Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, some people are not aware that when you have something as massive as a highway bill, it is not just the committee I chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee, but other committees are involved, including the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee, and the Commerce Committee. As of right now, we don't have the titles that come from those three committees, but we will have one right now. Amendment No. 573 to Amendment No. 567

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it has been agreed that anyone who wants to seek the floor can seek the floor, and we will be returned to the amendment under consideration, which is the Bayh amendment. We move to temporarily set the Bayh amendment aside for the purpose of the Senator's statement.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I will be glad to respond to any questions the Senator has, after I get one thing taken care of here. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 39, the nomination of J. Michael Seabright, to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Hawaii; provided further that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member or designees, and that at the expiration or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate; provided further that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from Indiana, is he going to be offering an amendment?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I proudly rise to introduce The Natural Gas Production Act of 2005. One of the challenges facing our economy is increasing energy prices. Take, for example, natural gas that accounts for 22 percent of American energy consumption. According to the Energy Information Administration, over the next 20 years, U.S. natural gas consumption will increase by over 50 percent. At the same time, U.S. natural gas production will only grow by 14 percent. At a time when natural gas prices are already at an all time high, it is critical that we increase our supply by developing our domestic natural gas. This legislation will provide an incentive to increase the supply of domestically produced natural gas, which in turn will help alleviate high natural gas prices. The Natural Gas Production Act of 2005 will add natural gas produced from formations more than 15,000 feet deep (Deep Gas), to the list of qualifying fuels for the Section 29 non-conventional tax credit. Experts consider deep gas drilling at more than 15,000 feet to be a non-conventional source of energy production. Studies show the resource potential below 15,000 feet for natural gas is great. The Department of Energy's Strategic Center for Natural Gas has estimated there to be 130 trillion cubic feet below 15,000 feet in the lower 48. In comparison, that is equal to the proven and potential reserves on the Alaskan North Slope. While these vast reserves remain, very little production is occurring from depths greater than 15,000. Deep gas wells require a considerable amount of time and money. On average these wells cost more than $6.1 million, and for wells deeper than 20,000 feet costs can exceed $16 million. Add to that the minimum one-year and longer drilling time and you can clearly see that Federal drilling incentives are needed to help promote and speed production of this enormous potential resource. To drill a deep well, a drilling rig will employ about 25 people directly. In 1979, 128 deep well completions in Oklahoma created 2,630 jobs. In addition to direct jobs, economists estimate that 60 to 75 indirect jobs will be created as well. Due to changes in the regulatory governance of the industry and cyclical market conditions over the next two and one-half decades, deep drilling activity all across the country has declined substantially. I am introducing this legislation, along with Senator Vitter, today to encourage more domestic production in an area of proven reserves that will increase our supply. I thank Senator Vitter for his work and I urge members to support us in this effort. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Ference on my Staff at 224-1036.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. on the Transportation Security Administration's FY2006 Budget and pending nominations.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Proposals To Achieve Sustainable Solvency, With and Without Personal Accounts.''

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 Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Reitrement Security and Aging, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``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'' on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in Russell Senate Office Building, Room 325. Panel I: The Honorable Judge Becker. Panel II: The Honorable John Engler, National Association of Manufacturing, Washington, DC.; Mr. Craig Berrington, General Counsel, American Insurance Association, Washington, DC.; Ms. Peg Seminario, Director, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC.; Ms. Carol Morgan, President and General Counsel, National Service Industries, Inc.; Doraville, GA; Mr. Hershel W. Gober, National Legislative Director, Military Order of the Purple Heart, McLean, VA; Dr. Francine Rabinovitz, Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Carmel, CA; Mr. Mark A. Peterson, President, Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA; Prof. Eric D. Green, Boston University Law School, Boston, MA.

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 Tuesday, April 26, 2005, to markup the nomination of Mr. Jonathan B. Perlin to be Under Secretary for Health, Department of Veterans' Affairs. The meeting will take place in room S 216 (the President's Room) of the Capitol at 11:45 a.m.

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 April 26, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a briefing.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366. The purpose of the hearing is to review the preparedness of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior for the 2005 Wildfire Season, including agencies' assessment of the risk of fires by region, the status of and contracting for aerial fire suppression assets, and other information needed to better understand the agencies' ability to deal with the upcoming fire season.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his comments. At this time, I would like to recognize that we have four of the real star freshmen, the new Members of this body, on our committee. One, of course, is the presiding officer from Louisiana who made very clear to us the problem of beach erosion in the State of Louisiana. I appreciate his calling that to our attention. Then, of course, we have the new Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. Senator Thune is also on the committee, and we yield to him at this time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am glad this day is here and that we are proceeding. I certainly encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion to proceed. I have every expectation that it will pass overwhelmingly. It seems as though we are always in a lot of controversy when we talk about a highway reauthorization bill. It doesn't come along very often--about every 6 years. In my tenure here, I have been involved in four of them. This is the fourth, and it is very significant. It is interesting that even though there is a lot of criticism, when it gets down to the vote, the vote is always overwhelming. I remind my colleagues that last year's bill was at $318 billion--that was contract authority--and there was about $303 billion in guaranteed spending. It passed by a margin of 76 to 21. It is something I know people are interested in, but there are always problems. First of all, let me just say how this is bipartisan. My good friend, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Jeffords--back when the Democrats were in the majority, he was chairman--and I always agreed on these highway issues. It is kind of interesting that those of us who are conservatives really believe this is something we are supposed to be doing here--building infrastructure, building roads. I am particularly concerned that our State Of Oklahoma has not had its fair share. We have been ranked as having the worst bridges in the Nation. Anyway, we have the bill up. It is going to be essentially the same bill as we had last year. We passed it out of committee. There is always a problem. Let me mention this because it needs to come out in the beginning. There are two different ways to have a highway program. One is to do it--and essentially the other body does it more this way-- by taking projects and adding them, and you pass this, so you know what projects will be there for the next 6 years. If you do that, then the people who are on the inside track would have the best opportunity to have theirs, and there is always an accusation of there being pork and having special projects. In the Senate, we do it the hard way. We have a formula. When you have a formula, it takes into consideration so many different aspects. There is not one State that could not stand and say, my State is not being treated fairly because of this factor or the other factor. If you look at the formula factors, you have so many factors, such as interstate lane miles, vehicle miles traveled on interstates, contributions to the highway trust fund, the lane miles, principal arteries, VMT on principal arteries, diesel fuel, donee status, donor status, and low-income States. Oklahoma is a low-income State. That should be a consideration. You have a low-population State, such as the one of Senator Baucus, who has been in the leadership working on this issue. They still have to be able to drive even though they don't have a large population from which to get the funds. You have the high- fatality-rate States. You have a factor for the guaranteed minimum growth and the guaranteed minimum rate of return for donor States. Oklahoma has been a donor State for as long as I can remember. I remember when we had written into the law we would get back 75 percent of what we have paid in. Now it is up to 90.5 percent. If we passed the bill last year at that funding level, it would be 95 percent. It looks like with the figure that we passed out of the committee on the floor that we will be considering today is one that will allow us to get to 92 percent. I know the formula is not perfect. There are a lot of donor States that think they are not getting enough. A lot of donee States think they are not getting enough. The unhappy donee States complain about the growth rate, but they are ignoring the high rate of return. The unhappy donor States are complaining about the rate of return, but they are ignoring the high growth rates. I have seen unhappy donors trying to rewrite formulas. You cannot do that in a vacuum. I am sympathetic with unhappy States; however, they cannot change the formula in a vacuum and not affect every other State. One of the States is trying to do that right now, and that would adversely affect the rest of the States. It is something that is difficult to deal with. When we get to conference, there are things we can do that we cannot do on the Senate floor. Perhaps some of these things will be done. With that, I will yield to Senator Jeffords, the ranking member on our Environment and Public Works Committee, for his comments.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. It is not as great a problem in Oklahoma as the problem in North Dakota because your construction season is shorter than ours. Right now one of our major concerns is that we can get in there and get the contracts in a timely fashion so we can get under construction and do the work we are supposed to be doing. Also, before the Senator from North Dakota came in, we commented this is somewhat of a life-and-death situation. Last year, nearly 43,000 people died on our Nation's highways. This represents the single greatest cause of accidental death in Americans ages 2 to 33. The core safety programs will be corrected. According to the Department of Transportation, time in congestion increased from 31.7 percent in 1992 to 33 percent in 2000. We had several discussions yesterday about the cost of fuel and the fact that if you have all this congestion--certainly we know what this is in Washington, DC--the cars are out there idling, burning fuel, not getting anywhere. We need to get this country moving. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from North Dakota. We are at the time designated to have the vote. This could be one of the maybe two or three most significant votes we have this year. It will allow us to do all that we have been talking about for the last hour. It is rather refreshing during this time we did not have anyone coming down and opposing this motion to proceed. The Senator from North Dakota is exactly right. We want to encourage people who have a problem to come down. Maybe we can make them better. We want to consider amendments. We want to get this done.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the regular order of business is the Transportation bill. We will proceed now. It is our desire to discourage people from coming down to the Senate floor until we have started receiving these amendments. There is no more important piece of legislation that we will consider this year than the Transportation bill. I am prepared to go through it section by section. I will certainly yield to the ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and certainly agree with his remarks. Once again, the ranking member and I request anyone who has amendments to come down to the floor. We are open for amendments at this time on this very significant piece of legislation. Let me go through section by section and explain what we have in the bill. Section 1203 is freight transportation gateways, freight intermodal connections. I think it is important we realize--and we said this earlier this morning--back when the first legislation came to our attention--that was back during the Eisenhower administration--they were talking about roads and highways. Now this has become intermodal, to take care of all the needs in transporting people and goods around the country. Freight movement in America is expected to grow dramatically in both volume and value over the coming decades. Throughout reauthorization, the Environment and Public Works Committee heard concerns about inadequate freight facilities, insufficient capacity, and inefficient connections. In December 2003, the GAO released a report on freight transportation that recommended strategies needed to address planning and financing limitations. The report noted that the major challenges to freight mobility all shared a common theme--congestion--including overcrowded highways and freight specific chokepoints. Additionally, the GAO reported two main limitations that stakeholders encounter in addressing these challenges. They first related to the limited visibility that freight projects receive in the planning and prioritization process. SAFETEA directly addresses this problem by creating a freight transportation coordinator at the State level to facilitate public and private collaboration in developing solutions to freight transportation and freight gateway problems. The bill also ensures that intermodal freight transportation needs are integrated into project development and planning processes. The second limitation reported by the GAO was that Federal funding programs tend to dedicate funds to a single mode of transportation or nonfreight purpose, thus limiting freight project eligibility among some programs. SAFETEA, or the bill we have before us today, addresses this problem by making intermodal freight projects eligible for STP and NHS funding. The Freight Gateways Program under this bill promotes intermodal improvements for freight movement through significant trade gateways, ports, hubs, and intermodal connectors to the National Highway System. States and localities are encouraged to adopt new financing strategies to leverage State, local, and private investments in freight transportation gateways, thus maximizing the impact of each Federal dollar. The Freight Gateway Program is funded from a set-aside of 2 percent of each State's NHS proportions. However, in the spirit of State flexibility and ensuring that funds go to the areas of the greatest need, a State is not required to spend 2 percent of the NHS apportionment if they can certify to the Secretary that their intermodal connectors are adequate. I think my colleagues see all throughout this bill that we are granting more latitude for the States to determine their fate. It is a recognition that the States know their needs better than we know them in most cases. Consequently, if they can do something better, why dictate something from the Federal Government when they are able to do a better job themselves. Section 1204 is construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities. TEA-21 established a discretionary program for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities. This bill creates a new permanent section in title 23 for this TEA-21 program. The program is designed to provide for the important construction of ferry boats, ferry terminals, and approaches to facilities that are part of the Nation's highway system and constitute ``last mile'' connections for ferries. Section 1205 is designation of interstate highways. As part of this bill, Interstate Highway 86 in the State of New York is specifically designated as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway in memory of our late colleague and friend who was not only a transportation safety expert but served his country in the House and Senate for many years. It is important at this time to recognize that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was also the chairman of this committee that accomplished so much in the earlier years. And unbeknownst to most people on the committee, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was from my city of Tulsa, OK. So I am very supportive of this portion of the bill to make this designation for him. This section also designates a segment of Interstate Highway 86 near towns of Painted Post and Corning in New York State as the Amo Houghton Bypass in recognition of the former Congressman's work in making I-86 possible. It is interesting, we have a Democrat and Republican getting these designations. It happens that I was elected in 1986 with Amo Houghton. He has made great contributions, and I am sure this is a very appropriate tribute to make to former Congressman Amo Houghton. Section 1301, the Federal share. SAFETEA continues the statutory provisions that lay out what the Federal share for a highway project will be for different States based on the amount of Federal land within the States. The Federal share provisions of the current law use a sliding scale which permits States with large portions of Federal land to match Federal funds with fewer State dollars. This is understandable because the Federal lands would consume a good portion of some States, States such as New Mexico. Due to the decreasing taxing ability of States with high percentages of Federal lands, these States are given access to a higher Federal contribution for highway projects within their States. The bill before us today modifies this provision slightly to simplify the calculation used to determine the Federal share rates that apply to each individual State. I might add, in this respect, this is something we found agreement with from both the States with large amounts of Federal land and States, such as my State of Oklahoma, that has a very small amount. 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, as we go through section by section, we talked about congestion, but we neglected to elaborate because this is one of the more serious problems we have now. According to the Department of Transportation, time spent in congestion increased from 31.7 percent in 1992 to 33.1 percent in 2000. Based on this rate, a typical rush hour in an urbanized area is 5.3 hours a day. The problem is not simply in urban areas. Cities with populations less than 500,000 have experienced the greatest growth in travel delays, according to the DOT. Very often we do not talk enough about the cost. Right now we are sensitive to the cost of fuel. Yet we can see traffic stopped, with engines idling. This is another factor that has to be entered into the equation. Increase in capital investment is one way to address congestion. We must also consider ways to better manage existing systems. This bill proposes a national goal of real-time traffic information available for the entire Nation. This goal, while ambitious, is important because we need to reorient our thinking to recognize the importance of allowing users of the system to utilize the system more efficiently, specifically by providing travelers with usable information that will enable them to select the right travel alternative plans. The biggest and fasting growing cause of congestion in our urban centers is bottlenecks around port and intermodal facilities. Frankly, traffic is expected to grow dramatically in volume in the coming decades with increased international trade. Movement toward the just- in-time economy, freight shipping, will take on heightened importance. Recently I visited with representatives of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority and they shared with me that more than 40 percent of all waterborne freight container traffic in the U.S. ports is handled by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. My first thought was, how does this trade through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach affect my constituents in Oklahoma? The answer surprised me. It is estimated that over 100,000 jobs in Oklahoma are attributable to the trade from these ports. That is one example of two ports. I suspect if I had statistics from other ports, I would find that economic development in Oklahoma is tied as closely to them, as well. We are part of a global economy. This illustrates more than anything, goods and services produced in Oklahoma are being shipped all over the world. Likewise, Oklahomans are purchasing goods and services from countries all over the world. The simple fact is that trade is the engine driving our economy. We cannot ignore the infrastructure needs. It is worthwhile stating that one of the best kept secrets is we have actually a port that goes all the way to Oklahoma, the port of Catoosa in my hometown. I remember many years ago when I was serving in the State Senate when we were trying to get the message out that we actually are navigable, we have a port that comes all the way up. No one knows it. They do not think about that in Oklahoma. It goes up the Mississippi River from the gulf and comes across the Arkansas River and into Oklahoma. At that time we decided we wanted to let people know of our great port and the navigation that cost billions of dollars to reach all the way to Oklahoma, the most inland port, only to find the way to do this is to demonstrate it. I actually arranged to take over from the Navy a very large World War II surplus submarine called the USS Batfish. All my political adversaries were saying, we will sink Inhofe with this Batfish. It will never make it all the way to Oklahoma. We were able to bring it all the way. Now proudly displayed in Muskogee, OK, is a World War II submarine that came all the way up the navigation route. So I think it is important. I thought I would throw that out in case somebody did not know it. Section 1302 is the transfer of highway funds and transit funds. In an effort to provide flexible transportation funding, SAFETEA clarifies--by the way, SAFETEA is what we will refer to during the consideration of this bill. This name could be subject to change when we get to conference. But this bill clarifies that title 23 funds may be transferred by the Secretary to the Federal Transit Authority for all projects except transit capital projects. It also allows States to transfer their funds to another State or a Federal agency at their request, if the funds are used in the same manner and for the same purpose as they were originally authorized. Section 1303 is the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or TIFIA. This is very significant. We talked about it a little bit earlier, that people come up with new ways of approaching the funding for transportation, and ways that are innovative, ways that are partnering with the private sector, that can be much better than the way we have been doing business for the last 40 years. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, TIFIA, was established for the first time in TEA-21 to provide Federal credit assistance for major transportation investments. The TIFIA program has proven to be an innovative and successful addition to the conventional grant-reimbursable highway program. Following the success of the TIFIA program under TEA-21, and considering input from stakeholders and recommendations from the administration, the committee bill has made a few changes to the TIFIA program to expand its scope and increase its usability. The amount of the Federal credit assistance cannot exceed 33 percent of the total project costs. TIFIA offers three types of financial assistance for these large projects: first, direct loans; second, loan guarantees; and, third, standby lines of credit. The bill also lowers the threshold cost for eligible projects from the TEA-21 level of $100 million to $50 million to make the TIFIA assistance accessible to a greater number of large highway projects. Projects are also eligible for TIFIA assistance when costs are anticipated to equal or exceed 20 percent of the Federal highway funds apportioned to that particular State. With the increased emphasis this bill places on freight mobility, the definition of ``eligible freight- related projects'' is expanded to allow a group of freight-related projects to be eligible, each of which individually might not meet the threshold requirements for TIFIA credit assistance. Section 1304 is facilitation of international registration plans and international fuel tax agreements. In response to issues surrounding commerce from Mexico, SAFETEA gives the Secretary of Transportation discretion to provide financial assistance to States participating in the International Registration Plan, the IRP, and the International Fuel Tax Agreement. These States incur certain administrative costs resulting from their service as a home jurisdiction for motor carriers from Mexico. The International Fuel Tax Agreement and the International Regional Plan are agreements among various U.S. States and Canadian provinces that facilitate the efficient collection and distribution of fuel use taxes and apportioned registration fees among each member jurisdiction. Under both programs, each motor carrier designates its home State or province as the jurisdiction responsible for collecting fuel use taxes and fees. Since the implementation of NAFTA, the Mexican Government imposes and collects fuel taxes and registration fees differently from the United States and Canada. The National Governors Association is currently evaluating Mexico and its participation in these two programs. In the interim, Mexican motor carriers may use individual U.S. States or Canadian provinces as their home jurisdiction. Mr. President, I pause here to say to the majority leader and the minority leader, we appreciate very much our ability to go ahead and bring this bill to the floor. Again, we are asking Members, if they have amendments, bring them down. We are eventually going to run out of time, and we want to consider these amendments in a timely fashion. I think we are pressing it right now. We are going to try very hard to have this new bill passed before the expiration of the extension. I might add, this is the sixth extension we have had, and it does expire on May 31. We want an opportunity to be able to handle this legislation so we will not have to ask for another extension. It seems to me--and I have been asked a lot of questions as to what our timing looks like right now--we ought to be able to handle amendments through the remainder of the week. Then we will go into a 1- week recess. At the conclusion of that recess, on Monday, the 9th of May, we will continue to look at amendments. It would be my intention to file a cloture motion so we can get to a final vote. Certainly, we have had adequate time, and there does not seem to be that much interest right now in coming down to the floor and offering amendments. That would enable us to send this bill to conference sometime toward the end of that week of May 9. Then we would get to the conference. It has been our experience in the past that if it is done properly, we ought to be able to get the conferees to agree to some compromises, if necessary, between the House bill and the Senate bill. They are quite different. We have explained the basic differences, and the philosophy of the House, the philosophy of the Senate. Ours, I believe, is a more responsible way of looking at it. Having served 8 years in the Transportation Committee over in the House, at that time that seemed to be something that was workable. But we ultimately have to come to an agreement. We ultimately have to go to conference and iron out the differences. We have a lot to consider in conference. It is my expectation we will go to conference with an amount that will exceed the current limitation of the bill that is before us today, that amount being $284 billion over the remainder of the 6-year period. However, I do not know that to be the case. If it is the case, then we will have to handle that in conference and make that determination. In conference, we are also going to have to be looking at the approach to a number of projects. You hear people talking quite often, saying this is a big highway bill, there is a lot of pork in it. I tell you, there is no pork in this bill. There are no projects in this bill. There are only two projects in the entire bill, which consists of hundreds and hundreds of pages. Consequently, it is done on formula. We have talked about the formula, all the considerations that are made by the formula: the donee status, the donor status, the growth factors that go into the various States, the densely populated States, the sparsely populated States. All make for a very equitable approach. I believe we have a bill that will be able to be passed and sent to conference, and we will be able to come back from the conference and then have it signed into law by the of May 31. If we do not do that, and if we ask for another extension, we will be at the time of year for the peak construction season, which would merely mean we would lose very valuable time. I am sure in the States of Oklahoma, South Carolina, and other States, that is a very important consideration. With that, I anticipate there may be more Senators who wish to come down and offer amendments. I am hoping they will at this time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.