[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6046-S6055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 22, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the 
     Veterans Administration from being taken into account for 
     purposes of determining the employers to which the employer 
     mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.

  Pending:

       McConnell modified amendment No. 2266, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell amendment No. 2421 (to amendment No. 2266), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell (for Inhofe) amendment No. 2533 (to amendment No. 
     2421), relating to Federal-aid highways and highway safety 
     construction programs.
       McConnell amendment No. 2417 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 2266), to change the enactment 
     date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2418 (to amendment No. 2417), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the business before the Senate is the 
construction of highways and bridges and the operation of mass transit 
and buses across America. How important is that to our economy? I know 
in my home State it is critically important, but I think it is 
important across the Nation.
  Our infrastructure, our roads, and bridges are critical for business 
to operate profitably and for people to have good-paying jobs. We all 
know the tragedies that occur when bridges collapse or are closed, and 
we know that thousands across this country need repair.
  When it comes to mass transit, come on down to the Loop in Chicago in 
the morning and stand with me and watch the folks streaming out of the 
train stations and off the CTA and off the buses, headed to work every 
day. It is essential to the economy of Chicago and Illinois, the State 
I represent.
  The fact is that on Friday the authorization to build these highways 
and bridges and maintain mass transit and buses expires. It is the 33rd 
short-term extension of the highway trust fund--the 33rd. There was a 
time when we would pass with regularity and predictability a 5- or 6-
year highway bill on a bipartisan basis, and we are anxious to do it.
  There was a time when Members of the House and Senate knew the needs 
back home and knew that the Federal Government played a critical role 
in filling those needs, and so they voted for the highway trust fund 
reauthorization.
  In my State of Illinois, 80 percent of the highway construction is 
paid for by the Federal Government. When the Federal Government stops 
paying, folks stop working. You have seen it; haven't you--the 
potholes, the highways that aren't finished? You wonder why in the heck 
did they put all those blockades up and slow down the traffic and 
nobody is working.
  The problem has to do with the way we are currently funding our 
highway program. We are doing it in bits and pieces. My colleague and 
friend from California, Senator Boxer, draws a pretty interesting 
analogy. She said that if you were setting out to buy a home and went 
to the bank, and the bank said that, of course, we will offer you a 
mortgage, and here is a 60-day mortgage to buy your home, you would 
say: Wait a minute; I am not going to make an investment such as buying 
a home if I can only get a loan for 60 days. That is what has happened 
to the highway trust fund. The expiration of this temporary 
authorization on Friday is the end of a 60-day mortgage which we have 
offered to America to build highways.

  Well, several Members of the Senate decided to do something unique--
not totally unique but unusual, let's say--to try to find a bipartisan 
compromise that can move this country forward, try to break through 
some of the rhetoric and debate on the highway trust fund and find 
something that works.
  I wish to especially salute Senator Barbara Boxer of California for 
leading this effort on the Democratic side and joining with Senator 
Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Inhofe 
from Oklahoma, who is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  This is indeed an odd couple, Barbara Boxer and Mitch McConnell, but 
they have come up with a plan--a compromise--to solve a problem.
  When I go home to Illinois, what I hear over and over from the people 
I represent is, Senator, when are you folks in Washington going to stop 
squabbling? When are you going to stop fighting? Can you basically sit 
down and reach an agreement to solve a

[[Page S6047]]

problem we face? That is what Senator Boxer and Senator McConnell have 
done, and I have joined in the effort. Here is what they are proposing: 
Instead of a 60-day extension of the trust fund, it would be a 3-year 
extension. Six years of authorization but 3 years where the money is on 
the table. I wish it was longer, but at this point I will jump at that. 
It has been more than 10 years since we have had a highway bill that 
long. So it is for 3 years. There is a modest growth each year in 
spending. I wish it was more. It ultimately is going to give the 
resources back to the States and localities so they can start building 
the infrastructure America needs to be successful and to compete.
  We have worked long and hard on it. It is controversial. It has 
divided caucuses. There are 46 Democrats in the Senate and 21 of us 
voted last night to move forward on this bill. So even within our 
ranks, there is a difference of opinion. I am glad the Senator from 
California is here to keep me on my toes. She said 22 Democrats last 
night voted to move forward. I wish all of them were on board, but some 
of them have their own legitimate concerns for not being there.
  The point I am getting to is that when it came to the necessary vote, 
we needed 60; we had 62. I have to check with Senator Boxer to make 
sure I am correct. There were 62 votes to move forward and 22 were 
Democrats. We stepped up and made the difference to help move this 
process forward.
  So here we are. We are close to the finish line. We are not quite 
there. Because of the procedures of the Senate, we can't do it as 
quickly as we would like because we have to follow the rules. The rules 
tell us we are likely to get this wrapped up perhaps tomorrow--I hope 
as soon as tomorrow--and then we say thank goodness. With a Friday 
deadline, we will get something done this week before we go home for 
the August recess. I would say from the Senate point of view, that is 
exactly right. It means I can say to not only the mayors back home but 
also to the Governor, the contractors, the workers: OK. Here are the 
resources to move forward for 3 years. I can also say we have done what 
we were sent to do, to solve a problem and to do it on a bipartisan 
basis.
  There is a problem. The problem we have is that Senate action alone 
is not enough. We need the House of Representatives to take the same 
action. There was an announcement yesterday from a Congressman from 
California that the House is not going to take up this measure. They 
want to go home. They want to start their August recess earlier than 
any other August recess has been started in 10 years. They want to 
leave. The Republican majority has decided they don't want to take up 
this bill; they just want to leave, and that is truly unfortunate.
  This is our chance to solve a problem for America on a bipartisan 
basis. This is our chance to invest in our country and put people to 
work building roads and bridges and expanding mass transit, buying the 
buses we need to serve our communities. This is our chance. Yet what we 
hear from the Republican side in the House of Representatives is, 
Sorry, we are going home. We will see you in September.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Rhode 
Island for a question.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The Senator from Illinois has just said the House is 
planning to bug out this week before the Friday deadline when the 
highway trust fund collapses for the August recess.
  May I ask the Senator from Illinois, through the Chair, the following 
question: Is it even August? Isn't it July 28 today?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to take judicial notice that according to 
the Calendar of Business, it is still July; Tuesday, July 28, 2015.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. In the past, have we not worked into the early week 
or weeks of August before taking the so-called August recess?
  Mr. DURBIN. For the past 10 years, the August recess has started in 
August. The House of Representatives wishes to start it in July.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And Friday is when the funding for our highways comes 
to an end. It appears to be the intention of the House to have gotten 
out of Dodge by then in order to, I guess, dodge any consequence for 
not having met us on bipartisan terms with a bipartisan 6-year bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Apparently, they need a rest and they want to go home for 
that purpose, but I wish they would stay and finish this business 
before they go.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Of course. I yield to the senior Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would observe, after just walking in, 
that we are talking about the actions that have not been taken formally 
but that several Members of the House have talked about--we are going 
to bail out of here.
  My feeling is this--and I am asking a question through the Chair if 
the Senator from Illinois would agree with my observation. One of the 
reasons I think those statements have been made in the House is because 
they never believed we were going to be able pass a 6-year highway 
reauthorization bill in the Senate.
  Now, once that realization is there--and I am going to make an appeal 
to whoever is trying to string out this debate to shorten the time so 
we can have the vote that is pending right now take place and get on 
with the last and final vote, so we would actually have that ready 
while the House is still in session. They could very well take it up at 
that time.
  Now, if the individuals have placed themselves in a corner so that is 
not going to happen, I don't know. But is it worth a try? That is my 
question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, through the Chair, let me respond to my 
colleague from Oklahoma, to first thank him for his bipartisan 
leadership on the committee. He and Senator Boxer are an outstanding 
example of bipartisanship when it comes to this issue. They have 
produced a 6-year authorization, and though I may not agree with some 
of the particulars, I thank him for that leadership on his side on a 
bipartisan basis.
  As far as the efforts of the Senator from Oklahoma to speed up the 
vote in the Senate so we can catch our House colleagues before they 
leave, I would support it completely, but the Senator from Oklahoma and 
I both know that any single Senator can divert and stop that effort. I 
will support the Senator in bringing this forward as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. The only other question I have is the 
second part that I will ask. There is time to do this. I am going to 
personally make every effort--and I think Senator Boxer shares my 
anxiety over getting this bill into a position so we can vote.
  All we have to do is move this up so we are not going to be voting at 
the expiring time of 4 o'clock in the morning, when that could just as 
easily be tonight, and that would give us time to allow the House to 
look at it and perhaps come up with a better judgment than they have 
expressed so far.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would just say through the Chair to the Senator from 
Oklahoma, we have to appeal to the better angels of our colleagues' 
nature, and a cooperative effort would be somewhat miraculous but worth 
a try. I am happy to support him in that effort.
  Let me just close and yield the floor to whoever would like to speak. 
This is a chance to do what America expects us to do. Why were we sent 
here? Why did we get elected? I am proud to represent Illinois, but I 
was sent to solve problems, make life better, and create an economy 
that is growing.
  There is nothing more bipartisan and more important than the 
infrastructure of this country. If people wonder about that, go visit 
China and look at what is going on there. There are building cranes in 
every direction. Highway and train routes are being built in every 
direction because they are preparing their Chinese economy for the 21st 
century. Is America? I don't think so. What we are doing is passing 
short-term extensions of the highway trust fund. We cannot patch our 
way to prosperity. We cannot, on a short-term basis, have a long-term 
plan to build America's economy. Because of the hard work on both sides 
of the aisle, compromises being made, we are at a point where we can 
have a 3-year highway bill, and it is time for us to do it, no excuses.

[[Page S6048]]

  I support what the Senator from Oklahoma said: Let's accelerate this 
in the Senate, if we can, and then pray that our colleagues in the 
House decide to hang around long enough to take up this bill, which I 
believe would be a worthy alternative to another short-term extension.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one last 
question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator join me in reaching out to try to see 
if we can get unanimous consent to go ahead and move forward? I know 
what we are doing is more significant than other things that are going 
on. If they don't like the bill for some reason, that is one thing, but 
bring it forward so this can be done. I am inclined to hope we could 
encourage any of those who are just killing time right now to join us 
in doing this.
  It is my intention to go ahead and make that request, and I will ask 
if the Senator from Illinois would join me in that effort.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, through the Chair, I would say to my 
colleague from Oklahoma, let's sit down and put this UC together. Then, 
the Senator from Oklahoma can take it, as we do by custom, to his 
cloakroom and I will take it to mine and let's see if we can get this 
moving forward. I wish to protect the rights of Members, but I think 
many of them would like to join us in accelerating this process so 
there is activity on the floor which is productive. I am happy to work 
with the Senator from Oklahoma.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from 
Illinois and the Senator from Oklahoma for their efforts on the floor 
today. I think this continued progress toward a bipartisan 6-year deal 
to make sure our highways and bridges are funded and repaired is a very 
important piece of the work.
  I wish to join the Senator from Illinois in saluting the efforts of 
my ranking member, Senator Boxer, who has worked so hard through the 
Environment and Public Works Committee to get to a place where we now 
have a Senate bipartisan compromise for a 6-year bill, with 3 years 
fully funded, and the prospect for all of our State departments of 
transportation to be able to take on big projects, knowing that funding 
is out there.
  We are taking up this conversation while our own American Society of 
Civil Engineers gives our American roads the grade of a D. I don't know 
about the Presiding Officer, but if my kids came home with a D, I would 
not be amused and pleased about that. So when our own engineers tell us 
our roads are a D and our Federal highway program has limped along, 2 
months, 6 months--these tiny, little steps forward--and now we have a 
chance to put a serious slug of money on the table so our departments 
of transportation can do the work our roads so desperately need, why 
not go forward with that? Across this country, Americans pay more than 
$500 a year in car repairs as a result of our terrible roads--so $500 
out of their pockets getting their wheels realigned or their tires 
repaired because they have been banged by potholes and bad roads 
hurting their vehicles. There is a real pocketbook consequence for 
Americans if we fail to act.
  We have a bipartisan compromise. We should push it forward. What the 
House is doing is not helpful. I hope, as the distinguished Senator 
from Oklahoma, my chairman on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee said, they come up with a better judgment than they have 
expressed so far. I think that under these circumstances, bugging out 
and starting the August recess before this problem is solved--indeed, 
before it is even August--is a pretty serious misjudgment.
  So let's hope we can keep after this. We do have strong support for 
getting this done. Whether it is the American Association of General 
Contractors, whether it is the National Association of Manufacturers, 
whether it is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are a lot of 
organizations that customarily support the Republican side that want to 
get this done. I hope they will be having conversations with Speaker 
Boehner and with Majority Leader McCarthy to ask them to have better 
judgment about what to do in this circumstance, other than to bug out 
for an August recess before it is even August and leave Americans high 
and dry without a bipartisan 6-year bill that is being fashioned in the 
Senate right now.
  Again, I wish to express my appreciation to my Ranking Member Barbara 
Boxer, who has worked so hard to bring us to this point and our 
chairman, Senator Inhofe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the DRIVE 
Act. I was a supporter of this bill from the first vote we had in the 
last week. There were some changes made immediately that I thought were 
important. I think this long-term bill is incredibly important to our 
country's future. Time and again, we have had these short-term 
extensions, and that is what the House of Representatives is talking 
about again.
  We have an opportunity here. Americans, as we know, can't fix a road 
in 2 months. In a State such as Minnesota, where we have two seasons, 
one road construction season and one winter, citizens cannot plan ahead 
and our State cannot plan ahead when we continue to have these short-
term extensions. They also want to do bigger things and better things 
for transportation in our State, and this funding and this bill will 
allow them to do that, instead of this Mickey Mouse short-term 
extension time after time after time.
  As we have heard from my colleagues, ranking member Senator Boxer, 
our chairman, Senator Inhofe, Senator Durbin, and Senator Whitehouse 
today, I think it is incredibly important that we move forward with 
this bill.
  This Senator came to this issue in a very tragic way; that is, when a 
bridge fell down in the middle of a summer day. The anniversary of this 
bridge collapse is coming up in just a few days. It was a beautiful 
summer day, rush hour, and there were tons of traffic going over one of 
the most heavily traveled bridges in our State. This wasn't just a 
bridge; this was an eight-lane highway. It was something you wouldn't 
even notice as a bridge because there were so many cars on it. It was 
the I-35W bridge.
  On that day, I was in Washington. I remember trying to call some 
people in Minnesota. The cell phone services wouldn't work, and I was 
wondering what was wrong with the cell phone service. What I found 
about 5 minutes later is that people were calling, panicked about their 
loved ones because tens of thousands of people were traveling near that 
bridge that day. In fact, when that bridge collapsed, tragically, 13 
people died and dozens of cars were submerged.
  Heroes who came to the front that day didn't run away from that 
bridge. They ran toward it. No one will forget the off-duty firefighter 
Shanna Hanson, who was going in and out, in and out on a rope tethered 
to the side of the bridge, trying to get people, trying to find people 
in the murky water. The fact that 13 people died--tragic as it was--was 
something of a miracle, given how many people were injured. Over 100 
people were injured in the collapse.
  A schoolbus sat precariously on the edge of the bridge. A Tasty 
truckdriver literally veered out so the schoolbus wouldn't go over the 
edge and ended up tragically dying himself when the truck caught on 
fire. The schoolbus was labeled the ``miracle bus'' because youth 
workers on the bus had the presence of mind to take these little kids 
who were on the bus going out for a summer outing and get them out the 
back and to safety. That happened. All of that happened on August 1.
  As I said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle 
of America--not an eight-lane highway, not a bridge which is literally 
8 blocks from my house and which I drive on every day with my family, 
with my daughter. That is the bridge that fell down.
  So what did we do in Minnesota? In 13 months, we rebuilt that bridge. 
On a bipartisan basis, just like you see with this bill with the DRIVE 
Act, we worked together across the aisle. We got the Federal funding, 
and we rebuilt that bridge, but that is not where the story ends.

[[Page S6049]]

  Because of what happened, because of the design defect that caused 
that bridge to fall, in addition to two other issues NHTSA found, which 
are that there weren't adequate inspections and they also found there 
were problems with construction guides because there was construction 
work going on--but the bottom cause was a design defect.
  If we had adequate highway funding, adequate inspections, and we were 
able to go back in and look at bridges, as we did after the fact in 
Minnesota, and found that others had the same defect and that they had 
to be replaced--our State put more money into infrastructure, which 
helped us--I should add for my colleagues in this Chamber that it was 
one of the major reasons CNBC rated Minnesota as one of the best States 
to do business in the country, the best State to do business in, 
followed by Texas, Georgia, and Colorado. Two of the major factors they 
looked at were the quality of life and infrastructure.
  After this collapse occurred, we invested, and that is what this bill 
is about. It is about making a safer America. As Senator Whitehouse 
just outlined, our country is getting D's for infrastructure. It is 
about a safer America. It is about reducing congestion, but it is also 
about our economy, as shown by what has happened in Minnesota since the 
bridge collapse. It is about building our economy. When we are building 
our economy based on exports, we have to have a way to get goods to 
market. The way you do that is to upgrade railways and upgrade locks 
and dams, as we did in an earlier bill last year when we updated 
highways and we updated bridges.
  I am very excited about this bill. I love the fact that this leads us 
to a 21st century transportation system. I love the fact that we were 
able to get my distracted driving provisions in there, with the help of 
Senator Thune, Senator Nelson, and I had worked on them with Senator 
Hoeven.
  Distracted driving is a major safety risk in this country that we are 
finally going to be able to find a way to get the money out to the 
States so it is not just sitting and piling up and going nowhere, so 
States can start educating people about distracted driving.
  There is the work in the bill on graduated driving that I worked on 
so hard, on licenses as well as drunk driving. There are a lot of good 
measures in this bill.
  Mostly this bill is about the long term. It is about looking at the 
long-term economy and looking at the long-term safety issues, instead 
of just putting on a bandaid every 2 months, every 3 months, every 6 
months. This is an opportunity that can't be missed.
  I ask my colleagues for their strong support. We have strong support 
for this as well as the Ex-Im Bank. I ask my colleagues across the way 
in the House to support this bill, do the right thing, and come up with 
a long-term solution.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question from the chairman?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask the Senator, How many people were killed in that 
bridge collapse?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. There were 13 people killed that day.
  Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that around the same time that 
happened, in my State of Oklahoma, we were in the process of the last 
long-term bill in 2005. A mother with three children was driving below 
a bridge in Oklahoma City. Some concrete dropped off and killed the 
mother. We corrected that in the 2005 bill.
  But the question I would ask you is, Why do we wait until people die 
before this happens? I have a list of bridges that are in need of 
attention, and later today I will read it for the third time. We can 
avoid things such as this from happening, but if we don't do something, 
if we are not going to do it, then large projects cannot be done with 
short-term extensions. My question is, Why do we wait until death is at 
our door?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I appreciate that question from the Senator from 
Oklahoma. I thank the chairman for his work on this bill, for his 
chairmanship on the committee, and his willingness to work across the 
aisle on this bill.
  I would say this is a major problem. If we do just a short-term 
extension, then maybe a project gets funded here and there, but we 
don't do the long-term maintenance, which is never as glamorous as 
building new projects.
  This is about long-term maintenance and work that needs to be done on 
our existing roads and bridges as well as exciting new opportunities. 
But when we don't have that kind of clear funding source for our States 
to see that we have a window, as the Presiding Officer knows with her 
leadership in the State of Nebraska, you just can't do projects in a 
State when the funding is not going to be there 3 months later. One is 
not able to invest in the maintenance and long-term work that needs to 
be done, and that is why this Senator thanks the chairman and the 
ranking member, Senator Boxer, for her incredible work on this bill as 
well because this is about long-term funding for planning, for safety, 
and also for our economy.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend because she has been such a leader. I 
was listening to every word she said, as well as Senator Inhofe talking 
about the mother who was killed because of a bridge collapse. This 
touches our hearts as family members. Yes, as Senators, but as family 
members we know those families will never be the same--the family, the 
children of that mother, the families of those who are grieving the 
loss of their relatives.
  I ask my friend, who was so early on a supporter, is she aware that 
seven States have either canceled projects or completely shut down 
their highway and transit spending? Is she aware of that?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes, I am.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to say that I have a chart here that shows the 
States that have either canceled or delayed highway projects. These 
projects are valued at over $1.6 billion. Think about the jobs and the 
businesses that are suffering. They are in Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, 
Montana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.
  I have a further question. I know my friend has heard me say this. Is 
my friend aware that the Associated General Contractors of America came 
out with a new study? They were just in the New York Times stating that 
because of our, I will use the word ``dithering''--because we haven't 
come up with the long-term bill, which we are now attempting to do--25 
States have lost construction jobs just in the last month. Is my friend 
aware of this study?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes, I have heard of that study, and I think it mimics 
what we have seen in other studies. If we don't plan ahead, people will 
start cutting off the work.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will just say before I yield that the States that lost 
construction jobs last month, according to the general contractors, are 
Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. I 
wanted to read those off.
  I will talk about that later, but I wish to thank my friend because 
the point--when she talked about what happened on this bridge, my 
friend didn't have to read one word of any statement. This was a 
heartbreaking memory she will always have. We all go through this in 
our time here, when there are earthquakes, floods, fires, and bridge 
collapses.
  I would ask my friend this last question: Does the Senator think this 
is important enough that the House should stay an extra week or even a 
few days to take up our bill, pass it or if they don't like it, amend 
it, send it back, and let's get this done for the American people.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I say to Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, I think 
that is why we are here today, to talk about the fact that we have come 
together across party lines with people from completely different 
political ideologies to agree that we need a long-term fix to our 
transportation problem.
  As the Senator mentioned the people, I think sometimes people think 
about transportation as bricks and mortar or something very esoteric, 
but it is not; it is about the people who use the system. Senator 
Inhofe talked about the

[[Page S6050]]

people who died in the bridge collapse in his State. There is a 
memorial for the 13 people who died in our State. I would suggest, if 
you ever come to the Twin Cities, come and look at it because it 
shows--as Senator Inhofe knows--everyone uses the roads and bridges. 
These people came from vastly different backgrounds. They were young 
people. There was a man who died. He and his wife had just decided they 
wanted to have a baby. Of all things, after he died, she decided to 
adopt children by herself, and she decided to adopt them from Haiti. 
Then the tragedy happened in Haiti, and we actually helped her get 
these children home. These are people who worked all kinds of different 
jobs. Some were coming home from work, some were students, some were 
moms busy in their car. Those are the people who died. They were 
America. America uses our bridges and roads and trains. We have to 
remember this is about the people who work construction, this is about 
the people who use the roads and bridges, and this is about our economy 
moving forward.
  Sometimes we get so into facts and figures and what one House does 
and what the other House does that we forget why we are spending money 
on our bridges and our roads and what this means for our future 
economy.
  I thank the leaders of this bill for what they have done, their 
willingness to take a lot of heat for working across the aisle, for 
making sure that what we are using to pay for this bill are things that 
make sense for our country and continue to allow us to move forward, 
and also for making changes to the bill when other Members had problems 
with it. That is why they are gaining so much momentum, and I am sure 
our friends over in the House are looking at this bill. They have 
examined the pay-fors--they have now had weeks to do that--and they 
have also looked at the safety provisions and other things in the bill.
  So at some point they are going to have the ability to decide if they 
are for this bill or against it or, as Senator Boxer mentioned, if they 
want to make some changes. But the key is that we have a good base bill 
which has brought people together from across the country, from 
different ideologies, which they can use and look at. If they just want 
to do another one of these short-term fixes--it is never going to get 
us where we need to be so we don't have another one of these bridges 
collapse on August 1, in the middle of a summer day. That happened in 
this country in this century. It will happen again if we keep this up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I 
would like to thank her again. What I want to say to her is something 
she has said to me over and over; that is, the importance of finding 
common ground when we can. We all know we cannot give up our 
principles, but we have to search for common ground.
  And everyone knows--and Senator Inhofe and I kind of joke about it--
we could not be different in terms of our ideology. We really could 
not. But on this one, on this piece, the need to have a strong 
infrastructure, we are as one, as progressives, as conservatives.
  Frankly, I think everyone in the Senate and in the House should come 
together around the principle that you cannot have a strong economy if 
you cannot move goods. That is why my friend Senator Inhofe put 
together a great new freight title in our bill this time, part of the 
formula. It is hugely important. If we cannot move goods, if we cannot 
move people, we are going to fall behind.
  Clearly, when bridges collapse, there is devastation. I have shown 
this particular bridge collapse, along with the one on which Senator 
Klobuchar was so eloquent. This is a bridge in my great State. We have 
40 million people. We take in about 40 to 50 percent of all the imports 
into our Nation; they go into trucks and trains and planes. They use 
our roads, and they go across the country to deliver goods to everyone.
  Well, the bridge that collapsed in California a few days ago--maybe a 
week or two ago now--was deemed to be obsolete because it was built for 
very light traffic. It is the bridge between California and Arizona. 
There was very little traffic at the time it was built. Now we have a 
huge amount of traffic. This bridge collapsed. Thank the Lord no one 
died, so I can stand up here and say that.
  This, to me, is the poster child of the work we are doing together. 
This is the poster child. There is a list of bridges--there are more 
than 60,000 deficient bridges in America. This is America. They are 
deficient--some worse than others, but they are deficient.
  I have listed just a few here--just a few: Alabama, Arizona, 
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, 
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin. This is just a 
handful--a couple of handfuls of the 60,000-plus bridges that are 
deficient.
  Senator Inhofe, in your State we have listed as an example the I-40 
bridge over Crooked Oak Creek. As I was saying yesterday, when I was a 
country supervisor a very long time ago, we found out as supervisors--
and we were a very bipartisan group--that our civic center was at risk 
of collapse in an earthquake. In those years, we did not know that much 
about how to reinforce. It was just coming to light. It is a Frank 
Lloyd Wright building, a gorgeous building, a historic building. We 
were told that if we did not fix it, there was a possibility that we 
could be held personally liable if something happened.
  Clearly, no one here is going to be personally held liable if a 
bridge collapses, but morally we need to understand that now that we 
know we have 60,000-plus bridges in bad condition and that 50 percent 
of our roads are not up to par, we have an obligation to fix it. It is 
very clear that we must do so.
  I am proud that almost half of the Democratic caucus has come 
together with a larger percentage of the Republican caucus to put 
together a transportation bill. I am proud of that. It is on the road 
to passage. Last night, at a crucial moment late in the evening, we got 
62 votes. That was not an easy thing to do because, as the Presiding 
Officer knows, there were things she wanted in that bill, and there 
were more things I wanted. I wanted things out of the bill and other 
things added. Each one of us, of course--we are people who are 
passionate about these issues. We would have written the bill 
differently. I would say that anyone in America, having the chance, 
would write it differently. But the art of compromise is something we 
should not be afraid of. You are not compromising your principles; you 
are seeing where you can find a sweet spot. I believe we did that.
  I am urging the House not to leave on their summer break and to stay 
and work on this bill. We have done a lot of the heavy lifting. We have 
done a lot of the heavy compromising. They can do more. They can take 
out things they do not like, add things they want. We can sit down in a 
conference. We can get this done.
  My opinion: They should take it and pass it. When a bill has 62 votes 
here, that is pretty darn good. If they want to tweak it, they can do 
it. But I think they need to stay.
  I served proudly with my friend Senator Inhofe in the House. I served 
for 10 years. It has been 10 years since the House has had this long of 
a break. They have not left before August for the August recess. I 
think they should stay. They should stay.
  You know, the average American, when they are about to go on their 
summer break, the boss says: Clean up your desk, please. Finish your 
work, please. Don't just pile everything on one side of the table, 
please. Take care of it.
  The House ought to finish its work. Take up our bill, amend it, send 
it back, and we will get it done. Most of the work is done. Most 
Americans have to tie up loose ends before they take a long break. I 
might add, I think it is a 5-week break--a 5-week break. Do your work. 
Maybe you can only go on a 4-week break. That would still be twice the 
time most Americans get. Do your work.

  When I say bridges are in poor condition, that is not hyperbole, that 
is fact. This is not some study put out by a

[[Page S6051]]

Democrat or a Republican; it is put out by the engineers. Our 
infrastructure is rated--I believe it is a D overall. If our child came 
home and said ``Mom, I have a D,'' we would not be happy. Well, 
taxpayers are not happy that our infrastructure is rated a D.
  So I ask the House: Please stay and do your job. Roll up your 
sleeves. We will work with you. We can resolve these things. You have 
had time to look at our bill.
  I will close with just two more points. I want to give the highlights 
of our Transportation bill on which we worked so hard across party 
lines--Senator Inhofe; myself; the Banking Committee, chairman and 
ranking; the Commerce Committee, chairman and ranking; the Finance 
Committee, which paid for this bill.
  Some people are voting against it because they do not like the way it 
is paid for. They say it is better to find some long-term answer in 
international tax reform. Personally, I think that is a great idea, but 
you have time to pay for the last 3 years in that fashion. We have paid 
for 3 years; this bill is 6 years. Pay for the last 3 years.
  As for me, I am a lonely voice here. There are about five of us who 
say: A penny a month for 10 months on the gas tax. We don't have the 
votes. So what do I do? Go in my corner and cry? I don't have the 
votes. No, we have to put a bill together. So this is a $50 billion-a-
year bill for 6 years. Three years are paid for. Every State gets more 
formula funding for both highways and transit. There are two new 
programs: a formula freight program that my friend Senator Inhofe, 
working with Republicans and Democrats, put together; and a new grant 
program for major projects called the AMP Program. Senator Whitehouse 
worked across the aisle for that program. All of our States are 
eligible.
  It includes the McCaskill bill. It is the McCaskill-Schumer bill that 
says rental car companies cannot lease out cars that are under recall. 
I think this is important because we see a lot of the problems with the 
Takata air bags.
  Because Senator Nelson has worked so hard on that, we have tripled 
NHTSA fines. We have used that money in the bill to help put positive 
train control on the commuter rails. This is important. People are 
dying because we do not have positive train control.
  Is the bill the perfect bill on safety? In my view, it is not. In 
somebody else's view it is. It is a compromise. But I think, overall, 
it is solid. Every State will see an increase in their highway dollars, 
in their transit dollars.
  In closing, I wish to thank Senators on both sides of the aisle, 
including the Presiding Officer because we did work together. We did a 
good job. It was hard to do. I know my friend had one provision she 
wanted. She had to scale it back. It is hard to do that. I had a 
program I wanted. It got scaled back. We all have to give and take, but 
that is what the people expect of us. Whether they are Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents, it does not matter--they want us to get 
something done.
  I am proud of the Senate. We are not done yet. We still need some 
more votes on this, so everyone stay tuned. But if the House will stay 
an extra few days and take up our bill, we can get this done for the 
American people. We can save businesses, we can save jobs, we can keep 
this recovery going, and we can feel proud that we fixed our bridges, 
that we fixed our highways, and that we did the work we are supposed to 
do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, well, I am going to have to disagree 
with my partner over here on one thing; that is, the insistence that 
the House stay. In my opinion, they are not going to stay. That is 
done. But this can still be done with their targeted adjournment date 
for them. The way that can happen is for us to right now--we are 
waiting out the vote. If nobody yields backs--it is on the Inhofe 
substitute. That is what we are doing right now. That vote can take 
place at 5 o'clock in the morning. If you moved that up--and right now 
we are asking unanimous consent to do that. If we are able to do that, 
that could happen this afternoon. That means we could have the next 
step, which would be to move to the bill. That could be done while they 
are still here.
  What I do not want to happen is to have them--you know, we are 
successful and done with our bill and then send it over to the House 
and they are gone. So I think we can still do it while the House is 
still here.
  I have to say--and I am not sure the ranking member of my committee, 
Senator Boxer, agrees with this, but I think they never believed we 
would be able to get the bill done. That being the case, they staked 
out early and said they--for any number of reasons, they are going to 
be gone. Well, we can do it. All we have to do is to move this up and 
to get time yielded back. We can do the same thing then on final 
passage. We could have the bill over there in good enough time--
Wednesday; that is tomorrow--that they could still act on the bill. 
That would be my goal on this because I think that is the only way.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. I will yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would love to get this done in 5 minutes. So let me be 
clear about where I stand. But has my friend received confirmation from 
Speaker Boehner that he would take up the bill tomorrow? My 
understanding is that they moved up their--this is what I heard. I 
can't swear to it, I don't know exactly, but what I heard is they are 
actually moving up their adjournment from Thursday to Wednesday so they 
can escape from having to take up our bill.

  Does my friend believe that if we could get this bill done, they 
would stay 24 hours and deal with our bill?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, I don't know what they would do, how 
long they would stay. If we don't finish it until they already are 
gone, then we know that.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK.
  Mr. INHOFE. But I still think that can be done. There is this 
urgency. We have worked long and hard. People say they haven't had time 
to get into this thing. We passed our bill. They have had 5 or 6 weeks 
to absorb this. And this argument that we have a 6-year bill with only 
3 years of funding--this is kind of a phony argument because we have a 
valve that doesn't exist anywhere else that if we go through and start 
a 6-year bill, that would allow us to get into the major projects which 
the Senator from Minnesota was talking about and which the Senator and 
I have been talking about that you cannot get into with short-term 
extensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is right.
  (Mr. CRUZ assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. INHOFE. We all understand that. So we can start those projects. 
Given 3 years, I can assure you that we would have the opportunity to 
find offsets that would be acceptable. We were operating under the gun 
before. This would take that away. We can go ahead and accept the fact 
that we have 3 years funded.
  For those individuals--and I am speaking now of my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle--who are conservative who have had the argument that 
we will then have to borrow money in order to finish the 6 years.
  We can really have it both ways. We start the projects, and then 
there will be enough pressure on and we will be able to do--
incidentally, I have to keep reminding my friends that there is a 
conservative position, and that is to pass this bill.
  You know, I get so tired of people--there are a lot of people out 
there who actually voted for the $800 billion--way back at the 
beginning of the Obama administration--the $800 billion stimulus bill 
that didn't stimulate. We tried to put an amendment on there. I know 
the Senator from California and I cosponsored amendments. They were all 
rejected.
  Then along came the $700 billion bailout, and a lot of my Republican 
friends voted for that.
  Now they complain that the money isn't there. Well, the money can be 
there. And if it hadn't been for those two things, we wouldn't be 
having this conversation today. But the money can be there. We need 
time to let that happen. Certainly, as we pass this bill, start the 
major projects that are going on, then we will be in a position to do 
that. The key to making that happen, to allowing that to happen--I am 
not going to give up because the House

[[Page S6052]]

hasn't left yet. They say they are going to leave tomorrow afternoon. 
Well, if we go ahead and yield back enough time to get this vote this 
afternoon, we could do the same thing on the final vote.
  By the way, those individuals who want to have amendments, you can 
still have germane amendments that would not be treated as an 
amendment, but we would consider putting those into the managers' 
amendment. If that happens, that would become part of the vote we would 
be voting on tomorrow. To allow that to happen, we have to go ahead and 
yield back time so that we can have this vote take place and start 
working on those amendments that are germane to see which of those we 
are going to be in a position to consider.
  Anyway, that is what I am hoping will happen. I think there is an 
opportunity.
  Again, people who make statements--and I have a lot of friends in the 
House. I spent 8 years in the House. These individuals who are speaking 
now--one of them made kind of an off-the-cuff statement about, you 
know, we are just not going to consider it. Well, I really believe most 
of them over there felt we weren't going to be successful in passing a 
bill. So it is still possible we can do that. We do have the time left, 
and we know what we have to do to do that.
  Let me talk a little bit about the sense of urgency.
  First, I appreciate the fact that this conversation took place. The 
Senator from Minnesota had some pretty graphic pictures of what 
happened that took the lives of 13 people, a bridge falling down.
  The DRIVE Act contains some other key provisions outside of 
prioritizing bridge safety and stability.
  Today, the National Highway System carries more than 55 percent of 
the Nation's highway traffic and 97 percent of the truck freight 
traffic.
  We have never had a freight provision. This is my sixth bill that I 
have worked on--actually going all the way back to the House days--and 
we have never had a freight provision to take care of this problem.
  Of the 4 million miles of public road, the National Highway System 
represents 5.5 percent of the Nation's most heavily traveled miles of 
road. Americans depend upon a well-maintained National Highway System 
that provides critical connections between urban and rural communities. 
American businesses pay an estimated $27 billion a year in extra 
freight transportation costs due to the poor condition of public roads.
  Look at it. Look at that. How many lanes are there on this one? There 
are six lanes, all of them stopped. What happens when they stop? The 
engines keep going. The air is polluted. Gasoline costs a lot of money, 
and the freight cannot go through. Well, that is why we have this.
  Recognizing that it is the foundation of the Nation's economy and the 
key to the Nation's ability to compete in the global economy, it is 
essential that we focus efforts to improve freight movement on the 
National Highway System. Incidentally, if we don't pass this bill and 
if we go back to extensions, that ain't going to happen. It can't 
happen.
  I always have to pause to remind my conservative friends--and I can 
say this because I have had the ranking of the most conservative Member 
probably more than anybody else has--the Constitution tells us what we 
are supposed to be doing. We are doing a lot of things the Constitution 
never contemplated. It says in article I, section 8 that we in the 
House and the Senate are supposed to be defending America and roads and 
bridges. That is what we are supposed to be doing. So I would just say 
I have to remind people that the conservative position in the 
Constitution is to go ahead and do what we are trying to do with the 
DRIVE Act today.
  The DRIVE Act includes two new programs to help the States deliver 
projects that promote the safe movement of consumer goods and products.
  The first new program is the National Freight Program. That is what 
we are talking about right now.
  That is what is bogged down in traffic right here.
  It is distributed by a formula that will provide funds to all States 
to enhance the movement of goods, reduce costs, and improve the 
performances of businesses. The program would expand flexibility for 
both rural and urban areas.
  A lot of the reason this hasn't been handled before is that States 
send in their priorities. You know, one of the few things in government 
that do work is what we are going through right now. When we set up a 
formula, we take into consideration what the people at home want, what 
the people in my State of Oklahoma think is the most important thing in 
terms of roads, bridges, highways, and maintenance. There are some 
liberals here in Washington who think there has never been a good 
decision unless it came out of Washington. But we always emphasize what 
they consider to be the greatest concern within their States.
  The reason that freight doesn't often get the high priority it should 
is because a lot of the freight moves in and out of a State and the 
States don't evaluate that as an economic benefit. That is shortsighted 
because States on either side provide that kind of traffic, and it does 
add to the economy of the State, it is just not direct the way the rest 
of the projects are.
  So we have this type of congestion taking place.
  Secondly, it will improve efforts to identify projects with a high 
return on investment through State freight plans and State advisory 
committees.
  The second new program is the Assistance for Major Projects Program, 
which creates a competitive grant program to provide funds for major 
projects of high importance to a community, a region, or to the Nation. 
The program includes a set-aside for rural areas and it ensures an 
equitable geographic distribution of the funds. The State of Oklahoma 
is a rural State, so that is very important.
  One thing you cannot do with the short-term extensions--keep in mind, 
the last time we had a long-term bill, the reauthorization bill, was 
2005. By the time 2009 got here, we were working on just the short-term 
extensions--33 short-term extensions. So you can't do those major 
projects that have to be done sooner or later in our country.
  In Chicago, IL, the I-290 and the I-90/I-94 intersection is the 
intersection we have been looking at with the congestion. It is the No. 
1 worst freight bottleneck in the United States. The average speed 
slows down to 29 miles an hour. Morning and evening rush hour speeds 
have been known to drop below 20 miles an hour. It carries about 
300,000 vehicles a day. That is the Chicago I-29.
  Houston, TX, the I-45 at U.S. 59--and certainly the occupier of the 
chair is fully aware of this and I am sure has been bogged down in 
traffic many times on the Texas I-45 at U.S. 59 exchange. Houston, TX, 
is the home of 5 of the top 20 freight bottlenecks in the Nation. Texas 
is home to 9 of the top 25 freight bottlenecks. Freight bottlenecks 
cost the freight industry in Texas $671 million annually and 8.8 
million hours of delay.
  This is what we are looking at, looking at Houston. It happens that I 
was stopped there going there one time. That is why I always fly down 
to South Texas rather than drive--to avoid that.
  So I-45 at the intersection is ranked third in the Nation by the 
congestion index. It is the same I-45 at 610 North that is ranked 15. 
There is an average speed slowdown to 39 miles per hour, and there they 
are, out there wasting valuable time.
  Fort Lee, NJ. The I-95 you are looking at right now connects Fort 
Lee, NJ, to New York City. It is the second worst freight bottleneck by 
congestion index in the Nation. The average speed slows to 29 miles an 
hour. Rush hour speeds in the morning and evening slow down to about 15 
miles an hour.
  The nearby I-95 Cross-Bronx Expressway is the most congested corridor 
in the country. By the way, anyone from here in Washington who is going 
up to anyplace along the coast, Connecticut on up North, has to go 
through that, and I have had to do that. I had an occasion just the 
other day to give a commencement talk up at the Coast Guard Academy. To 
get up there, I had to go all the way across that bridge, and it almost 
made me late. So that is one that is well known.
  The George Washington Bridge is the world's busiest motor vehicle 
bridge, carrying over 106 million cars a year.

[[Page S6053]]

  Anyway, that is what we have right now. We have a freight program to 
alleviate this type of congestion and increase America's ability to 
conduct commerce on our highways.
  We have another talk that we have given several times where we go 
over all of the bridges. The Senator from Minnesota was talking about 
the tragedy of the bridges. But if you look and you see, it is not just 
confined to the east coast. If you look and you see, in my State of 
Oklahoma, in the northeastern section, we have more deficient bridges--
probably ranked No. 3 in the Nation, I would say--and those bridges are 
not going to be addressed until we have a chance to do it.
  Simply look at this Eisenhower quote, a republican president who 
understood the need for federal investment in our military and our 
highways. I always like this because I chair the Environment and Public 
Works Committee and have been ranking member of the Senate Armed Forces 
committee. I think it is deplorable, what President Obama has done to 
our military. I call it the disarming of America.
  Yet the guy who started this whole thing--I don't think even the 
Chair is aware of the fact that the reason Eisenhower started this way 
back in 1956 was to defend our Nation. He said: As it is right now, we 
don't have any type of a system where you can take goods and services 
and move them across either coast to be sent out in the defense of this 
country.
  So I am hoping that we all realize the need to reauthorize this long-
term bill. Right now, we are in the middle of not doing anything, not 
getting done, but it is a 30-hour delay. If we can just move that up so 
that instead of voting on that at 5 o'clock in the morning, we can vote 
on it this afternoon--which would be just as easy to do, and I am going 
to ask unanimous consent that we be able to do that--then we could move 
on and do the same thing as we move toward the bill.
  Now, if that happens, for those individuals--and I would hope the 
staff is listening to this--who have germane amendments, we can't take 
up amendments after passage. This is going to pass. We know this is 
going to pass, but is it going to pass this afternoon or is it going to 
pass tomorrow morning? If so, we then would not be in a position to do 
anything if the House has already adjourned.
  If this happens, if Members will bring amendments down, we will 
consider germane amendments. We still have the managers' amendment we 
will be able to put these in, and so we will consider these. So there 
is an opportunity for that to take place, and I wouldn't want anyone 
voting to deny this opportunity to finish this bill and let the House 
at least look at it, thinking they will not be able to get their 
amendments in.
  We haven't had an opportunity to get amendments in for a long time. I 
always hasten to say this because how long has it been now. It has been 
6 weeks since we passed this out of our committee and it passed 
unanimously--every Democrat and every Republican. I have to say the 
Republicans on the committee I chair are among the most conservative 
Republicans and the Democrats are among the most liberal Democrats. 
That is a holdover from when the Democrats had control of the Senate, 
and the Environment and Public Works Committee was chaired by my 
colleague, who refers to herself as a very proud progressive, which 
means liberal, and I am a very proud conservative. So we all have this 
in common.
  Just to have this opportunity to have this up so we can consider it, 
we would have to move this up and get this vote today instead of 
tonight. So I am hoping that will still be the case. We are making our 
case on that. Again, that would allow us to get this done in a way--or 
at least to let the House look at this and see whether it is an option 
they may want to pursue. I know several have painted themselves into a 
corner, but nonetheless we could do this if we can hurry this up.
  I know there are other speakers on the floor, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator from 
Oklahoma for his great work on this legislation. He has been a fierce 
advocate for transportation funding, for doing highway bills on more 
than a short-term basis. As he has mentioned numerous times, since 2009 
we have had 33 short-term extensions--patches, if you will--which make 
it very difficult to run a highway program.
  The Senator from Oklahoma has been, as I said, a fierce and 
persistent advocate that one of the responsibilities we have around 
here is to make sure we are building the infrastructure in this country 
that keeps our economy competitive, that allows people and freight to 
move in an efficient way and to ensure our economy is strong and 
vibrant.
  I can tell you, as someone who represents a rural State in the middle 
of the country, the supply chain we have between our highways and 
bridges, our railroads, our ports, is critically important for us to 
get our products, the things we raise and grow in South Dakota, to the 
marketplace. Agriculture is our No. 1 industry. It drives our economy. 
It is incredibly dependent upon transportation. So a strong, vibrant, 
robust economy depends upon transportation.
  Obviously, we want to have a system that is safe, and that is one of 
the issues I want to speak to with regard to this bill as well. I 
appreciate the great work Senator Inhofe and his team, working with 
Senator Boxer, have done on this bill.
  We are going to continue to debate this. I hope we can bring it to a 
close. As the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out, if we did that, we 
would have an opportunity to at least put it before the House and give 
them a chance to act on it, whether they choose to or not. I would 
certainly hope the House of Representatives would take a hard look at 
this bill and consider taking it up and moving it because there has 
been a lot of work that has gone into it. We have a deadline ahead of 
us, and if we don't do this, we are going to be stuck with yet 
another--the 34th--short-term extension, which just kicks the can down 
the road and makes it more difficult for those who are in the position 
of having to make decisions about planning and designing our 
infrastructure in this country to do that.
  Obviously, there are a lot of people and a lot of jobs that depend 
upon the decisions that come out of Washington with regard to this 
bill. So I, too, encourage our colleagues in the Senate to move as 
quickly as we can to complete action on the Senate bill and to allow 
the House of Representatives to take a chance at considering it and 
perhaps getting this issue resolved and a long-term bill in place.
  These bills are nothing new in the Senate. The bill before us today 
is notable because it is the first Transportation bill, as I mentioned, 
in almost a decade to provide more than 2 years of funding for our 
Nation's infrastructure needs. Since 2009, Congress has passed more 
than 33 short-term funding extensions. That is an average of 
approximately five funding extensions a year. That is not a good way to 
manage our Nation's infrastructure and it wastes an incredible amount 
of money.
  Around the country, hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of 
thousands of jobs depend on funding contained in transportation bills. 
When Congress fails to provide the necessary certainty about the way 
transportation funding is going to be allocated, States and local 
governments are left without the certainty they need to authorize 
projects to make long-term plans for transportation infrastructure. 
That means essential construction projects get deferred, necessary 
repairs may not get made, and the jobs that depend on transportation 
are put in jeopardy.
  My home State of South Dakota has been forced to defer important 
construction projects thanks to the lack of funding certainty. No 
individual or business would start building a house or an office 
building if it could only promise a contractor 3 months of funding. In 
the same way, Congress can't expect a State to begin construction of a 
new bridge or highway without the certainty that their project is going 
to be fully funded.
  The highway bill before us--the DRIVE Act--reauthorizes 
transportation programs for 6 years and provides 3 years of guaranteed 
funding. All 3 years of funding have been paid for without raising the 
gas tax and without adding a dime to the deficit. This bill will give 
States and local governments the certainty they need to plan

[[Page S6054]]

for and commit to key infrastructure projects.
  The bill will also help to strengthen our Nation's transportation 
system by increasing transparency in the allocation of transportation 
dollars, streamlining the permitting and environmental review processes 
and cutting redtape.
  Mr. President, over the past few years of Democratic control, the 
public has grown increasingly skeptical of Congress being able to 
function. When Republicans took the majority in January, we promised 
the American people we would get the Senate working again, and we have 
been delivering on that promise.
  This Transportation bill is another major legislative achievement and 
the result of hard work by several committees that put together key 
provisions to spur important infrastructure investment and safety 
improvements. Republicans and Democrats alike got to make their voices 
heard in this process, and the resulting bill is stronger because of 
it.
  As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, I had the opportunity to work on the commerce section 
of the bill. Our focus was on enhancing the safety of our Nation's 
cars, trucks, and railroads, and the bill we produced makes key reforms 
that will enhance transport safety around the country.
  Over the past year, the commerce committee has spent a lot of time 
focused on motor vehicle safety efforts. Last year was a record year 
for auto problems, with more than 63 million vehicles recalled.
  Two of the defects that have spurred recent auto recalls--the faulty 
General Motors ignition switch and the defective airbag inflators from 
Takata--are responsible for numerous unnecessary deaths and injuries, 
at least 8 reported deaths in the case of Takata and more than 100 
deaths in the case of General Motors. Indications point to the Takata 
recalls as being among the largest and most complex set of auto-related 
recalls in our Nation's history, with more than 30 million cars 
affected.
  Given the seriousness of these recalls, when it came time to draft 
the highway bill, one of our priorities in the commerce committee was 
addressing auto safety issues and promoting greater consumer awareness 
and corporate responsibility. The commerce section of the DRIVE Act now 
triples the civil penalties the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration can impose on automakers for a series of related safety 
violations--from a cap of $35 million to a cap of $105 million--which 
should provide a stronger deterrent against auto safety violations such 
as those that occurred in the case of the faulty ignition switches at 
General Motors.
  Our portion of the bill also improves notification methods to ensure 
that consumers are made aware of recalls.
  In the wake of the recall over the GM ignition switch defect, the 
inspector general at the Department of Transportation published a 
scathing report identifying serious lapses of the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, the government agency 
responsible for overseeing safety in our Nation's cars and trucks.
  The concerns raised included questions about the agency's ability to 
properly identify and investigate safety problems--a concern that is 
further underscored, I might add, by the circumstances surrounding the 
Takata recalls.
  In addition to targeting violations by automakers, our portion of the 
highway bill also addresses the lapses at the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration identified in the inspector general's report.
  In its typical fashion, the Obama administration claimed NHTSA's 
problems could be solved by simply throwing more money at the agency, 
but based on the expert testimony from the inspector general, it is 
clear money alone is not going to solve the problem. We need to ensure 
that the agency fixes what is broken before we provide a significant 
increase in funding authorization with taxpayer dollars.
  Our bill makes additional funding increases for NHTSA's vehicle 
safety efforts contingent on that agency's implementation of reforms 
called for by the inspector general, ensuring that this agency will be 
in a better position to address vehicle safety problems in the future.
  I appreciate that NHTSA's current administration and Administrator 
have pledged to implement all of these recommendations.
  Another big focus of the commerce committee this year has been rail 
safety. Nearly half of the commerce section of the DRIVE Act is made up 
of a bipartisan rail safety bill put together by the Republican junior 
Senator from Mississippi and the Democratic junior Senator from New 
Jersey. Their work on important rail and Amtrak reform was almost ready 
for a committee markup at the beginning of May, but after the tragic 
train derailment in Philadelphia, these two Senators opted to delay the 
markup and then added even more safety provisions to the bill they 
crafted.
  Their bill, which passed the committee with unanimous support from 
committee members of both parties, include provisions to strengthen our 
Nation's rail infrastructure and smooths the way for the implementation 
of new safety technologies.
  Our transportation infrastructure keeps our economy and our Nation 
going. Our Nation's farmers depend on our rail system to move their 
crops to the market. Manufacturers rely on our Interstate Highway 
System to distribute their goods to stores across the United States. 
All of us--all of us--depend on our Nation's roads and bridges to get 
around every single day. For too long, transportation has been the 
subject of short-term legislation that leaves those responsible for 
building and for maintaining our Nation's transportation system without 
the certainty and the predictability they need to keep our roads and 
highways thriving.
  I am proud of the bill we have on the floor before us. I hope we can 
pass this legislation as soon as possible and work with the House to 
develop a final bill that will allow us to fund our Nation's 
transportation priorities on a long-term basis. We can't afford to 
continue this path we have been on of passing short-term extensions--33 
already in the last 5 years, more than 5 a year--and all the 
uncertainty that comes with that. That jeopardizes jobs across this 
country that are related to construction of these projects. It 
jeopardizes the planning and engineering and design work that our 
departments of transportation across the country do, and it puts at 
risk all of the transportation infrastructure that moves the freight, 
that moves people across this country, which our economy depends on.
  So I simply want to say that as a Member who represents a rural 
State, South Dakota--where we have 77,000 square miles, home to 800,000 
people--we depend heavily on roads and bridges to get to and from our 
destinations. We have people who drive long distances to work. We have 
people who come into our State every single year.
  This time of the year we will have a million or so people descend 
upon a little town in South Dakota called Sturgis, which will be the 
place where the annual motorcycle rally is hosted. We have people who 
come by the thousands to our State every single year to visit the Black 
Hills and Mount Rushmore. We depend upon a good, viable, robust 
transportation system.
  As I mentioned earlier, we are an agricultural economy which drives 
the jobs in our State that keeps our Main Streets going. That 
agricultural economy depends upon getting those things we raise and 
grow to the marketplace. That means good highways, railroads, ports--
all the things that are essential to make sure our agricultural 
producers can get the things they raise and grow to the places and 
destinations they need to get to.
  This is truly important work we are doing. I thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma for his hard work. I certainly hope we can push this across 
the finish line soon, so we will be able to present it to the House of 
Representatives, notwithstanding the statements that have been made 
there. Perhaps they can look at this body of work and think, as we do, 
that this gives us an opportunity to put something on the books, the 
longest term bill we have had literally now in 10 years, and do 
something important for our economy and for jobs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page S6055]]

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the comments made by 
the Senator from South Dakota, emphasizing what can't be done on short 
terms. I think we have been talking about that all morning.
  Last week, 100 mayors from across the Nation wrote to the Senate 
leaders urging for a long-term transportation bill. They said, ``If the 
status quo continues, deficient transportation infrastructure will cost 
American businesses $430 billion by 2020.''
  Then there are the 31 construction and transportation groups that 
sent a harsh reminder to Congress that ``past extensions have not led 
to a lasting solution to the Highway Trust Fund's repeated revenue 
shortfalls.''
  I remember because I have been around here for a while, and I have 
been through six of these transportation reauthorization bills. In the 
interim, we always end up with short-term extensions. People don't 
realize we can't do major projects with short-term extensions.
  Now, I hear the argument sometimes that in this one we have a 6-year 
bill, but we are paying for only 3 years. That is fine. Make the 
argument. But there is something unique in the transportation system, 
which is that in the event we get through halfway--even though it is a 
6-year bill--and the funds are not available to the existing shortages 
of what we have added, then all projects stop. Not a penny can be 
spent. This isn't true anyplace else in our government, and I think 
people have to realize that if we are going to do it.
  When the Senator from Minnesota was talking and showing these very 
graphic pictures of the bridge that collapsed killing 13 people, that 
really sends something home. We can't wait until that happens before we 
do the responsible thing.
  I have to remind my conservative friends it is our constitutional 
duty. When we were sworn into office, we swore to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States. The Constitution in article I, 
section 8 tells us what we are supposed to be doing: We are supposed to 
be defending America, including our bridges and roads. That is what we 
are supposed to be doing.
  There is a way. I hope the people who--unless they just don't want to 
take care of these big, serious problems and want to continue with the 
short-term extensions, there is a way we can do this. We will be asking 
for unanimous consent to go ahead and make a vote on what we are voting 
on right now and considering. If all time has to expire, it would be 5 
a.m. tomorrow on the Inhofe substitute for the bill. That means we then 
wouldn't get around to having this bill passed until Thursday, and 
Thursday would be after the House is gone. So it is over. That is it. 
This would be a very easy thing to do.
  Again, I am going to remind people that while we don't have the 
chance for amendments after this vote takes place, we can still have 
the manager's amendment, where I personally will consider every one of 
the amendments that comes forth. I am hoping that will happen.
  That is what we are faced with right now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________