Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 10 a.m., on S. 967, Issues Related to the Broadcast of Prepackaged News Stories Produced by the Government Agencies.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 10:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Examining USAID's Anti- Malaria Policies.''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, Thursday, May 12, 2005, from 3 to 5 p.m., in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 12, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a business meeting.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 12, 2005, for a committee hearing titled ``An Open Discussion: Planning, Providing and Paying for Veterans' Long Term Care.'' The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Thursday, May 12, 2005 at 4 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator, R-MS; the Honorable Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator, R-IA; and the Honorable Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator, R-KY. Panel II: Rachel Beard, to be an Assistant Attorney General; Alice S. Fisher, to be an Assistant Attorney General; and Regina B. Schofield, to be an Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in SD226. Agenda I. Nominations: Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; William H. Pryor, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit; and Brett M. Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia. II. Bills: S. 852--A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos Exposure, and for Other Purposes. Specter, Leahy, Hatch, Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine, Graham III. Matters: Senate Judiciary Committee Rules.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was able to listen to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine. He has always led this body in the concern for safety. He points out the critical need to finish this bill. Hopefully, today we will finish this bill because we have the longest, most comprehensive safety core section, title, in this bill that has ever been offered in any reauthorization since Eisenhower. That is why we say, as I think Senator DeWine was pointing out, lives can be saved or lives can be lost, depending on whether we pass this bill. We will not have the safety core programs if we merely have an extension. Right now we are on our sixth extension. An extension is nothing but a defeat, an admission that we are not able to get a bill through so let's have what we had before. That's actually an extension of what we passed 7 years ago. It doesn't have any of these things in it. If we have an extension, none of the safety core programs Senator DeWine was talking about would be included. I can tell you--and I think everyone knows--statistically, it is an absolute that people will die; not just adults driving, but one of the things in this bill is the Safe Routes to School provision which would save young lives--kids going to school. So it is a life-or-death matter that we pass this bill and pass it very soon. When I say ``very soon,'' we ought to pass it today because the extension, this sixth extension I refer to, is going to expire on May 31. If that happens, that means we will be forced to do another extension. What happens when you do extensions? Back in the States, they do not have any certainty in planning. It is not as if you can say: We know now that we have an extension for 6 months, we can spend X dollars for 6 months. You can't do it that way, and everyone knows that. You have to plan way in advance because you have to get the labor pool together, get the contractors together, you have to get the bids out. In this bill, we do have a provision that would have some projects that are ready to go, so the second this is signed into law we are going to start construction. People will use this and say this is, in fact, a jobs bill--and it is. It is probably the biggest jobs bill we have had at one time since the WPA. For every $1 billion of road construction, that translates into 47,500 jobs, new jobs, good-paying jobs. Without this bill, of course, that is not going to happen. We have a lot of people who are concerned, as I am, about donor State status. I can remember when we only had written into the law that each State would get back 75 percent of what they actually collected in their State. Slowly, over the years, I have watched it get increased. It has gotten up to the point where it is today, and this was passed 7 years ago. This was 90.5 percent; that is to say, every donor State will get back at least 90.5 percent of what they pay in. The bill we had last year was enhanced up to $318 billion. That would provide every State got back a minimum of 95 percent. As it is now, with the smaller number, even with the enhanced number from yesterday's amendment, that brought it up by $11 billion to $295 billion. That still only brings the donor status to 92 percent. But that is better than 90.5 percent, where we are today. If we have an extension, it will be 90.5 percent. There will not be any change. The streamlining provisions of this bill will allow us to actually pave, construct a fairly decent percentage more highways and bridges than we would otherwise be able to do. Without this, and if we have an extension, we will not have this, and none of the environmental streamlining provisions will be there. There are two different sections of the bill that relate to the financing. We have not changed our method of financing roads in 50 years. Since the Eisenhower administration it has been the same. We know there are better ways of doing it where you can have partnership types of arrangements, something that would be very good for our system. Without a new bill, that is not going to happen. A lot of the States are on the border. We have a border program, a recognition that since NAFTA we have a lot of traffic through no fault of the States. You have to improve the NAFTA corridors we are talking about in this bill. Without this bill, we will not have that. The chokepoints are not currently corrected. That is why we call this an intermodal bill. It is not a highway bill, not just a transportation bill, it is an intermodal bill because it is all types of transportation and the chokepoints in between. A lot of our problems are because of the chokepoints. Last, we have firewall protection in this bill. The firewall protection provides if you pay money into the trust fund when you are getting 1 gallon of gas, that money is ensured to go toward building new roads. There are many in this body who do not think that is necessary. Many think we can go ahead and fund any kind of programs not relating to transportation out of the trust fund, and they have been doing it. In fact, one of the Senators the other day was saying how offended he was that we are taking some of the fix that is there that is not in use; in other words, there is about a 5-cent credit that goes in and comes out of the highway trust fund. That has nothing to do with transportation. If you are going to establish a policy, pay for the policy but do not pay for it out of the highway trust fund. I have often said this is a moral issue. There may be loopholes that allow politics to steal money out of the trust fund, but it is still a moral issue. This bill has the firewall protection to make sure, for the first time, people cannot raid the highway trust fund. All these things are in the bill. If we do not pass the bill, we will have an extension, and none of these things are in the bill. This is necessary to get this done, to pass this legislation, and not just go for another extension. Amendments Nos. 569, as modified, and 602, as Modified, En Bloc Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Chambliss amendment numbered 569 and the Cornyn amendment numbered 662 be modified with changes at the desk and agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. INHOFE. I have left instructions if Senators arrive, interrupt us. We want to consider amendments. I am hoping I did not chase away anyone who is offering an amendment. We have about 10 amendments on the Republican side and about 10 amendments on the Democrat side. That is much better than yesterday with 173 amendments out there. We have made progress. We agreed to two of these. If we can get the Members who are serious about their amendments to bring them down, this is the time to do it. I anticipate, as is normally the case, at the last minute Members will come down and say: I have to have time to present my amendment, and it will be too late. Now it is not too late. There is time to consider any amendment that is a germane amendment that is on the list. What we have done is very difficult. We have worked on this bill for 3 years. We had this bill passed out of this Chamber and to conference a year ago this month. In conference, they dropped the ball, and we were unable to get it through. This time, the conferees have learned we will be able to get it back to the House and back to the Senate, get it passed in both Houses, and have it signed by the President in time for the current extension that expires May 31. That is ambitious, but it can be done. We try to figure this out day by day and what can be done each day. I believe that will happen. The reason this bill is better than most bills is historically we have not gone with formulas; we have gone with political projects. Some people call them pork. I don't call building a road pork. What we could have done--we need to have 60 Senators to agree to this--we could have gone to 60 Senators and said, all right, we have a pot of money, and we will take care of your problem in Louisiana, your problem in Oklahoma, your problem in Arkansas, and get up to 60 Members, 30 States, and we will pass the bill and forget about the other Members. That is not fair. Historically, that has been done. We tried to take every conceivable thing into consideration. The Presiding Officer represents a small northern State. We have provisions for the colder States, provisions for States out West, many of which, like my State of Oklahoma, are donor States. These are factors in the bill, in the formulas. The formula for allocation also has such things in it as per capita fatality. My State of Oklahoma has a high fatality rate. What does that tell you? It tells you we have a problem with bridges and roads. That is a factor in how much money is distributed to the States. The number of interstate lane miles is a consideration. The weighted nonattainment and maintenance area population is considered. The nonhighway recreation is a consideration. Regarding low-income States, mine is below the average in the State of Oklahoma. Low-population States--Senator Baucus has been very helpful in this bill. He is from Montana. Montana has less than a million people, but they have to have roads to connect all the interstate roads. Consequently, they will be in a position where it has to be a consideration that a low-population or low-density population State is going to be able to be treated fairly. There are about 20 different considerations, but the bottom line is, you are never going to come up with a formula where everyone says this is perfect, this is just what we want, my State is being treated fairly. There are many things in the formula I do not like as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, this Senator from Oklahoma. Nonetheless, I know everyone cannot be satisfied. We have a good bill before the Senate. Members should realize how significant it is that we pass this bill and not just go to another extension. Let me renew my request, as we will be doing every 15 minutes, for Members to bring their amendments. I know Members are out there and hiding. We will find you. We are open for business. We want you to come down and offer your amendment. We will have plenty of time to do it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just respond to some of the things the Senator is talking about. First of all, Senator Santorum has done a great job leaning on us and talking to us and is largely responsible for the fact that we made a major change in this bill. This change increased the amount that will be going to Pennsylvania by $208 million. But I would like to say this: When you talk about the miles of substandard roads and highways, Oklahoma has a larger percentage that are substandard than Pennsylvania. I am not saying it because I am proud of it, because I have not been doing my job, I suppose, but in terms of the percentage of substandard bridges, Oklahoma is considerably higher than Pennsylvania. Now, what it does point out, though, is the necessity for this bill because we are going to try to correct all these things. We will not be able to do it in 1 year, but by the end of this authorization period, we are going to look a lot better than we are now--but not if we have to continue to operate on extensions. So I appreciate the comments. And I do not disagree with anything that the Senator says. I believe when you sit down with people and talk about a formula--it is interesting, the previous Presiding Officer is from Texas. I am not sure he agreed with everything that the Senator from Pennsylvania said. But it is a very difficult thing to do. So I appreciate the cooperation the Senator has given and the influence he has put on this legislation which has helped us make this a better bill. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, let me just clarify something. It is a very rare occasion that the good Senator from Alabama and I disagree on anything. It just doesn't happen. In this particular case, this is the exception. Let me kind of outline how I think the system works. I don't chair the Finance Committee. I don't chair the Budget Committee. I do not serve on either one of them. I do chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. When we put together the bill--and this particular bill has been 3 years in the making--it is very similar to what we had last year except it is a lower funding level which should satisfy, to a greater degree, the Senator from Alabama. But when we come up with a bill, the procedure is to go to the Finance Committee. We did that, and we have several Finance provisions in there. Senators Grassley and Baucus spent a long time. While people keep saying the offsets are not realistic, they could be right, but the ones who can properly evaluate the offsets are the ones who proposed the offsets, and that is the job of the Finance Committee. I want to say this because the Senator from Alabama and I are ranked as two of the most conservative Members of the Senate. I have said often there are two areas where conservatives spend money; one is national defense and the other is infrastructure. That is what we are supposed to be doing here. I wish to clarify that I will be opposing the amendment because I believe the Finance Committee has done their job. I have heard both the ranking member and the chairman talk about this, and they have convinced me that they have done their work. We will have to wait and see.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I agree. We hear all the time in this body and all representative bodies about what is desirable. It reminds me of the guy who went to the department store, and this beautiful, young, voluptuous saleslady came up to him and she said: Sir, what is your desire? And he said: Well, my ``desire'' is to pick you up after work, go out to dinner and drink some champagne and make mad, passionate love to you, but I ``need'' a pair of socks. We have to distinguish between desire and need, and I think it is a difficult thing to do.

Mr. INHOFE. The Senator could wait until you are finished.

Mr. INHOFE. I will.

Mr. INHOFE. I understand. But you would attempt to do it in 10 minutes?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Ohio, I know you are attempting to get the floor for something other than the bill, but we do have someone coming down with an amendment. Would it be permissible, if you were to use the floor, that when someone comes with an amendment, you would yield to them, or is that something you would be uncomfortable with?

Mr. INHOFE. We have made progress, anyway, looking at who is serious about their amendments. I hope any staff or Members watching now would be encouraged to bring their amendments down. I yield the floor to the senior Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a couple of brief comments. I know how sincere the senior Senator from Arizona is concerning this bill, and it does demonstrate that it is very difficult when we are trying to be fair and we are trying to do a formula to make everybody happy. Probably every Senator is a little bit unhappy with it. That is what makes it, perhaps, a fair formula. It is true--the Senator was accurate--as far as the history of the Interstate System back in the Eisenhower administration and the redistribution of funds. This is what we have to keep in mind, though: Yes, the Interstate System is complete, but it still must be maintained. He talked about the State of Montana. Yes, it is true the State of Montana does not have the population to support the highways, and yet they have to have the highway system. That system, even though it may be complete, must be maintained. In defense of the formula, there are two ways of doing this. One way, we could do what has been customary in the other body, and that is come out with a group of projects, take care of a certain number of people in the passed bill, and then walk away from it. That would be very easy. I will tell my colleagues, what would be easy is to go ahead and distribute a bunch of funds to 60 Senators and then sit back and say: The rest of you guys, that is your problem. But we do not do it that way. Instead, in looking at the formula and the factors, it is an incredibly difficult thing we are dealing with. We have factors that have to do with the donor status of the State, the number of miles in the State, the age of the State, the passthrough provisions of the State, and the fatalities per capita of the State. My State of Oklahoma has a higher per capita fatality rate, and therefore one has to come to the conclusion that there is a reason for that. So all of these factors are a part of a very complicated formula. It may be that people will look at it and say: You do not treat--it is kind of interesting. I will hear from people from the fast growing States who say, We do not get as high as we need to get in our donor status relief, and yet at the same time we hear from some of the Eastern States that are complaining because the floor is too low. So I would think that everyone should realize that there is not going to be a perfect formula that makes everybody happy. It is a formula that is as fair as we can come up with. We have been working on this for 3 years. This is not something that just came out. When the Senator from Arizona says that last year's bill was guaranteed to raise the donor status floor to 95 percent, that is easy because we had the money to do it. This year, we do not have the money to do it. Even with the amendment that was passed, all that does is raise it from 90.5 percent to 92 percent. It is a very difficult thing. I do not want to use up an inordinate amount of time, but I will talk about why we have to do this today. The only alternative to passing a bill is to have another extension. If we have another extension, we do not really get into the problem. We do not take care of the donor State rate of return. We do not have any of the new safety core programs. We have literally spent months putting this together. Of course, those provisions were in the Commerce Committee. We need to respond to the deaths on the highways. If we do not pass the bill, we are not going to have any kind of streamlining of environmental reviews. We are not going to have any increase in the ability to use the innovative financing systems which are included. This bill contains the establishment of a national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the future. As the Senator from Arizona said, 50 years ago we started this system, back during the Eisenhower administration. He recognized there was a problem back when he was Major Eisenhower and he was trying to move goods and services around. He recognized there was a problem, but we have not changed the way we are funding highways for 50 years. This bill establishes a commission to come up with more innovative ways and allows the States to participate. People are concerned about things such as Safe Routes to School. If we go on an extension instead of a bill, we are not going to have Safe Routes to School. There is uncertainty that is out there. I know my State of Oklahoma is not any different from the rest of the States. We are on our sixth extension now. If we are operating on an extension, it could be a 1-month extension, it could be a 1-year extension. There is no certainty by which we can plan the construction and maintenance of highways and do something about the bridges. The bridges in Oklahoma are worse than any of the bridges in the Nation. It is a life-and-death situation. People are dying. We have had two deaths in Oklahoma just because of the condition of the bridges. So we are going to have to do something. If we operate on extensions, we are not going to be able to have any of those improvements. As far as the border program, the States that are complaining about this program are actually border States. They are States that have the benefit of some of the provisions to take care of the borders. NAFTA has been passed, and there is increased road travel. We will not have a borders program if we do not pass a bill. It would just be an extension of the old program. Lastly, the firewall protection--we need to make sure that people quit robbing the highway trust fund. I was in disagreement with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and I said the problem we have been having is people are taking money out of the trust fund and using it for purposes to establish and support policies that have nothing to do with transportation. These are the things that concern me. We want to stay within our timeframe. Before turning to Senator Bond, I guess Senator Jeffords is not in the Chamber, so we will turn to Senator Baucus. After that, I ask unanimous consent that we stay on this course and first recognize Senator Baucus, and that after his completion we recognize Senator Bond for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't know if we have people on the floor with amendments. I am hoping that we do. While all these subjects we are addressing are important, we are operating under some real time constraints. We have been on this bill now almost 2 weeks. We have worked on the bill for 3 years. This is probably the most significant piece of legislation we will be handling, and I encourage my colleagues to confine their interests to this bill and encourage as many of them as have amendments that they seriously want to be considered that they bring those amendments to the floor. We have the list now down to about 140 amendments. I know from past experience just a fraction of those will want to have serious consideration. I make that request and I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I inquire of my friend from Oregon how much time he is requesting as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Members permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.