Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in a moment we are going to make a motion to substitute H.R. 3 so we will be considering the Senate-passed bill as it was passed out of our committee on to the floor. I think it is appropriate to make a couple of comments--and, of course, invite Senator Jeffords to also comment if he wants to--on the time we have taken on this bill. We have worked on this bill for some 2\1/2\ years. It has been bipartisan all the way, all of last year and this year. I think it is something that is a product we can be very proud of. It has provisions in it that if we do not pass will not be considered. If we are on another extension, we will not have the safety provisions. We will not have the streamlining provisions that will help us build more roads per dollar. We are prepared now to proceed. I understand there is no further debate on the pending motion.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would ask the Senator, if we were to go ahead and allow you 20 minutes on another subject, if someone came down, prior to that time being used, to offer an amendment, would you at that time yield the floor? It is highly unlikely that will happen, but we do want to stay on this bill.

Mr. INHOFE. I send a substitute to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would make the request of the Senator from Massachusetts to go ahead and proceed in terms of his comments on the highway bill. Then, since we do have others coming down, we have to get through this section by section. Can the Senator give us an idea about how much time he would like to have?

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are now on the substitute. I understand there are some amendments that are either on their way down or are going to be presented at this time. If not, we will talk a little bit about the bill and where we are today. We are prepared now to go ahead and accept amendments. We are going to ask Members to bring their amendments to the desk. The majority and minority leaders have agreed to give us the floor time to consider these amendments. The sooner we get the amendments, the sooner we can get this passed and sent to conference. I would think the minority leader would agree with me that this is one of the three most significant bills of the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the Senator from South Dakota coming down. He has submitted the first amendment to this bill, an amendment as meaningful to Oklahoma and other States as to South Dakota. We thank the Senator for his effort. We invite other Members to offer their amendments. I am not implying they will all be that easy, but we invite our Senators to offer amendments. I was going over section 1104, the most complicated section in the bill, the equity bonus section. We talked about the fact it does protect States that are of a lower income, densely populated States, States that have our donor status, States that are donee status. This is an important part of the bill. The scope or percentage of funding included in the equity bonus and in the program remains the same, at 92.5 percent as TEA-21. This is significant. That means 92.5 percent of everything in this bill, whatever it ends up being, whether $284 billion or another amount, is done through this equitable manner. It minimizes what a lot of people would criticize as being pork for special projects. In order to craft a successful formula, we have to balance the needs of donor and donee States. I will be the first to acknowledge this balance, as with any compromise, is not perfect. A few minutes ago we talked about compromises and they aren't perfect. However, I can say with, I am sure, the agreement of the ranking minority member, there were many compromises made during the construction of this bill over the past 2\1/2\ years the Senator from Vermont disagreed with and with which I disagreed. But in the spirit of compromise we were able to get these things done. My colleagues in representing donee and donor States that received lower rates of return or growth rates than they feel fair have made this fact very clear. I am sympathetic to the concerns of both donor and donees in this situation. They both have significant transportation needs that cannot be ignored. Addressing their concerns is more difficult in the last year due to the fact we have less money. When we were dealing with the bill we passed out of the Senate and sent to conference last year, just at about this time, it was at a higher level, and that did guarantee every State would reach, at the end of the 6-year period, at least a 95-percent return. I know my people in the State of Oklahoma wanted a 95-percent return, and they were very disappointed when we were unable to get it out of conference, when I had every expectation we would get it out of conference. So now, in order to get up to a higher amount, we have to be dealing with a different funding level. We have to wait and let the process take place and see what happens on that. Section 1105 is the revenue aligned budget authority, the RABA. The huge 2003 negative adjustment in revenue aligned budget authority, or RABA, made it clear that some changes were needed to the RABA calculation in order to provide greater stability, more accurate predictions, and less fluctuation in coming years. As I have indicated before, I believe the underlying principle of RABA is an important fiscal policy and that highway expenditures should be tied to highway trust fund revenues. This bill modifies the RABA calculation so that annual funding level adjustments are less dependent on future anticipated receipts and more dependent on actual receipts to the highway trust fund. If the RABA adjustment in a fiscal year is negative, the amount of contract authority apportioned to the States for that year will be reduced by an amount equal to the negative RABA. Under TEA-21, negative adjustments were delayed until the succeeding fiscal year. Under the new method--the change we are making--no reduction to apportionments is made for RABA when the cash balance on the highway trust fund, other than the mass transit account, exceeds $6 billion. Section 1201 is the Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program, the IPAM. The Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program is intended for ready-to-go projects that States can undertake and complete within a relatively short timeframe. This is very important because we are now--I anticipate we will pass this bill--into the construction season. Some of my friends from Northern States have much shorter construction seasons than some, such as the Presiding Officer. They have 12 months a year for construction. We are not quite that fortunate. So this allows those projects that are ready to go, to go ahead--as soon as this bill is signed into law--and in a very short timeframe to be completed. As a result, States are given 6 months to obligate IPAM funds. We designed this discretionary program to promote projects that result in immediate benefits for the highway system's condition and performance, while avoiding long-term commitments of funds. The program also provides further economic stimulus to the economy and provides a way to aid in spending down balances in the highway trust fund. States may obligate funds for projects eligible under Interstate Maintenance; the National Highway System; the Surface Transportation Program; the Highway Safety Improvement Program; Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, the CMAQ Program; and the Highway Bridge Program. Eligible projects under the IPAM Program include the preservation, maintenance, and improvement of existing highway elements, including hurricane evacuation routes, operational improvements at points of recurring highway congestion, and systematic changes to manage or improve areas of congestion. Section 1202 is the future of the surface transportation system. In order to be prepared for future reauthorizations of this legislation, we require the Secretary of Transportation to perform a long-term investigation into the surface transportation infrastructure needs of the Nation. Specifically, the bill directs the Secretary to look at, first, the current condition and performance of the interstate system; next, the future of the interstate system in 15, 30, and 50 years; third, the expected demographics and business uses that impact the surface transportation system; fourth, the effect of changing vehicle types, modes of transportation, traffic volumes, and fleet size and weights; fifth, possible design changes; sixth, urban, rural, interregional and national needs; seventh, improvements in emergency preparedness; eighth, real-time performance data collection; and, ninth, future funding needs and potential approaches to collect those funds. Now, that concludes section 1202. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a Senator is here who wants the floor for a purpose other than the highway bill.

Mr. INHOFE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his amendment and for working with us on this committee. I am sure he is aware the amendment concerns a large number of tribal communities in Oklahoma, as well as those in South Dakota. I believe right now we have the largest percentage of Native Americans per capita of any of the States. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask the Senator from Vermont if it is the Senator's wish to go ahead and accept this now, if this has been cleared on the minority side.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as we have said, we are on the substitute, our committee substitute. That will be the one that will receive amendments. We have invited Members to come to the floor with their amendments. While we are waiting for those to come to the floor, I will go over what is before us section by section. Then when someone comes in for the purpose of offering an amendment, I will be glad to stop and then yield to that a person. I first ask if the ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords, had any comments to make before we go on to amendments.

Mr. INHOFE. First, I will start section by section. Section 1101 of the bill authorizes $283.9 billion in guaranteed spending and contract authority over a 6-year period. This level is consistent with levels adopted by the House and the White House. Subtracting authorizations for mass transit and safety and funding for fiscal year 2004, the bill provides $191 billion for maintenance and improvement to the Nation's roads and bridges over the 5-year period from fiscal year 2005 through 2009. Let us keep in mind that this was essentially the same bill at a different funding level than we had a year ago this week, I believe. So we already have a year behind us. What we have done for this statement is to say what is there other than what has already been used for the first year, fiscal year 2005, and also mass transit and safety. The link between a robust economy and a strong transportation infrastructure is undeniable. The movement of people and goods is one of the foremost indicators of a growing economy and job creation. At this point, we need to recognize that people have been concerned--were concerned a few years ago--about the economy, and we are recognizing that this administration actually inherited a recession and we are coming out of it now. But there is no single thing we could do that would provide more jobs and more economic activity. I suggest to the President that for each 1-percent increase in economic activity, it provides an additional 47,000 jobs. So do the math and we can see what a great boon this would be. The bill before us today recognizes the realities of available revenues without the need for increasing gas taxes. It is designed to make the most of every available dollar for better and safer roads, while creating thousands of new jobs. It probably is anticipated that there will be amendments to increase this amount. I anticipate there may be an amendment by the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, and if not them then somebody else would probably do it. When this happens, they would, of course, be in a position to come up with the amount of money that would be necessary. One of the things I commented about last year is that we were always within the amount of money that we could identify--in other words, the amount of money that was anticipated coming in from Federal revenues from gas purchases, along with other areas we could identify. The total obligation authorized in this bill is $188 billion for a period from fiscal year 2005 to 2009. In addition to the increases in funding for the overall program, the bill makes important changes to the apportionments of a few specific programs. Under TEA-21, which we adopted 7 years ago, the administrative expenses for the Federal Highway Administration were funded as a takedown from the various core programs. This bill recognizes the separate importance of costs associated with the administration of the overall highway program. Therefore, the bill funds Federal Highway Administration expenses at its own separate apportionment protecting the autonomy of the individual core programs and the administrative fund itself. Of the amount designated for program administration, the Secretary of Transportation is also given the authority to transfer an appropriate amount to the administrative expenses of the Appalachian Highway Development System. As a result of the 2000 census, 46 new metropolitan planning organizations, known as MPOs, have been established throughout the country and are now eligible for Federal transportation planning funding. To respond to this expanded need, we have increased the program set-asides for MPOs from 1 percent under TEA-21 to up to 1\1/2\ percent. This, along with the overall increase in program funds, will help to address the growing transportation planning needs. Section 1104 is the equity bonus section. TEA-21 used the minimum guarantee calculation to guarantee that States receive back at least 90.5 percent of their percentage contributed to the highway trust fund. This is very significant. It has become quite controversial. Last week and this week we have talked for several hours on this bill about the various donor States. My State of Oklahoma has always been a donor State, since the programs began. I can remember that donor amount was 75 percent; that is to say, each State was guaranteed to get back 75 percent of the money that was sent in. Slowly that has crept up and it is currently at 90.5 percent. Had we passed the bill that we had in conference last year--the bill that we sent to conference had $318 billion of authorization--then we would have everybody at the end of this 6-year period up to 95 percent. So it would have gone from 90.5 percent to 95 percent. The minimum guarantee program is driven by a political distribution known as the 1104 table. The bill replaces the old minimum guarantee program and the 1104 table with a new equity bonus program that ensures a percentage return to States of 92 percent in each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009. At this point we can say it is very complicated, but the equity bonus program is just what it states: it is an equity program. The program does away with the table in TEA-21 which determined each State's percentage share of the total highway program. Rather than have a State's return be set by a politically driven table, the equity bonus program determines each State's return by first relying on the program distribution of formulas. This is not the easy way of doing it; this is the hard way of doing it. I am sure Senator Jeffords joins me in saying it would be a lot easier to have a minimum guarantee for any State, work out their deal, make 60 Members of the Senate happy, and walk away. That would have been done a long time ago if we decided to do it that way. But that is not equitable, and I think that is the wrong way to do business. In fact, I say to people who criticize this bill saying it has pork in it, there are only two projects in the entire bill. The bill before us right now in the form of a substitute only has two projects in it. That is not the case over in the other body. They have several hundred projects. It has been my philosophy, and I think it is shared by the ranking minority, that the closer one gets to home, the better these decisions are. If we can determine an equitable formula, which I believe we have done, we can send it back to the States and let the local people make the determinations as to how that is going to be spent. Now, a lot of people in Washington do not agree with that. A lot of them think if the decision is not made in Washington, it is not a good decision. I believe we are doing it the right way. The equity bonus calculation identifies a justifiable nexus in equity between the underlying formulas and responsible balanced growth for donor and donee States alike. If a State fails to reach the minimum return in any year based on the formulas, that State would receive an equity bonus apportionment in addition to their formula funds to bring them up to the required level. While we allow the formulas to work under the new equity bonus program, we also recognize there would be some inequities if we allowed the formulas to be the sole factor in distributing dollars to the States. In order to increase the minimum rate of return for donor States while ensuring an equitable transition of donee States, rates of return are subject to an annual growth ceiling to smooth out the phase- in of increased minimum returns. This accomplishes two goals. First, it keeps the cost of the equity bonus program affordable; secondly, it ensures that donee States are still able to grow so no States grow less than 10 percent over their TEA-21 levels. Everyone is guaranteed an increase from their own levels, at least 10 percent. There is a cap on equity bonus. No State may receive a portion more than a specific percentage of their average portion received under TEA- 21. So you have two caps--a floor and a ceiling. That helps the formulas work. There is a special rule to protect States with population densities less than 20 persons per square mile, a population of less than 1 million, a median household income of less than $35,000, or a State with a fatality rate during 2002 on the interstate highways greater than 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. We said a lot in one paragraph. It shows the complications of a formula. First, we have to take care of the States that do not have a population. Look at Montana, Wyoming, some of the sparsely populated States. They still have to have roads. Second, we have said for the States that might have a lower per capita income, they can be considered poverty States, so there is a consideration. My State of Oklahoma is in a different situation than many other States and we would benefit from that. Or a State with a fatality rise during 2002. It is absolutely necessary to have part of the formula attributed to a consideration for money being made to States where the fatality rate is higher than average. That takes us through several of the sections. At this point, if there are any Senators who would like to offer amendments, I encourage them to come to the Chamber and offer amendments, at the end of which time we will continue to go through the bill section by section. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have no objection to the 20 minutes for that purpose.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, one of the comments was made by I believe it was Senator Thune about the extensions. Let me make sure we all understand because this is very significant. We have been operating on extensions, and when we operate on extensions we cannot plan in advance. This bill has more provisions in it affecting safety, streamlining, and other factors than any bill of the four that I have been exposed to in reauthorization. In the event we were to have to go ahead on another extension, there would be no chance of improvement on the donor State of return. In other words, donor State of return is going to stay at 90.5. It is not going to improve. If we were going on an extension as opposed to passing this new authorization bill, there would be no new safety core program to help the States respond to the thousands of deaths each year on our roadways. I would say to the Senator from Vermont, this is a life-or-death type of a bill before us because more people are going to die if we do not pass the bill, if we just operate on extensions. If we just do the extensions, there will be no real streamlining of environmental reviews, so critical projects will still be subject to avoidable delay. We see events that do not make any common sense in terms of how many miles can be paved per dollar. We have obstacles that are in the way. We have addressed those obstacles, and it has not been easy. The Democrats and Republicans on this committee had to give and take. Frankly, there are some provisions in this bill I do not like too well, and I suggest to the Senator from Vermont there are a few he does not like, but one of the major things I think has to be done before we start any meaningful construction in America is to have these streamlining provisions. If we do not have a bill, if we go on with extensions, there will be no increased ability to use the innovative financing, thereby giving States more tools to advance. We are talking about public and private partnerships. We have been building roads the same way now for many years. I have been notified that the time on our side has expired, and I ask unanimous consent that we be given an opportunity to share the minority time to whatever extent the Senator would like to give us.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first I thank the senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, for his hard work and for being so articulate. It is interesting that we have heard from Senator Thune from South Dakota, a donee State, and Senator Bond from a donor State, and they are both equally enthusiastic about the fact that we have something that should work, and yet we know that any change in any part of a formula is going to have an effect on all the rest of the States. It does not happen in a vacuum. I will yield the floor to Senator Bond to respond to a question. I ask the Senator, would he enlighten this body as to, according to HAWA, which two States in America have the worst bridges in terms of their state of disrepair?

Mr. INHOFE. I say to the Senator from Vermont, with that very generous offer, as soon as he has someone coming and they want time, I will cease on this side so they can be heard.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if there is time during the course of this debate, even though we are operating under 1 hour equally divided, I want to go over, so everybody understands, why it is necessary to pass this bill instead of going with another extension because we do not get all the reforms we need without passing this bill. I have to agree with the Senator from South Dakota that in order to get up to a higher figure in terms of the donor States--and there are a lot of donee States that are supporting us in this effort--it is necessary to have a more robust bill. I am sure we will have an opportunity to debate that and get to conference and see what we can work out. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation has been such a strong, hard worker. The Senator from Missouri has been there every step of the way and has been a part of this great bipartisan effort. So we yield to him at this time for whatever time he wishes to use.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield for another question, he is a former Governor of the State of Missouri. He knows a little bit about how the construction season goes. What kind of problems would he see-- as Senator Thune mentioned, we are in our sixth extension right now--if we were merely to extend this rather than to pass this bill, from a State perspective?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. The bill offers an increased ability to use innovative financing methods. Out in California and in Texas, they have been able to do some things where they have convinced us they get many more miles and much more local participation by the public-private partnership, by the TIFIA rule, and it is something that we would not be able to do nationwide if we do not get this bill and we just operate on an extension. There are a lot of people who are very concerned about a provision in our bill that is called the Safe Routes to School. I know the Senator from Vermont has been interested in that. This is something where we would be talking about saving young lives. Right now, the provision is not there. So if we have an extension, it is merely an extension of TEA-21, the one that we have been operating under for the last 7 years. If we are not able to pass this bill, then the States will continue to have uncertainty in planning, thereby delaying projects and negatively impacting jobs. The Senator from Missouri commented that for each $1 billion spent, it provides 47,000 new jobs. So this would easily be the biggest jobs bill probably in the history of America. But if we operate on an extension, there can be no planning. There is not going to be the construction. The Senator from Missouri is from a northern State and so is the Senator from Vermont. In Oklahoma, though, our construction time is longer than it is in Vermont, and it is actually longer than it is in the State of Missouri. It is something that has to be considered because if we have those delays and they cannot plan in advance, we are not going to have the construction. We are not going to be able to correct these problems. That is why I asked the question of the Senator from Missouri, who is a former Governor of the State. We need to have certainty in planning. I hear every day from Gary Ridley in our Department of Transportation in Oklahoma that we have things we need to do and we need to be planning right now. We can get so much more for each dollar if we do that, and I suggest that other States have the same situation. If we do not have a new bill and we just operate on an extension, there is no new border program for border States to deal with NAFTA and other traffic. We hear a lot from the border States--California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida--that they like the borders and corridors program. We have a borders and corridors provision in this bill that will give consideration to the fact that through no fault of their own many border States have a lot of traffic that comes up through Mexico and other places that is all in conjunction with NAFTA. I can recall 10 years ago when NAFTA was voted on I happened to have been the only member of the Oklahoma delegation that voted against NAFTA. I think I was right and they were wrong, but nonetheless when we look at what we are able to do with the borders and corridors program, it is something that is very critical for those States. My State of Oklahoma is also affected by that because those corridors come through the State of Oklahoma. If we do not have the bill, we just have an extension, there is going to be a delay in the establishment of the national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the future. As motor vehicles become more fuel efficient, a tax collection system based solely on gas consumption becomes less practical. Right now the greatest problem we have is the cost of fuel. We have been very much concerned about that. If our taxes were based on a percentage as opposed to a number of cents or dollars, then we would not have that problem. But in Oklahoma if we are paying $2.20 a gallon for gas instead of what it was a short while ago, about $1.40, then people are not going to drive as far. When they do not drive as far, that means the tax revenues are going to come down. There is no reason we have to continue to do business as we have done business for the last 50, 60, 70 years and not come up with new and innovative ways to pay for our system. In this bill we have a provision for a national commission to look at different transportation funding in the future. One of my complaints when we talk about the highway trust fund is about how we should or should not pay for it. Every time this body has a new idea to encourage people to use fuel-efficient automobiles, either hybrid or electric cars, that ends up with less gallons of gas produced. Yet those cars still damage the highways with the wear and tear that another car does. I have complained if we are going to have a policy, it should not be paid for on the backs of the highway trust fund. Anyway, those are issues they can look at. They can look at new ways of financing roads and new partnerships. This commission will come together and will perform for us. If we do not have a new bill and we have an extension, there will be no increased opportunity to address chokepoints and intermodal connectors. This is not simply a highway bill but an intermodal bill, talking about how the highways, railroads, and airlines come together. It is a complicated transportation system. There was a time in the beginning during the Eisenhower administration when we wanted to have a national highway system. I will share with my friend from Vermont, when President Eisenhower, during the war, was a major, Major Eisenhower, he was the one who realized our traffic system, our road system, our network, was not a transportation issue as much as a national security issue. He was trying to move his troops around from one place to another. So when he became President, one of the first things he wanted to do was set up the national transportation system. We have had it since that time. At that time we were looking at miles of paved roads in America. Now we are looking at the intermodal system that covers all transportation and brings all transportation together. But we won't be able to do that if we extend what we have today because those portions of the bill will not become law. There are many other provisions we would lose if we do not pass a bill, if we only have an extension. The firewall protection of the highway trust fund would not be continued, thereby making the trust fund vulnerable to raids in order to pay for other programs. One of the things we run into in Government I can relate to in the State of Oklahoma. In the State of Oklahoma we have had people, when you are looking the other way, come in and raid a trust fund. The impact aid is a good example. Impact aid was started way back in the 1950s. The idea was if Government comes along and takes the land off the tax rolls, you still have to educate those kids living there, so they are supposed to replenish that particular subdivision to the amount of money they lost in revenue. That was a good program. We all supported it. In the 1960s, people realized there was a fund and no one was looking, so they took the money out of it. This has happened to other trust funds. This has happened to the highway trust fund. I see that as a moral issue. In fact, when we had our bill out last year, we looked at it as if this is something we can afford to do because it was paid for almost entirely out of user taxes. Now, if you go to the pump and you pay a Federal tax on the gasoline you buy, you assume that will go to building roads and maintaining roads and people do not complain about it. I have never complained about it. I complain about every other tax, but I don't complain about the highway taxes because I know that is how we will pay for it. They have been diverting money out of the trust fund and putting it into other projects. What we did in last year's bill, and it is in this year's bill also, is restore that so money will have to go to repairing roads that go into the highway system. If we do not pass this bill, it is not going to happen. To reiterate, regarding the pending bill, 76 Senators voted for it last year. Very few changes have been made. We produced a solid project last year to go to conference with the House. I suggest that given a few changes we would have made, we would have been able to move it out and we would not be here today. This should have happened a year ago. This should not be happening now. The bill managers are ready and willing to discuss Members' amendments. We want to work with you on your concerns. We hope you will come down and offer amendments. We will have this vote in 9 minutes. How quickly time flies when you are having fun. When we have this vote, I anticipate it will be a successful vote and we will be able to get on the bill and start with amendments. When that happens, I certainly hope all those individuals who have said negative things about this bill-- they didn't like part of the formula, they didn't think they were treated fairly, they thought they were bumping up to the caps for States--come down and offer amendments. I don't think any of us in terms of Senator Jeffords, myself, Senator Baucus, and Senator Bond, are going to complain. We may not like the amendments, but we want to have the amendments offered, if for no other reason than it is important so people realize you cannot make one change in a bill without affecting everyone else. I know formulas are different. It would be easier if we had done the easy thing. That is, Senator Jeffords and I could go to 60 Members of this 100-Member body and make them sweetheart deals, give them what they wanted to get their vote, buy their votes, get 60 votes, and tell the rest of them, it is your problem. And we would have a bill today. That is not how we want to do business. We feel we can do it being fair to our colleagues and do it on the basis of a formula. We had Members who were going to be heard on the motion to proceed and they have not arrived. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be afforded Mr. Richard Steinmann, a detailee from the Federal Transit Administration, for the duration of the consideration of the surface transportation reauthorization bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members of the Joint Committee on Taxation on a list that I send to the desk be given the privilege of the floor for the duration of the deliberation of the Highway Reauthorization and Excise Simplification Act of 2005, provided that no more than four from the list occupy the floor at any given time.