[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4380-S4384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS--Continued
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside
the pending Bayh amendment for the purpose of adopting an agreed-to
amendment, the Talent amendment, and go immediately back to the Bayh
amendment.
Mr. BAYH. With that understanding, I do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 582
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Talent
amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 582.
The amendment (No. 582) was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 568
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Bayh amendment
will be the pending amendment.
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to show my strong support
for the Bayh amendment on countervailing duties, and I ask unanimous
consent to be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. I commend my friend and colleague from Indiana for his
vision on the issue of what we need to do to create a level playing
field for our businesses and workers. This is an important amendment.
I have spoken forcefully about our need to address the unfair trade
practices of those with whom we trade. A necessary step in this process
is to change those U.S. laws that hinder our industries from operating
on a level playing field. That is what this amendment addresses. Our
businesses, our workers have an expectation that we will provide a
level playing field for them, and we need to deliver on that. This
amendment is a good step in that direction.
Unfair trade practices are hurting our U.S. manufacturers and costing
jobs. In my State of Michigan, I regret to say, we now have the highest
unemployment rate in the country. At the time when our Nation's
countervailing duty laws were approved in 1979, the Department of
Commerce decided it was impracticable to apply those laws to nonmarket
economies such as China due to the difficulty of determining what
defines a government subsidy within the context of a state-controlled
economy.
However, since that time, many nonmarket economies have undertaken
significant economic reforms that have liberalized the state control
over their economies. Unfortunately, however, some of these nations,
such as China, refuse to comply with standard international trading
rules and practices and use subsidies and other economic incentives to
give their producers an unfair competitive advantage. This has a direct
impact on job loss in Michigan, as well as in other States.
As we all know--and it has been documented--these subsidies range
from currency manipulation, to providing below interest rate loans to
less than creditworthy companies, to providing preferential access to
raw materials and other input. I should mention that I was very proud
to be a part of the effort to get a very strong vote a few weeks ago;
67 Members on both sides of the aisle joined to send a message both to
the White House and to China that we expect China to stop manipulating
their currency, which means it costs more for us to sell to them than
for them to sell to us. It is part of what we need to do to level the
playing field. I hope that because we have joined together in the vote
we had on a very strong bipartisan basis, we will see the same kind of
vote on this Bayh amendment.
I will give you a few examples of how this hurts Michigan
manufacturers and workers directly. Counterfeit automotive products are
a very big problem in Michigan. Not only does it kill American jobs,
but it has the potential to kill Americans as cheap, shoddy automotive
products replace legitimate ones of higher quality. The American
automotive parts components industry loses an estimated $12 billion in
sales on a global basis to counterfeiting. This must stop. We don't
even keep statistics on the potential loss of life.
The United States is losing manufacturing jobs as a direct result of
China's policies. China's policies have cost our economy 1.5 million
jobs in the last 15 years and 51,000 jobs alone in Michigan. These job
losses are hurting all of our manufacturers, from apple juice, to auto
parts, to clothing, to furniture.
At this stage, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat
subsidies used by nonmarket economies. They must rely upon the Federal
Government to negotiate a settlement, or on the dispute settlement
processes of international organizations, such as the WTO.
Why do we put such a strain on our own businesses? The remedies
available currently might eventually lead to relief, but it takes years
to see relief. We are losing jobs every day. There are headlines every
day in Michigan about job loss. We have to have a sense of urgency here
in the Senate and in the Congress and in the White House.
The Bayh amendment would change the situation to ensure that
nonmarket economies are subject to the same countervailing duty laws as
all other trading nations.
At a recent Finance Committee hearing on his nomination, Congressman
Portman said he thinks ``we . . . need an additional focus on China.
After a top-to-bottom review, I would plan to shift some resources,
including some people to that effort.''
I certainly encourage him to do that. I also want to indicate at this
time that Congressman Portman indicated support for a focus on creating
an international trade prosecutor, or some people in his office who
would focus on the role of prosecutor more broadly on those other
countries that are violating rules. Senator Bayh has been a champion of
that effort, and I am very proud he has joined with me and Senator
Graham in South Carolina in introducing specific legislation that
relates to creating an international trade prosecutor as well. All of
these pieces are important. We have taken one step to sending a message
to China and to the administration that we expect them to address the
issue of currency manipulation.
Now, this amendment is a very important piece in leveling the playing
field for our businesses and our workers. I also urge that we
incorporate an international trade prosecutor who will be our American
voice for business and for workers on the broad issue of continuing to
make sure the rules are fair. I think these pieces together create hope
for the people we represent, whom we, in fact, would stand up for and
stand up for American jobs.
[[Page S4381]]
While I have the floor, I want to speak briefly about something else
that also relates to American jobs. In addition to this important
amendment, we will be focusing on the broader issue of a strong SAFETEA
Transportation bill. I am hopeful that we are going to get this done as
quickly as possible. I am pleased that we have begun the process of
debating this critical issue.
The snow finally has melted in Michigan--at least for the moment--and
we are in the beginning of a new construction season. During the budget
debate, I was pleased to join with Senator Talent to lead an effort on
an amendment to help the Senate produce a well-funded Transportation
bill. I know Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus are working hard to
help strengthen this bill that is in front of us.
As my colleagues know, this bill isn't just about improving roads and
transit systems and buses, but it is about creating jobs. Again, it is
absolutely critical that we do everything possible to create American
jobs and do it as quickly as possible. The Transportation bill is one
of the fastest ways that we can bring good-paying jobs back to our
States.
The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion of
highway spending creates 47,500 new, good-paying jobs, and it generates
more than $2 billion in economic activity.
Mr. President, we need this bill now. If there are efforts to extend
it, we need to have it be a short extension beyond May 31. My
preference is to get this done before the end of May because we are
going to lose another construction season if we do not. We in Michigan
have projects ready to go the minute this bill is signed. It is
absolutely critical that we get this done as soon as possible.
Over the last 4 years, Michigan has lost jobs. This bill, as I said,
would create good-paying jobs that would help thousands of our families
in Michigan. We are not talking about minimum wage jobs, we are talking
about well-paying jobs, good-paying jobs that help families pay their
mortgages and save for retirement and put their children through
school.
Last year's bipartisan Senate bill that passed overwhelmingly would
have created over 99,000 jobs in Michigan alone. It is my hope that the
Senate will pass another strong bill. I understand that the House and
the White House did not support the effort that we passed. Even though
it was an important bipartisan effort and it showed in the Senate the
best about governing, in my opinion, and people worked very hard on
both sides of the aisle, it is very unfortunate that this was not
supported by the House or the White House. Now we have a bill back in
front of us and we need to make it the best we can possibly make it so
that we are creating jobs and meeting the needs of our communities. We
cannot fix the problems that we have in our States in terms of
infrastructure and traffic congestion and issues of jobs and so on
without the very best bill possible.
I am very hopeful--and I will do everything within my power, working
with colleagues on both sides of the aisle--to get the fairest, best
bill that we can for the people we represent and to get that as quickly
as we possibly can.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Bayh amendment and
to move on to put together the final bill in the best way possible for
both those States such as mine, which are donor States, as well as for
the other States around the country, so that we can create the jobs
that are needed as quickly as possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator
from Michigan, for her generous words, but for her leadership as well
on both of these important issues. She understands very well the
Transportation bill will create jobs for our construction workers in
the short run and will improve our productivity in the long run but
that it is just part of a bigger piece of improving America's economic
competitiveness, and a big part of that, in Michigan and Indiana and
the other 48 States, is when workers want to work hard, be smart, play
by the rules, do the right thing, they need to be rewarded for those
efforts and not have their hard-working sacrifices unfairly taken from
them by global competitors who do not play by the rules, who cheat, and
are not willing to make the tough decisions our businesses and workers
are asked to make.
I thank her for her leadership and for her kind words and look
forward to working with her on these and other issues.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now the pending business is the Bayh
amendment. I stress again that both Senator Jeffords and I are inviting
anyone to come down with amendments they have. Senator Bayh has
graciously agreed to set his aside for the consideration of any other
amendments, and then we would go back to his amendment. So I would not
want any Members who are watching the proceedings to believe they
cannot get their amendment in. We do encourage them to bring their
amendments down. I would hate to have all of these stacked up at the
last minute. Now is the time to get consideration for amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today, our third day of debate on
the highway bill.
As we have stated before, this is vital legislation that will have an
impact on every American.
I join Senator Inhofe in calling on my colleagues to come to the
floor to offer amendments. With that said, I would like to address some
of the important provisions in this bill.
I would like to spend a minute talking about bridges and our need to
make sure that adequate funding exists to maintain these structures.
As many of my colleagues know, I have a passion for bridges and
specifically covered bridges.
While covered bridges are no longer critical parts of our Nation's
infrastructure, they provide an important link to our collective past
and are feats of engineering and longevity.
The National Covered Bridge Preservation Program, which I authored in
1998, has been a great success, albeit a slightly underfunded success.
From the Thetford Center Covered Bridge to the Weathersfield Falls
Covered Bridge, I have taken great pride in being able to work to
rehabilitate these bridges in Vermont.
Given my passion for the topic, many members may think that Vermont
has the Nation's largest number of these bridges.
In fact, Pennsylvania has 220 covered bridges, Ohio has 144 covered
bridges, and Vermont has only 99 covered bridges.
Even California has 12 covered bridges and Missouri has 5.
It is my great regret that I do not believe Oklahoma has any of these
fine structures.
While I may seem like a broken record talking about bridges, it is
critical that we pass a bill that adequately funds bridge maintenance
and repair.
While I do not have the national statistics at my fingertips, those
of you that travel around our Nation's Capital can readily attest to
the fact that the bridges in this city are choke points for commuters
and commerce.
The DC Department of Transportation estimates that about $300 million
is needed to repair 11 major bridges.
If we do not provide at least some of these funds, our economy will
suffer.
Senator Leahy and I have been working for years to provide funds to
rehabilitate the Missisquoi Bay Bridge in Vermont.
This bridge links New York and Vermont and serves as an international
corridor to Canada.
In 1998, Vermont's congressional delegation secured funds in the
highway bill to begin the project, and unfortunately we are still at
it.
I can hardly imagine how long it would take to upgrade the George
[[Page S4382]]
Washington or Chesapeake Bay Bridges.
It is my hope that the Congress will send the President a bill with a
robust bridge program.
Our Nation's bridges, whether historic or not, are in a state of
disrepair and this bill is an important step in the right direction.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont brings up a very
sensitive subject to me, and that is one of bridges. It seems to me we
do have one covered bridge in Oklahoma. I am going to have to check on
that to make sure they get a share of this, whatever it is.
We do have a serious problem. The FHWA ranks various States and the
conditions of their bridges, roads, and highways. Oklahoma is ranked
dead last in the condition of its bridges, and it is a very serious
matter. It is also a very serious problem in terms of the number of
deaths we have.
One of the considerations that was involved in putting together a
formula--and I state again how much work goes into a formula approach.
I have said several times that it would be very easy to do it the other
way where we just come up with a bunch of projects and satisfy 60
Senators and pass a bill and go home. That is not what we tried to do.
One of the considerations we have is the risk in the various States,
the number of mortalities.
Once again, at this point it is important to stress why we need to
have a bill. We are now on our sixth extension, and extensions do not
work. There is not a State of all 50 States that is not very anxiously
awaiting this bill because with extensions there can be no planning. If
we do not get this done, we will not have any chance to improve our
donor States.
Oklahoma is a donor State. We have many donor States, and that is
probably the most sensitive single issue in the formulas, is how the
donor States are treated. But if we do not get this done, there is not
going to be any change. We are right now at 90.5 percent. If we had
passed the bill we had last year, which was a little more robust than
this bill, by the end of that 6-year period, every State would have
achieved at least a 95-percent return. That is the return of money they
have paid into the trust fund.
As it is right now, in a lower amount, this would raise it a modest
amount but not that much further above 90.5 percent. It would be an
improvement, though.
If we do not have a bill and are operating under extensions, there
will not be any new safety core programs to help the States respond to
the thousands of deaths each year on the highways. In that respect, I
think you have to acknowledge that this bill is a matter of life and
death. There will be many more deaths if we do not have a good highway
bill.
If we don't have a highway bill, there will not be any streamlining
of the environmental reviews. Critical projects will still be subjected
to avoidable delays that can be avoided with the passage of this bill.
Along that line, I think with all the provisions of this bill that
was 2\1/2\ years in the making, there are a lot of provisions that my
good friend from Vermont accepted that he would have preferred not to
accept. There are many provisions I accepted that I would have
preferred not to accept. But this was a give and take in a spirit of
bipartisan cooperation, and I think that is something people are
starving for right now. That is what they have in this bill.
If we do not have a bill, there is not going to be an increase in the
ability to use innovative financing, giving us a chance to do something
differently than we have been doing it before. Where innovative
partnership types of financing have taken place, it has extracted a lot
of money from the private sector that is willing to get in there and
participate in the TIFIA provisions of this bill, allowing them to do
that very thing.
There are a lot of members on our committee who were concerned about
the Safe Routes to Schools Program. That is in here. Again, if we are
operating under an extension, if we do have an extension, if we do not
have the bill, we will not have that. It could be we will have young
people killed and injured on the way to school without this bill.
Without this bill, with just another extension, States would continue
to have uncertainty in planning and delay in projects. I hope this
doesn't need much elaboration. It is only logical. If you know in
advance what is going to happen over the next 5 years or so, you can
start planning. You can plan your resources, plan your labor, plan the
amount of construction that is going to go on in each State so each
State will get far more for each dollar spent than they would get on
just an extension.
If we just get an extension, we are not going to have any new border
program. I think the border States, many of them, should be the first
ones down here to encourage that this bill be passed, particularly
those who are affected by NAFTA traffic. We have a special provision in
here that takes care of borders as well as corridors. In the absence of
this, with just an extension, we are not going to have any of these
provisions.
Without the bill, we are going to have delay in the establishment of
the national commission to score how to fund transportation in the
future. We have been doing it the same way for many years. There are
better ways of doing it. This bill establishes this commission to study
what innovative suggestions might come from the States, ways we can do
a better job of financing and getting private participation and get a
lot more efficiency into the system.
When you look at what we are faced with today, we have an unusually
high price of gasoline. As a result of that, people are not driving as
much. If we had a gas tax that was geared to a percentage basis, it
would not make any difference. In fact, we would probably increase
revenues. But that is not the way it is. It is just a number of cents
per gallon, so if there are fewer gallons bought, then there is less
money that goes into it.
If we do not have a bill, if we just go on an extension, there will
not be any opportunity to address the chokepoints at intermodal
connectors. People think this is just a highway bill. They think back
in the early days, back when Eisenhower, in World War II, was a major,
he realized the inefficiencies we had in this country in transportation
when he was trying to move troops and move military equipment around
the country. When he became President, he drew upon that experience and
established, for that reason, this National Highway System.
This goes all the way back to the Eisenhower administration, but this
goes further than it went at that time. Now we have chokepoints. A lot
of people are not aware that my State of Oklahoma actually has a port.
We have the port of Catoosa, about 10 miles from my home in Tulsa. But
there are chokepoints in any transportation system. You can have a
channel, air transportation, rail transportation; it has to marry up
and be consistent with the movement on the roads. This bill does that.
That is why we call it intermodal.
Last, 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. In every State, all 50 States, we have
experienced problems of people seeing an opportunity to steal money out
of the trust fund and raid it, and they do it. They have certainly done
it in my State of Oklahoma--not just the highway trust fund but other
trust funds, too. I know there are many States that have their own
individual highway trust fund where money is coming out of it. This is
something we can protect at the national level by having firewalls. The
firewalls are intact in this bill.
There are a lot of reasons we have to do this other than just having
a highway bill and getting more construction. We have had the
opportunity to talk about the complexities of a formula and all the
things that are in a formula. I believe it is worthwhile repeating some
of them.
Formulas are not just, Are you a large State or are you a small
State? They take into consideration many things. There are the
interstate maintenance programs that are a part of the formula, as are
the interstate lanes, the number of miles to be maintained, your
National Highway System miles--
[[Page S4383]]
that is part of the formula--the Surface Transportation Program, the
total lane miles, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program,
which is very important. It has taken a lot of time in committee to
come up with something on which we could agree.
We have low-income States. Oklahoma is a low-income State. We have
low-population States, such as Wyoming and Montana. We have low-
population-density States. We have high-fatality-rate States.
Everything I mentioned is part of the formula we are working on. We
have guaranteed minimum growth States, where growth is very slow, but
there is a factor that provides for a floor. We have guaranteed minimum
rate of return donor States.
All are part of the consideration of a very complex, very difficult
formula that is the proper way to do it. Again, we have said several
times in the last 3 days, it would have been a lot easier for Senator
Bond and Senator Baucus and Senator Jeffords and myself to have put
together a bill that did not have a formula; it just would do projects.
But we elected not to do that in order to get the most miles for our
money and to be the most fair with all 50 States.
Our forefathers were great when they talked about putting together
this system where you have the House and the Senate. One is on
population, the other is geographic areas. It is our responsibility to
be sure that each of these States is treated properly, is treated
fairly. This bill has done that.
The Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, has the pending amendment on the
floor. As I stated before, he has agreed to set his amendment aside as
soon as there are any coming down. We have a list of about seven or
eight amendments that different Members wish to offer. This is the time
to offer them.
As Senator Jeffords said, come on down. We want you to come down and
offer it. You have much more time to spend on your amendments. You can
explain them. We have all day today, and we need to have these
amendments on the floor and considered. I know what is going to happen
if we do not. We are going to get down toward the end of it. Who knows,
there may be cloture invoked where you are almost out of time and
everyone is going to be yelling and screaming and crying they didn't
have adequate time to consider their amendments. So let me get on
record right now and say you have adequate time. We invite you to come
down and present your amendments for consideration. As I said, Senator
Bayh has agreed to set his amendment aside should you come down and
want an amendment considered. Come on down. We are open for business.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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. THOMAS. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate to urge we move
forward with our highway bill. We have worked on this for a very long
time. I was on the committee 6 years ago when we passed the original
bill. We have not passed it the last couple of years but have simply
extended it. I hope we can move forward.
There are a number of issues before the Senate that have immediate
impact. One of them is this highway bill, as well as the Energy bill.
There are other conversations going on, disputes about a number of
issues, but overall we are here to do some work. This is something that
is most important. Six extensions is six too many. We need a highway
bill.
One of the problems is all of our highway departments, as they work
on highways, use contractors. Therefore, they need to make contracts
ahead of time. They have to know what funds are available. So it is
even more important for this particular activity to know what the
funding is going to be over time than it is in any other agency of the
Government.
Our State DOTs cannot make long-term plans unless they have some idea
of what the funding is going to be. So projects are delayed in Wyoming,
as I am sure they are in other States. One of our problems, of course,
is we have a short construction season. So it is particularly important
we be able to plan ahead and know when the construction is going to
happen.
Federal funds account for nearly 70 percent of Wyoming's Department
of Transportation highway construction budget. Even though we are
relatively low in population, we have a large State and, therefore,
lots of highways, and so on.
The long-term reauthorization of the bill, of course, will create
jobs. Contractors have to have the assurance necessary to commit
themselves to equipment and hiring people. It has been said that $1
billion invested in Federal highways equals 47,500 jobs. We are talking
about, in this bill, $280, $290 billion over time, so think of the
number of jobs that are involved. Of course, it also creates jobs in
related industries, such as those for engineers and those involved with
stone, concrete, and fuel, and so on.
So there are so many reasons we should move forward with this bill.
It deals with transportation, jobs, standard of living, quality of
life. All these things are touched in this bill. Yet we seem to be
awfully slow in moving it.
I am hopeful that as much time as has been spent on this bill in the
committees, in the House, and so on, that we will be able to move
forward and not have a whole series of amendments that seek to change
everything. We have already been through that. We passed a bill in the
Senate last year that was substantially higher. But because of the
administration, because of the ability to raise funds, it has to be
lower. So it is there for a reason.
This idea that somehow we can change it again, I am sorry, but there
is some realism in terms of funding, regardless of what the program is.
These programs, of course, are to come from gas taxes and the highway
system. So I think it is very important.
I happen to be chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. This bill is very
important for park roads. They currently receive about $165 million per
year. This bill will change that. So it will be about $1.4 billion over
5 years. Of course, the highways are an essential element, particularly
in the large parks we have in the West. They do not have the State
things, and so on. So it is very important.
I am not going to take a lot of time, but I wanted to try to
emphasize how important this bill is to most of us, and how important
it is to get this bill done, and also how much effort has gone into the
bill to bring it to this point, and to discourage anyone from trying to
make too many changes in this bill because it has already been
reviewed. It has already been bargained. Concessions have already been
made.
So we are ready to move forward. Quite frankly, it seems to me like
that is what we ought to be doing. So I urge everyone to give some
thought to this bill. If they have ideas, let's talk about them, but
let's get this job done. Let's get it out.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of the Senator
from Wyoming. I also represent a Northern State with a very short
construction season. We were severely impacted last year by the
inability to reach an agreement with the House and with the President.
But in fairness to all of us in the Senate, we were not the holdup in
that matter.
As I said on numerous occasions to the distinguished chairman of the
committee, Senator Inhofe, and to the ranking member, Senator Jeffords,
we had a bipartisan agreement in the Senate that was best for Minnesota
and I think for virtually every other State. I have not heard anybody
say they have too much Federal highway or transit money and don't know
what to do with it. But, unfortunately, we ran
[[Page S4384]]
into the intransigence of the administration a year ago, and with the
insistence of the President, the concurrence of the House, and were
unable to get what the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,
Senator Grassley, said was a fiscally sound and balanced--in terms of
the highway trust fund revenues--measure in the Senate.
So while I concur with the Senator from Wyoming, I might also point
out, as it relates to this particular legislation, the Democratic
leader, Senator Reid, last week wrote to the Senate Republican
leadership and urged that this measure be brought up this week. I
commend Senator Frist and Senator McConnell for deciding to proceed on
this very important matter for the people of this country rather than
some of the shenanigans that others were urging upon them. So we are
proceeding on a measured basis, but not with any resistance or
opposition by anybody on this side of the aisle.
We voted overwhelmingly to proceed on the motion to proceed earlier
in the week. It is unfortunate timing that our long-planned Senate
recess for next week will truncate the process. But I share the
Senator's view that this bill needs to be enacted as expeditiously as
possible. I hope the conference committee will be able to proceed as
quickly as possible thereafter, while recognizing the Senate bill has
been, and continues to be, vastly superior to the House version in
terms of additional funding. Those are matters worth arguing about and,
hopefully, prevailing on because Minnesota needs the money even as much
as we need the bill to be completed.
Mr. President, if there is no immediate business related to this
measure--I spoke earlier with the bill's manager--I ask unanimous
consent that I have up to 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.
Is this a propitious time to do so?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Dayton are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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, on behalf of Senator Shelby, I send an
amendment to the desk, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Shelby and
Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 573.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of April 26, 2005 under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me reemphasize to my friend from
Indiana, as soon as this amendment is disposed of, we will return to
the regular order, which is the pending Bayh amendment.
This amendment, which was crafted on a bipartisan basis in the Senate
Banking Committee, provides $51.6 billion to address growing public
transportation needs across the country.
It provides for record growth for public transportation and for the
first time recognizes the growing needs in rural communities across the
country, including my State and the State of the Presiding Officer,
Oklahoma, which has a rural population of greater than 57 percent. In
fact, in the final year of this bill, the rural transportation program
is doubled over its TEA-21 levels.
Additionally, it creates a new formula within the urbanized area
formula called the ``Rural Low Density'' formula. Rural transit is as
challenging to provide as the distances between employment centers and
health care centers are great.
This amendment also creates a formula to recognize ``growing
States''--those locations which are forecast to grow more quickly than
the average over the course of the next 15 years. This change will
allow those States, which includes Oklahoma, to be proactive with
regard to their transportation needs.
Finally, this amendment makes several modifications to enhance the
role of the private sector in public transportation. By creating
opportunities for competition, public transportation services can be
provided more efficiently.
I am happy to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Shelby on
the development of this amendment. I look forward to working with him
on final passage and a successful conference report.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, that the
language be considered as original text as part of the substitute for
the purpose of further amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 573) was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Senators Shelby and Sarbanes
because we cannot really entertain amendments that affect these titles
until we have them done. We are anxious to get the other two titles on
the bill.
I will repeat our plea for people to come over with their amendments
because the Senator from Indiana has agreed that he would set his
amendment aside when people come down, with the understanding we would
return to his amendment upon completion of those amendments.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me repeat one more time, we are going
to be open for business, as we were today, tomorrow. We will invite
people to come down.
I want to get on the record right now, very often we go through this
exercise and when we get close to the end of the consideration of the
bill, when cloture has been filed, everyone comes running and
screaming, saying they want to offer an amendment. Now is the time to
do it. Members can bring them down anytime tomorrow. I certainly invite
any Member to come down and offer the amendment tomorrow.
____________________