Greg Murrill, Marty Hall, Angie Giancarlo, John Shanahan, Rudy Kapichak, James Gentry, Alex Herrgott, Dave Lungren, Alex Marx, and many more who put in countless hours. But also on Senator Frist's staff, if you look back all during the consideration of this bill, we have had the help of Libby Jarvis, who is always there; Dave Schiappa has been there on a daily basis, Eric Ueland, Dan Dukes, Laura Dove; and the people from the Department of Transportation, who have been over here spending their hours on the Senate floor with us: Susan Binder, Edward Ross Crichton, who has done over 1,000 formula runs for us over the last 3 years. He will be glad when this thing is finally passed, I think; Dedra Goodman, Carolyn Edwards, Thomas Holian, Sue Anna Celini, and, of course, I thank the hard-working people of the legislative counsel because they have actually drafted this 1300-page bill and the hundreds of amendments. They include Carcie Chan, Heather Arpin, Michelle Johnson-Weider, Heather Burnham, and Gary Endicott. Anyway, this has taken a lot of hours, a lot of years working on this. It is going to finally be a reality. I will just say we are going to have an amendment that will come up this afternoon, the Sessions amendment. I would suggest it is very important for people to understand that it would only cut contract authority, it has nothing do with spending more or less money. It is not going to have any effect on the deficit, and it is very important people understand that. So it is a good bill, and I appreciate working with so many people on this so closely to make this come to the point where we are today. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE. I withhold my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is accurate. We have been talking about this for 3 years now. I do not think there is anything new that can be said, but I do renew my congratulations and thanks to all the staff who worked on this bill, certainly Senator Jeffords, Senator Baucus, and Senator Bond. I agree it would be nice if we had something with which everyone agreed. It is impossible to do. The only way to do that is in a way that is not desirable. We did a formula, and we took into consideration all the factors--donee, donor States, size of the States, passthrough, fatalities--and I think we have a good bill. I yield back the remainder of my time. Have the yeas and nays been requested?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now going to the Sessions amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. I object. Two minutes on each side.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I offer Senator Lautenberg a moment to make a statement. He has been working with us on his amendment. It has been withdrawn. I certainly yield to Senator Lautenberg for no more than 5 minutes. Amendment No. 619, as Modified

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the distinguished junior Senator from Alabama, one of my closest friends, made a very reasonable request for 6 minutes equally divided. If he wants to restate the request, it is without objection.

Mr. INHOFE. I have a unanimous consent request to make. I ask unanimous consent that Lautenberg amendment No. 619 be modified with the changes at the desk and be accepted. Further, I ask that upon disposition of the Sessions amendment, the Inhofe substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his attention to steel grid reinforced concrete decking and the potential it holds. I look forward to working with Senator Santorum on this issue. direct deliveries of aviation fuel

Mr. INHOFE. I understand and appreciate the Senator's concerns. While I cannot make any guarantees on a final outcome, I will continue to work to see if there is a way to address the critical needs of his State.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Bond.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, this Commission worked 4 years. They studied it from a security and economic standpoint. It was bipartisan and had every expert one can think of on the Commission. They came out with some very strong recommendations. I would hope the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina might want to expand what they are doing after reading the recommendations. Maybe we can join forces at a later date and have a resolution recommending the adoption of the recommendations of this Commission. Mr. President, again, we are on the highway bill. Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the EPW Committee, and I worked so well together on this. I have to say before he makes his comments, there are a lot of provisions in this bill that he likes better than I like, and there are provisions I like better than he likes. That is what it is, that is how we got to where we are today. It has been a great working relationship, and I anticipate we are going to be successful in getting this bill passed.

Mr. INHOFE. Senator Thomas.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I observe Senator Snowe is en route and unless someone else wants to gain access to the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Texas for her comments. I know the depth of her interest and the passion she has for doing everything she can for her State. I have said several times on the floor of the Senate how difficult it is to come up with formula approaches. It is difficult. It is a tough thing to do. There are so many factors that go into it, such as the interstate lane miles, miles traveled, principal arteries, cost to repair and replace deficient highway bridges, weight nonattainment maintenance areas, low-population States, donor States, donee States, fast-growing States. Again, it would have been so much easier to do it the way it has been done before and the way we have done it, actually, in the other body just by making a political list, and when we get to the 60 votes saying: All right, that is it, the other 40 of you guys, it is your problem. We try not to do that. There is not one State represented in this Senate that cannot complain about some parts of the formula. We have tried hard. When we passed the bill out of committee, starting in 2005 through 2009 in Texas, 90.5 percent was all the way to 2009, and then it was 92 percent. Now in 2006, 2007, 2008 at 91 percent and going to 92 percent. Of course, the Senator is right that Texas is a very large State, so it represents very large amounts of money. But it is a half percent more in each of those 3 years of 2006, 2007, 2008. We have tried to do it. We tried to work with each one of the States. As I say, I know her depth of interest. We spent many hours trying to work out variances. The problem we always have is nothing happens in a vacuum. If we take care of a problem in Texas, then that aggravates a problem in Pennsylvania. So formulas are tough. They are tough to deal with politically. They are tough to deal with rationally. I think we have tried to do the very best we can. With that, I am glad to yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. It is a very reasonable request the Senator from Texas is making. I observe we talked about this ``above the line/below the line.'' We plowed this furrow several times. However, when you get in conference, there are things that can be done. I can assure the Senator the State of Texas will be well represented in conference. I am sure we will hear proposals, and there will be some give and take in all areas. Of course, we will be dealing with another whole body over there, so it is hard to predict what will come out. But we will try to get to it expeditiously and see that Texas--as I say, they will be well represented. I think we all understand that. We are now waiting. We are, as I said before, down to about seven amendments. There could be a germaneness problem with some of them. Some of them could be worked out. My guess is, other than the managers' amendment, which Senator Jeffords and I will be propounding, there are probably, realistically, maybe four votes that we will be having. That is my guess what it will be. We have announced already we are going to have one tonight at 5:30, which is just an hour and 6 minutes from now. After that, we invite Senators to stay here and debate their amendments. I think we probably will not have votes until tomorrow morning. We can debate these amendments. I think by that time there may be as many as three or four amendments that would be appropriate for us to debate. Then we can get on to the final passage. As it is right now, we have plenty of time tonight. We have another hour and 5 minutes before the vote. I am sure Senator Jeffords joins me in making this request: Members who are authors of these amendments, they know who they are, come down. We are open for business. Come down and debate your amendments. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President I will briefly talk about a provision in the Commerce title of the highway bill. We have the Commerce title, Banking, Finance, and EPW title. Section 7370 creates a hazardous material cooperative research program. It authorizes $2 million a year for each year, including 2006 through 2009, for hazardous material transport research projects on topics that are ``not adequately addressed by existing Federal private sector research programs.'' The section goes on to require that at least one of the studies ``provide an assessment of the need and feasibility of substituting less lethal substances than toxic inhalation hazards in the manufacturing process.'' I oppose the provision and hope it can be removed in conference. I will be actively opposing it in conference to see it is removed. There is no such language in the House portion. The concept at the heart of this provision is called inherently safer technology and it is not about transportation but a longstanding wish of some of the environmental extremist communities. The EPW has spent the last 4 years working on the issue of chemical security and this issue of FIST has arisen several times in the context of the security debate. The idea of inherently safer technology predates September 11. It was around long before the tragedy of September 11. It has never been about security. It has never been about transportation. It is a concept that dates back more than a decade when the extremist environmental community--Greenpeace and others--was seeking bans on chlorine, the chemical used to purify our Nation's water. After September 11 they decided to play upon the fears of the Nation and repackage FIST as a solution to potential security problems. Now they seek to repackage it again as a transportation issue, which it is not. This issue is not about security. It is not about transportation. It is about trying to find a research justification for giving the Federal Government authority to mandate that a private company change its manufacturing process or the chemicals they use. The study's parameters reveal this intent when it states ``substituting less lethal substances than toxic inhalation hazards in the manufacturing process.'' There are entire books written about the subject of FIST by various groups, including current efforts by the Center for Chemical Process Safety and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers to update their 1996 ``gold book'' on the subject. These are chemical process experts. The Federal Government is not. I do not believe mandatory FIST is good for our Nation's security. Besides that, it is not a transportation issue. If it is something you want to debate in the Senate as a freestanding bill, do it that way, but do not sneak around behind and throw little a part into this bill through the Commerce title that has nothing to do with transportation. I mention this and anything else we find in the bill that perhaps we have overlooked that has nothing to do with transportation, we will make every effort to make sure it gets out when it is in conference. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments on the highway bill. It is very significant. It probably could very well be the most significant bill we will be voting on this year. If I can get the attention of the Senator from North Dakota, I have had occasion to give four 1-hour China speeches on the floor of this Senate in response to the 2004 report to the Congress on the China Economic and Security Commission. I do not know whether the Senator from North Dakota has read that yet, but I am going to call that up with a resolution to implement the recommendations. This is far more serious than even some of the issues the Senator from North Dakota mentioned in his excellent comments. If we look at how China is now using up the resources we are depending upon, if we go to any of the countries in Africa, such as Nigeria and the coast of Guinea where they have huge reserves, we find the Chinese are building huge stadiums, coliseums, and roads, and paying for it themselves to get the corner on those markets we will be dependent upon at some time. They are dealing with countries such as Iran and exchanging nuclear technology. I have been deeply concerned about the Chinese, not just in what they have been able to do in terms of their nuclear capabilities, but also their conventional capabilities. It was in 1998 that GEN John Jumper came forth and said something that startled a lot of people, but we knew it all the time, and that is the Russians are now making a strike vehicle, an SU-30, that is better than our strike vehicles, the F-15 and F-16. And then we find out China has purchased, in one purchase, 240 of these vehicles. Their buildup of conventional forces and what they are doing economically to this country is very disturbing to me. It has to be addressed. I hope the Senator from North Dakota will join us in trying to implement the recommendations of this 2004 study--it was 4 years in the making--of the security and economic problems we are facing today as a result of the Chinese buildup.