[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7903-7907]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS--Continued

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside 
the pending Bayh amendment for the purpose of adopting an agreed-to 
amendment, the Talent amendment, and go immediately back to the Bayh 
amendment.
  Mr. BAYH. With that understanding, I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 582

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Talent 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 582.
  The amendment (No. 582) was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 568

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Bayh amendment 
will be the pending amendment.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to show my strong support 
for the Bayh amendment on countervailing duties, and I ask unanimous 
consent to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. I commend my friend and colleague from Indiana for his 
vision on the issue of what we need to do to create a level playing 
field for our businesses and workers. This is an important amendment.
  I have spoken forcefully about our need to address the unfair trade 
practices of those with whom we trade. A necessary step in this process 
is to change those U.S. laws that hinder our industries from operating 
on a level playing field. That is what this amendment addresses. Our 
businesses, our workers have an expectation that we will provide a 
level playing field for them, and we need to deliver on that. This 
amendment is a good step in that direction.
  Unfair trade practices are hurting our U.S. manufacturers and costing 
jobs. In my State of Michigan, I regret to say, we now have the highest 
unemployment rate in the country. At the time when our Nation's 
countervailing duty laws were approved in 1979, the Department of 
Commerce decided it was impracticable to apply those laws to nonmarket 
economies such as China due to the difficulty of determining what 
defines a government subsidy within the context of a state-controlled 
economy.
  However, since that time, many nonmarket economies have undertaken 
significant economic reforms that have liberalized the state control 
over their economies. Unfortunately, however, some of these nations, 
such as China, refuse to comply with standard international trading 
rules and practices and use subsidies and other economic incentives to 
give their producers an unfair competitive advantage. This has a direct 
impact on job loss in Michigan, as well as in other States.
  As we all know--and it has been documented--these subsidies range 
from currency manipulation, to providing below interest rate loans to 
less than creditworthy companies, to providing preferential access to 
raw materials and other input. I should mention that I was very proud 
to be a part of the effort to get a very strong vote a few weeks ago; 
67 Members on both sides of the aisle joined to send a message both to 
the White House and to China that we expect China to stop manipulating 
their currency, which means it costs more for us to sell to them than 
for them to sell to us. It is part of what we need to do to level the 
playing field. I hope that because we have joined together in the vote 
we had on a very strong bipartisan basis, we will see the same kind of 
vote on this Bayh amendment.
  I will give you a few examples of how this hurts Michigan 
manufacturers and workers directly. Counterfeit automotive products are 
a very big problem in Michigan. Not only does it kill American jobs, 
but it has the potential to kill Americans as cheap, shoddy automotive 
products replace legitimate ones of higher quality. The American 
automotive parts components industry loses an estimated $12 billion in 
sales on a global basis to counterfeiting. This must stop. We don't 
even keep statistics on the potential loss of life.
  The United States is losing manufacturing jobs as a direct result of 
China's policies. China's policies have cost our economy 1.5 million 
jobs in the last 15 years and 51,000 jobs alone in Michigan. These job 
losses are hurting all of our manufacturers, from apple juice, to auto 
parts, to clothing, to furniture.
  At this stage, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat 
subsidies used by nonmarket economies. They must rely upon the Federal 
Government to negotiate a settlement, or on the dispute settlement 
processes of international organizations, such as the WTO.
  Why do we put such a strain on our own businesses? The remedies 
available currently might eventually lead to relief, but it takes years 
to see relief. We are losing jobs every day. There are headlines every 
day in Michigan about job loss. We have to have a sense of urgency here 
in the Senate and in the Congress and in the White House.
  The Bayh amendment would change the situation to ensure that 
nonmarket economies are subject to the same countervailing duty laws as 
all other trading nations.
  At a recent Finance Committee hearing on his nomination, Congressman 
Portman said he thinks ``we . . . need an additional focus on China. 
After a top-to-bottom review, I would plan to shift some resources, 
including some people to that effort.''
  I certainly encourage him to do that. I also want to indicate at this 
time that Congressman Portman indicated support for a focus on creating 
an international trade prosecutor, or some people in his office who 
would focus on the role of prosecutor more broadly on those other 
countries that are violating rules. Senator Bayh has been a champion of 
that effort, and I am very proud he has joined with me and Senator 
Graham in South Carolina in introducing specific legislation that 
relates to creating an international trade prosecutor as well. All of 
these pieces are important. We have taken one step to sending a message 
to China and to the administration that we expect them to address the 
issue of currency manipulation.
  Now, this amendment is a very important piece in leveling the playing 
field for our businesses and our workers. I also urge that we 
incorporate an international trade prosecutor who will be our American 
voice for business and for workers on the broad issue of continuing to 
make sure the rules are fair. I think these pieces together create hope 
for the people we represent, whom we, in fact, would stand up for and 
stand up for American jobs.
  While I have the floor, I want to speak briefly about something else 
that also relates to American jobs. In addition to this important 
amendment, we will be focusing on the broader issue of a strong SAFETEA 
Transportation bill. I am hopeful that we are going to get this done as 
quickly as possible. I am pleased that we have begun the process of 
debating this critical issue.
  The snow finally has melted in Michigan--at least for the moment--and 
we are in the beginning of a new construction season. During the budget 
debate, I was pleased to join with Senator Talent to lead an effort on 
an amendment to help the Senate produce a well-funded Transportation 
bill. I know Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus are working hard to 
help strengthen this bill that is in front of us.

[[Page 7904]]

  As my colleagues know, this bill isn't just about improving roads and 
transit systems and buses, but it is about creating jobs. Again, it is 
absolutely critical that we do everything possible to create American 
jobs and do it as quickly as possible. The Transportation bill is one 
of the fastest ways that we can bring good-paying jobs back to our 
States.
  The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion of 
highway spending creates 47,500 new, good-paying jobs, and it generates 
more than $2 billion in economic activity.
  Mr. President, we need this bill now. If there are efforts to extend 
it, we need to have it be a short extension beyond May 31. My 
preference is to get this done before the end of May because we are 
going to lose another construction season if we do not. We in Michigan 
have projects ready to go the minute this bill is signed. It is 
absolutely critical that we get this done as soon as possible.
  Over the last 4 years, Michigan has lost jobs. This bill, as I said, 
would create good-paying jobs that would help thousands of our families 
in Michigan. We are not talking about minimum wage jobs, we are talking 
about well-paying jobs, good-paying jobs that help families pay their 
mortgages and save for retirement and put their children through 
school.
  Last year's bipartisan Senate bill that passed overwhelmingly would 
have created over 99,000 jobs in Michigan alone. It is my hope that the 
Senate will pass another strong bill. I understand that the House and 
the White House did not support the effort that we passed. Even though 
it was an important bipartisan effort and it showed in the Senate the 
best about governing, in my opinion, and people worked very hard on 
both sides of the aisle, it is very unfortunate that this was not 
supported by the House or the White House. Now we have a bill back in 
front of us and we need to make it the best we can possibly make it so 
that we are creating jobs and meeting the needs of our communities. We 
cannot fix the problems that we have in our States in terms of 
infrastructure and traffic congestion and issues of jobs and so on 
without the very best bill possible.
  I am very hopeful--and I will do everything within my power, working 
with colleagues on both sides of the aisle--to get the fairest, best 
bill that we can for the people we represent and to get that as quickly 
as we possibly can.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Bayh amendment and 
to move on to put together the final bill in the best way possible for 
both those States such as mine, which are donor States, as well as for 
the other States around the country, so that we can create the jobs 
that are needed as quickly as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator 
from Michigan, for her generous words, but for her leadership as well 
on both of these important issues. She understands very well the 
Transportation bill will create jobs for our construction workers in 
the short run and will improve our productivity in the long run but 
that it is just part of a bigger piece of improving America's economic 
competitiveness, and a big part of that, in Michigan and Indiana and 
the other 48 States, is when workers want to work hard, be smart, play 
by the rules, do the right thing, they need to be rewarded for those 
efforts and not have their hard-working sacrifices unfairly taken from 
them by global competitors who do not play by the rules, who cheat, and 
are not willing to make the tough decisions our businesses and workers 
are asked to make.
  I thank her for her leadership and for her kind words and look 
forward to working with her on these and other issues.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now the pending business is the Bayh 
amendment. I stress again that both Senator Jeffords and I are inviting 
anyone to come down with amendments they have. Senator Bayh has 
graciously agreed to set his aside for the consideration of any other 
amendments, and then we would go back to his amendment. So I would not 
want any Members who are watching the proceedings to believe they 
cannot get their amendment in. We do encourage them to bring their 
amendments down. I would hate to have all of these stacked up at the 
last minute. Now is the time to get consideration for amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today, our third day of debate on 
the highway bill.
  As we have stated before, this is vital legislation that will have an 
impact on every American.
  I join Senator Inhofe in calling on my colleagues to come to the 
floor to offer amendments. With that said, I would like to address some 
of the important provisions in this bill.
  I would like to spend a minute talking about bridges and our need to 
make sure that adequate funding exists to maintain these structures.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have a passion for bridges and 
specifically covered bridges.
  While covered bridges are no longer critical parts of our Nation's 
infrastructure, they provide an important link to our collective past 
and are feats of engineering and longevity.
  The National Covered Bridge Preservation Program, which I authored in 
1998, has been a great success, albeit a slightly underfunded success.
  From the Thetford Center Covered Bridge to the Weathersfield Falls 
Covered Bridge, I have taken great pride in being able to work to 
rehabilitate these bridges in Vermont.
  Given my passion for the topic, many members may think that Vermont 
has the Nation's largest number of these bridges.
  In fact, Pennsylvania has 220 covered bridges, Ohio has 144 covered 
bridges, and Vermont has only 99 covered bridges.
  Even California has 12 covered bridges and Missouri has 5.
  It is my great regret that I do not believe Oklahoma has any of these 
fine structures.
  While I may seem like a broken record talking about bridges, it is 
critical that we pass a bill that adequately funds bridge maintenance 
and repair.
  While I do not have the national statistics at my fingertips, those 
of you that travel around our Nation's Capital can readily attest to 
the fact that the bridges in this city are choke points for commuters 
and commerce.
  The DC Department of Transportation estimates that about $300 million 
is needed to repair 11 major bridges.
  If we do not provide at least some of these funds, our economy will 
suffer.
  Senator Leahy and I have been working for years to provide funds to 
rehabilitate the Missisquoi Bay Bridge in Vermont.
  This bridge links New York and Vermont and serves as an international 
corridor to Canada.
  In 1998, Vermont's congressional delegation secured funds in the 
highway bill to begin the project, and unfortunately we are still at 
it.
  I can hardly imagine how long it would take to upgrade the George 
Washington or Chesapeake Bay Bridges.
  It is my hope that the Congress will send the President a bill with a 
robust bridge program.
  Our Nation's bridges, whether historic or not, are in a state of 
disrepair and this bill is an important step in the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page 7905]]


  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont brings up a very 
sensitive subject to me, and that is one of bridges. It seems to me we 
do have one covered bridge in Oklahoma. I am going to have to check on 
that to make sure they get a share of this, whatever it is.
  We do have a serious problem. The FHWA ranks various States and the 
conditions of their bridges, roads, and highways. Oklahoma is ranked 
dead last in the condition of its bridges, and it is a very serious 
matter. It is also a very serious problem in terms of the number of 
deaths we have.
  One of the considerations that was involved in putting together a 
formula--and I state again how much work goes into a formula approach. 
I have said several times that it would be very easy to do it the other 
way where we just come up with a bunch of projects and satisfy 60 
Senators and pass a bill and go home. That is not what we tried to do. 
One of the considerations we have is the risk in the various States, 
the number of mortalities.
  Once again, at this point it is important to stress why we need to 
have a bill. We are now on our sixth extension, and extensions do not 
work. There is not a State of all 50 States that is not very anxiously 
awaiting this bill because with extensions there can be no planning. If 
we do not get this done, we will not have any chance to improve our 
donor States.
  Oklahoma is a donor State. We have many donor States, and that is 
probably the most sensitive single issue in the formulas, is how the 
donor States are treated. But if we do not get this done, there is not 
going to be any change. We are right now at 90.5 percent. If we had 
passed the bill we had last year, which was a little more robust than 
this bill, by the end of that 6-year period, every State would have 
achieved at least a 95-percent return. That is the return of money they 
have paid into the trust fund.
  As it is right now, in a lower amount, this would raise it a modest 
amount but not that much further above 90.5 percent. It would be an 
improvement, though.
  If we do not have a bill and are operating under extensions, there 
will not be any new safety core programs to help the States respond to 
the thousands of deaths each year on the highways. In that respect, I 
think you have to acknowledge that this bill is a matter of life and 
death. There will be many more deaths if we do not have a good highway 
bill.
  If we don't have a highway bill, there will not be any streamlining 
of the environmental reviews. Critical projects will still be subjected 
to avoidable delays that can be avoided with the passage of this bill.
  Along that line, I think with all the provisions of this bill that 
was 2\1/2\ years in the making, there are a lot of provisions that my 
good friend from Vermont accepted that he would have preferred not to 
accept. There are many provisions I accepted that I would have 
preferred not to accept. But this was a give and take in a spirit of 
bipartisan cooperation, and I think that is something people are 
starving for right now. That is what they have in this bill.
  If we do not have a bill, there is not going to be an increase in the 
ability to use innovative financing, giving us a chance to do something 
differently than we have been doing it before. Where innovative 
partnership types of financing have taken place, it has extracted a lot 
of money from the private sector that is willing to get in there and 
participate in the TIFIA provisions of this bill, allowing them to do 
that very thing.
  There are a lot of members on our committee who were concerned about 
the Safe Routes to Schools Program. That is in here. Again, if we are 
operating under an extension, if we do have an extension, if we do not 
have the bill, we will not have that. It could be we will have young 
people killed and injured on the way to school without this bill.
  Without this bill, with just another extension, States would continue 
to have uncertainty in planning and delay in projects. I hope this 
doesn't need much elaboration. It is only logical. If you know in 
advance what is going to happen over the next 5 years or so, you can 
start planning. You can plan your resources, plan your labor, plan the 
amount of construction that is going to go on in each State so each 
State will get far more for each dollar spent than they would get on 
just an extension.
  If we just get an extension, we are not going to have any new border 
program. I think the border States, many of them, should be the first 
ones down here to encourage that this bill be passed, particularly 
those who are affected by NAFTA traffic. We have a special provision in 
here that takes care of borders as well as corridors. In the absence of 
this, with just an extension, we are not going to have any of these 
provisions.
  Without the bill, we are going to have delay in the establishment of 
the national commission to score how to fund transportation in the 
future. We have been doing it the same way for many years. There are 
better ways of doing it. This bill establishes this commission to study 
what innovative suggestions might come from the States, ways we can do 
a better job of financing and getting private participation and get a 
lot more efficiency into the system.
  When you look at what we are faced with today, we have an unusually 
high price of gasoline. As a result of that, people are not driving as 
much. If we had a gas tax that was geared to a percentage basis, it 
would not make any difference. In fact, we would probably increase 
revenues. But that is not the way it is. It is just a number of cents 
per gallon, so if there are fewer gallons bought, then there is less 
money that goes into it.
  If we do not have a bill, if we just go on an extension, there will 
not be any opportunity to address the chokepoints at intermodal 
connectors. People think this is just a highway bill. They think back 
in the early days, back when Eisenhower, in World War II, was a major, 
he realized the inefficiencies we had in this country in transportation 
when he was trying to move troops and move military equipment around 
the country. When he became President, he drew upon that experience and 
established, for that reason, this National Highway System.
  This goes all the way back to the Eisenhower administration, but this 
goes further than it went at that time. Now we have chokepoints. A lot 
of people are not aware that my State of Oklahoma actually has a port. 
We have the port of Catoosa, about 10 miles from my home in Tulsa. But 
there are chokepoints in any transportation system. You can have a 
channel, air transportation, rail transportation; it has to marry up 
and be consistent with the movement on the roads. This bill does that. 
That is why we call it intermodal.
  Last, the firewall protection of the highway trust fund would not be 
continued, thereby making the trust fund vulnerable to raids in order 
to pay for other programs. In every State, all 50 States, we have 
experienced problems of people seeing an opportunity to steal money out 
of the trust fund and raid it, and they do it. They have certainly done 
it in my State of Oklahoma--not just the highway trust fund but other 
trust funds, too. I know there are many States that have their own 
individual highway trust fund where money is coming out of it. This is 
something we can protect at the national level by having firewalls. The 
firewalls are intact in this bill.
  There are a lot of reasons we have to do this other than just having 
a highway bill and getting more construction. We have had the 
opportunity to talk about the complexities of a formula and all the 
things that are in a formula. I believe it is worthwhile repeating some 
of them.
  Formulas are not just, Are you a large State or are you a small 
State? They take into consideration many things. There are the 
interstate maintenance programs that are a part of the formula, as are 
the interstate lanes, the number of miles to be maintained, your 
National Highway System miles-- that is part of the formula--the 
Surface Transportation Program, the total

[[Page 7906]]

lane miles, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, which is 
very important. It has taken a lot of time in committee to come up with 
something on which we could agree.
  We have low-income States. Oklahoma is a low-income State. We have 
low-population States, such as Wyoming and Montana. We have low-
population-density States. We have high-fatality-rate States. 
Everything I mentioned is part of the formula we are working on. We 
have guaranteed minimum growth States, where growth is very slow, but 
there is a factor that provides for a floor. We have guaranteed minimum 
rate of return donor States.
  All are part of the consideration of a very complex, very difficult 
formula that is the proper way to do it. Again, we have said several 
times in the last 3 days, it would have been a lot easier for Senator 
Bond and Senator Baucus and Senator Jeffords and myself to have put 
together a bill that did not have a formula; it just would do projects. 
But we elected not to do that in order to get the most miles for our 
money and to be the most fair with all 50 States.
  Our forefathers were great when they talked about putting together 
this system where you have the House and the Senate. One is on 
population, the other is geographic areas. It is our responsibility to 
be sure that each of these States is treated properly, is treated 
fairly. This bill has done that.
  The Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, has the pending amendment on the 
floor. As I stated before, he has agreed to set his amendment aside as 
soon as there are any coming down. We have a list of about seven or 
eight amendments that different Members wish to offer. This is the time 
to offer them.
  As Senator Jeffords said, come on down. We want you to come down and 
offer it. You have much more time to spend on your amendments. You can 
explain them. We have all day today, and we need to have these 
amendments on the floor and considered. I know what is going to happen 
if we do not. We are going to get down toward the end of it. Who knows, 
there may be cloture invoked where you are almost out of time and 
everyone is going to be yelling and screaming and crying they didn't 
have adequate time to consider their amendments. So let me get on 
record right now and say you have adequate time. We invite you to come 
down and present your amendments for consideration. As I said, Senator 
Bayh has agreed to set his amendment aside should you come down and 
want an amendment considered. Come on down. We are open for business.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it has been agreed that anyone who wants 
to seek the floor can seek the floor, and we will be returned to the 
amendment under consideration, which is the Bayh amendment. We move to 
temporarily set the Bayh amendment aside for the purpose of the 
Senator's statement.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate to urge we move 
forward with our highway bill. We have worked on this for a very long 
time. I was on the committee 6 years ago when we passed the original 
bill. We have not passed it the last couple of years but have simply 
extended it. I hope we can move forward.
  There are a number of issues before the Senate that have immediate 
impact. One of them is this highway bill, as well as the Energy bill.
  There are other conversations going on, disputes about a number of 
issues, but overall we are here to do some work. This is something that 
is most important. Six extensions is six too many. We need a highway 
bill.
  One of the problems is all of our highway departments, as they work 
on highways, use contractors. Therefore, they need to make contracts 
ahead of time. They have to know what funds are available. So it is 
even more important for this particular activity to know what the 
funding is going to be over time than it is in any other agency of the 
Government.
  Our State DOTs cannot make long-term plans unless they have some idea 
of what the funding is going to be. So projects are delayed in Wyoming, 
as I am sure they are in other States. One of our problems, of course, 
is we have a short construction season. So it is particularly important 
we be able to plan ahead and know when the construction is going to 
happen.
  Federal funds account for nearly 70 percent of Wyoming's Department 
of Transportation highway construction budget. Even though we are 
relatively low in population, we have a large State and, therefore, 
lots of highways, and so on.
  The long-term reauthorization of the bill, of course, will create 
jobs. Contractors have to have the assurance necessary to commit 
themselves to equipment and hiring people. It has been said that $1 
billion invested in Federal highways equals 47,500 jobs. We are talking 
about, in this bill, $280, $290 billion over time, so think of the 
number of jobs that are involved. Of course, it also creates jobs in 
related industries, such as those for engineers and those involved with 
stone, concrete, and fuel, and so on.
  So there are so many reasons we should move forward with this bill. 
It deals with transportation, jobs, standard of living, quality of 
life. All these things are touched in this bill. Yet we seem to be 
awfully slow in moving it.
  I am hopeful that as much time as has been spent on this bill in the 
committees, in the House, and so on, that we will be able to move 
forward and not have a whole series of amendments that seek to change 
everything. We have already been through that. We passed a bill in the 
Senate last year that was substantially higher. But because of the 
administration, because of the ability to raise funds, it has to be 
lower. So it is there for a reason.
  This idea that somehow we can change it again, I am sorry, but there 
is some realism in terms of funding, regardless of what the program is. 
These programs, of course, are to come from gas taxes and the highway 
system. So I think it is very important.
  I happen to be chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. This bill is very 
important for park roads. They currently receive about $165 million per 
year. This bill will change that. So it will be about $1.4 billion over 
5 years. Of course, the highways are an essential element, particularly 
in the large parks we have in the West. They do not have the State 
things, and so on. So it is very important.
  I am not going to take a lot of time, but I wanted to try to 
emphasize how important this bill is to most of us, and how important 
it is to get this bill done, and also how much effort has gone into the 
bill to bring it to this point, and to discourage anyone from trying to 
make too many changes in this bill because it has already been 
reviewed. It has already been bargained. Concessions have already been 
made.
  So we are ready to move forward. Quite frankly, it seems to me like 
that is what we ought to be doing. So I urge everyone to give some 
thought to this bill. If they have ideas, let's talk about them, but 
let's get this job done. Let's get it out.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of the Senator 
from Wyoming. I also represent a northern State with a very short 
construction season. We were severely impacted last year by the 
inability to reach an agreement with the House and with the President. 
But in fairness to all of us in the Senate, we were not the holdup in 
that matter.
  As I said on numerous occasions to the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, Senator Inhofe, and to the

[[Page 7907]]

ranking member, Senator Jeffords, we had a bipartisan agreement in the 
Senate that was best for Minnesota and I think for virtually every 
other State. I have not heard anybody say they have too much Federal 
highway or transit money and don't know what to do with it. But, 
unfortunately, we ran into the intransigence of the administration a 
year ago, and with the insistence of the President, the concurrence of 
the House, and were unable to get what the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, said was a fiscally sound and 
balanced--in terms of the highway trust fund revenues--measure in the 
Senate.
  So while I concur with the Senator from Wyoming, I might also point 
out, as it relates to this particular legislation, the Democratic 
leader, Senator Reid, last week wrote to the Senate Republican 
leadership and urged that this measure be brought up this week. I 
commend Senator Frist and Senator McConnell for deciding to proceed on 
this very important matter for the people of this country rather than 
some of the shenanigans that others were urging upon them. So we are 
proceeding on a measured basis, but not with any resistance or 
opposition by anybody on this side of the aisle.
  We voted overwhelmingly to proceed on the motion to proceed earlier 
in the week. It is unfortunate timing that our long-planned Senate 
recess for next week will truncate the process. But I share the 
Senator's view that this bill needs to be enacted as expeditiously as 
possible. I hope the conference committee will be able to proceed as 
quickly as possible thereafter, while recognizing the Senate bill has 
been, and continues to be, vastly superior to the House version in 
terms of additional funding. Those are matters worth arguing about and, 
hopefully, prevailing on because Minnesota needs the money even as much 
as we need the bill to be completed.
  Mr. President, if there is no immediate business related to this 
measure--I spoke earlier with the bill's manager--I ask unanimous 
consent that I have up to 10 minutes to speak as in morning business. 
Is this a propitious time to do so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dayton are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, some people are not aware that when you 
have something as massive as a highway bill, it is not just the 
committee I chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee, but 
other committees are involved, including the Finance Committee, the 
Banking Committee, and the Commerce Committee. As of right now, we 
don't have the titles that come from those three committees, but we 
will have one right now.


                 Amendment No. 573 to Amendment No. 567

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Shelby, I send an 
amendment to the desk, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Shelby and 
     Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 573.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of April 26, 2005 under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me reemphasize to my friend from 
Indiana, as soon as this amendment is disposed of, we will return to 
the regular order, which is the pending Bayh amendment.
  This amendment, which was crafted on a bipartisan basis in the Senate 
Banking Committee, provides $51.6 billion to address growing public 
transportation needs across the country.
  It provides for record growth for public transportation and for the 
first time recognizes the growing needs in rural communities across the 
country, including my State and the State of the Presiding Officer, 
Oklahoma, which has a rural population of greater than 57 percent. In 
fact, in the final year of this bill, the rural transportation program 
is doubled over its TEA-21 levels.
  Additionally, it creates a new formula within the urbanized area 
formula called the ``Rural Low Density'' formula. Rural transit is as 
challenging to provide as the distances between employment centers and 
health care centers are great.
  This amendment also creates a formula to recognize ``growing 
States''--those locations which are forecast to grow more quickly than 
the average over the course of the next 15 years. This change will 
allow those States, which includes Oklahoma, to be proactive with 
regard to their transportation needs.
  Finally, this amendment makes several modifications to enhance the 
role of the private sector in public transportation. By creating 
opportunities for competition, public transportation services can be 
provided more efficiently.
  I am happy to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Shelby on 
the development of this amendment. I look forward to working with him 
on final passage and a successful conference report.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, that the 
language be considered as original text as part of the substitute for 
the purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 573) was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Senators Shelby and Sarbanes 
because we cannot really entertain amendments that affect these titles 
until we have them done. We are anxious to get the other two titles on 
the bill.
  I will repeat our plea for people to come over with their amendments 
because the Senator from Indiana has agreed that he would set his 
amendment aside when people come down, with the understanding we would 
return to his amendment upon completion of those amendments.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me repeat one more time, we are going 
to be open for business, as we were today, tomorrow. We will invite 
people to come down.
  I want to get on the record right now, very often we go through this 
exercise and when we get close to the end of the consideration of the 
bill, when cloture has been filed, everyone comes running and 
screaming, saying they want to offer an amendment. Now is the time to 
do it. Members can bring them down anytime tomorrow. I certainly invite 
any Member to come down and offer the amendment tomorrow.

                          ____________________