[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 64 (Monday, May 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5197-S5215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Inhofe amendment No. 605, to provide a complete substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 652 (to amendment No. 605), to provide 
     for the conduct of an investigation to determine whether 
     market manipulation is contributing to higher gasoline 
     prices.
       Inhofe (for Ensign) amendment No. 636 (to amendment No. 
     605), to authorize the State of Nevada to continue 
     construction of the U.S.-95 Project in Las Vegas, Nevada.
       Allen/Ensign amendment No. 611 (to amendment No. 605), to 
     modify the eligibility requirements for States to receive a 
     grant under section 405 of title 49, United States Code.
       Schumer amendment No. 674 (to amendment No. 605), to 
     increase the transit pass and van pooling benefit to $200.
       Sessions modified amendment No. 646 (to amendment No. 605), 
     to reduce funding for certain programs.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today we return to the consideration of the 
highway bill. The managers are here to work through the remaining 
amendments this afternoon, and we will have votes on at least one 
amendment at 5:30, or sometime around 5:30. The specific time we will 
state shortly but at around 5:30 today. We have an agreement for 
finishing this bill tomorrow. Under the agreement, Senators may offer 
amendments today from the limited list we agreed to last week. We do 
hope most of these amendments will not require votes. There are a few 
remaining amendments that will need rollcall votes prior to passage. I 
once again thank the managers for their hard work, and I look forward 
to finishing the bill tomorrow so we can get it to conference as soon 
as possible.


                                Lebanon

  Mr. President, in my leader remarks for the past week, I have come to 
the Senate floor to briefly comment on a recent trip to the Middle 
East. Over the April recess I had the privilege of traveling to Israel, 
the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. In each of these stops, I 
met with officials and community leaders. I also made a special point 
of meeting with opposition leaders as well.
  With each conversation, I learned more about the challenges facing 
this complicated part of the world. I became convinced that despite the 
deep differences that divide them, each party is committed to and wants 
peace and prosperity. Each side knows that dialog is the only way 
forward.
  Nowhere has this been on more astonishing display than in Lebanon. As 
we all witnessed, following the assassination of former Prime Minister 
Rafik Hariri in February, hundreds of thousands of Lebanese citizens 
took to the streets to peacefully protest foreign occupation and 
interference. The images on television were remarkable. Central Beirut 
was awash in this sea of flags of red, green, and white. Proudly 
defiant citizens passed out roses to the soldiers who had been sent in 
to contain them.
  It was a triumphant moment for the Lebanese people and a turning 
point in their country's history. Our delegation had the opportunity to 
walk through Martyr Square, as that square is called, where, on March 
14, there were hundreds of thousands of people who came forth to 
express the will of the people.
  Syrian military and intelligence personnel had been stationed in 
Lebanon for decades and had consistently denied the Lebanese people the 
sovereignty and territorial integrity deserved by all independent 
nations. In addition, heavily armed militias, such as the Deborah 
terrorist group, have operated with virtual impunity in Lebanon and

[[Page S5198]]

have been allowed to pursue their radical agenda.
  The last few months have been times of turmoil and opportunity for 
the Lebanese people. For the first time in decades, the Lebanese people 
are free of the interference of the Syrian military.
  However, it is still not clear that Syria is fully complying with the 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559. Resolution 1559 calls 
for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and intelligence personnel, 
and the disarming of armed militias. Although Syria claims to have 
removed all of its intelligence personnel from Lebanon, this has not 
been confirmed. And groups such as Deborah refuse to disarm.
  Resolution 1559 also calls for free and fair elections. Our first 
meeting in Beirut was with members of the opposition. They represented 
parties and religious sects--Christian, Druze, and Muslim. These 
leaders were well versed in the requirements for a successfully 
functioning democracy. In particular, they discussed the need to 
restore accountability, to restore transparency, to secure an 
independent judiciary, and to rebuild their economy so all Lebanese 
people have a stake in the future. Their commitment to freedom, the 
rule of law, and democratic governance was truly inspiring. They are 
intensely aware of the importance of this historic opportunity to 
secure a truly free democracy, and they were all united in holding 
elections on time in late May. While I am hopeful, it remains to be 
seen how their unity will hold once that new government is formed.
  We then met with the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Najib Mikati. I 
was greatly encouraged when he echoed many of the concerns that had 
been expressed earlier in the day by leaders of the opposition. He 
spoke of the need for an independent judiciary and respect for Lebanese 
sovereignty. I agreed with his assessment that economic reform required 
a strong private sector that is truly globally competitive.
  He also expressed confidence that Syria had withdrawn all of its 
intelligence agents and that the Lebanese people would soon see the 
benefits of freedom from foreign occupation.
  The Prime Minister also echoed the assurances of Parliamentary 
Speaker Nabih Berri that free and fair elections would take place as 
scheduled.
  Finally, I had the opportunity to visit with participants in a 
program called AMIDEAST. This program was established by our State 
Department shortly after 9/11, seeking to rebuild a better 
understanding of the United States by selecting young Lebanese students 
to attend American schools and live with host families for a year. I 
had the opportunity to meet with two students who will soon be in 
Tennessee.
  President Bush has rightly emphasized the importance of public 
diplomacy in our efforts to spread freedom and democracy. My 
interactions with the participants of AMIDEAST confirmed my belief that 
more such programs are needed throughout the region. We need to make a 
more concerted effort to reach out to the people of the Middle East, 
especially the young, and demonstrate to them that they can achieve 
their hopes and aspirations for peace and freedom.
  My visit to Lebanon and the determination exhibited by the Lebanese 
people in the past few months have been truly inspiring. I hope my 
Senate colleagues will join me in continuing to support the Lebanese 
people as they strive to achieve their dream of a free and prosperous 
Lebanon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Thank you very much, Mr. President.


                   Wishing Senator Paul Sarbanes Well

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would first like to say we have just 
received word that Paul Sarbanes has been taken to the hospital. He was 
attending the funeral of Chairman Rodino in New Jersey. We hope that 
for him and Chris everything works out fine. But I think everyone who 
is part of the Senate family should give their thoughts and prayers to 
Paul Sarbanes, a wonderful human being. I am confident he will be OK, 
but he is at a hospital now in New Jersey.


              Judicial Nominations and the Nuclear Option

  Mr. President, the majority leader stated the Senate will turn to the 
subject of judicial nominations this week. We are ready for that. We 
stand united against an outrageous abuse of power that would pack the 
courts with out-of-the-mainstream judges.
  The time has come for those Senators of the majority to decide where 
they stand, whether they will abide by the rules of the Senate or break 
the rules for the first time in 217 years--217 years--of American 
history. Will they support the checks and balances established by the 
Founding Fathers or vote to give the President unaccountable power to 
pick lifetime judges?
  I am confident and hopeful there will be six Republican Senators who 
will be profiles of courage. I have had Senators come to me, even 
today, Republican Senators, in personal conversations, telephone 
conversations, today and over the weeks, who have said: We know you are 
right. We know you are right. But we can't vote with you.
  Boy, I will tell you, that is--I told my staff today, these 
conversations have been some of the biggest disappointments I have ever 
had in my political life. To have people say they know they are 
breaking the rules, but they want to--I don't know all the reasons--
maybe so the President likes them or they think he likes them. I don't 
know all the reasons. It is hard for me to intellectually understand, 
emotionally understand how a Senator could say they know we are right 
but they are willing to break the rules to change the rules. I believe 
there must be at least six out there who are willing to stand up and 
be, I repeat, profiles in courage.
  While we are ready to debate this issue, I am deeply pained we need 
to do so. The Senate in which I have spent the last 20 years of my life 
is a body in which the rules are sacrosanct. We may choose to amend the 
rules by a two-thirds vote. We may enter into unanimous consent 
agreements to waive the rules. But never before in the history of the 
Senate has a partisan majority sought to break the rules in order to 
achieve momentary political advantage.
  We know that the Parliamentarian has said--and it is a nonpartisan 
office--this is the wrong way to go forward. I have had conversations 
with the Parliamentarians myself. So I repeat, never in the history of 
the Senate has a partisan majority sought to break the rules in order 
to achieve momentary political advantage, because that is what it would 
be. If this happens, it will be a short-term win for my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle but a long-term loss for the Senate and for 
the American people.
  I have worked so hard, Mr. President--I am not boasting about how 
hard; we have all worked hard, but I have spent the majority of my time 
in the last month on this issue. I have said privately and publicly 
this is the most important issue I have ever worked on in my 40 years 
in public service.
  In an effort to avoid this confrontation and preserve constitutional 
checks and balances, I have made every effort to be reasonable--every 
effort. Here on the floor, I offered last Monday an up-or-down vote on 
Thomas Griffith, a controversial nominee to the DC Circuit. Last 
Thursday, I offered to have an up-or-down vote on three nominees to the 
Sixth Circuit, two of whom were filibustered last year.
  These are not judges we would choose, but we know the difference 
between opposing bad nominees and blocking acceptable ones. In making 
what I thought were good-faith offers, I asked the majority: Do you 
want to confirm judges or do you want to provoke a fight? Regrettably, 
all of my proposals have been rejected--all of my proposals. There were 
certainly more than these, and I am not going to go through the 
proposals I made privately. I have only talked about those I have made 
separate from these offers.
  I wrote to the majority leader last week and suggested two ways to 
break the impasse. First, I made clear my previous offer to allow an 
up-or-down vote on one of the most controversial nominees remaining on 
the table.
  Second, I suggested we consider changing the rules in accordance with 
the rules--not too unique; if you want to change the rules, follow the 
rules--if the majority leader were to put his

[[Page S5199]]

proposal in the form of a Senate resolution and allow it to be referred 
to the Rules Committee.
  I have spoken to Senator Dodd. In fact, he was here last week to 
speak on this matter, but because of what was going on in the Chamber 
he was unable to do that. Senator Dodd said he would do everything in 
his power as ranking member to expedite this consideration.
  Neither of these good-faith suggestions have been accepted, and I 
guess it is clear why, I am sad to say. Republicans in the Senate 
demand to have it all. A 95-percent confirmation rate is not good 
enough. Votes on some of the most controversial nominees isn't good 
enough. They are prepared to do whatever it takes to achieve total 
victory.
  Meanwhile, the White House appears to be pulling strings.
  At a meeting I had in the White House, I asked the President: Mr. 
President, you could avoid so much controversy in the Senate. We could 
move forward on your agenda so much easier if you would intervene on 
this so-called nuclear option and help us resolve it.
  He said to me: I have nothing to do with that. That is all up to 
you--not me but the Senate leaders--I am staying out of this.
  Well, within hours after that, deputy White House Chief of Staff Carl 
Rove was quoted as discouraging any middle ground, all or nothing. Then 
Vice President Cheney gave a speech in which he said: All or nothing. 
On Friday, the Washington Times--and this is really interesting for 
those of us who love the Senate. On Friday, the Washington Times 
reported that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan ``flatly 
rejected any talk of compromise that would confirm only some of the 
President's blocked nominees.'' The White House is telling the Senate 
how to operate? The Press Secretary of the President is telling the 
Senate what to do and not to do? The White House, through their Press 
Secretary, flatly rejects an offer of compromise. What has this body 
come to?
  It is disturbing that the White House is playing an aggressive role 
to discourage compromise. Every high school student in America learns 
about checks and balances. The Senate advice and consent role is one of 
the most important checks on Executive power. The White House should 
not be lobbying to change Senate rules in a way that would hand 
dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches--the 
Congress and the judiciary.
  Of course, the President would like the power to name anyone he wants 
to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other Federal courts, but 
that is not how America works. The Constitution doesn't give him that 
power, and we should not cede that power to the executive branch.
  As the majority leader admitted with Senator Byrd last week, there is 
no constitutional right to an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. If 
there were, more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees had their 
rights violated. In fact, the Senate has rejected hundreds of judicial 
nominations over the years. Legal scholars say 20 percent of those 
selected for the Supreme Court have not gone forward. Prior to 1917, 
there was no way to stop the filibuster, and lots of judges simply 
didn't come forward. So we have rejected hundreds of judicial 
nominations over the years, some by an up-or-down vote, some by 
filibuster, and some by simple inaction. In each case the Senate was 
acting within its authority under the advice and consent clause of the 
Constitution.
  My friend, Senator Frist, says he wants a fairness rule, but a rule 
allowing the President to ram extreme judges through the Senate is 
unfair to the American people. Meanwhile, we need to get back to the 
people's business and put people over partisanship. We were sent here 
to govern, and right now we are not doing that. Gas prices are up, 
families have lost health insurance, pension plans are unstable, to say 
the least, and the situation in Iraq is grave. The Senate, literally, 
is fiddling while Rome is burning.
  Mr. President, I am going to continue to talk to the majority leader. 
I am going to talk and talk and talk as much as I can to try to resolve 
this issue. I know there are other efforts at compromise under 
consideration. But unless cooler heads prevail, this confrontation will 
be upon us later this week. If it comes to that vote, Democrats and 
responsible Republicans--if it comes to that vote, Democrats in the 
Senate and responsible Republicans in the Senate will vote to preserve 
checks and balances and preserve the principle that the Senate rules 
must not be broken.

  Mr. President, the eyes of the Nation are upon us. There have been 
few moments of truth like this one in the history of this great 
institution. The American people will see whether the Senate passes 
this historic test.
  Would the Chair announce what the business is before the Senate?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending business is H.R. 3.
  Mr. REID. There is no time for morning business this morning; is that 
true?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There has been none requested.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are at the point now where I believe we 
are going to hear from a number of Members who have submitted 
amendments and some who simply want to talk about the bill, some who 
want to talk about the formulas. We have had some requests for time. It 
is my understanding that we are going to have our vote at 5:30. It does 
mean we have limited time between now and then. Let me just make a 
comment or two about this and then ask--
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendments 
numbered 638, 690, and 723 be removed from the list of first-degree 
amendments to H.R. 3.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, 
and it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 619 to Amendment No. 605

  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Lautenberg, I call up amendment No. 
619.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the pending amendment 
is laid aside and the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 619.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To increase penalties for individuals who operate motor 
  vehicles while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol under 
                       aggravated circumstances)

         Strike section 1403 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1403. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR HIGHER-RISK DRIVERS 
                   DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED OR DRIVING UNDER THE 
                   INFLUENCE.

         (a) In General.--Section 164 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 164. Increased penalties for higher-risk drivers 
       driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Blood alcohol concentration.--The term `blood alcohol 
     concentration' means grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of 
     blood or the equivalent grams of alcohol per 210 liters of 
     breath.
       ``(2) Driving while intoxicated; driving under the 
     influence.--The terms `driving while intoxicated' and 
     `driving under the influence' mean driving or being in actual 
     physical control of a motor vehicle while having a blood 
     alcohol concentration above the permitted limit as 
     established by each State.
       ``(3) Higher-risk impaired driver law.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `higher-risk impaired driver 
     law' means a State law that provides, as a minimum penalty, 
     that--
       ``(i) an individual described in subparagraph (B) shall--

       ``(I) receive a driver's license suspension;
       ``(II)(aa) have the motor vehicle driven at the time of 
     arrest impounded or immobilized for not less than 45 days; 
     and
       ``(bb) for the remainder of the license suspension period, 
     be required to install a certified alcohol ignition interlock 
     device on the vehicle;
       ``(III)(aa) be subject to an assessment by a certified 
     substance abuse official of the State that assesses the 
     degree of abuse of alcohol by the individual; and
       ``(bb) be assigned to a treatment program or impaired 
     driving education program, as determined by the assessment; 
     and
       ``(IV) be imprisoned for not less than 10 days, or have an 
     electronic monitoring device for not less than 100 days; and

       ``(ii) an individual who is convicted of driving while 
     intoxicated or driving under the influence with a blood 
     alcohol concentration level of 0.15 percent or greater 
     shall--

       ``(I) receive a driver's license suspension; and
       ``(II)(aa) be subject to an assessment by a certified 
     substance abuse official of the State that assesses the 
     degree of abuse of alcohol by the individual; and

[[Page S5200]]

       ``(bb) be assigned to a treatment program or impaired 
     driving education program, as determined by the assessment.

       ``(B) Covered individuals.--An individual referred to in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) is an individual who--
       ``(i) is convicted of a second or subsequent offense for 
     driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence 
     within a period of 10 consecutive years;
       ``(ii) is convicted of a driving-while-suspended offense, 
     if the suspension was the result of a conviction for driving 
     under the influence; or
       ``(iii) refuses a blood alcohol concentration test while 
     under arrest or investigation for involvement in a fatal or 
     serious injury crash.
       ``(4) License suspension.--The term `license suspension' 
     means, for a period of not less than 1 year--
       ``(A) the suspension of all driving privileges of an 
     individual for the duration of the suspension period; or
       ``(B) a combination of suspension of all driving privileges 
     of an individual for the first 45 days of the suspension 
     period, followed by reinstatement of limited driving 
     privileges requiring the individual to operate only motor 
     vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock system or other 
     device approved by the Secretary during the remainder of the 
     suspension period.
       ``(5) Motor vehicle.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `motor vehicle' means a vehicle 
     driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `motor vehicle' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) a vehicle operated solely on a rail line; or
       ``(ii) a commercial vehicle.
       ``(b) Transfer of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), on 
     October 1, 2008, and each October 1 thereafter, if a State 
     has not enacted or is not enforcing a higher-risk impaired 
     driver law, the Secretary shall transfer an amount equal to 3 
     percent of the funds apportioned to the State on that date 
     under paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) to the 
     apportionment of the State under section 402 to be used in 
     accordance with section 402(a)(3) only to carry out impaired 
     driving programs.
       ``(2) Nationwide traffic safety campaigns.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) reserve 25 percent of the funds that would otherwise 
     be transferred to States for a fiscal year under paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) use the reserved funds to make law enforcement 
     grants, in connection with nationwide traffic safety 
     campaigns, to be used in accordance with section 
     402(a)(3).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 164 and inserting the 
     following:

``164. Increased penalties for higher-risk drivers driving while 
              intoxicated or driving under the influence.''.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as I was saying, we do have a lot of 
people who want to be heard on this bill. I believe I have said several 
times this could very well be the most significant vote we will have 
this year. It is a vote that we actually had last year. Senator 
Jeffords and I worked for 3 years on this bill, along with Senator Bond 
and Senator Baucus. The four of us have been shepherding this bill. Now 
it looks as if we are very close to getting a bill.
  Last year, our bill was funded at $318 billion. It was passed on to 
conference, and we lacked one signature of getting a conference report, 
so it did not happen. As a result, we are operating on our sixth 
extension. I know the occupant of the chair understands the 
significance of this. It means all the reforms we have in here, 
streamlining reforms, will not be a reality if we are not able to pass 
a bill, if we have to operate on a seventh extension. It means we are 
not going to have any help for the donee States. We will not have any 
help for the sparsely populated States. We are not going to be able to 
have the commission that is going to look into new ways of funding 
highways. We started off back in the Eisenhower administration. Since 
he started the national highways program, we have been funding them 
essentially the same way ever since, but this bill appoints a 
commission that is going to be creative and do a lot better job than we 
have done before.
  The formula--you always find someone objecting to the formula. It 
takes into consideration about 10 different things: size of the State, 
density of the State, the donor status of the State--things that are 
very significant in order to be totally equitable. One of the factors 
is the highway fatalities in the State on a per capita basis. That has 
to tell you something. If one of the States has a lot more fatalities 
on the highway, it means they have greater needs. My State of Oklahoma 
has terrible bridges. We are ranked dead last. We were tied with the 
State of Missouri, but I think we are now last. We want to correct 
that. We want this bill. It is very important that we have this bill. 
We are going to have our vote tomorrow, and we want to hear from anyone 
down here.
  I ask Senator Jeffords, did you want to make any comments at this 
time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. No.
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't see Senator Baucus. I ask Senator Bond, do you 
want to make any comments?
  Mr. BOND. No.
  Mr. INHOFE. Senator Thomas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. I will not take long. I know there is lots for us to do, 
but I wanted to come over to the floor and express my support for the 
movement and the passage of the highway bill. I, first of all, wish to 
thank the chairman and the ranking member for the work they have done. 
Having been on that committee in years past, I know how difficult a 
task it is and what a great job they have done.
  We have been now some 5 or 6 years waiting to do what we really need 
to do, clearly need to do. All of us have highway problems. All of us 
have need for an infrastructure. It is certainly one of the things that 
creates more jobs than almost anything we could possibly have. And the 
transportation system is something we clearly need for the future. So I 
guess I am a little disappointed that it has taken as long as it has 
for us to move forward. But now we do have an opportunity to do that, 
and certainly it is the time to do it. This bill has been reviewed by 
almost everybody in the place. We don't need to spend a lot more time 
talking about it. Certainly, there will be some amendments. However, 
the House has passed a similar bill. I think we should stick to the 
highway funding as it was set up in the budget, frankly, but that is an 
issue that will be resolved in time.
  So I just hope we can pass it here. I think these decisions as to how 
the money is used should be made in the States, and we do not want a 
bunch of decisions made here as to the details of transportation.
  I will not take more time, but I do want to say that it is 
discouraging and frustrating for us to take this long to move forward. 
We have so many things out there we need to be doing. The Energy bill 
is just as important as this, perhaps even more. We have laid it aside 
and continue to wait. We need to be looking at the future both in the 
highway bill and energy as to where we are going to be in 10 or 15 
years and make some policy decisions with respect thereto.
  One of the real problems, of course, with highway funding is that 
all, practically all of the work that is done on highways is done by 
contracting with our various State departments that handle highways. 
When you do contracting, you have to have knowledge of the time ahead 
as to what your financing is going to be because contracting is done in 
the future.
  So I hope we can get on with this bill. I think we need to be talking 
about budgets. That is one of the things that is very important to us. 
Energy is very important to us. I think we need to get over this idea 
of stalling.
  I noticed the minority leader has said we are talking about breaking 
the rules. We are not breaking the rules. We are going to change the 
rules so that we can move forward. I think it is time to stop the 
chatter about that as well and move on to something that we can do.
  So we need a bill. Extensions are no longer acceptable. Our State 
DOTs cannot wait long periods of time. Our construction time in 
Wyoming, for example, is very short during the summer.
  So, Mr. President, I again thank the managers of this bill for moving 
forward. Let's get it done.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for an 
excellent point, and that point is we are on our sixth extension now. 
Some extensions are 30-day extensions, some of them are 6-month 
extensions, and you can't expect the contracting community out there to 
be able to plan in an efficient way to spend the money to build the 
highways, to build the

[[Page S5201]]

bridges, or repair the highways if they can't plan in advance. This 
would give us 5 more years on a 6-year authorization. It is absolutely 
imperative.
  I say to my colleagues that we are now operating on the bill, so 
whoever seeks recognition can get recognition as he or she desires.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't believe we are yielding time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I don't want to object, 
but we have a short period of time until we have to go to the highway 
bill vote. We have a long list of people who want to speak on the 
highway bill. What I would ask of the Senator from Hawaii is that 
instead of his speaking for 15 minutes, he go ahead and start, and if 
anyone wants to seek recognition on the highway bill, they could do so.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator withdraw his request?
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I will not ask for time. I ask unanimous 
consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1037 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have several requests to speak prior to 
4 o'clock and then more prior to 5:30 on the highway bill which is the 
regular order. So far, those speakers who want to speak in morning 
business have been kind enough to say that they would not mind being 
interrupted, if necessary, if someone came down to talk about the 
highway bill. I appreciate that and remind my colleagues that we don't 
have a lot of time between now and the vote at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to introduce a bill and speak 
about it briefly. I will do that with the proviso that if someone comes 
and wishes to speak about their amendment on the highway bill, I will 
be happy to relinquish the floor.
  Is the Senator from Iowa wishing to speak on an amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. The Senator from Iowa, chairman of the Finance Committee, 
has a title under this bill. If you don't mind, I am sure there will be 
time.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to defer. I know this highway bill is 
important to get passed as soon as possible. I am happy to yield the 
floor and perhaps, following the Senator from Iowa, if there is an 
opportunity, I will make my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it should be quite obvious from 
America's increasing dependence on foreign sources of oil that it has 
now reached a very critical threshold which calls for immediate action. 
This bill before us is part of our immediate action, as it has some 
things in it to increase our availability of domestic supplies of 
energy. Global oil prices and supplies remain beyond our reach, just as 
surely as our own demand here at home will remain constant. Abroad, oil 
prices and supplies are at best in a state of flux, very unpredictable. 
At worst, you could say that things are beyond our control.
  Our obvious goal in a lot of our energy legislation--some of it is 
part of this bill and part of the debate we had 2 years ago on the 
highway bill--is to get some of this under our control by having less 
dependence upon foreign sources of oil.
  In China, for instance, the competition for oil is unprecedented. So 
determined is China to protect itself and its burgeoning growth against 
global uncertainty, they have recently secured supplies from both 
Canada and Venezuela and are actively seeking oil from producers upon 
whom the United States has traditionally relied. Some experts suggest 
that we have now reached our global supply limits, perhaps even that we 
have exceeded them.
  If they are correct--and of course we hope they are not--we face more 
shortages and rising prices. The answer to these very real and vexing 
questions about the global security of supply and price for America's 
oil demands are far beyond this Senator and indeed even beyond this 
legislation before the Senate.
  However, I believe, with this amendment as part of the managers' 
package, we will go a long way toward reducing our domestic dependence 
upon oil dedicated to our transportation sector. We are gulping vast 
amounts of imported oil in an increasingly futile attempt to quench our 
thirsty addiction to petroleum. Today, our transportation sector 
accounts for two-thirds of the total United States demand. This forces 
us to import a whopping 60 percent of our petroleum needs.
  I remember a time when we thought it was inconceivable America would 
ever exceed even 50-percent reliance upon foreign oil. Yet, we have, 
and then we exceeded even that, until here we are today at more than 60 
percent. What can we do now to alleviate the problem? How can we do so 
here at home?
  The President pointed something out when he spoke last week about the 
pressing needs to develop and implement comprehensive national energy 
policy, and I think it bears repeating if only through paraphrasing. 
President Bush indicated that technology would provide our Nation with 
the means to reduce our demand for petroleum-based fuel, thus reducing 
the high price of gasoline. The President also stressed we must embrace 
domestic alternative fuels as a critical midstep on the pathway toward 
hydrogen, which may well prove to be our ultimate fix. But the simple 
fact remains that a sustainable, affordable hydrogen program is still 
decades away. Transitioning America away from our entrenched dependency 
on foreign petroleum fuels to cleaner, cheaper domestic alternatives is 
occurring right now here at home. We should not be oblivious to it. I 
agree with the President that these domestic alternatives need to be 
embraced and encouraged. To that end, therefore, as chairman of the 
Finance Committee, I have developed a proposal entitled the 
``Volumetric Excise Tax Credit for Alternative Fuels.'' It would be 
just like VEETC for ethanol and biodiesel that we passed last year, 
only extended to alternative fuels. This proposal would help 
significantly accomplish that goal of being less dependent upon foreign 
sources of energy.
  The VEETC proposal would provide for the expansion and modification 
of the Volumetric Excise Tax Credit for Alternative Fuels. Our proposal 
will expand last year's excise tax formula, as it relates to ethanol, 
to include an excise tax credit for all domestic alternative fuels 
which would displace imported petroleum. This is how it would work. 
Some fuels, such as natural gas, presently pay a partially reduced rate 
of excise tax into the highway trust fund.
  However, because these motor vehicles exact the same amount of damage 
to our roads and highways, my amendment would have them pay an 
increased rate of Federal excise tax into the highway trust fund. With 
this mechanism, the President's objective of displacing as much 
imported oil as possible is met. As importantly, the increased excise 
tax payments would go a long way toward increasing revenue into the 
highway trust fund for the near term and well into the foreseeable 
future.
  This is not a new concept. Congress passed, and the President signed 
into law, a similar provision last year providing the same treatment 
for ethanol and biodiesel. In an effort to further encourage other 
domestic alternative fuels, this new VEETC amendment that we will be 
taking up which enjoys broad bipartisan support, it constitutes a 
simple expansion on the part of the framers to include other 
alternative fuels which displace imported petroleum-based fuels. 
Adoption of the VEETC for alternative fuels would constitute a win-win. 
It puts more money into the highway trust fund, while at the same time 
promoting domestic sources of motor fuel.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, again, I seek permission to speak as in 
morning business. I will relinquish the floor if somebody wishes to 
speak about the highway bill.

[[Page S5202]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Piracy and Counterfeiting by China

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am introducing some legislation today, 
along with Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina to construct. It 
deals with the issue of piracy or counterfeiting of goods by China. It 
relates to the substantial loss of U.S. jobs, and $200 billion in harm 
to the U.S. economy as a result of the piracy and counterfeiting that 
is going on in China.
  What is our Government's reaction to this problem? Our government's 
reaction to date can be characterized as somewhere between looking 
worried, a deep frown, or thumb-sucking. Essentially, it is doing 
nothing to stand up for this country's economic interests.
  Let me describe the problem. The U.S. Trade Representative has 
concluded that: ``China has not resolved critical deficiencies in 
intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and, as a 
result, infringements remain at epidemic levels.''
  In short, the Chinese are cheating, counterfeiting American goods and 
robbing jobs from our country. Chinese fake goods coming into the 
United States grew 47 percent last year. The Chinese government is not 
doing anything about it. Investigations of counterfeiting in China, as 
you see, have taken a nosedive. The vast majority of products in the 
United States that are counterfeits or pirated are Chinese; 67 percent 
of the counterfeit products in this country are Chinese counterfeit 
products.
  The question is, What are we going to do about it? Senator Lindsey 
Graham and I are offering a sense of the Senate resolution--and we will 
ask the Senate to vote on it at some point--calling for the immediate 
launch of a WTO case against China for gross violation of U.S. 
intellectual property rights.
  On April 29, last month, the U.S. Trade Representative released a 
report finding that China had broken its promises to crack down on this 
piracy and counterfeiting. They have done nothing. They promised the 
moon, and they have done nothing. The question is, Will this country 
stand up for its own economic interests?
  Mr. President, let me give you specific case that I think is 
interesting. Time magazine wrote recently about a new car produced by 
Chery, an automobile company in China--that's right, not Chevy, but 
Chery the Chery Automobile Company.
  A Chinese firm called the Chery Automobile Company has stolen 
production-line blueprints for a new GM car called the Chevrolet Spark. 
The Chery Automobile Company is going to be producing that car, which 
they call the QQ, and they plan to sell five models, including an SUV, 
in the United States. Chery has teamed up with the man who brought the 
Subaru to America in the 1960s. Their plan is to import up to a quarter 
of a million Cherys starting in 2007.
  GM is now in court. General Motors filed an action alleging that 
their production-line blueprints were stolen.
  But it is not just that. It is so many different products. Take a 
look at the products that all of us know--films, publishing, software, 
electric equipment, automotive parts, on and on--have been 
counterfeited and pirated. It means American lost jobs and a higher 
trade deficit to the tune, we are told, of $200 billion in piracy and 
counterfeiting.
  Now, given that we had specific promises by China that they would 
begin to crack down on this with respect to their entrance into the 
World Trade Organization, and the fact we know they have done nothing--
our own U.S. Trade Ambassador says they have done nothing, that it is 
``epidemic''--when will this country take action?

  Winston Churchill once told a story of being taken to a carnival by 
his parents. He was speaking to his adversary in the House of Commons, 
and he told the story about seeing the sideshow's big canvas sign that 
says, ``Come Inside and See the Boneless Wonder,'' a man apparently 
born without bones. Winston Churchill said he was with his parents that 
day; his parents thought it was too traumatic to take a young boy into 
a carnival sideshow to see the boneless wonder. He never got to see it 
until that day on the floor of the House of Commons. When he addressed 
his adversary, he said, ``Finally, I see a boneless wonder.''
  Boneless wonder is a good way to describe, in my judgment, those 
involved in trade policy in this country, who fail to stand up for this 
country's economic interests, who don't have the backbone to stand up 
and say it is in our country's interests, in the interest of our jobs, 
to take action against those who pirate or counterfeit American 
intellectual property. I have talked often on the Senate floor about 
trade with China and Japan and Korea and with Europe. There has been a 
lack of spine on many fronts. In this case, I am speaking specifically 
about counterfeiting and piracy by the Chinese, with whom we have the 
largest trade deficit in history.
  Now we see that the USTR says it is in epidemic proportions--piracy 
and counterfeiting--and yet nothing is being done. The question is, 
Will we do something? Will we finally have the nerve to say we want a 
WTO case to be commenced against the Chinese?
  This is a sense of the Senate resolution asking that the USTR 
commence a WTO case against the Chinese. Again, it is not me who says 
that the Chinese have cheated. The U.S. Trade Representative said 
himself that: ``China has not resolved of the critical deficiencies in 
intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and, as a 
result, infringements remain at epidemic levels.''
  That amounts to massive wholesale stealing going on. It affects this 
country in a very detrimental way. Will we begin to finally take 
action? I have mentioned before that part of our trade problem is due 
to the incompetence of our trade negotiators. There is no other way to 
describe it. In the bilateral trade negotiation that occurred with 
China about 5 years ago, our negotiators agreed that China would impose 
25-percent tariff on any American cars we tried to sell in China, and 
we would impose only a 2.5-percent tariff on Chinese cars coming into 
this country. That is fundamentally incompetent. I don't have any idea 
who would have agreed to that, but it obviously pulls the rug out from 
our country's interests.
  Now, we hear that General Motors has filed an action against Chery 
Automobile Company in China for producing a car called the QQ, which 
General Motors says was stolen from the production blueprints of 
General Motors for one of their vehicles. And cars like these are 
headed to our market soon, where the floodgates are wide open.
  It all comes around. Incompetent negotiators on our side, piracy and 
counterfeiting on their side, and unwillingness on our side to stand up 
for this country's economic interests; and meanwhile we watch the 
exodus of American jobs and the sapping of our economic strength 
because of trade rules, trade agreements, and the lack of enforcement 
that represents a basic unfairness to the producers and workers in this 
country.
  So the question remains: When will our Government stand up for 
American workers? When will our Government stand up for American 
producers? I am talking about unfair trade, and about a Chinese 
Government that does nothing about it. It is past the time--long past--
when our country should expect action. The citizens of our country 
deserve a Government that does better for them in demanding fair trade.
  So my colleague and I will introduce the resolution today. It is a 
sense of the Senate resolution that calls for a WTO case to be filed by 
our Trade Ambassador against China for gross violations of U.S. 
intellectual property rights.
  There are so many examples of piracy and counterfeiting that I will 
not begin to chronicle them, but I will say this: I know that many U.S. 
companies that are victimized by counterfeiting do complain mightily, 
but they are also very nervous about an action being filed against this 
kind of stealing and cheating. It is time for them to decide whether 
they are interested in solving the problem or just complaining about 
it. If they are interested in just complaining about being victims, 
then they are going to ultimately be happy if the trade ambassador 
continues to do nothing. But in my judgment, it is a disservice to our 
country's interests at a time when we have the highest trade deficits 
in history, at a time when we are trying to hang on to American jobs, 
trying to stem the flow

[[Page S5203]]

of American jobs outside of our country that are moving abroad in 
wholesale numbers. It is a disservice to our country's interests for us 
not to stand up when we see unfair trade and take action against it.
  That is why Senator Lindsey Graham and I have submitted this 
resolution today. That is why I hope in the coming days and weeks we 
will be able to have an opportunity for the Senate to express itself. 
Does the Senate believe we ought to have our trade ambassador file an 
action with the WTO, or does it not believe that? Does it believe this 
is a serious problem, or does it think it is simply an annoyance?
  I hope most Senators will agree with Senator Graham and myself that 
this is a very serious problem and one that deserves an opportunity to 
be corrected.
  Mr. President, let me now take a moment to congratulate Senator 
Inhofe and Senator Jeffords for their work on the highway bill. This is 
business that has been around the Senate for over 2 years. Most all of 
us wished--and I know no one more than the chairman and ranking 
member--we had passed a highway bill a long while ago, but it has taken 
some effort to get the kind of highway bill to the floor of the Senate 
that they have been able to get here.
  I very much appreciate their leadership. Is this bill perfect? No, 
but it is an awfully good bill. Tomorrow, hopefully, when we finally 
pass this legislation and get to conference, my hope is the conference 
will have the wisdom to accept the Senate bill. There is a very big 
difference between the Senate bill and the House bill. My thoughts go 
with the chairman and ranking member and the conferees as they go to 
conference because this is a very important piece of legislation, and I 
compliment them.
  Finally, all the papers warned us this will be some momentous week 
with respect to the so-called nuclear option and other issues. Just as 
I think all of us feel good about talking about a highway bill which is 
important and which strengthens this country, I think all of us would 
much prefer to be on the floor of the Senate talking about jobs, health 
care, energy, and about all the other issues that are so important. My 
hope is at the end of this week, we will get back to those issues as 
well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for 
his comments on the highway bill. It is very significant. It probably 
could very well be the most significant bill we will be voting on this 
year.
  If I can get the attention of the Senator from North Dakota, I have 
had occasion to give four 1-hour China speeches on the floor of this 
Senate in response to the 2004 report to the Congress on the China 
Economic and Security Commission. I do not know whether the Senator 
from North Dakota has read that yet, but I am going to call that up 
with a resolution to implement the recommendations.
  This is far more serious than even some of the issues the Senator 
from North Dakota mentioned in his excellent comments. If we look at 
how China is now using up the resources we are depending upon, if we go 
to any of the countries in Africa, such as Nigeria and the coast of 
Guinea where they have huge reserves, we find the Chinese are building 
huge stadiums, coliseums, and roads, and paying for it themselves to 
get the corner on those markets we will be dependent upon at some time. 
They are dealing with countries such as Iran and exchanging nuclear 
technology.
  I have been deeply concerned about the Chinese, not just in what they 
have been able to do in terms of their nuclear capabilities, but also 
their conventional capabilities. It was in 1998 that GEN John Jumper 
came forth and said something that startled a lot of people, but we 
knew it all the time, and that is the Russians are now making a strike 
vehicle, an SU-30, that is better than our strike vehicles, the F-15 
and F-16. And then we find out China has purchased, in one purchase, 
240 of these vehicles. Their buildup of conventional forces and what 
they are doing economically to this country is very disturbing to me. 
It has to be addressed.

  I hope the Senator from North Dakota will join us in trying to 
implement the recommendations of this 2004 study--it was 4 years in the 
making--of the security and economic problems we are facing today as a 
result of the Chinese buildup.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question. 
I agree with what Senator Inhofe has described with respect to the 
Chinese, and I think he would agree neither of us is attempting to 
paint the Chinese as an adversary. Our intention is to make China a 
long-term friend of our country, but for that to happen, the Chinese 
need to do the right thing on trade and security issues.
  I have described today with respect to piracy and counterfeiting some 
very troubling issues, and Senator Inhofe knows and I know and others 
know there are some very serious and very troubling issues with respect 
to international security. That is the movement of critical materials 
and technology to the wrong parts of the world, the purchase of that 
technology by the Chinese.
  Our intention and our hope is to work with the Chinese. But I think a 
country cannot sit back and say, whatever happens happens, whatever you 
are doing, that is fine. You have to stand up to things you find 
troubling. People take advantage of you if you let them take advantage 
of you. The same thing is true of countries, whether it is trade or 
international security. We have a responsibility to speak out with 
respect to issues, whether it be the Chinese or others, when we think 
they are an affront to our economic interests and our long-term 
national interests.
  I appreciate the comments of Senator Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, this Commission worked 4 years. 
They studied it from a security and economic standpoint. It was 
bipartisan and had every expert one can think of on the Commission. 
They came out with some very strong recommendations. I would hope the 
Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina might 
want to expand what they are doing after reading the recommendations. 
Maybe we can join forces at a later date and have a resolution 
recommending the adoption of the recommendations of this Commission.
  Mr. President, again, we are on the highway bill. Senator Jeffords, 
the ranking member of the EPW Committee, and I worked so well together 
on this. I have to say before he makes his comments, there are a lot of 
provisions in this bill that he likes better than I like, and there are 
provisions I like better than he likes. That is what it is, that is how 
we got to where we are today. It has been a great working relationship, 
and I anticipate we are going to be successful in getting this bill 
passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. 
We are making progress. I know we are going to come out with a good 
bill. I look forward to working with him.
  Today we begin the third week of debate on this very important 
legislation. The bill before us, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, better known as the 
highway bill, is important to the Nation.
  Too many Americans are sitting in traffic. The Texas Transportation 
Institute, which ranks U.S. cities on the severity of their congestion, 
tells us in a recently released report that the average commuter in 
Atlanta sits in traffic for 67 hours each year; Washington, DC, for 69 
hours; San Francisco, 72 hours; in Los Angeles, the average commuter 
sits in traffic for an astounding 93 hours each year. That is almost 4 
days each year wasted while sitting behind the wheel in traffic.
  I would hope we could move away from our reliance on cars and make 
better use of public transit, but the reality is the number of cars on 
the roads increases each year.
  The bill before us will help cities in all of our States reduce 
congestion by adding additional travel lanes, by building overpasses at 
busy intersections, and using the best technology available to keep our 
traffic moving.
  We need this bill to make our roads safer. More than 42,000 Americans 
will die in traffic accidents this year. The bill before us will help 
States make

[[Page S5204]]

dangerous intersections and curves safer by putting up better warning 
signs, by building guardrails, and by building center median dividers.
  This bill will make our roads safer by helping States build wider 
shoulders for disabled vehicles, by building rumble strips to slow down 
traffic, and by building fences to discourage jaywalkers. This bill 
will save lives.
  Once again, I thank the chairman, Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, and 
Senator Baucus for all their efforts in moving this bill forward. And 
while I am glad we expect to pass this bill tomorrow through the 
Senate, I remind all of my Senate colleagues we still have a lot of 
work to do ahead.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont brought up a very 
interesting point when he said this bill will save lives. We have a 
whole safety core in this bill. This was done in the Commerce 
Committee's portion of the bill. That is why when we have a very 
complicated formula, one of the factors in the formula is the fatality 
rate on a per-capita basis of the States because that is one indicator 
that there is a problem with surface transportation and a problem that 
can be corrected with this bill.
  We had called this bill the SAFETEA bill because it has the safety 
provisions that will save lives. I can speak for my State of Oklahoma 
and many others that more than half the States are above this average 
in terms of fatalities. We need to do something about this. We cannot 
do it if we extend it.
  I do not think people realize that if we do not pass this bill by 
tomorrow and get it to conference and back from conference prior to the 
termination of this sixth extension--and that is May 31--then we will 
have to get another extension. If we get another extension, we will be 
doing the same thing we have done over the last 2 years with 
extensions, and that is continue it as it was under the 7-year-old TEA-
21. There have been a lot of changes since then.
  All those Senators representing donor States, such as my State of 
Oklahoma--I can remember when Oklahoma would only get back 75 percent 
of what they sent in, and now we have made improvements. The bill 
passed 7 years ago, TEA-21, brought up the minimum to 90.5 percent. If 
we had passed the bill we had last year at a higher funding level, that 
would have been 95 percent.
  In other words, every donor State or every State would get back 95 
percent of what they sent in. That would be better than the 90.5 today. 
At this reduced funded level, it will be about 92 percent.
  The point is this: If we do not pass a bill, it is not going to 
happen. We are not going to have any relief for the donor States. The 
safety core program Senator Jeffords talked about--he is right, it is a 
life-or-death issue. If we do not pass this bill, people are going to 
die. People are going to die because we don't have any safety 
provisions in the extension so none of those would be adopted.

  We have streamlining provisions. I think we all hear stories about 
how some of our antiquated rules, regulations, and statutes have made 
it almost impossible to get roads built and have made them cost 
something close to 15 percent more. We have streamlining provisions and 
reviews of this process in the bill, but if we don't pass the bill we 
will be operating under an extension, and that is not going to happen.
  I mentioned earlier today this all started with President Eisenhower, 
actually Major Eisenhower, back in World War II when he realized he was 
unable to move troops and equipment around the United States to 
prosecute World War II as well as he should have been able to. So when 
he became President, he decided to have this National Highway System 
and we passed this bill. We have been operating the same way since 
then, almost 50 years now, raising money to pay for our infrastructure 
in America the same as we did 50 years ago.
  We have done two things. First, we are giving the States the ability 
to be creative. I know a lot of people think no decision is a good 
decision if it is made in Washington. I have learned, after having been 
in State government and mayor of a city, that the closer you get to the 
people, the better the decision is and the more accurate it is. We 
recognize this. We allow the States not just to do things in general 
but also to come up with creative funding mechanisms, where they 
exercise the maximum of the private sector involvement in order to get 
these problems resolved.
  In this bill we hope to pass, we even have a national commission to 
explore how to fund transportation in the future. This is something 
that will not happen if it is an extension. So we need to have this. 
That is why it is important.
  We have the Safe Routes to School provision. I could probably name 20 
different provisions of this very large bill, but this is one that 
several Members had a great passion for. I know several Members in the 
other body, as well as Senator Jeffords, were concerned about the Safe 
Routes to School provision. This is something that will save young 
people's lives, but if we do not do it and instead operate under an 
extension, we will not have that provision in there.
  Anyone who has been in business and who has watched and waited, knows 
what you have to go through to get contracts, how you plan the 
financing, and that when you get the labor pool and your resources, in 
order to get the very most from them, you have to plan years in 
advance. The problem with the extension is it could be a 2-month 
extension or a 1-month extension or it could be 6 months. They are out 
there trying to address serious problems such as we have in Oklahoma 
with our bridges.
  By the way, we have had several losses of life in my State of 
Oklahoma--two in the fairly recent past--due to bridges crumbling and 
killing people. So we need to correct this problem. We cannot do it 
unless we pass the bill.
  A lot of the States are complaining right now, the border States--
California, Arizona, Florida, Texas--about the fact that, because of 
NAFTA, a lot of excess traffic is going through their States. We want 
to do something about that and we are doing it. We have a borders 
provision in this bill that gives them some of that relief. We will not 
be able to do that if we do not pass the bill. It is not going to work 
with an extension.
  Right now we have chokepoints such as the canals we have in Oklahoma. 
People do not realize they are navigable. I remember many years ago 
when I was in the State senate, in order to try to get the point across 
to people that we have a navigable channel that goes all the way to my 
hometown of Tulsa, OK, or Catoosa, and in order to show this we managed 
to take a World War II submarine, the USS Batfish, from Texas, in the 
boneyard, and moved it all the way to Oklahoma, and it is sitting in 
Muskogee to tell that story.
  The point is, if we have channel traffic activity, we have railroads, 
we have air, and we have surface, this provides chokepoints. We address 
the chokepoints as a major part of this bill.
  The last and maybe most important thing is we have firewalls. When a 
person goes to the pump and pays Federal excise taxes when they buy a 
gallon of fuel, that person expects that money will go to improving 
highways and go to transportation. That is a no-brainer. That is what 
is supposed to happen. That is what we told the people is going to 
happen. But that is not what is happening. The insatiable appetite of 
members of an elected body to spend somebody else's money is something 
we have to deal with on a regular basis. So we have a trust fund and 
people pay money into the trust fund, but every time they have a chance 
to steal money out of the trust fund, they do.
  What the Finance Committee tried to do, and I applaud them, they have 
put this together so they cannot do this that easily. For example, 
someone was complaining about the way this finance package is working. 
They said we have this program where we have hybrid cars so we give 
them financial advantages to encourage them so we can look out for the 
environment and save money on fuel and not aggravate the already 
existing energy shortage problem we have in America.

  What do they do? They give them that money. But they take it out of 
the trust fund. It has nothing to do with

[[Page S5205]]

that. This is environmental policy, economic policy, but it is paid for 
by the trust fund. This is wrong.
  In 1998, when President Clinton was President, he had a balanced 
budget amendment. He was going to balance the budget. But a lot of that 
money, $8 billion, was out of the trust fund to go toward the deficit. 
At that time I voted against it. All my conservative friends said, You 
want to do something about the deficit, don't you? But I said, Not on 
the back of the highway trust fund.
  The point I want to make is there have been raids on the trust fund, 
and not just the highway trust fund but others. In this legislation we 
hope to pass tomorrow, we have firewalls built in so they can no longer 
raid the highway trust fund. If there is no other reason to pass this 
bill, this would be enough of a reason.
  There will have been some complaints concerning our approach. There 
are two different basic approaches that one might take, putting 
together something such as the allocation of money that goes to the 
States. One is used in the other body. I served 8 years on the 
Transportation Committee in the House of Representatives. I know how 
that works over there. Frankly, it is more on projects than anything 
else. Not that there is anything wrong with that, except it would seem 
to me, and it seems to the majority of people in this body, better if 
you allocate on formula an amount of money then that goes back to the 
States and those States determine how to use it. In the State of 
Oklahoma we have eight transport districts, eight transportation 
commissioners. They sit down in a room. Certainly they know more about 
the needs in Oklahoma than we know here in Washington, DC. So we 
allocate the money in accordance with a lot of factors.
  We have low-income States as a factor. If you are in a State such as 
Wyoming or Montana that has a low population density, yet you have to 
have roads to get across it, that is a consideration. If you have a 
high fatality rate, as we mentioned before, that is a consideration. We 
want to consider the number of interstate lane miles they have, the age 
of those, the traffic on those--all these things are factors that are 
in a formula. It might be politically a lot smarter to line up 60 
Senators and say this is what we are going to do in your States and 
forget about all the rest of them and just do projects. We could do 
them. It is perfectly legal. We elected not to do that. We elected to 
do it the hard way with a complicated formula, and by the way, that is 
one nobody likes and that is probably a pretty good indication it is a 
pretty good formula. There are things I don't like. There are areas 
where I don't believe Oklahoma is being treated fairly. I am sure every 
one of the 100 Senators in this body can say the same thing.
  We are still waiting now. We will be having a vote. We are 2 hours 
away from the vote. So we will wait for those to come down.


                 Amendment No. 706 to Amendment No. 605

  On behalf of Senator Snowe, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment 706.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Ms. Snowe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 706 to amendment No. 605.

  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To specify which portions of Interstate Routes 95, 195, 295, 
  and 395 in the State of Maine are subject to certain vehicle weight 
                               limiatins)

         On page 410, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 18__. VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN MAINE.

         Section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended in the last sentence by striking ``respect to that 
     portion'' and all that follows through ``New Hampshire State 
     line,'' and inserting ``respect to Interstate Routes 95, 195, 
     295, and 395 in the State of Maine,''.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I observe Senator Snowe is en route and 
unless someone else wants to gain access to the floor, 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me reserve the right to object and ask the Senator if 
he would amend his unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as 
in morning business. However, if a Member comes with an amendment--
since the cutoff is 25 minutes away--the Senator agrees not to speak 
for more than a couple of minutes.
  Mr. WYDEN. I very much appreciate the work of the Senators from 
Vermont and Oklahoma, and if we have a Senator, I will wrap up within a 
couple minutes of time at that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Disclosure of CEO Pension Funds

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is a time when millions of our 
families are walking on an economic tightrope. I will talk for a couple 
of minutes about the double standard that applies with respect to the 
pension rights of our workers. When we look at what is happening today 
in America with the workers--for example, at United Airlines, we saw it 
at Enron, as well--the pensions of our workers are in a free fall, but 
the pensions of the executives, the CEOs, are safe and secure in a tidy 
lockbox. I don't think that is right.
  As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I will do everything I 
can to change it. I have been trying to figure out exactly how much 
money the CEO of any major company is receiving in this country in his 
or her pension package. This is a very difficult exercise. It is sort 
of like trying to find a needle in multiple haystacks.
  To begin the effort to try to figure out what these executives are 
paid, I was first instructed to call the Department of Labor to obtain 
a copy of a company's annual report of employee benefit plans. This is 
what is called the form 5500. After I did that, I was told to contact 
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to get hold of the 
company's 10(k) filing for the year in question.
  Armed with these two documents, you then have to figure out the 
amount of unfunded liability for all of the groups the company pays, 
and then subtract that number from a line item in the 10(k) form. Even 
when you go this route, what you have is, at best, a rough estimate 
that requires a background in pension legislation, an intimate 
knowledge of SEC requirements, and a degree in calculus.
  It seems to me that American workers, at a time when they are seeing 
their pensions shellacked--we saw it at Enron in Oregon where we had 
workers who used to have close to $1 million, and their private pension 
funds now have $3,000 or $4,000. They deserve better than to have to 
try to figure out, through a bevy of forms and stock options, deferred 
accounts, years of service calculations, equations--one form of paper 
after another--they deserve better than to try to have to sort all that 
out to see what the executives are making in their pensions while they 
are seeing their pensions evaporate in front of their eyes.
  Senator Kennedy has done very good work in terms of trying to sort 
this out so as to determine when a company tries to unload their 
responsibilities at a time of crisis.
  The Senate Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis, should do more. 
What the Senate ought to be doing at a time when we are seeing our 
workers suffer and their pensions disappear, the Senate ought to make 
sure that shareholders and the public can find out exactly and 
conveniently what these executives will be getting upon their 
retirement.
  I am proposing a bit of sunshine come into these executive pension 
lockboxes. Let's do for the workers whose pensions are being offered up 
for the CEOs, a bit of justice. Let's also do it for taxpayers because 
with every company that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation steps 
in to rescue, the agency's deficit grows. From an estimated $23 billion 
today, it is anticipated to grow to an expected $40 billion with the 
takeover of additional airlines.

[[Page S5206]]

  We are seeing our workers sacrifice. The question is, What are they 
sacrificing for? Apparently, on the basis of the news in the last 
couple of weeks, some of these workers are sacrificing in order to fund 
the retirement packages for the CEOs. That is not my view of making 
tough decisions together. That is not my view of coming together and 
dealing with a tough problem in an equitable way. It is a double 
standard.
  If you ask the average person on the street if they knew, for 
example, that the worker was going to be at risk with their pensions 
while the enormous pension of the CEO was protected, those workers 
wouldn't have any idea that was the case. They would say the same 
rules apply to everyone.

  We are seeing they don't. Look particularly at the pension 
arrangement for the CEO at United. Three months before United Airlines 
filed for bankruptcy in 2002, the company placed $4.5 million in a 
special bankruptcy protected trust for the CEO. So right now we are 
seeing the workers of United Airlines face the devastation of their 
pensions literally disappearing. They look at this double standard. The 
people at the top do not have to sweat it. That is not right. We ought 
to have one set of pension rules for everyone in this country. It ought 
to be based on disclosure and transparency.
  As a member of the Senate Finance Committee I am going to do 
everything I can in this session, on a bipartisan basis, to get this 
passed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for his excellent 
statement. I offer to work with the Senator to see if we can bring 
about some action to take care of those problems.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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, I ask unanimous consent, since we are 
right to the 4 o'clock deadline, that the managers' amendment proposed 
by myself and the ranking member be introduced at a time after 4 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there are many people to thank in what 
has been a long 3-year process.
  First, Chairman Inhofe. It has been an honor and a privilege to work 
with the Senator from Oklahoma. He has always been fair and 
considerate, and I enjoy our friendship. We have a couple weeks, 
possibly months, more to go to get this bill done. I look forward to 
working with him.
  Senator Bond also has been wonderful to work with. He brings spirit, 
enthusiasm to all his work, and a lot of humor, and I appreciate our 
close working relationship. He is a good friend.
  Senator Baucus, my colleague on this side, is a very close friend and 
has been a great addition to the team and this process. The Senator 
from Montana is a true legislator. He knows how to get things done. 
Without him, I don't think we would be as far as we are here today. It 
is an honor to work with such an intelligent and fair-minded Senator.
  There are many staff to acknowledge, also. I have always told my 
staff director, Ken Connolly, that in order to succeed in his job, he 
needed to hire a strong team and to hire staff smarter than me and him. 
Well, in this case, it wasn't difficult. Anyway, let me run through a 
few staff members who have helped the cause of moving this bill.
  Senator Inhofe's staff: Ruth VanMark, Andrew Wheeler, James O'Keefe, 
Nathan Richmond, Angie Giancarlo, Greg Murrill, John Shanahan, Marty 
Hall, and others; Senator Bond's staff: Ellen Stein, John Stoody, 
Heideh Shahmoradi; Senator Baucus's staff: Kathy Ruffalo returned to 
the Senate just this past spring to help us complete this legislation. 
She has been a fantastic addition to that team.
  On my staff, there are many people to thank, including JoEllen Darcy, 
Catharine Ransome, Margaret Wetherald, Chris Miller, and MaryFrancis 
Repko.
  However, there are four key people who need to be acknowledged and 
thanked for bringing this bill to us today. Malia Somerville has been 
the glue that kept our team together; Alison Taylor, the best chief 
counsel of any committee in either body of Congress; J.C. Sandberg, the 
only staffer who really knows what is in the bill, and the hardest 
worker in the Senate; and Ken Connolly, my staff director, who has 
built such a good team. To him I owe a great deal for the work that has 
been done.
  All of these staff members, I am sure, are looking forward to final 
passage tomorrow. They are even more eager, I am sure, to go to 
conference.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I also am going to thank staff. This was 
not easy. We have endured 3 years now. Ruth VanMark has been with me 18 
years and has all of the background in the other body in the 
Transportation Committee. They will all be glad to get a good night's 
sleep at some time. We go from here into conference.
  I suggest that we be aware that our 4 o'clock deadline has passed 
now. We have exempted the managers' amendment so it can be done at a 
later time. We are now down from 173 amendments to 7, so we have 7 to 
be voted on between now and tomorrow. At the conclusion of that, we 
will then vote on final passage and send it to conference. I hope 
leadership is working on both sides of the aisle to appointing 
conferees and that we can get it to conference and get it back.
  I keep responding that I believe we can do this within the May 31 
deadline and avoid an extension. We can show that things can happen in 
an expeditious way in the Senate, whether people believe it or not. If 
we get this passed tomorrow, we would have time to do it, if we are 
committed to making it a reality.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, earlier this week, I offered an 
amendment, which was passed unanimously, to eliminate the ability to 
toll existing interstate highways. I did this because I believe in 
using our tax dollars that we collect to support the Federal interstate 
highway program. But we ought to do it fairly.
  The majority of the highway system was designed in the 1950s to meet 
the needs of the westward expansion of a rapidly growing nation. Today, 
we face different needs. For example, new areas of population growth, 
especially along the southern tier, require new infrastructure, and 
also with the trade coming from NAFTA, we are seeing an even more 
increasing load that adds to the transportation burdens of our border 
regions.
  Strong trade partnerships with Mexico and Canada have provided great 
benefits for us, but the resulting traffic is damaging the highway 
network in my State and others, such as Arizona and Michigan.
  Most of the goods in our economy ride on our Nation's highways. In 
large part, over the past 50 years, the Federal highway aid program has 
assisted the States in producing one of the world's finest highway 
networks.
  To meet our needs, Congress must reauthorize surface transportation 
programs this year. States are responsible for converting the resources 
this legislation provides into infrastructure that allows traffic to 
move efficiently, and we want and need to undertake that construction.
  My major concern with the Federal highway program is that Texas has 
been a donor State for 50 years, contributing billions to other States 
to enable them to build their highway network. As a strong adherent of 
a National Transportation Safety Board system, I understand that large 
States, such as Texas, should assist smaller and rural States with 
their transportation needs because we all profit from the comprehensive 
highway network. What concerns me is the level of support Texas has 
been forced to provide to other States.
  In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Texas and other donor States 
received

[[Page S5207]]

as little as 76-percent rate of return on what our taxpayers send to 
Washington. With the 1998 bill, TEA-21, Texas's rate of return rose to 
90.5 percent in the formula program.
  This program produced real dollars. From 1994 to 2003, Texas 
contributed $20 billion to the highway trust fund and received $18 
billion in return. If not for other donor State Senators, such as the 
chairman of the committee, the Senator from Oklahoma, and improving the 
rate of return, Texas would have received only $15.8 billion. The 
additional $2.4 billion has been critical for us to meet our 
transportation needs. However, Texas has still given $2 billion to 
other States over this period.
  States such as Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan are 
contributing more and more, and we are the States that need the most 
new infrastructure to handle the greatest population growth. In 
addition, most of the donor States are border States with unique needs 
resulting from trade.
  Texas has more than 300,000 highway miles, the most of any State in 
our Nation. Texas highways are almost 10 percent of the national total. 
Eighty percent of NAFTA traffic travels through my home State of Texas. 
But while the entire Nation benefits from the resulting commerce, Texas 
bears the brunt of maintenance and upkeep on our highways.
  In 2003, more than 4 million trucks, hauling 18 billion pounds of 
cargo, entered from Mexico through 24 commercial border-crossing 
facilities. More than 3 million of those trucks, or 68 percent, entered 
through Texas. In addition, 90 million personal vehicles from Mexico 
also travel through the southwest border States.

  The donor States are the fastest growing States in America and are 
most responsible for the growth in the highway trust fund. Ironically, 
the formula in this bill offers the least relief to the States where 
cities are developing most rapidly.
  In 1998, Texas accounted for 7 percent of the highway trust fund 
receipts. In 2004, it rose to 9 percent, and during this bill, it may 
top 10 percent. In other words, we are paying a larger and larger 
share.
  The formula in the bill reported out of committee created a floor 
guaranteeing every State at least 110 percent of the total cash it 
received under TEA-21. To limit costs, no State may receive more than a 
certain percentage, 130 percent in year 1, of the TEA-21.
  So even if a State's contribution to the trust fund grows in excess 
of 130 percent, it hits the ceiling and it hits pretty fast on growing 
States such as Texas, capping our funding.
  Using cash as the measuring stick rather than the percentage a State 
contributes to the trust fund ignores whether a State is growing or 
shrinking, and it ignores whether it is giving more to the fund or 
less. This methodology hurts our growing States, and it helps the donee 
States which are contributing less to the trust fund.
  For example, Pennsylvania's share of contributions during TEA-21 was 
4.1 percent, but it is expected to contribute just 3.9 percent of the 
trust fund during SAFETEA. It does not make sense to guarantee an 
increase in cash when a State is contributing less.
  The formula in the pending substitute is made worse. Not only does it 
increase spending for the bill by $11 billion, it increases the floor 
to 115 percent. So Pennsylvania is now guaranteed to receive 15 percent 
more cash than it received from Washington in 1998, even though it is 
contributing a smaller proportion of the trust fund. Superdonor States, 
such as Texas, move up to an average return of only 91.3 percent.
  While this is an improvement, it is not enough. The committee tells 
me I should like this legislation because while total spending grows 30 
percent, Texas will see a 37-percent dollar increase compared to 6 
years ago. However, Texas's increase has little to do with the formula 
and instead is the result of Texas buying more gas and paying more 
taxes into the highway trust fund.
  It is fair, if a State's contribution is growing faster than the 
average, that it should receive higher than the average in return. This 
bill does not give Texas the resources to adequately expand our 
infrastructure at the rate the traffic is growing on the NAFTA corridor 
of Mexico and around our fast-growing cities. If Texas received all of 
the money that we contribute to the fund, this disparity would be 
reduced.
  I believe the ability to pay for highway project needs with their own 
contribution exists for most States, with very few exceptions, 
particularly in the West, and funding increases should be based on 
growth and need rather than tradition.
  I am not suggesting that we cut off aid to other States altogether, 
but I do think we can reduce this disparity in the current donor-donee 
system. It has been too large for too long and unfairly limits the 
ability of States to benefit from their tax dollars.
  We all want the Federal highway system to be good throughout our 
Nation, and that may require some donor status, but donating almost 10 
cents of every dollar is not necessary, and it is not fair.
  I recognize the needs of donee States vary widely, but we have never 
before created this special class of donor State to carry the heavier 
load, and I hope we will not do it when this bill is finished.
  At a minimum, we should all receive at least 92 percent in year 1 
rather than having to wait until the final year to get to that level.
  I have worked with the chairman for a long time trying to come up 
with a formula that would help mitigate the border States' particular 
needs because we are border corridors and most of us are growing 
States. I have come up with a lot of alternatives. None of them have 
been acceptable to the chairman and the ranking member of the 
committee.
  It is my hope that as this bill goes out of the Senate, which it 
will, we will be able to work in conference for some more fair 
allocation that is based on a State's needs, a State's taxing, and a 
State's efforts. It is only fair that the States that are growing, that 
are putting more money into the highway trust fund should get some 
bonus for doing that to help them with the needs they have.
  I think we have gone in the wrong direction, and I certainly hope we 
will come much closer to a fair allocation. I am not saying there 
should be 100 percent, but 91.3 percent is a mighty price for Texans to 
pay when it is growing at such a fast rate and has the most highway 
miles of any State in our Nation.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member as 
this bill does sail out of here. I cannot possibly support it in this 
current configuration. I still hold out hope that if we can come up to 
the 92-cent level, we would be in a much better position to feel good 
about this legislation, helping all of our States instead of just the 
donee States. And I hope the door will still be open to helping all of 
the States feel good about this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Texas for 
her comments. I know the depth of her interest and the passion she has 
for doing everything she can for her State.
  I have said several times on the floor of the Senate how difficult it 
is to come up with formula approaches. It is difficult. It is a tough 
thing to do. There are so many factors that go into it, such as the 
interstate lane miles, miles traveled, principal arteries, cost to 
repair and replace deficient highway bridges, weight nonattainment 
maintenance areas, low-population States, donor States, donee States, 
fast-growing States. Again, it would have been so much easier to do it 
the way it has been done before and the way we have done it, actually, 
in the other body just by making a political list, and when we get to 
the 60 votes saying: All right, that is it, the other 40 of you guys, 
it is your problem.
  We try not to do that. There is not one State represented in this 
Senate that cannot complain about some parts of the formula. We have 
tried hard. When we passed the bill out of committee, starting in 2005 
through 2009 in Texas, 90.5 percent was all the way to 2009, and then 
it was 92 percent. Now in 2006, 2007, 2008 at 91 percent and going to 
92 percent.
  Of course, the Senator is right that Texas is a very large State, so 
it represents very large amounts of money. But it is a half percent 
more in each of those 3 years of 2006, 2007, 2008. We have

[[Page S5208]]

tried to do it. We tried to work with each one of the States.
  As I say, I know her depth of interest. We spent many hours trying to 
work out variances.
  The problem we always have is nothing happens in a vacuum. If we take 
care of a problem in Texas, then that aggravates a problem in 
Pennsylvania.
  So formulas are tough. They are tough to deal with politically. They 
are tough to deal with rationally. I think we have tried to do the very 
best we can. With that, I am glad to yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I do 
understand exactly what has happened to the bill. I do understand the 
difficulty. The Senator is responsible for getting the number of votes 
he has to have to get the bill out of the Senate, and my colleague has 
those votes.
  I do hope, in conference, he will look at the border corridor issue 
which, when the bill came out of committee, was above the line, outside 
the formula, and did give some of the help to these fast-growing border 
States that have the NAFTA traffic coming in directly, which then fans 
out to the rest of the country where it is dissipated. I hope my 
colleague will take that into account.
  I was the one who authored the border corridor idea. It really did 
help when it was, as we discussed, above the line. I just hope, as you 
do fix particular problems for other States--whether they be pass-
through States or other types of designations--you will look at the 
border corridor issue, which would help both northern corridor States 
such as Michigan and southern border States such as California, 
Arizona, and Texas. It is still going to make us very big donor States, 
but it would mitigate it, to a great extent, because that is where our 
biggest problem is. We have three border corridors and two of them are 
clogged completely, all the way through Texas. That is not helpful to 
anyone.
  I don't want to toll a highway that is already in place. We have 
spoken on that. But I think we need to try to look at that issue in 
conference--if you can do something that would mitigate that particular 
problem.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is a very reasonable request the Senator from Texas is 
making. I observe we talked about this ``above the line/below the 
line.'' We plowed this furrow several times. However, when you get in 
conference, there are things that can be done. I can assure the Senator 
the State of Texas will be well represented in conference. I am sure we 
will hear proposals, and there will be some give and take in all areas.
  Of course, we will be dealing with another whole body over there, so 
it is hard to predict what will come out. But we will try to get to it 
expeditiously and see that Texas--as I say, they will be well 
represented. I think we all understand that.
  We are now waiting. We are, as I said before, down to about seven 
amendments. There could be a germaneness problem with some of them. 
Some of them could be worked out. My guess is, other than the managers' 
amendment, which Senator Jeffords and I will be propounding, there are 
probably, realistically, maybe four votes that we will be having. That 
is my guess what it will be. We have announced already we are going to 
have one tonight at 5:30, which is just an hour and 6 minutes from now.
  After that, we invite Senators to stay here and debate their 
amendments. I think we probably will not have votes until tomorrow 
morning. We can debate these amendments. I think by that time there may 
be as many as three or four amendments that would be appropriate for us 
to debate. Then we can get on to the final passage.
  As it is right now, we have plenty of time tonight. We have another 
hour and 5 minutes before the vote. I am sure Senator Jeffords joins me 
in making this request: Members who are authors of these amendments, 
they know who they are, come down. We are open for business. Come down 
and debate your amendments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 I will briefly talk about a provision in 
the Commerce title of the highway bill. We have the Commerce title, 
Banking, Finance, and EPW title. Section 7370 creates a hazardous 
material cooperative research program. It authorizes $2 million a year 
for each year, including 2006 through 2009, for hazardous material 
transport research projects on topics that are ``not adequately 
addressed by existing Federal private sector research programs.''
  The section goes on to require that at least one of the studies 
``provide an assessment of the need and feasibility of substituting 
less lethal substances than toxic inhalation hazards in the 
manufacturing process.''
  I oppose the provision and hope it can be removed in conference. I 
will be actively opposing it in conference to see it is removed. There 
is no such language in the House portion.
  The concept at the heart of this provision is called inherently safer 
technology and it is not about transportation but a longstanding wish 
of some of the environmental extremist communities. The EPW has spent 
the last 4 years working on the issue of chemical security and this 
issue of FIST has arisen several times in the context of the security 
debate. The idea of inherently safer technology predates September 11. 
It was around long before the tragedy of September 11. It has never 
been about security. It has never been about transportation. It is a 
concept that dates back more than a decade when the extremist 
environmental community--Greenpeace and others--was seeking bans on 
chlorine, the chemical used to purify our Nation's water. After 
September 11 they decided to play upon the fears of the Nation and 
repackage FIST as a solution to potential security problems. Now they 
seek to repackage it again as a transportation issue, which it is not.
  This issue is not about security. It is not about transportation. It 
is about trying to find a research justification for giving the Federal 
Government authority to mandate that a private company change its 
manufacturing process or the chemicals they use. The study's parameters 
reveal this intent when it states ``substituting less lethal substances 
than toxic inhalation hazards in the manufacturing process.''
  There are entire books written about the subject of FIST by various 
groups, including current efforts by the Center for Chemical Process 
Safety and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers to update their 
1996 ``gold book'' on the subject. These are chemical process experts. 
The Federal Government is not.
  I do not believe mandatory FIST is good for our Nation's security. 
Besides that, it is not a transportation issue. If it is something you 
want to debate in the Senate as a freestanding bill, do it that way, 
but do not sneak around behind and throw little a part into this bill 
through the Commerce title that has nothing to do with transportation.
  I mention this and anything else we find in the bill that perhaps we 
have overlooked that has nothing to do with transportation, we will 
make every effort to make sure it gets out when it is in conference.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will speak on another subject, but as 
per an agreement with the Senator from Oklahoma, should someone else 
come to the Senate floor and wish to speak on the subject of the bill 
at hand, I will yield the floor.


                             Nuclear Option

  Mr. President, I will change the subject to the subject on everyone's 
mind other than the transportation bill, probably more on our minds 
than just about anything else, and that is the upcoming nuclear option. 
Right now, we are on the precipice of a constitutional crisis. We are 
about to step into the abyss. I want to talk for a few minutes why we 
are on that precipice and why we are looking into the abyss.

[[Page S5209]]

  Let me first ask a fundamental question: What is the crisis that 
calls for the undoing of two centuries of tradition? What is the crisis 
that requires such an unprecedented parliamentary sleight of hand? What 
is the crisis that calls for a response that is so controversial and 
extreme that Senator Lott coined the term ``nuclear option'' to 
describe it?
  Is it that President Bush has had the terrible misfortune of having 
only 95 percent of his judicial nominees confirmed? That is, 208 out of 
218? It can't be that. Every President should have the luck of George 
Bush and have so many nominees confirmed to the bench. I might also 
add, in part because of this high confirmation rate, court vacancies at 
the end of last session were at their lowest rate in 14 years. So it 
can't be either vacancies on the bench or overwhelming rejection of the 
President's nominees because neither is the fact.
  Is it that the Constitution, as my strict constructionist friends 
across the aisle like to argue, requires an up-or-down vote on every 
judicial nominee? Is that the crisis? No, Senator Frist acknowledged as 
much last week when he conceded, after a question from Senator Byrd, 
that there was no such language in the Constitution.
  In fact, it is a great irony that those on the other side of the 
aisle who are seeking this nuclear option in the name of strict 
construction are being activists, as they call it, because they are 
expanding the Constitution, reading in their own views in the 
Constitution when the very words do not exist.
  It is my understanding that is what the Constitution-in-exile school 
holds; that is, what the strict constructive school of Justice Scalia 
holds. If the words are not in the Constitution, you do not read them 
in.
  Is the word ``filibuster'' in the Constitution? No. Are the words 
``majority vote,'' ``up-or-down vote'' in the Constitution? Absolutely 
not. That is not the crisis, either.
  Let me ask again, Why are we on the brink of destroying what is good 
in the Senate and destroying whatever is left of good will in the 
Senate? Is it that the public, in high dudgeon, is demanding this 
radical rule change? Are Republican Senators merely doing their jobs as 
legislators, responding to a generalized public calling for the 
abolition of the filibuster? Clearly not.
  It is not the American people at large who are demanding detonation 
of the nuclear option. Indeed, in poll after poll, first, people say 
they do not know what it is when asked, and then when it is described 
to them, the people have made clear they believe the filibuster is an 
important check and balance to be preserved, not vaporized. Most 
recently, for instance, according to a Time magazine poll, the American 
people are against the nuclear option 59 to 28.

  Nor is it rank-and-file Republicans who are clamoring for an end to 
filibusters on judges. A Wall Street Journal poll showed 41 percent of 
Republicans support giving the Democrats the right to keep the 
filibuster going. They, like most Americans, are wondering, and rightly 
so, why we are talking more about the nuclear option in the Senate than 
about nuclear proliferation in North Korea.
  Nor is it the business establishment--clearly, usually, a 
conservative constituency--that is calling for a change in the rules. 
To the contrary, the business community wants the Senate to get busy 
addressing important issues they believe will get the economy back on 
track. The Chamber of Commerce and many other business groups have 
either publicly or privately stated their opposition to invoking the 
nuclear option.
  Is it the ``gray heads'' of the conservative movement who are calling 
for this? No. By and large, elder statesmen from the conservative 
movement are not demanding this radical move. Many, including such 
leading figures as George Will and Ken Starr, have criticized the 
nuclear option and urge restraint--so have Senators Armstrong and 
McClure, hardly beacons of a liberal influence in this country or in 
the Senate.
  So if there is no constitutional requirement, and there is no vacancy 
disaster, and there is no public clamoring for the extinguishing of the 
minority rights to filibuster, why are we here? Why are we on the edge 
of the abyss? Why are we--at least the majority--being motivated to 
plunge this Senate, this city, and this country into a constitutional 
crisis, into an end of what is ever left of comity in the Senate, which 
is the body that has at least some comity left?
  Well, let me tell you why I fear we are here. We are here, I fear, 
because the nuclear option is being pushed largely by the radioactive 
rhetoric of a small band of radicals who hold in their hands the 
political fortunes of the President and a minority of sitting Senators 
who would be President. The once conservative Republican Party has, I 
believe, been hijacked by activist, radical, rightwing ideologues who 
are exerting too much influence over Senators.
  These ideologues have taken to intimidating and even threatening the 
independent judiciary. They have, among other things, compared judges 
to the KKK and claimed that the independent judiciary is worse than al-
Qaida. Unfortunately, these extreme groups are exerting 
disproportionate influence on certain Senators from the other side 
who--because of pure political pressure--are proceeding at pace with 
the nuclear option.
  There is, to be sure, much irony and hypocrisy in this dance. It is 
particularly perverse that many of my colleagues purport to preserve 
the principle of majority rule by doing the bidding of a distinct, but 
politically powerful, minority.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to finish my remarks, and then I would be 
happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. VITTER. OK, but I say to the Senator, I understood you had been 
given the floor until someone came to the floor to speak on the highway 
bill. About how much longer?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I probably will need no more than 5 minutes, if that is 
OK with my colleague.
  Mr. VITTER. OK, that will be fine.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. I appreciate that very much.
  It seems the only conservatives who are strongly in favor of the 
nuclear option--who are pushing it--are some Senators who might wish to 
run for President.
  Now, to hear the tirades of those demanding the nuclear option is 
spine tingling.
  Conservative activist James Dobson compared the nine Supreme Court 
Justices to the Ku Klux Klan's men in robes.
  Pat Robertson said the threat posed by judges was ``more serious than 
a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.''
  Conservative lawyer-author Edwin Vieira said Justice Kennedy should 
be impeached and invoked Joseph Stalin's murderous slogan, which he 
said worked very well for him:

       [W]henever he ran into difficulty: ``no man, no problem.''

  Do we hear any denunciation of this inflammatory rhetoric? No. 
Denunciations of heinous characterizations of independent judges? No.
  Instead, Senators--some maybe with Presidential ambitions--are 
kowtowing to these extremists. When the Democratic Party kowtowed to 
extremists on the left, we paid the price. It is a lesson I think we 
have learned. It is a lesson that ought to be learned by my colleagues 
on the other side.
  Now, let's try to examine the record. And this is the No. 1 point I 
want to make. Look what conservatives are saying, conservatives not 
running for President or running for office, but people whose 
conservative credentials go unchallenged. These are not moderates. 
These are not liberals. They are true conservatives, and a chorus of 
their voices is speaking out against the nuclear option.

  True conservatives, independent thinkers who are not under pressure 
from the likes of Tony Perkins and Pat Robertson and others, have 
eloquently made the case against the nuclear option. These 
conservatives have two things in common: They were strongly in favor of 
George Bush for President, and they are strongly against the nuclear 
option.
  Here are some of the names. Many leading conservative commentators 
and thinkers are against it, such as George Will and Kenneth Starr. 
Many former Republican Senators are against it, such as Senator 
Armstrong, Senator McClure, Senator Wallop, Senator Simpson. Many 
editorial boards

[[Page S5210]]

that endorsed George Bush for President are against it--the Dallas 
Morning News.
  I recognize that in these polarized times maybe the words of a 
Democratic Senator from New York will have little sway across the 
aisle, but what about the words of some icons and leaders of the 
conservative movement?
  I urge my colleagues who have not yet made up their minds and been 
committed to the nuclear option to heed these words. Most of those who 
have not made up their minds are far more moderate than the voices that 
we listed here, but they should be listened to in this instance. It is 
rare that you get so many conservatives--not in office, not under the 
thumb of these extreme, small-numbered groups--but rarely do you get 
such a chorus.
  Here are the arguments of the conservatives. The conservatives 
understand that destroying an important tradition of the Senate is not 
conservative. Conservatism has a long tradition in American politics. I 
agree with some of its tenets and disagree with many others. But true 
advocates and students of that tradition recognize better than anyone 
the violence that the nuclear option does to conservative principles.
  Ken Starr said in one leading magazine:

       It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang 
     effect, damage on the institution of the Senate, that 
     thoughtful Senators may come to regret.

  How about former Senator Armstrong? He said this:

       Having served in the majority and in the minority, I know 
     that it's worthwhile to have the minority empowered. As a 
     conservative, I think there is value to having a constraint 
     on the majority.

  Let me repeat that: ``As a conservative, I think there is value to 
having a constraint on the majority.''
  Jim McClure and Malcolm Wallop:

       It is disheartening to think that those entrusted with the 
     Senate's history and future would consider damaging it in 
     this manner.

  Second, these conservatives realize that the Constitution, even in 
expansive reading, let alone strict constructionism, does not support 
the nuclear option.
  In advocating for the nuclear option, Republicans in the Senate have 
abandoned conservative principles for convenient propaganda. In doing 
so, however, they are committing a level of intellectual hypocrisy that 
we have not seen since Bush v. Gore. To make sure that strict 
constructionist judges are placed on the bench, the nuclear advocates 
are reading the Constitution so broadly and elastically that it would 
make the most activist judge cringe. Do not take my word for it.
  Mr. President, I know my colleague is getting ready to speak, and I 
am almost finished. I appreciate his indulgence.
  Here is what George Will said:

       Some conservatives say the Constitution's framers ``knew 
     what supermajorities they wanted''--the Constitution requires 
     various supermajorities, for ratifying treaties, impeachment 
     convictions, etc.; therefore, other supermajority rules are 
     unconstitutional.

  These are the words of George Will, not Chuck Schumer.

       But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what 
     the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted.
       Some conservatives say there is a ``constitutional right'' 
     to have an up-or-down vote on nominees. But in whom does this 
     right inhere: The nominees, the President? This is a perverse 
     contention, coming from conservatives eager to confirm judges 
     who will stop the promiscuous discovery by courts of spurious 
     constitutional rights.

  That is George Will, not Chuck Schumer.
  Here is what Stephen Moore, founder of the arch conservative Club for 
Growth says:

       Eviscerating the filibuster would violate the spirit of the 
     Constitution and endanger our rights as individuals against 
     excessive governmental power.

  These conservatives also understand that no party lasts forever in 
the majority and the nuclear option may come back to haunt Republicans. 
For short-term political gain, Republican Senators are willing to trash 
a tradition that will hurt themselves in the long run.
  Former Senator Simpson recognizes this:

       [T]here isn't a question in my mind that when the 
     Republicans go out of power and they, they're looking for 
     protection of minority rights, they're going to be alarmed 
     and saddened.

  Finally, the conservatives also understand that once triggered, there 
will be no stopping the continued erosion of the filibuster. The 
legislative filibuster is also at great risk. Listen to former Senators 
McClure and Wallop:

       It is naive to think what is done to the judicial 
     filibuster will not be done to its legislative counterpart, 
     whether by a majority leader named Reid, or Clinton, or 
     Kennedy.

  Here is David Hoppe, former chief of staff to Senator Lott:

       That's the problem with the nuclear option, because it will 
     not stop there. The next step when somebody needs it will be 
     to get rid of the filibuster on legislative issues.

  In conclusion, we are here. We are at a defining moment in the 
world's greatest deliberative body. Now, this week, in the next few 
weeks, will enough of my colleagues across the aisle act with courage 
and conviction? Will enough of them resist the extremist entreaties of 
a tiny but vocal minority who only want their way 100 percent of the 
time, not 99, not 98, not 97? Will enough of them pay heed to the 
arguments made by independent conservatives of their own party, whether 
it is George Will or Bill Armstrong or Ken Starr or so many of the 
others I mentioned?
  Time is running out. Time is running out.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, now that time has run out, I am excited to 
be here to talk about the highway bill, important work of the American 
people that we must get done this week. I am here to stand in strong 
support of H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act of 2005.
  Last year, I traveled Louisiana extensively, campaigning all around 
the State. I heard concerns expressed in every part of the State about 
the importance of making sure that we in Louisiana get our fair share 
of Federal highway funding. In the past, Louisiana was a donor State, 
which means our State's taxpayers contributed more in gas tax revenue 
than they got back from the Treasury in highway moneys. As one of the 
newest members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I worked 
hard this year to ensure that we try to change this unfair state of 
affairs. So Louisiana's rate of return will substantially increase 
under the bill before us from about 90.5 cents for every dollar that we 
send in Louisiana taxpayer money to the Federal Government to 95 cents 
on the dollar. That is a huge jump. It is still not a dollar--we need 
to go further--but it is a dramatic improvement.
  This increase will provide my State with $2.9 billion over the next 5 
years, funding that is critical to ensure that work continues on one of 
my State's major corridors, I-49, as well as many other Louisiana 
highway projects.
  Providing additional funding for I-49 has been a goal of mine since 
my days in the House of Representatives. Upon assuming my seat in the 
Senate this January, I have continued to fight for those additional I-
49 dollars. That is why I initiated a letter in February to Chairman 
Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords calling for them to support a 
significant level of funding for the corridor improvement program in 
the highway reauthorization bill. That letter was cosigned by five 
colleagues.

  As a member of the committee that produced that bill, I am also 
pleased that we were able to agree on language that would redress a 
serious transportation and safety issue for my State. You see, 
Louisiana is the 22nd most populous State, yet it ranks third in the 
Nation in the number of collisions at highway-railroad crossings and 
fifth in the Nation in the number of railroad fatalities.
  Along the 3,000 miles of tracks in Louisiana are over 6,000 rail 
crossings, more than any other State except Illinois. So the bill we 
crafted would provide $178 million for the elimination of hazards and 
the installation of protective devices at railroad highway crossings.
  I wanted to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, in 
particular those on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for 
agreeing to the inclusion in the highway bill of three significant 
amendments that I offered. I thank Chairman Inhofe for his work on 
behalf of these amendments.
  One of the amendments would ensure that emergency evacuation routes 
are

[[Page S5211]]

emphasized as a program priority under the Multistate Corridor Program. 
The second amendment I authored would channel additional dollars to 
hurricane evacuation routes under the Federal Infrastructure 
Performance and Maintenance Program. And the third will help local 
officials complete much faster, and at much lower cost locally, a 
highway project connecting the parishes of Houma and Thibodaux, LA. The 
inclusion of these amendments in the managers' amendment will greatly 
benefit Louisiana and other coastal States across the country that 
experience frequent hurricanes.
  As noted in the Times Picayune and other Louisiana newspapers, the 
2004 evacuation of Louisiana due to Hurricane Ivan was disturbingly 
slow and marked by traffic gridlock. Traffic was backed up for 26 hours 
in Baton Rouge and 14 hours in New Orleans, while nearly 4,500 cars per 
hour were crossing the Mississippi River on I-10 at the peak of 
evacuation. Two of my amendments will provide additional funding for 
evacuation routes such as I-49, La. 1, and La. 3127 during hurricanes 
or other emergencies. Providing Federal resources to upgrade and 
maintain evacuation routes throughout the State will certainly help 
avoid the astounding gridlock and danger that occurred during the 
evacuation of Hurricane Ivan.
  The third amendment I offered will expand the scope of an existing 
Federal highway project without increasing the cost-share burden on the 
local community and State. Without my amendment, the areas of Houma and 
Thibodaux, LA, would have had to come up with as much as $5 million 
more money. This transportation project will establish a new north-
south evacuation route that is vitally important to residents of Houma 
and Thibodaux and all of those areas in southeast Louisiana.
  I thank, again, the full EPW Committee, the chairman, Mr. Inhofe, the 
ranking member, Mr. Jeffords, the subcommittee chairman and the 
subcommittee ranking member and all of the staff who have assisted on 
this bill, particularly Andrew Wheeler and Ruth Van Mark. I call on my 
colleagues to support the chairman and ranking member in their efforts 
to shepherd this bill through the Senate and through important 
conference committee negotiations.
  Congress has been extending funding for Federal aid to highway 
programs six times. The current extension is set to expire on May 31 
this year, a little over 2 weeks away. We need to pass this bill. Then 
we need to quickly go to conference with the House and resolve our 
differences with the other Chamber before that important May 31 
deadline.
  That is when the current extension expires and funding for Federal 
aid to highway programs will run out. I know that is a tall order, but 
all of our States' transportation needs, our Nation's transportation 
needs cannot wait any longer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana is being modest 
because he has had a great deal of influence on the amendments. A 
critical problem in Louisiana is beach erosion. He has persuaded our 
committee, in an articulate way, to become much more aggressive in 
solving that problem. We are a much better committee because of him. I 
thank him for his hard work on the committee.
  It is my understanding the senior Senator from Massachusetts wishes 
to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I commend my friend and colleague 
from New York, Senator Schumer. I was listening to him when he 
mentioned some of our former colleagues, all with whom I have served. 
He mentioned Senator Armstrong, and he also mentioned Senator McClure, 
and Senator Simpson, who was a good friend. I served with him on the 
Judiciary Committee. He mentioned Senator Durenberger. An excellent 
article was written by Senator Mathias last week. He mentioned Senator 
Wallop, and the list goes on. They are seven or eight members of the 
Senate who served in recent times and have a very good sense of the 
institution's importance, the importance of the powers of this 
institution and the relationship to the executive. They have a very 
keen awareness of the advice and consent role and understand this is a 
balance that both have responsibilities to fulfill. I think very deeply 
that Members of the Senate who have strong views on these nominees 
should not be muzzled, silenced, and they should not be gagged.
  The point I might have missed from my friend from New York is the 
restatement that 96 percent of this President's nominees have been 
approved. That is always something that causes constant amazement, I 
find, from people who call my office in Massachusetts inquiring about 
my position. They find out that 96 percent of the President's nominees 
have been approved and they wonder what this battle is all about. Then 
when you tell them this was not a battle the Members of the Senate were 
interested in, that it was as a result of the President sending back to 
the Senate those who have previously been rejected and indicated that 
they were going to add other individuals as well, such as the current 
general counsel of the Defense Department, Mr. Haynes, who was the 
architect of the whole torture and emasculation of the Geneva 
Conventions--these are individuals who are far outside of the 
mainstream of judicial thinking. I have had the chance to address many 
of these issues in the markups of the Judiciary Committee in recent 
times, particularly with regard to Mr. Pryor, who is from the State of 
Alabama.
  I took great pride in working with my colleague and friend from Iowa 
on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We spent a good deal of time 
negotiating that legislation. We had strong, bipartisan support at the 
very end. And then to read Bill Pryor's assessment of what that act 
said and his interpretation of it is completely antithetical to what 
the legislation was about, the language that was clear and explicit, 
and what the sense of the intent and the supporters of that legislation 
were about. The list goes on. So we welcome this debate.
  I agree with the Senator from New York that this is a monumental 
decision. We are talking about changing the rules of the game in the 
middle of the game. Americans may not understand completely all of the 
parliamentary maneuvers here that are available in the Senate, but they 
understand when you have an agreed set of rules, you don't change them 
in the middle of the game, and I think they also understand that when 
Members have strong views and believe nominees who are going to have 
lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court--not 3\1/2\ years, such as 
this President has in the remainder of his term, but a lifetime 
commitment--those who have strong views ought to be able to speak to 
those views and have a right to be heard.


                           Amendment No. 674

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on another matter, I rise in strong 
support of Senator Schumer's amendment to raise the amount employers 
can give workers tax free for mass transit commuter costs from the 
current $105 a month to $200 a month.
  In the face of high fuel costs and constant urban congestion, more 
commuters using mass transit makes increasingly good sense, and the tax 
benefit is an effective way to encourage it.
  The current benefit of $105 a month is too low to cover most mass 
transit costs in major metropolitan areas, and it is counter-productive 
that current law provides a benefit almost twice that size for 
parking--$200 a month.
  I have here a diagram that indicates the commuter fees for the 
different parts coming into Boston. Even from this distance, you can 
look at them. For Fitchburg, $198; $181 for Lowell; $191 for 
Gloucester; and the list goes on. From the South Shore, $198; from 
Stoughton, $149; and $198 from Worcester.
  This amendment is good transportation policy and good environmental 
policy too. It is an energy policy that makes sense as workers see more 
and more of their paychecks go up in smoke at the gas pump. It is an 
energy policy that I hope we can all support.
  In Massachusetts, the change will help nearly 200,000 commuters who 
purchase monthly T-passes to commute by bus, subway or commuter rail to 
work.

[[Page S5212]]

  By increasing the commuter tax break to parity with the parking 
benefit--$200 a month--the amendment will cover the cost of every 
monthly T-pass sold in Massachusetts.
  The highest monthly T-pass cost from Worcester, Middleborough/
Lakeville or Fitchburg is $198, and would be covered in full, as would 
fares from Gloucester and Haverhill.
  Commuters could have the full $181 cost of commuting from Lawrence or 
Lowell covered or the $149 cost from Brockton.
  By raising the cap to $200, the amendment will also encourage more 
new employers to participate in the program. They will be able to give 
an affordable benefit of much greater value to their employees.
  And as more employers come into the program, we can cut down on 
gridlock in Boston and other urban areas across the country.
  In Boston, gridlock cost the average commuter 51 extra hours a year. 
Congestion nationwide costs $63 billion a year in wasted productivity 
and energy.
  The amendment means more moms and dads will have more time to spend 
with their children, instead of being stuck in traffic. And more 
employees will get to work on time, meaning higher productivity.
  We cannot afford to waste fuel like this anymore. Our dependence on 
foreign oil is a national crisis. The amendment will help save some of 
the 2.3 billion gallons of gas a year now being lost to unnecessary 
congestion. This amendment will mean clearer air in our cities and less 
wear and tear on our roads.
  In so many ways, this is a smart amendment and a fair amendment, and 
I urge our colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to give a progress report. We 
are down to four or five amendments now. Many of them have been agreed 
to or have been withdrawn. We don't have anyone at this moment who is 
going to ask for a vote tonight. We had previously scheduled a vote at 
5:30. We did not anticipate at that time that we would be getting the 
cooperation we are getting from the Members who have worked things out. 
So I announce on behalf of the leadership that we will not be having 
the vote at 5:30 tonight.
  Let me make a couple of comments. I know anxieties are high 
concerning the so-called nuclear option, or what we call the 
constitutional option. I hesitate to take up time. If anybody comes to 
talk about the highway bill, we will stop and talk about the highway 
bill.
  If you stop and realize what we really want, what we have been asking 
for is a vote. People are entitled to have a vote on the floor of this 
Senate. They are nominees. You may not like the nominees of the 
President for the circuit court positions, but certainly these people 
at least deserve an up-or-down vote.
  It is kind of interesting to see how the minority has changed its 
mind from just a short period ago.
  Senator Biden on March 19, 1997, said:

       But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is 
     nominated ought to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have 
     a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor 
     . . . It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject 
     every single nominee if they want to. That is within their 
     right. But it is not, I will respectfully request, Madam 
     President, appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to 
     bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote . . .

  Senator Boxer on May 14, 1997, said:

       According to the U.S. Constitution, the President 
     nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. 
     It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and 
     prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being 
     given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

  Senator Daschle on October 5, 1999, said:

       I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against 
     even voting on a judicial nomination . . . We have a 
     constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial 
     nominee--a vote against that nominee.

  Senator Durbin on September 28, 1998, said:

       I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely 
     fashion on nominees sent before us. The reason I oppose 
     cloture is I would like to see that the Senate shall also be 
     held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If, 
     after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report 
     on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If, 
     after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that 
     name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the 
     person up or down. They are qualified or they are not.

  Senator Feinstein on September 16, 1999, said:

       A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them 
     down . . . What this does to a [nominee's] life is, it leaves 
     them in limbo . . . It is our job to confirm these judges. If 
     we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the 
     honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, 
     in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no.

  On October 4, 1999, she said:

       Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.

  And on May 19, 1997, Senator Feinstein said:

       Mr. President, the time has come to act on these 
     nominations. I'm not asking for a rubber stamp; let's hold 
     hearings on those nominees who haven't had them, and vote on 
     all of them, up or down, yes or no.

  Senator Kennedy on January 28, 1998, said:

       The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable 
     to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The 
     President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should 
     resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes 
     or no.

  And on February 3, 1998:

       We owe it to Americans across the country to give these 
     nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like 
     them, vote against them. But give them a vote.

  Senator Kohl on August 21, 1999, said:

       [T]here are many other deserving nominees out there. Let's 
     not play favorites. These nominees, who have to put their 
     lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an `up or down' 
     vote.

  Senator Lautenberg on June 21, 1995, said:

       Talking about the fairness of the system and how it is 
     equitable for a minority to restrict the majority view, why 
     can we not have a straight up-or-down vote on this without 
     threats of filibuster? When it was Robert Bork or John Tower 
     or Clarence Thomas, even though there was strong opposition, 
     many Senators opposed them. The fact is that the votes were 
     held here, up or down.

  Senator Leahy on June 21, 1995, said:

       When President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the U.S. 
     Supreme Court, I was the first member of the Senate to 
     declare my opposition to his nomination. I did not believe 
     that Clarence Thomas was qualified to serve on the Court. 
     Even with strong reservations, I felt that Judge Thomas 
     deserved an up-or-down vote.

  On October 14, 1997:

       I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully 
     filibustered. I do recall earlier this year when the 
     Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted 
     how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.

  October 22, 1997:

       I hope we might reach a point where we as a Senate will 
     accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them 
     down. Bring the names here. If we want to vote against them, 
     vote against them.

  June 18, 1998:

       If we want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I 
     respect that. State your reasons. I respect that. But don't 
     hold up a qualified judicial nominee . . . I have stated over 
     and over again on this floor . . . that I would object and 
     fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is 
     somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate 
     should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President 
     nominates, vote him or her down.

  September 16, 1999:

       I . . . do not want to see the Senate go down a path where 
     a minority of the Senate is determining a judge's fate on 
     votes of 41 . . . [D]uring the Republican administrations I 
     rarely ever voted against a nomination by either President 
     Reagan or President Bush. There were a couple I did. I also 
     took the floor on occasion filibusters to hold them up and 
     believe that we should have a vote up or down.

  Again on September 16, 1999:

       I do not want to get having to invoke cloture on judicial 
     nominations. I think it is a bad precedent.

  October 1, 1999:

       Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch, 
     not delayed for 2 and 3 years. We are talking about people 
     going to the Federal judiciary, a third independent branch of 
     Government. They are entitled to dignity and respect. They 
     are not entitled atomically for us to vote aye, but they are 
     entitled to a vote, aye or nay.

  October 3, 1999:

       When we hold a nominee up by not allowing them a vote and 
     not taking any action one way or the other, we are . . . 
     doing a terrible disservice to the man or woman to whom we do 
     this.

  March 7, 2000:

       The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: 
     ``The Senate is surely

[[Page S5213]]

     under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but 
     after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or 
     vote him down.'' Which is exactly what I would like.

  October 11, 2000:

       I have said on the floor, although we are different 
     parties, I have agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said 
     that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a [floor] vote, up 
     or down, within 60 days.

  Senator Levin on June 21, 1995, said:

       The President is entitled to his nominee, if a majority of 
     the Senate consent.

  Senator Lincoln at a press conference on September 14, 2000, said:

       If we want people to respect their government again, then 
     government must act respectably. It's my hope that we'll take 
     the necessary steps to give these men and these women 
     especially the up or down vote that they deserve.

  Senator Reid on March 7, 2000, said:

       Once they get out of committee, let's bring them here and 
     vote up or down on them. . . . I think anybody who has to 
     wait 4 years deserves an up-or-down vote.
       . . . If there is a Senator who believes there is a problem 
     with any judge, whether it is the one we are going to vote on 
     at 5 o'clock or the two we are going to vote on tomorrow, or 
     Thursday, they have every right to come to talk at whatever 
     length they want. But with Judge Paez, it has been 4 years. 
     There has been ample opportunity to talk about this man. He 
     has bipartisan support.

  On June 9, 2001, in an interview on Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields 
said:

       [W]e should have up or down votes in the committee and on 
     the floor.

  Senator Schumer on March 7, 2000, said:

       The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue 
     before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can 
     always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to 
     debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government 
     not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the 
     President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the 
     nominees.
       . . . I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with 
     alacrity--vote them up or down. But this delay makes a 
     mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that 
     we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very 
     sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges 
     and then they hang out there in limbo.

  These are people who are now saying they do not want to have a vote 
on these nominees. We have nominees who have been waiting not for weeks 
or months but for years. I believe some of these Senators who before 
had a philosophy that everyone is entitled to a vote ought to turn 
around and give the current nominees a vote. I have a great deal of 
respect for these people, except I would like to have them express some 
level of consistency.
  The issue has become a bit clouded and confusing. When one talks 
about the various polls, I suggest that one can word a question to get 
almost any kind of answer one wants. When it gets down to the facts, 
the Constitution says the President nominates and the Senate is either 
to confirm or not confirm. It does not say anything about a mandatory 
supermajority. It just says confirmed. That is a simple majority, Mr. 
President.
  Again, I invite Members to come to the Chamber. We are going to keep 
the floor open. There will not be any votes tonight on the amendments. 
We are down to about four amendments, although they should be debated 
tonight if at all possible. We need to get the debates behind us so we 
will be prepared to vote tomorrow morning.
  I 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.


                        Inaccurate Press Reports

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while we are waiting for Members to come 
down to the Senate floor to offer their amendments, to talk about their 
amendments, and be prepared for votes tomorrow morning, I will share 
with you that we have had a lot of erroneous reports concerning what is 
going on in Iraq and in other sensitive areas of the world. Quite 
frankly, I believe the greatest disservice that has been done to our 
troops in Iraq has been by the press, by the press not giving an 
accurate accounting as to what is really happening there.
  I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as such I 
have taken on the responsibility of spending time in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
Africa, and different places where terrorism may come due to the 
squeeze in the Middle East. But as far as Iraq is concerned, I will 
share a couple of experiences.
  One was a couple days after the January 30 election. So many people 
in the media were trying to say the election is not going to come off 
on January 30, it is not going to happen; democracy is not going 
prevail there; they are not going to be able to make the deadlines; 
they are not going to be able to handle the elections and they are not 
capable of doing it on their own; they do not have the security because 
they would have to provide all the security for the elections. Yet a 
few days after that, you might remember, of the three elements over 
there, the Sunnis were the ones--not the Shiites or the Kurds--but the 
Sunnis were the ones wanting to obstruct the elections--the most anti-
American of all the groups. Yet the day after the election, the two 
primary Sunni leaders stood and said publicly that they were surprised 
it went the way it did. They wanted to be in on this. They wanted to 
participate. We know subsequent to that they have.

  I remember testimonials by different people who had participated in 
that election. One was a lady who said she could not read the ballot 
because of the tears in her eyes. She couldn't see the ballot.
  Another person told me through a translator that she was in there to 
vote, and it occurred to her at the time they were voting that this was 
not just the first time in 35 years of a bloody regime of Saddam 
Hussein, but it was the first time in 7,000 years that they had an 
opportunity for self-determination.
  It is a huge thing happening over there. Who would ever have dreamed 
at any time in the last 35 years that they would actually be 
participating in a free election?
  Now we have seen what has happened since then. Sure, the terrorists 
over there who do not want this to happen are out there and they are 
killing as many of the Iraqis as possible to try to obstruct this new 
freedom that is coming their way.
  The last time I was there, I decided it would be a good idea to spend 
time in the Sunni triangle. That is where most of the hostilities are. 
It was the Sunnis who were the ones holding out last, the ones who were 
supporting Saddam Hussein. I recall going to Falluja, just a matter of 
a few weeks ago, and in Falluja there was a general whose name was 
Mahdi. He was the general, the commanding officer of the brigade. He 
was the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein. He hated Americans and he 
had the background to demonstrate how deeply that hatred went, the 
murders and all these things going on.
  Yet that general, after we moved the Marines into Falluja and they 
started going door to door, and they were embedded with the Iraqis, 
this general was so impressed with the Marines that he made a 
statement. When they rotated the Marines out and said the Marines were 
going to have to go into a rotation, they had become so close working 
and fighting together that when they all got together before the 
Marines left, he said they all cried. There was a general looking at me 
saying: We cried because we didn't want the Marines to leave. He 
renamed the security forces of Falluja the Iraqi Marines. He named them 
after us.
  While we were there in Tikrit, the home of Saddam Hussein, there was 
an explosion. It was at a place they called a police station, but it 
was a training area where they were training Iraqis for the security 
forces. It killed 10 immediately and seriously injured 30 more so they 
could not be trained. The families of these 40 individuals who were 
either killed or were severely injured offered up another member of 
each of their families to substitute for the one who was killed or the 
one who was injured. It was the type of sacrifice you would never dream 
possible a few years before--a few days before, really.
  I remember going all over the Sunni triangle in a Blackhawk 
helicopter, 100 feet off the ground. That is the only safe way to get 
there. There are terrorists who have SAMs, surface-to-air missiles, 
although some pretty crude.
  Many American families who have sent care packages to the troops over 
there--candy, cookies, these different

[[Page S5214]]

things--what they have done with these is repackage them and, as we 
were going over the Sunni triangle and looked down at these small 
villages, all the kids were out there and we threw them candy and 
things like that, and they were waving American flags and cheering. 
This is not the picture you get from the media.
  I applaud the job our guys and gals have done over there, our troops. 
Of course, many have lost their lives, but people don't stop to realize 
how many more lives would have been lost if we had not been involved in 
that area, offering that kind of freedom.
  Now we see a lot of terrorists are going into other areas. One of the 
good things I would announce that is going on right now is down in 
Africa we are now in the process of assisting Africans in forming five 
African brigades, and these African brigades, we will put them in a 
position to help them train themselves so when something like this 
erupts down there it will not be the Americans who have to do it.
  I just wanted to take this time to applaud our troops for the great 
job they are doing. I really believe, as great a disservice as the 
press has provided, that the people of America know better. They are 
showing they do know better.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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.


                 Amendment No. 761 to Amendment No. 605

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside for the consideration of the managers' 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Mr. 
     Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 761.

  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 today's Record under ``Text of 
amendments.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 761) was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to address the Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Tribute to Detective Donald Young

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, it is with tremendous sadness that I rise 
today to commemorate the life and work of Detective Donald ``Donnie'' 
Young of the Denver Police Department.
  In the early morning hours of Sunday, May 8, Detective Young 
tragically lost his life while working off-duty as a security guard at 
a private party in Denver. Today, I join the people of Denver and my 
home State of Colorado in mourning the loss of a dedicated public 
servant, and a devoted husband and father.
  Detective Young is remembered by his family, friends, and colleagues 
as a man who was always willing to help others in need, whether by 
hopping out of his truck on a broken foot to help a stranded driver out 
of a snowdrift, lightening the mood with his unique sense of humor, or 
working overtime to help protect women from the threat of domestic 
violence, Donnie never failed to embody the selflessness and compassion 
so common among his 850,000 brothers and sisters serving as law 
enforcement officers in this country today.
  It will come as no surprise to those men and women and anyone 
familiar with their line of work that Donnie was also exceedingly 
modest; it is consequently left to the rest of us to give the many 
awards and honors he received over the course of his 12-year career in 
law enforcement the attention they deserve. In recognition of the 
bravery and dedication he displayed on countless occasions, Detective 
Young received three of the Denver Police Department's four most 
prestigious awards, including the medal of honor for his role in the 
1994 rescue of two kidnapping victims.
  Yesterday, more than 20,000 people gathered in our Nation's capital 
to formally honor and remember Detective Young and other law 
enforcement officers recently injured or slain in the line of duty. 
This day was marked in part by a Senate resolution I had the privilege 
of cosponsoring that recognizes May 15, 2005, as Peace Officers 
Memorial Day, in honor of Federal, State, and local officers killed or 
disabled while working to protect the public. Having served as Attorney 
General for the State of Colorado, I know first-hand the sacrifices our 
men and women in law enforcement make on a daily basis, and I am deeply 
proud to have had the honor of serving in the same family as Detective 
Young and others like him.
  Today, I join my former brothers and sisters in the law enforcement 
community--in Colorado and across the Nation--in grieving the loss of a 
passionate and capable public servant, Detective Donald ``Donnie'' 
Young.
  I thank the Chair. 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.


                           amendment no. 652

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect 
to the Dorgan amendment, No. 652.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and the 
amendment falls.


                 amendments nos. 636 and 674 withdrawn

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Ensign 
amendment No. 636 and the Schumer amendment No. 674 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to report that the Senate 
transportation bill not only continues but also greatly expands a 
program I authored in the TEA-21 law to promote smart growth 
initiatives. When TEA-21 became law in 1998, this pilot program was the 
first Federal program ever created to provide incentives to help States 
and local governments pursue smart growth policies.
  The good news is that the Senate transportation bill recognizes the 
value of this groundbreaking program by providing a substantial funding 
increase.
  The original smart growth pilot program I authored, the 
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program, TCSP, 
provided $25 million per year to investigate and address the 
relationships between transportation projects, communities and the 
environment. Under the SAFETEA bill now before the Senate, funding for 
this program would nearly double to about $47 million per year.
  The not so good news is that 7 years after Congress enacted the TCSP 
program it remains the only Federal program to provide incentives for 
smart growth. In the last 7 years, the problems of urban sprawl have 
only gotten worse. Clearly more needs to be done.
  Sprawl development not only hurts our citizens where they live and 
breathe, it also hits them in their wallets. A number of studies have 
come out that show the costs of sprawling growth are significantly 
higher than more compact, managed growth patterns. These studies show 
that taxpayers can save billions of dollars in public facility 
construction and operation and maintenance costs by opting for growth 
management.
  Because of the major impacts federally funded transportation projects 
can have, there is an appropriate role for the Federal Government in 
ensuring these projects and the development they spawn are both 
economically and environmentally sound.

[[Page S5215]]

  That role should not be to embroil the Federal Government in land use 
decisions that have historically been State and local issues. We do not 
want Federal zoning.
  Instead, the proper role for the Federal Government is to create 
incentives to encourage and build on the State and local efforts to 
address transportation and growth that are already underway. I am very 
pleased that the Senate SAFETEA bill extends and expands the TCSP 
program to help local communities grow in environmentally sustainable 
ways by creating incentives for smart growth management.
  The additional funding for TCSP in the Senate transportation bill is 
a good start. But if we are going to improve both our Nation's 
infrastructure and our quality of life, we need to do more at the 
Federal level to provide incentives to support smart growth policies.
  My home State of Oregon leads the Nation in developing innovative 
approaches to manage our growth and to tie transportation policies in 
to growth management. Our statewide land conservation and development 
program requires each municipality to establish an urban growth 
boundary to define both the areas where growth and development should 
occur and those areas that should be protected from development. This 
system keeps agricultural and forest lands in productive use and 
preserves ``green corridors'' for hiking, biking and other recreational 
uses that are located in or close to urban areas. Our transportation 
planning and construction efforts reinforce these policies by not only 
avoiding developing in environmentally sensitive areas but also by 
helping make the areas where we want development to occur more 
accessible.
  Oregon recognizes that it is not enough to tell people where they can 
not build. For our system to work, we have to make it easier to develop 
the areas where we want growth to occur. And we do not just give lip 
service to this principle. We actually put our money where our mouth is 
to make sure the development we want occurs.
  These policies make the State of Oregon, Metro, the city of Portland, 
and other localities in our State ideal candidates to apply for funding 
under the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program.
  I greatly appreciate the support of Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Bond 
and Senators Jeffords and Baucus in working with me to increase funding 
substantially for this important program in the bill. Thanks to their 
efforts the bill now before the Senate will enable State and local 
smart growth policies to merge more smoothly with our transportation 
policies.
  As Congress considers other Federal infrastructure programs, I will 
be looking for ways to build on the success of TCSP. The TCSP model can 
also be adapted for water, sewer and other federally funded 
infrastructure to help save taxpayers money and support State and local 
governments smart growth efforts. By following that approach, Congress 
can provide our citizens with both better infrastructure and better 
quality of life.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________