[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9248-9249]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 782

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to wait until the Senator from 
Illinois arrives before making a motion, but I wish to explain what I 
am going to do. I am going to make a motion when he does arrive.
  I have an amendment. First of all, being the ranking member of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I have more than just a passive 
interest in this EDA bill. But one of the things I have been trying to 
do is get people to understand we have all these amendments, and a lot 
of these amendments have nothing to do with the Economic Development 
Administration. They have to do with everything else that is out there. 
In fact, I am guilty of the same thing. I have, I think, five unrelated 
amendments. They are all good stuff, things I wish to get through, and 
that seems to be what this bill is all about.
  But under all these amendments there is a bill and there is a reason 
for introducing it. It is a foregone conclusion--I think we all 
understand if we were to pass the EDA bill out of here in any form 
similar to the way it was introduced, it would never pass the House, 
and that would be a done deal.
  What I am going to attempt to do is--I am going to attempt today and 
tomorrow and however long it takes--to get an amendment in there that 
is going to provide oversight authority by the GAO. Through the audits 
and assessments, the GAO can ensure that the EDA grants are 
distributed, and put some spending discipline in there, such as through 
a competitive award process--it is all drafted in the amendment; by the 
way, the amendment is No. 459--and in accordance with the EDA criteria 
and requirements.
  Additionally, the GAO would submit a report every year to the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee and the House T&I Committee, 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to have efficiency 
assured.
  What we are doing here is, instead of having a jump ball and saying 
we are going to do any kind of an EDA program that we can sell through 
the administration, we will actually have discipline in there so it 
will have to be, first of all, gone over with the Government 
Accountability Office. Then, after that, it is not over because it has 
to come back to both committees in the House and the Senate. And, of 
course, I am the ranking member, and by the time that gets started, I 
may end up being the chairman, if it is after the next election. But 
you never know those things. So we would be able to look at it again.
  The purpose of the amendment is to make certain that grant recipients 
are determined based on competitive procedures and to create more 
accountability for the EDA. Overall, I think Washington bureaucrats 
should not be picking winners and losers but, instead, rely on a 
formula and strict rules to determine where agency dollars flow.
  I know we are not on the bill now. We are still in morning business. 
I understand we are going to go back on the bill at 6 o'clock this 
evening. But I have to get a request in that my amendment be--at that 
time, I am going to ask that the pending amendment be set aside for 
consideration of amendment No. 459, which I have just described.
  I think the chief complaint about some of the EDA process--by the 
way, I have to say about the EDA process, it has done so well in my 
State of Oklahoma. We had one project in Elgin, OK--a very small 
community adjacent to the live range at Fort Sill--for a $2.25 million 
EDA grant. They ended up planning to construct a 150,000-square foot 
building that would employ--the numbers were almost the entire 
population of Elgin, OK. It is something that would revive that part of 
the State. The southern part of the State of Oklahoma and the south 
central part have historically been an area that is somewhat 
impoverished, and through these EDA grants we have done a good job.
  The good thing about EDA grants is they require a lot of local 
participation. Generally, it is through the city funds, the State 
funds, and the county funds, and then an equal amount or a greater 
amount from the private sector.
  In my State of Oklahoma, the grants are usually about one to nine in 
terms of public participation. So the program is good. I am the first 
one to admit, however, it may not work the same way in every State. I 
can only say what our experience has been in Oklahoma.
  What I am going to suggest with this amendment is something we are 
doing anyway in Oklahoma. We are going through a competitive award 
process. That is a process that everyone understands. It is one that is 
all outlined in our rules. We know what they have to go through for 
competition. Then it is in accordance with the criteria.

[[Page 9249]]

  The criteria is very important. One of these days we are going to get 
around to a transportation reauthorization bill that will come out of 
my same committee. The last one we had was in 2005. Since then, that 
has run out, and we are going kind of month to month. We have a dire 
need for infrastructure in America with the roads, highways, and 
bridges. It is something we have fallen behind on, and we are going to 
be getting to that.
  The reason our 2005 bill was so successful in infrastructure for 
transportation in the reauthorization bill is because we had a formula. 
The formula took into consideration money to be spent on bridges and 
roads and highways, State by State, with such factors as to the 
fatalities in that State, the number of road lanes, miles, and all this 
criteria. When we got through establishing the criteria in 2005, it 
must have been good because nobody liked it. If it was something that 
upset everyone, then, obviously, it was one that was pretty good, and 
we passed it. That was a $284.6 billion reauthorization bill. We should 
be able to do something comparable now.
  You might say, everyone is goosey about spending money nowadays. And 
that is understandable with the deficits. President Obama's three 
budgets have suggested and have put into effect $5 trillion of 
deficit--not debt but deficit.
  This last budget was around a little over $2.5 trillion. And I can 
remember back in 1995, back when President Clinton was in office, going 
down to the floor and complaining because he had a budget to run the 
entire country of $1.5 trillion. Well, the deficit alone in the last 
budget we have had here, as prescribed by the President, has exceeded 
the amount it took to run the country during that period of time.
  I see the Senator from Illinois is here. I would say to my good 
friend from Illinois, what I am doing here is I am going to attempt 
now--and it will be objected to, and I understand that because we are 
not on the bill yet--I am going to continue to attempt to have an 
accountability amendment that takes the EDA process and subjects it to 
a competitive award process, along with oversight by the GAO and by our 
committee and by the T&I Committee in the House of Representatives. I 
think it is something that would make--frankly, if we do not do it, in 
my opinion, there would be no way in the world that the House of 
Representatives would pass it. This offers discipline to it. I will go 
so far as to say that if we are not able to pass this amendment, to 
have accountability, I will probably end up voting against the bill if 
it comes up for a vote.
  So with that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to 
resume consideration of S. 782 so that I can call up my amendment No. 
459 which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what I am 
about to say is no reflection on the Senator from Oklahoma nor the 
merits of his amendment. We have almost 100 amendments filed and 17 
pending, and the majority leader has asked that we at least reflect on 
those filed and set our schedule accordingly. I am not saying this will 
not be considered, but at the moment we are going to object to the 
offering of additional amendments. So I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________