Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Tuesday, February 10, 2004, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the ``Proposals for Improving the Regulatory Regime of Government Sponsored Enterprises.''

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 February 10, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 10 at 10 a.m. to consider the President's proposed fiscal year 2005 budget for the Department of Energy.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with the approval of the committee, I now withdraw the committee substitute amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I now send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

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

Mr. INHOFE. I understand that the Senator has also proposed creating a new program to encourage improvements in the States' motorcycle safety programs. I believe this amendment would be very valuable. I also believe it would be most appropriate offered as part of the Commerce Committee title, and would like to be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment when that happens.

Mr. INHOFE. I have read the AASHTO letter to Senator Murkowski and agree with her that the task force proposed by AASHTO will indeed accomplish what she seeks to achieve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from AASHTO dated February 3, 2004 to Senator Murkowski be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. I do not have a problem with that and 40 minutes on this side at all. Why not plan to do that? Now I have been told we cannot lock in time agreements on a tabling motion, so I will withhold. Let me be sure we all understand: In my State of Oklahoma, it perhaps makes no difference. We are one of the 20 States that has mandatory seatbelt laws. In fact, it could be argued we could be benefited by this because if other States do not comply and are punished, then that amount of money could go to the States that already comply. So I could actually benefit. My problem has always been, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia knows, it is a mandate. I would prefer not to do it this way. I know the Senator's heart is right. I know there is another great person who served in here by the name of John Chafee who felt as strongly about this as the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. In fairness to the Senator's cosponsors and in fairness to others who may not be easily retrievable at this time, I believe it would be a good idea to defer the vote. I will move to table and ask for the yeas and nays but ask the leadership to maybe put it tomorrow morning sometime. That will give the Senator ample time and provide time for them to be heard on the bill. Is that acceptable?

Mr. INHOFE. We haven't quit.

Mr. INHOFE. Of course.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, the argument I recall against the amendment was that the driver himself or herself would be in a position where they could lose control of a vehicle by not having a seatbelt on and, obviously, the children would be safer than if nobody had on a seatbelt. The Senator makes a very good point. It is one at which I would certainly like to look. I can assure the Senator from Nevada, I learned the hard way what our law was in Oklahoma when we started cranking out grandbabies. We have 11 of them now. I did not realize the seriousness of this bill and I did not have one of the young ones in a seatbelt, and I had to pay the penalties. I learned the hard way they really meant business. Our law has teeth. I would certainly like to look and see what kind of results the State of Nevada has had.

Mr. INHOFE. In terms of population of the State of Nevada and the percentage my grandchildren constitute in my State, the Senator from Nevada is way ahead of me. Mr. President, there are other points about which I could be talking that were brought up, but I don't think it serves any useful purpose. We made great progress on this bill. People have said nothing happened last week. Something did happen last week. We had a chance to bring up the bill, go over the bill, talk to people, and line up votes, quite frankly. We have the vast majority of people believing this is the right bill. I only regret there are those who try to say it is not fair for one reason or another. There is no question, if you take this and the last two 6-year reauthorizations, that this bill is far more fair than any other authorization we have done. All these points were kept in mind as to donee States and donor States. Now that we get up to 95 percent, we are going to forget about what it was like to be a 70-percent donor State, but I can remember. This will be an issue that will go away because you figure you are high enough. This bill got us there. At the same time, we have donee States, States that have done very well in the past. I mentioned a minute ago, partially because the former chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Congressman Bud Shuster--and I served with him for 8 years in the House on that committee--perhaps his State got a little higher than it should have through his anxious approach. However, when you compare that to the State of Oklahoma--this is an interesting comparison--you can look at a chart and see you are not getting as much as last year and, therefore, it is unfair. That is just not true. My State has roughly the same road miles as the State of Pennsylvania. If you look at the next 6 years, the State of Pennsylvania is getting three times as much money as we are getting in our State of Oklahoma. It doesn't sound like I did a very good job for Oklahoma. There are other factors involved. It was called to my attention by one of the Senators from that State that it is a pass-through State. Everyone goes through Pennsylvania to get someplace. How do you put that into an equation? How do you put down how many people stop to buy products or services in your State? Some of these factors can't be done. I will say this: The old bill turned out to be a minimum guarantee. That was wrong. That was a political document that merely said we will make 60 percent of the people in this Chamber happy, and we don't care what happens to the other 40 percent. That was not an appropriate way to approach that bill. With the factors of donee, donor, total lane miles, vehicle miles traveled, annual contributions to the highway trust fund from commercial vehicles, diesel fuel just on highways, relative share of the total cost of repair and replacement of deficient highways and bridges, weighted nonattainment in maintenance areas, and rate of return for donor States, this formula has worked, and I am very proud of it. We have gone through the last 2 weeks complimenting each other and the leadership. I certainly compliment my friend from Vermont, the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, as well as Senator Reid, the ranking member on the subcommittee, and, of course, Kit Bond, the chairman of the subcommittee under my committee. But I also compliment the staff. I can promise you, Mr. President, that the staff worked many more hours than we did. They were down there all this last weekend. All I was doing was sitting on the phone calling for votes. It was a lot of hard work, a lot of dedication. I want all the staff members of the majority and the minority to know how much I personally appreciate them. I think it is necessary to have this bill. I can't think of anything worse than going on these short extensions and no one can plan in advance. With the bill we have today, we have it set up so we can plan in advance. The IPAM part of this bill will allow those projects which are ready to go to start working, to start those projects going, to hire the people. We had a chart a while ago as to the number of people this bill puts to work. We are talking about almost 3 million people, 3 million jobs that will be filled as a result of having this bill pass. I look forward to talking about the amendments, working toward cloture, and getting this bill passed in the Senate and sent to conference so we can all go to work in conference and come up with a good solution to our Nation's highways, roads, and infrastructure problems, as well as jobs in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while we are waiting for people to come with their amendments, I will make a few comments relative to statements that were made on the Senate floor yesterday concerning the bill. Comments were made by one Senator who said he would just suggest that we swap formulas between Oklahoma and Arizona. That was the senior Senator from Arizona, a very distinguished Senator. I only say that Arizona and Oklahoma and all other 48 States have exactly the same formula. You don't have to swap formulas. They are the same. I also suggest in the case of Arizona, it gets more money than Oklahoma does under this bill--by about $60 million. So if a swap were taking place, I think I would go along with that. I am concerned a little about the statements made that more States will become donor States. That is true under this bill. Right now, the disparity between donor and donee is far greater than it will be after this bill is passed. So if you have a State that goes from a $1.01 down to 99 cents, that is a small amount, but because it goes below the threshold of a dollar, then it is now in donor status. So the way we try to accomplish this is, if you take the average, the average donor State increased by 4 cents; the average donee State decreased by 4 cents. I don't see that anything could be more fair than that. Third, I think if you look at the individuals who were driving this legislation 6 years ago--TEA-21--you found that there were some parts of the State that were perhaps treated better than other parts. Certainly, we had three of the most powerful people from the northeastern seaboard--Senators Moynihan, Congressman Shuster, and Senator Chafee. When you look at the amounts that they, under TEA-21, achieved, New York was $1.25; Pennsylvania, $1.21; Rhode Island, $1.26; and Oklahoma, 90.5 cents, which was the minimum. A critic of this bill said we should do what we did 6 years ago and immediately go to 90.5 cents as a floor instead of waiting until the sixth year. The problem with that is there is not enough money. And if we did that, that would have to come out of the donee State. The other problem is we are actually much more ambitious in this bill in reaching that point. If you look at this State by State--and several times on this Senate floor we have been challenged by Members from States who felt their State was not getting a fair shake--keep in mind that every State is going to increase by at least 10 percent under this bill, and every State is going to have a donor status of nothing less than 95 percent at the conclusion of this bill, at the sixth year.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Senator from Virginia, as I always do. I think many of us who came to serve in the Senate who were either Governors or mayors in major cities somehow have this obstacle or obstruction in our minds on any kind of mandates. I plead guilty to that. I think other Members might oppose the amendment, such as the Senator from Missouri who was a Governor. That is primarily the reason. I would be happy to work with the Senator from Virginia, and I think he has an excellent point. I know his heart is right and he is trying to save lives. That is why we all love him so much.

Mr. INHOFE. I agree with the Senator from Virginia. I only say, if your State were to devise a way to get to the 90-percent mark that they have to get to to keep from being penalized, it would have to take some reasonable period of time. They would have to establish some criteria and then try to get there. I cannot imagine it could be done within 8 months, and these people would already be subjected to the penalties imposed in the year 2005. That would be a concern.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a brave young American who gave his life defending our Nation. I went to the ceremony out at Arlington this morning for this young man. It was one of the most moving experiences I have ever had. This man felt a call to serve his country, to be a part of something bigger than himself. For that call, he paid the highest price. 2LT Luke James of Hooker, OK, was a platoon leader in the 82nd Airborne's B Company, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, stationed at Fort Bragg, NC. He is survived by his wife Molly and their little son Bradley who was born just 6 months ago. His parents Brad and Arleen James live in Hooker, OK, where Luke played football at Hooker High School and graduated near the top of his class. Luke later attended and graduated from Oklahoma State University where he participated in the ROTC program and earned a degree in animal science. While on a dismounted patrol, Luke was killed by a roadside bomb during an ambush on January 27. He gave his life for the freedom of millions of Americans and for the peace and future of the Iraqi people. Lieutenant James had long imagined a life of service in the Army. He was going to be career. These aspirations were realized culminating with his commissioning into the airborne infantry on December of 2002. His parents have described how Luke embodied the selfless attitude toward service to country that is so evident in all of our military men and women. On February 10, I had the opportunity to attend Lieutenant James' funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. The ceremony honored Luke, and deservedly so. In the words of Lieutenant James's mother, speaking of her son, she said: We are very proud as his parents that he had the attitude he had, and wanted to serve. . . . It wouldn't have been this mother's choice, but you have to have young men and women willing to preserve the freedom we have. We are glad he was willing. He was willing. We as a nation are grateful. The loss of 2LT Luke S. James is grievous to all of us. Our thoughts are with his wife and son, as well as his family in Oklahoma. Today we recognize his valor and commitment. It is for men like Luke James I am proud to be a part of this great Nation. He was a special soldier, a real Oklahoman, and a true American. As we tour over there, and see these young warriors and their attitude and commitment and patriotism, it is so heartwarming. I am sure at one time or another I saw Luke, but I don't remember when that was. But he is certainly typical, and his family, recognizing that he made the supreme sacrifice, but he made it for us. He knew that risk was there when he took on the position he held.

Mr. INHOFE

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