Floor Statements

Mr. President, during World War I and II, Native Americans heard the call of their Country and enlisted in the United States Armed Services in unprecedented numbers. Many of these brave men performed the role of code talkers, using a code language derived from a variety of American Indian languages to ensure secure and rapid communication of information on the battlefield. Through three wars and five decades, enemy forces were never able to break the United States code language thanks to the service and ingenuity of Native American Code Talkers. These patriots provided an invaluable service to the United States and our allies and deserve recognition for their bravery.

Until 1968, information related to the code talker's activities during both World Wars remained classified by the Department of Defense. The postponement in learning about the essential role of Native American Code Talkers has resulted in delayed recognition of these war heroes. The first step in recognizing these men came in 2000 when President Bush signed into law legislation authorizing Congress to award gold medals to the twenty-nine Navajo Code Talkers as well as a silver medal to each man who later qualified as a Navajo Code Talker. While this legislation was a step in the right direction, it failed to recognize a number of Native Americans who also served as code talkers but were not members of the Navajo Nation.

During the first World War, Choctaw code talkers served with distinction in France. By transmitting in their native tongue a variety of open voice messages relating to unit movements, United States forces completely surprised the enemy during battle. Following the success of the Choctaw code talkers, soldiers from the Navajo, Sioux, Comanche and Meskwaki tribes, along with members of 14 other tribes, served as code talkers in some of the most dangerous operations in both theaters of World War II.

Today I introduce the Code Talkers Recognition Act to honor those who were overlooked when medals were awarded to the Navajo Code Talkers in 2001. This bill authorizes the presentation of commemorative medals on behalf of Congress to Native Americans who served as Code Talkers during any foreign conflict in which the United States was involved during the 20th Century. I ask my colleagues to help honor the heroic contributions of these gentlemen by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. President, during World War I and II, Native Americans heard the call of their Country and enlisted in the United States Armed Services in unprecedented numbers. Many of these brave men performed the role of code talkers, using a code language derived from a variety of American Indian languages to ensure secure and rapid communication of information on the battlefield. Through three wars and five decades, enemy forces were never able to break the United States code language thanks to the service and ingenuity of Native American Code Talkers. These patriots provided an invaluable service to the United States and our allies and deserve recognition for their bravery.

Until 1968, information related to the code talker's activities during both World Wars remained classified by the Department of Defense. The postponement in learning about the essential role of Native American Code Talkers has resulted in delayed recognition of these war heroes. The first step in recognizing these men came in 2000 when President Bush signed into law legislation authorizing Congress to award gold medals to the twenty-nine Navajo Code Talkers as well as a silver medal to each man who later qualified as a Navajo Code Talker. While this legislation was a step in the right direction, it failed to recognize a number of Native Americans who also served as code talkers but were not members of the Navajo Nation.

During the first World War, Choctaw code talkers served with distinction in France. By transmitting in their native tongue a variety of open voice messages relating to unit movements, United States forces completely surprised the enemy during battle. Following the success of the Choctaw code talkers, soldiers from the Navajo, Sioux, Comanche and Meskwaki tribes, along with members of 14 other tribes, served as code talkers in some of the most dangerous operations in both theaters of World War II.

Today I introduce the Code Talkers Recognition Act to honor those who were overlooked when medals were awarded to the Navajo Code Talkers in 2001. This bill authorizes the presentation of commemorative medals on behalf of Congress to Native Americans who served as Code Talkers during any foreign conflict in which the United States was involved during the 20th Century. I ask my colleagues to help honor the heroic contributions of these gentlemen by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, May 13, 2005 at 9:30

a.m. in closed session to mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. President, those of us who are in the managing positions want to explain what it is about and why the cloture is very important. However, we do want to accommodate the Senator from Arizona, who is busy with a markup right now, and if there is no objection, I would recognize him for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order to call up Ensign amendment No. 636.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I have a couple of brief comments. I know how sincere the senior Senator from Arizona is concerning this bill, and it does demonstrate that it is very difficult when we are trying to be fair and we are trying to do a formula to make everybody happy. Probably every Senator is a little bit unhappy with it. That is what makes it, perhaps, a fair formula.

It is true--the Senator was accurate--as far as the history of the Interstate System back in the Eisenhower administration and the redistribution of funds. This is what we have to keep in mind, though: Yes, the Interstate System is complete, but it still must be maintained.

He talked about the State of Montana. Yes, it is true the State of Montana does not have the population to support the highways, and yet they have to have the highway system. That system, even though it may be complete, must be maintained.

In defense of the formula, there are two ways of doing this. One way, we could do what has been customary in the other body, and that is come out with a group of projects, take care of a certain number of people in the passed bill, and then walk away from it. That would be very easy.

I will tell my colleagues, what would be easy is to go ahead and distribute a bunch of funds to 60 Senators and then sit back and say: The rest of you guys, that is your problem. But we do not do it that way. Instead, in looking at the formula and the factors, it is an incredibly difficult thing we are dealing with. We have factors that have to do with the donor status of the State, the number of miles in the State, the age of the State, the passthrough provisions of the State, and the fatalities per capita of the State. My State of Oklahoma has a higher per capita fatality rate, and therefore one has to come to the conclusion that there is a reason for that. So all of these factors are a part of a very complicated formula.

It may be that people will look at it and say: You do not treat--it is kind of interesting. I will hear from people from the fast growing States who say, We do not get as high as we need to get in our donor status relief, and yet at the same time we hear from some of the Eastern States that are complaining because the floor is too low. So I would think that everyone should realize that there is not going to be a perfect formula that makes everybody happy.

It is a formula that is as fair as we can come up with. We have been working on this for 3 years. This is not something that just came out. When the Senator from Arizona says that last year's bill was guaranteed to raise the donor status floor to 95 percent, that is easy because we had the money to do it. This year, we do not have the money to do it. Even with the amendment that was passed, all that does is raise it from 90.5 percent to 92 percent. It is a very difficult thing.

I do not want to use up an inordinate amount of time, but I will talk about why we have to do this today. The only alternative to passing a bill is to have another extension. If we have another extension, we do not really get into the problem. We do not take care of the donor State rate of return. We do not have any of the new safety core programs. We have literally spent months putting this together. Of course, those provisions were in the Commerce Committee. We need to respond to the deaths on the highways. If we do not pass the bill, we are not going to have any kind of streamlining of environmental reviews. We are not going to have any increase in the ability to use the innovative financing systems which are included.

This bill contains the establishment of a national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the future. As the Senator from Arizona said, 50 years ago we started this system, back during the Eisenhower administration. He recognized there was a problem back when he was Major Eisenhower and he was trying to move goods and services around. He recognized there was a problem, but we have not changed the way we are funding highways for 50 years.

This bill establishes a commission to come up with more innovative ways and allows the States to participate. People are concerned about things such as Safe Routes to School. If we go on an extension instead of a bill, we are not going to have Safe Routes to School. There is uncertainty that is out there. I know my State of Oklahoma is not any different from the rest of the States. We are on our sixth extension now. If we are operating on an extension, it could be a 1-month extension, it could be a 1-year extension.

There is no certainty by which we can plan the construction and maintenance of highways and do something about the bridges. The bridges in Oklahoma are worse than any of the bridges in the Nation. It is a life-and-death situation. People are dying. We have had two deaths in Oklahoma just because of the condition of the bridges. So we are going to have to do something. If we operate on extensions, we are not going to be able to have any of those improvements.

As far as the border program, the States that are complaining about this program are actually border States. They are States that have the benefit of some of the provisions to take care of the borders. NAFTA has been passed, and there is increased road travel. We will not have a borders program if we do not pass a bill. It would just be an extension of the old program.

Lastly, the firewall protection--we need to make sure that people quit robbing the highway trust fund. I was in disagreement with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and I said the problem we have been having is people are taking money out of the trust fund and using it for purposes to establish and support policies that have nothing to do with transportation. These are the things that concern me.

We want to stay within our timeframe. Before turning to Senator Bond, I guess Senator Jeffords is not in the Chamber, so we will turn to Senator Baucus. After that, I ask unanimous consent that we stay on this course and first recognize Senator Baucus, and that after his completion we recognize Senator Bond for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a series of amendments that have been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside provided, further, that the list of amendments I have sent to the desk, including modifications to some of those amendments, be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the amendments be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent the two live quorums be waived.

All time is yielded back.

Mr. President, I thank those who voted the right way to come to a conclusion on this bill. This is likely the most important bill we will deal with this entire year. Right now we have a distressingly large number of

amendments out there that are germane that people could come and offer. We are not going to have enough time to do it. As is usually the case, there are many out there who are not serious about their amendments. It is currently being hotlined to try to find out who is serious and who is not. I am going to be talking to individuals, but I would say, if you are serious about your amendment, and you want it considered, bring it to the floor. I am sure I speak on behalf of Senator Jeffords as well. We want these amendments brought to the floor, and we also want to know how many are out there that may not be serious amendments.

I yield.

I suggest that it is mutually agreeable to send it to the desk and that it be considered.

Yes.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from West Virginia for what he is attempting to do for rural America. That happens to be me, rural America. I am certainly in sympathy with this issue. The problem I think is going to be the cost. The cost is somewhere around $5 billion. Since this affects the finance title of the bill, I am looking to see if Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley can come by and visit a little bit. If the Senator would like to continue explaining his amendment, or we could try to get hold of the two Senators from the Finance Committee.

Yes.

Mr. President, I appreciate that and will wait until we have an opportunity to speak to those managing the finance title of the bill. That being the case, let me renew our invitation for people to bring their amendments to the floor. Right now we have hotlined trying to determine who is serious about his or her amendment. We have a lot to get done. The sooner anyone who has an amendment gets down here for the consideration of that amendment, it will be very helpful.

Yes.

Mr. President, I will just observe that they have covered bridges in both New Hampshire and Vermont.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a point of order?

I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

I inquire of the Chair, are we still on the Byrd amendment?

Let me just make one answer on the question you had, How much more land? I refer to Jabez, you are familiar, in the First Chronicles. They say: ``Expand my territory.'' So we want more.

I make a point of order the pending Byrd amendment is not germane.

Mr. President, I don't know if we have people on the floor with amendments. I am hoping that we do. While all these subjects we are addressing are important, we are operating under some real time constraints. We have been on this bill now almost 2 weeks. We have worked on the bill for 3 years. This is probably the most significant piece of legislation we will be handling, and I encourage my colleagues to confine their interests to this bill and encourage as many of them as have amendments that they seriously want to be considered that they bring those amendments to the floor. We have the list now down to about 140 amendments. I know from past experience just a fraction of those will want to have serious consideration.

I make that request and I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I inquire of my friend from Oregon how much time he is requesting as in morning business.

That is 10 minutes for each of you?

Mr. President, I will not object. Let me propound a unanimous consent request; that is, the combined remarks of the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Utah not extend beyond 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Utah. They have a great deal of passion on their subject and they have worked long hours. I appreciate the fact they recognize we are considering what many people consider to be the most significant bill this year.

Again, we will renew our request for Members to come down with their amendments. We have hotlined it

twice. I want to make sure I say that enough times for Members. Senator Jeffords joins me in this. They have hotlined it on their side. If Members want their amendments considered, if Members want floor time, if Members want a vote, come down, bring it down. I am waiting for that to happen. We are open for business. We encourage Members to come.

Yes.

It is urgent. Let me state why it is urgent. We have a deadline. We are on not our fourth, fifth, but our sixth extension right now. When you operate on extensions, as we have said over and over again, you cannot get anything done, you cannot have any of the reforms, you cannot take care of donor States, you cannot have innovative methods of financing. That is all in the bill. Core safety provisions are in the bill. None of that will be a reality if we do not get this bill.

Why is it such a rush? This extension expires on the 31st of May. That is 19 days from now. We have to get this done. If we get this bill finished tonight, we will have time to have it over into conference and start working on it in conference in time to get the conference report back to the House and back to the Senate and to the President's desk prior to the expiration of this extension on May 31.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for an excellent statement. That historic perspective is important for a number of reasons. The whole highway system under Eisenhower came as a result of a quest for national security. That was almost 50 years ago, and we have been funding highways the same way we did 50 years ago. We have not changed at all.

We have this excise tax. In the bill we are to pass--and hopefully it will get passed today and sent on to conference--we have new and innovative ways of financing. We allow the States to use their ways. We give them more latitude toward their methods of financing highways. We also appoint a national commission to study how we could do this in the future so we will not be standing up here 6 years from now talking about the same problems we have today.

If we operate on an extension, that is not going to happen. I made a list of all these things that are not going to happen if we have just another extension. We are on the sixth extension right now.

Let me, first of all, encourage anyone who is going to offer an amendment to come down and do so.

Judicial Nominations

But while we are waiting, Mr. President, let me respond to one of the statements that was made about an hour ago--or was it 2 hours ago--when they were talking about a floor vote.

Regardless of how you interpret the Constitution on advice and consent, sometimes I say I am a very fortunate person in this body because I am one of the few Members of the Senate who is not a lawyer. So when I read the Constitution, I know what it says. It says we are supposed to advise and consent. It means a majority of us are going to have to determine whether a nominee who is presented by the President of the United States is one who is, in fact, acceptable.

What we have been asking for, as our leader articulated many times-- and apparently the senior Senator from West Virginia agreed with the President yesterday--is just an up-or-down vote. That is all we want, an up-or-down vote.

Now, is this so outrageous? I will go back and quote some of my good friends on the Democrat side who are opposed to an up-or-down vote.

Senator Biden, on March 19, 1997, said:

But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is

nominated ought to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have

a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.

. . .

Senator Boxer said, on May 14, 1997:

It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process

and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even

being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

Senator Durbin, who has been very outspoken, said, on September 28, 1998:

Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are

not.

Mrs. Feinstein, one of our fine colleagues, the senior Senator from California, on September 16, 1999, said:

A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them

down. . . .

Now, apparently, their interpretation of the Constitution is what mine is.

Senator Kennedy, on January 28, 1998, said:

But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on

these nominees--yes or no.

I agree with Senator Kennedy.

Senator Kohl, on August 21, 1999, said:

These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting

for us to act, deserve an ``up or down'' vote.

Senator Leahy, on October 22, 1997, said:

I hope we might reach a point where we as a Senate will

accept our responsibility--

That is us.

and vote people up or vote them down.

Senator Schumer, on March 7, 2000, said:

I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with

alacrity--vote them up or down.

So I am saying that I agree with all of my good Democrat colleagues that we should give them an up-or-down vote, and I have no question but that the American people feel the same way. You see different polling data, but when they are asked the question, Should these people be entitled to a vote up or down? they overwhelmingly believe they should.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, we have been pleading with our colleagues to bring amendments down. Will the Senator, in the event an amendment comes to the floor, then yield for consideration of that amendment?

Judicial Nominations

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his remarks. This bill is urgent. We have been, as I said, hotlining it. We have done it twice on our side. I am waiting for responses to see what kind of progress they are having on the other side of the aisle.

I want to get on record here so that Members can all be aware it appears we are down to about 10 amendments right now on this side of the aisle. I think it would be very wise to continue to talk about this because we will be getting to a point where we are going to have to draw this to a conclusion, and now it seems like it may be some workable number.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before I suggest the absence of a quorum, let me also echo my good friend. One of the real thrills I have had since I came from the other body was when Bob Dole was here with the Senator from Hawaii, and the two of them made such a spectacular image of everything that is good about this country and how good we feel. Every time I look at the Senator from Hawaii, I see a true American hero.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I renew our plea for Members to bring their amendments down. We are making progress in terms of shortening the list. I would like to announce on our side we have hotlined it twice and we are down to 11 amendments by 9 different authors, different Senators. I encourage those nine to come to the floor while we have ample time. It is my understanding that after a couple of hotlines on the other side of the aisle, they only have about six amendments. That being the case, we could actually move the bill, if we can get these people down and get them to offer their amendments.

We have made progress, anyway, looking at who is serious about their amendments. I hope any staff or Members watching now would be encouraged to bring their amendments down.

I yield the floor to the senior Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I was able to listen to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine. He has always led this body in the concern for safety. He points out the critical need to finish this bill. Hopefully, today we will finish this bill because we have the longest, most comprehensive safety core section, title, in this bill that has ever been offered in any reauthorization since Eisenhower. That is why we say, as I think Senator DeWine was pointing out, lives can be saved or lives can be lost, depending on whether we pass this bill.

We will not have the safety core programs if we merely have an extension. Right now we are on our sixth extension. An extension is nothing but a defeat, an admission that we are not able to get a bill through so let's have what we had before. That's actually an extension of what we passed 7 years ago. It doesn't have any of these things in it. If we have an extension, none of the safety core programs Senator DeWine was talking about would be included.

I can tell you--and I think everyone knows--statistically, it is an absolute that people will die; not just adults driving, but one of the things in this bill is the Safe Routes to School provision which would save young lives--kids going to school. So it is a life-or-death matter that we pass this bill and pass it very soon.

When I say ``very soon,'' we ought to pass it today because the extension, this sixth extension I refer to, is going to expire on May 31. If that happens, that means we will be forced to do another extension. What happens when you do extensions? Back in the States, they do not have any certainty in planning. It is not as if you can say: We know now that we have an extension for 6 months, we can spend X dollars for 6 months. You can't do it that way, and everyone knows that. You have to plan way in advance because you have to get the labor pool together, get the contractors together, you have to get the bids out. In this bill, we do have a provision that would have some projects that are ready to go, so the second this is signed into law we are going to start construction.

People will use this and say this is, in fact, a jobs bill--and it is. It is probably the biggest jobs bill we have had at one time since the WPA. For every $1 billion of road construction, that translates into 47,500 jobs, new jobs, good-paying jobs. Without this bill, of course, that is not going to happen.

We have a lot of people who are concerned, as I am, about donor State status. I can remember when we only had written into the law that each State would get back 75 percent of what they actually collected in their State. Slowly, over the years, I have watched it get increased. It has gotten up to the point where it is today, and this was passed 7 years ago. This was 90.5 percent; that is to say, every donor State will get back at least 90.5 percent of what they pay in.

The bill we had last year was enhanced up to $318 billion. That would provide every State got back a minimum of 95 percent. As it is now, with the smaller number, even with the enhanced number from yesterday's amendment, that brought it up by $11 billion to $295 billion. That still only brings the donor status to 92 percent. But that is better than 90.5 percent, where we are today.

If we have an extension, it will be 90.5 percent. There will not be any change.

The streamlining provisions of this bill will allow us to actually pave, construct a fairly decent percentage more highways and bridges than we would otherwise be able to do. Without this, and if we have an extension, we will not have this, and none of the environmental streamlining provisions will be there.

There are two different sections of the bill that relate to the financing. We have not changed our method of financing roads in 50 years. Since the Eisenhower administration it has been the same. We know there are better ways of doing it where you can have partnership types of arrangements, something that would be very good for our system. Without a new bill, that is not going to happen.

A lot of the States are on the border. We have a border program, a recognition that since NAFTA we have a lot of traffic through no fault of the States. You have to improve the NAFTA corridors we are talking about in this bill. Without this bill, we will not have that.

The chokepoints are not currently corrected. That is why we call this an intermodal bill. It is not a highway bill, not just a transportation bill, it is an intermodal bill because it is all types of transportation and the chokepoints in between. A lot of our problems are because of the chokepoints.

Last, we have firewall protection in this bill. The firewall protection provides if you pay money into the trust fund when you are getting 1 gallon of gas, that money is ensured to go toward building new roads. There are many in this body who do not think that is necessary. Many think we can go ahead and fund any kind of programs not relating to transportation out of the trust fund, and they have been doing it.

In fact, one of the Senators the other day was saying how offended he was that we are taking some of the fix that is there that is not in use; in other words, there is about a 5-cent credit that goes in and comes out of the highway trust fund. That has nothing to do with transportation. If you are going to establish a policy, pay for the policy but do not pay for it out of the highway trust fund.

I have often said this is a moral issue. There may be loopholes that allow politics to steal money out of the trust fund, but it is still a moral issue.

This bill has the firewall protection to make sure, for the first time, people cannot raid the highway trust fund. All these things are in the bill. If we do not pass the bill, we will have an extension, and none of these things are in the bill.

This is necessary to get this done, to pass this legislation, and not just go for another extension.

Amendments Nos. 569, as modified, and 602, as Modified, En Bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Chambliss amendment numbered 569 and the Cornyn amendment numbered 662 be modified with changes at the desk and agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

I have left instructions if Senators arrive, interrupt us. We want to consider amendments. I am hoping I did not chase away anyone who is offering an amendment. We have about 10 amendments on the Republican side and about 10 amendments on the Democrat side. That is much better than yesterday with 173 amendments out there. We have made progress.

We agreed to two of these. If we can get the Members who are serious about their amendments to bring them down, this is the time to do it. I anticipate, as is normally the case, at the last minute Members will come down and say: I have to have time to present my amendment, and it will be too late. Now it is not too late. There is time to consider any amendment that is a germane amendment that is on the list.

What we have done is very difficult. We have worked on this bill for 3 years. We had this bill passed out of this Chamber and to conference a year ago this month. In conference, they dropped the ball, and we were unable to get it through.

This time, the conferees have learned we will be able to get it back to the House and back to the Senate, get it passed in both Houses, and have it signed by the President in time for the current extension that expires May 31. That is ambitious, but it can be done. We try to figure this out day by day and what can be done each day. I believe that will happen.

The reason this bill is better than most bills is historically we have not gone with formulas; we have gone with political projects. Some people call them pork. I don't call building a road pork.

What we could have done--we need to have 60 Senators to agree to this--we could have gone to 60 Senators and said, all right, we have a pot of money, and we will take care of your problem in Louisiana, your problem in Oklahoma, your problem in Arkansas, and get up to 60 Members, 30 States, and we will pass the bill and forget about the other Members. That is not fair. Historically, that has been done.

We tried to take every conceivable thing into consideration. The Presiding Officer represents a small northern State. We have provisions for the colder States, provisions for States out West, many of which, like my State of Oklahoma, are donor States. These are factors in the bill, in the formulas.

The formula for allocation also has such things in it as per capita fatality. My State of Oklahoma has a high fatality rate. What does that tell you? It tells you we have a problem with bridges and roads. That is a factor in how much money is distributed to the States.

The number of interstate lane miles is a consideration. The weighted nonattainment and maintenance area population is considered. The nonhighway recreation is a consideration. Regarding low-income States, mine is below the average in the State of Oklahoma. Low-population States--Senator Baucus has been very helpful in this bill. He is from Montana. Montana has less than a million people, but they have to have roads to connect all the interstate roads. Consequently, they will be in a position where it has to be a consideration that a low-population or low-density population State is going to be able to be treated fairly.

There are about 20 different considerations, but the bottom line is, you are never going to come up with a formula where everyone says this is perfect, this is just what we want, my State is being treated fairly. There are many things in the formula I do not like as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, this Senator from Oklahoma. Nonetheless, I know everyone cannot be satisfied.

We have a good bill before the Senate. Members should realize how significant it is that we pass this bill and not just go to another extension.

Let me renew my request, as we will be doing every 15 minutes, for Members to bring their amendments. I know Members are out there and hiding. We will find you. We are open for business. We want you to come down and offer your amendment. We will have plenty of time to do it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me just respond to some of the things the Senator is talking about. First of all, Senator Santorum has done a great job leaning on us and talking to us and is largely responsible for the fact that we made a major change in this bill. This change increased the amount that will be going to Pennsylvania by $208 million.

But I would like to say this: When you talk about the miles of substandard roads and highways, Oklahoma has a larger percentage that are substandard than Pennsylvania. I am not saying it because I am proud of it, because I have not been doing my job, I suppose, but in terms of the percentage of substandard bridges, Oklahoma is considerably higher than Pennsylvania.

Now, what it does point out, though, is the necessity for this bill because we are going to try to correct all these things. We will not be able to do it in 1 year, but by the end of this authorization period, we are going to look a lot better than we are now--but not if we have to continue to operate on extensions.

So I appreciate the comments. And I do not disagree with anything that the Senator says. I believe when you sit down with people and talk about a formula--it is interesting, the previous Presiding Officer is from Texas. I am not sure he agreed with everything that the Senator from Pennsylvania said. But it is a very difficult thing to do.

So I appreciate the cooperation the Senator has given and the influence he has put on this legislation which has helped us make this a better bill. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Ohio, I know you are attempting to get the floor for something other than the bill, but we do have someone coming down with an amendment. Would it be permissible, if you were to use the floor, that when someone comes with an amendment, you would yield to them, or is that something you would be uncomfortable with?

I will.

I understand. But you would attempt to do it in 10 minutes?

The Senator could wait until you are finished.

No, I suggest you go ahead. I say to the Senator, after the Senator gave his eloquent talk about

the safety problems that are out there throughout America right now, I came to the floor and talked about the safety core provisions that are in this bill, that if we are on an extension, as opposed to passing a bill, people are going to die. This is a life-or-death issue. I think you brought that out very forcefully, and I know it comes from the heart.

Very good. I yield the floor.

(The remarks of Mr. DeWine are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, it is my understanding the junior Senator from Virginia has an amendment he wishes to offer. It affects the commerce title of the bill. I ask if Senator Stevens would like to come down, since this is the commerce title of the bill, while he offers an amendment.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, let me just clarify something. It is a very rare occasion that the good Senator from Alabama and I disagree on anything. It just doesn't happen. In this particular case, this is the exception. Let me kind of outline how I think the system works. I don't chair the Finance Committee. I don't chair the Budget Committee. I do not serve on either one of them. I do chair the Environment and Public Works Committee.

When we put together the bill--and this particular bill has been 3 years in the making--it is very similar to what we had last year except it is a lower funding level which should satisfy, to a greater degree, the Senator from Alabama. But when we come up with a bill, the procedure is to go to the Finance Committee. We did that, and we have several Finance provisions in there. Senators Grassley and Baucus spent a long time. While people keep saying the offsets are not realistic, they could be right, but the ones who can properly evaluate the offsets are the ones who proposed the offsets, and that is the job of the Finance Committee.

I want to say this because the Senator from Alabama and I are ranked as two of the most conservative Members of the Senate. I have said often there are two areas where conservatives spend money; one is national defense and the other is infrastructure. That is what we are supposed to be doing here. I wish to clarify that I will be opposing the amendment because I believe the Finance Committee has done their job. I have heard both the ranking member and the chairman talk about this, and they have convinced me that they have done their work. We will have to wait and see.

Yes, I agree. We hear all the time in this body and all representative bodies about what is desirable. It reminds me of the guy who went to the department store, and this beautiful, young, voluptuous saleslady came up to him and she said: Sir, what is your desire? And he said: Well, my ``desire'' is to pick you up after work, go out to dinner and drink some champagne and make mad, passionate love to you, but I ``need'' a pair of socks.

We have to distinguish between desire and need, and I think it is a difficult thing to do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Alaska, I first wish to say how helpful she has been. I know the needs they have in Alaska are unique. She has been very helpful and a great member of our committee. I thank her publicly very much for that.

I think we are making progress now. We have gotten the amendments under control so we can stay on the schedule that has been outlined by the unanimous consent agreement that has been accepted on both sides.

I express my appreciation for everyone cooperating.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska named a list of things she would have preferred to see in the bill. As I thought of each one of them, I agree with each one. Of course, the Presiding Officer is also a member of the committee, and we know there are a lot of diverse needs in States. It is not a perfect bill. There are a lot of things I would rather have in it, but it is a consensus. It was give-and-take, and that is the way the system is supposed to work.

I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Members permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 10 a.m., on S. 967, Issues Related to the Broadcast of Prepackaged News Stories Produced by the Government Agencies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in SD226.

Agenda

I. Nominations: Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; William H. Pryor, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit; and Brett M. Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.

II. Bills: S. 852--A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos Exposure, and for Other Purposes. Specter, Leahy, Hatch, Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine, Graham

III. Matters: Senate Judiciary Committee Rules.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Thursday, May 12, 2005 at 4 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator, R-MS; the Honorable Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator, R-IA; and the Honorable Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator, R-KY.

Panel II: Rachel Beard, to be an Assistant Attorney General; Alice S.

Fisher, to be an Assistant Attorney General; and Regina B. Schofield, to be an Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 12, 2005, for a committee hearing titled ``An Open Discussion: Planning, Providing and Paying for Veterans' Long Term Care.'' The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 12, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, Thursday, May 12, 2005, from 3 to 5 p.m., in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 10:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Examining USAID's Anti- Malaria Policies.''

Mr. President, in response to the distinguished chairman, yes, anytime after 11:15 and before 12 o'clock.

I would rather not do it because I will make a motion to waive after the Senator makes the point of order. That is debatable and I would like to make it.

Sure. That is fine.

Reserving the right to object.

For clarification purposes, are we now talking about a vote at 11:30; is that correct?

I move to waive any relevant provisions of the Budget Act for the substitute and the bill.

Mr. President, there can be honest differences of opinion. The way this has worked historically, and I have had the experience on this type of legislation for 19 years now, is that we come up with a bill. The bill we came up with is based on a formula. It is not a pork bill. It is a spending bill because it is a spending bill on infrastructure for America.

My job, and the job of the ranking leader, Senator Jeffords, is to come up with a bill that meets the infrastructure needs of America. Then we look to the Finance Committee to help us to find the funds to finance it. I am not about to pass judgment, as others appear to be readily willing to do, to cast disparaging remarks on the nature of the offsets or the nature of the product of the Finance Committee. I know we came up with a good bill. It is one that is not nearly as high, in terms of the amount of money that would be spent, as the needs. In fact, it has been looked at and evaluated that if we are to pass a bill, even at the $295 billion over the 6-year period, of which 5 years are remaining, that it would not even maintain what we have today.

I also want to correct something else because the very distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is certainly knowledgeable in all of these areas. He talks about being conservative and talks about doing these things in a proper and appropriate way. Well, I would challenge anyone to match my conservative performance and credentials, and yet I have always said that when one comes to this body there are two areas where conservatives are big spenders. One is in national defense and one is in infrastructure. That is what we are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to be building the infrastructure and improving the infrastructure.

This bill is not just any type of bill that is coming along. This is a bill that is a matter of life and death. We put together a formula to determine how the distribution between the States should take place. In that formula, one of the elements is the mortality rate on the highways on a per capita basis. Now, if no one is concerned about the number of lives that are lost, quite frankly my State of Oklahoma has more lives lost on the highway than the average State. Consequently, that is one of many determining factors in a formula. The formulas have factors for the donee States and the donor States, the number of miles and, I might even add to my friend from New Hampshire, even covered bridges.

This bill probably could be considered by most people as the most important bill we will have this entire year. It is probably the second largest bill we will have this entire year. It is one that lets us rebuild the infrastructure of America. We all have heard the statistics. There is no sense going over and plowing those fields again, but it is one also that is a huge jobs bill.

I am not one to say that WPA--actually the WPA looks pretty good now after a few years, but I do not look at Government as the ultimate employer. But when they talk about for each billion of new construction it provides 47,000 jobs, it is a huge jobs bill. It is very significant.

Many people are supporting this bill. There are Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives. As a conservative Republican, I wholeheartedly support it. I support it at the higher level because I think that is what we are supposed to be doing.

I am sure there will be those who want to talk a little bit about the product of the Finance Committee. I know the ranking member of my committee, Senator Jeffords, wants to make a statement or two. We have between now and the next 25 minutes to discuss this. I just want to assure my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, I am very sincere, and I think

we are doing the right thing. While I do not always agree wholeheartedly with the President, I do 99 percent of the time. In this case, I disagreed last year. Last year, when we came up with $318 billion, we should have passed that. I believe the Finance Committee was sincere when they said we had this covered, and it was something that I supported at that time. The President did not support it.

There are a lot of things we pass that I would like to debate and not pay for. This is not one of them. I feel very strongly that we should go ahead. Quite frankly, I do not think the number is high enough, but if this is all we can cover, then I am happy with that. The most important thing is we have to have a highway bill. We are on our sixth extension right now. The States are wondering what we are doing. They have no way of planning in advance. They cannot plan for the next 5 years. All they can do is say: We have another 6-month extension. What will we do for the next 6 months? Then we all miss the construction season. In States such as that of my friend from Vermont, a northern State, and the State of New Hampshire, we have already missed the majority of the construction season. So it is very important that we not continue with extensions and that we get this bill passed. To do this, we already have a cloture motion in effect. We need to get by this motion, and I think we will be doing that.

I yield to the ranking minority member.

Mr. President, we do want to hear from the Senator from Arkansas, but in fairness, we should go back and forth. The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond, wants to be heard first. Does the Senator from Vermont have an objection to that?

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Iowa, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, what a great job they have done. We imposed upon them the obligation or the duty of coming forth and coming up with a way to pay for a more robust bill. As I have said several times before, there are still other things we need to be doing, and even with the action that has been taken, it is not enough, but I understand he does now have it in a position where we are not increasing the deficit; that this is properly offset and I would almost believe those who oppose what he is doing are people who do not want the bill to start with.

We have been inviting people to come down with their amendments. I see the Senator from New Jersey is in the Chamber. I am anxious to get as many people down as possible and would encourage those Members who have amendments, keep in mind, the deadline for filing amendments is now behind us and we are operating under cloture right now. We need to have them get down and not wait until the last minute.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, the vote that just took place is significant. We all realize that the Finance Committee has done their job. The Joint Tax Committee has verified that their work is good. They have found legitimate offsets. It is easy to say there are not, but there are. While it is very much a concern to everyone in terms of the budget and deficits, I am always ranked, certainly, as in the top five most conservative Members of this body. I can tell my colleagues, I would not vote for something that is going to increase the deficit. This is not increasing the deficit.

When we stop to think about what we are supposed to be doing in Washington, we talk about a lot of silly programs, but the two most important things on which you might say I am a big spender are, No. 1, defense and, No. 2, infrastructure. There is nothing more important that we will be voting on this year than this bill. We all know the reality that we need to get this to conference, and it was necessary to pass what we just agreed to in order to get it to conference.

I understand Senators Corzine and Lautenberg are ready to offer an amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before the chairman of the Committee on the Budget leaves, there are some areas where an honest disagreement can take place. One is on the idea that if we try to establish a policy in this country that addresses something that is an emotional need or desire of any of these Members and it has nothing to do with transportation, that should not be borne on the backs of the highway trust fund.

We talk about the ethanol provision which I opposed, but nonetheless we had that, the Senator is right, and the cost of that. If they want to pay for it, let them pay for it out of the general fund. Why should the highway trust fund be paying for policies?

And the same is true on the deficit reduction. I stood in the Senate at that time that took place saying I was for deficit reduction but not on the backs of the highway trust fund. The reason I say that is because I have considered this to be somewhat of a moral issue. People go to the pump and they pay tax for gasoline. There is an assumption, as wrong as it is, that money should go to repairing roads and highways and bridges. I do disagree in that respect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, regular order.

Amendment No. 606 to Amendment No. 605

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

May I inquire of the Senator about how long he will be taking for his opening remarks?

I ask unanimous consent that at the completion of the remarks of the senior Senator from New Jersey, the junior Senator be recognized.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, all first-degree amendments to the highway bill must be filed at the desk no later than 3 o'clock. We are extending it from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock because of the evacuation.

Mr. President, I do have a statement I wish to make in opposition to the Corzine amendment; however, the junior Senator from South Dakota is here. I would like to yield to him for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. President, first, I agree with the comments of the Senator from South Dakota. He has dramatically shortened my speech against the Corzine amendment because he said some things I would have said. I emphasize that the problem is not with sealed bids, it is with no bids. It could be that they have unique problems in New Jersey, but I would not want those problems that are there to encumber what we are trying to do in States such as Oklahoma and New Hampshire and South Dakota. There had been abuses that are pretty well known in New Jersey.

An example is the case of the law firm of DeCotiis, FitzPatrick, Cole & Wisler, which has reportedly thrived by exploiting a system that encourages politicians to reward their political contributors with State contracts that are no-bid contracts--not low-bid but no-bid contracts.

The Record, a New Jersey paper which did an extensive investigation into this DeCotiis firm and their relationship to public officials, stated in a December 2003 article that:

A sweeping review of DeCotiis's work for towns and public

agencies shows how high rollers in this pay-to-play

sweepstakes reap huge returns from investments in the right

politicians. In a study of DeCotiis's legal bills for towns

and public agencies across New Jersey, as well as interviews

with dozens of elected officials, the Record has found that

the DeCotiis firm billed at least 128 government entities for

nearly $26.6 million during the 2\1/2\-year period starting

January of 2001. From Alpine to Atlantic City, in 15 of New

Jersey's 21 counties, and in many departments of State

government, DeCotiis's lawyers are charging the taxpayers for

contracts that, under Jersey law, can be awarded without

competitive bidding.

I have other examples of corrupt kinds of dealings, but I believe my point has been made that here the issue is with no-bid contracts, not sealed-bid contracts.

I question, also, the constitutionality of something in terms of the first amendment, but that has not even been discussed.

There could be a problem. I would be sympathetic to the problem and perhaps the Senator from New Jersey will be holding a position in the not too distant future where he can deal directly with some of the problems that are within the State of New Jersey but are not all over the country.

So I join my colleague from South Dakota in urging the defeat of the

amendment, and at the appropriate time I plan to move to table the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments, even though I disagree with them, of the Senator from New Jersey. I know he is sincere. I know there is a problem and he is trying to correct the problem and there is an honest difference of opinion.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposing the Corzine amendment, a letter from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association opposing the Lautenberg- Corzine amendment, and also a letter from the Transportation Construction Coalition, which is, I believe, almost every labor union in the United States, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I move to table the Corzine amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, there has been a great misunderstanding around here as to how we came up with offsets, how we are going to take care of paying for an additional amount of money in this package.

I compliment the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, along with the ranking minority member of the committee, Senator Baucus, for the hard work they have put in on this legislation and, quite frankly, disagree with the criticism to which they have been subjected.

I want to reemphasize, if I could, that it is important we get this legislation done. I am very pleased we have two more amendments that are down here. The deadline for the filing of amendments is now over as of right now. We do have several amendments. We are going to invite these people to bring their amendments down. I am pleased there are two amendments that are already down here. We look forward to taking up those amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for bringing his amendment to the Senate. We have been urging Members to bring their amendments to the Senate. I thank him also for the very thoughtful, sincere, and articulate way he expressed and explained his amendment. I disagree, but I know he has strong feelings, and we are anxious to get a vote on his amendment.

It is my hope--and I know the ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords, agrees--to get as many of these votes lined up for, perhaps, stacked votes. We do not have a time yet, but I assume that would be acceptable with the author of this amendment to stack these votes with perhaps some other amendments.

Currently, 21 States and the District of Columbia have helmet laws; 26 States have limited helmet laws, including my State of Oklahoma. Ours are for 17 and under. Only four States, as I understand, have no helmet requirement.

As recently as last year when we were discussing the highway bill, the U.S. Department of Transportation released a statement in which they said:

The administration opposes sanctions and withholding State

funds, both of which would jeopardize important State level

safety programs in infrastructure maintenance programs

already in place.

Let me share a personal experience. Many years ago, back in the middle 1960s, I believe 1967, my first year in the State legislature, my first act in January of 1967, I came to Washington, DC, to testify before the Environment and Public Works Committee chaired at that time by Jennings Randolph of West Virginia. I was impressed with myself coming up to testify before this lofty committee that I now chair.

I was protesting Lady Bird's Highway Beautification Act of 1965. The reason was it was withholding funds, our funds, in order to accomplish a policy which we could agree or disagree on.

I have to admit to the Senator from New Jersey that I come from a little bit of a prejudiced perspective because I would be concerned about mandates for quite some time.

The highway bill is important for addressing real transportation infrastructure needs, but I question it is a place to spend a lot of time for other policies.

I will share with the Senator from New Jersey a study done last year of the California Motorcycle Safety Program, designed by Dr. John Billheimer, completed in 1996, that found that rider training dramatically reduces accidents and thus eliminates injuries and fatalities. Specifically, the study stated:

An analysis of statewide accident trends shows that total

motorcycle accidents have dropped by 67 percent since the

introduction of the California Motorcycle Safety Program with

a drop of 88 percent among those under 18-year-old drivers.

There is much that can be done to dramatically reduce fatalities. I can recall we were debating a motorcycle helmet law in the State senate many years ago in the 1970s when testimony came forth that a helmet will impair one's vision to some degree, that there are sometimes accidents that have occurred because of the restriction. I know there have probably been studies on that, but it is something to be considered.

I fundamentally oppose this type of approach. I know consistency is not always something we have in this Senate, but it is consistent with my feelings over the last 30 years in addressing this type of situation.

I believe the Senator from New Jersey has every right to get a vote to measure the Senate, so at the appropriate time it would be my intention to table the amendment, call for the yeas and nays, and stack this with perhaps some of the other amendments, maybe the amendment of Senator Harkin,

who is prepared to offer his amendment now.

Mr. President, again, I am hoping that Senator Harkin is on his way and is prepared to offer his amendment. I look forward to considering that.

In the meantime, let's keep in mind we now have a limited period of time in which to work. The time is here. We are open for business. We want to have the amendments sent to the Senate. We invite our Members to do so.

In the meantime, I will reconfirm and restate one of the reasons for the urgency of this bill. Not only is this one of the largest bills of the year, it is thought by many to be the most important bill we will consider in that it is a matter of life and death.

We have core safety programs. If we were operating on an extension we do not have in this bill, we will not have the core safety programs and people will die. It is as simple as that, if we do not get this done.

Consequently, it is always worth repeating how important it is to get the bill completed and what would happen if we do not. We are in our sixth extension. This extension expires May 31. On May 31, if we do not have something in place, we have another extension. If we have an extension as opposed to a bill, there is not a chance to improve the donor status. There are many States that are donor States, like my State of Oklahoma. Under this bill as it is now, the minimum donor State of 90.5 percent would be increased to 92 percent, which does not sound like a big increase, and is not as large as I would like, but it means hundreds of thousands of dollars to each State.

Without the bill, we will not have that. We will just have an extension of what we have today at 90.5 percent. We would have no new safety core programs if we are not able to pass this bill.

Again, we have talked about the difficult job in putting together a fair formula. The fair formula is one that no one thinks is fair. Perhaps we have a fair formula as a result of that type of analysis. One of the factors in the 20-some factors of a formula is the fatalities of the States. My State happens to be a high-fatality, per capita State, so there is a consideration in the formula for that. If we do not pass the bill, we will not have any of the safety programs.

Right now, we have some streamlining provisions that took us--and I am sure the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords, would agree with this--we spent 3 years coming up with what we can do to protect the environment and at the same time streamline the process of building roads so we do not come into delays that are costly delays and use up our mile dollars. We have done that. We have come to a lot of compromises.

It is kind of interesting, I think those of us on the committee, who all supported these streamlining provisions, did not really like the way they turned out. I thought they were not strict enough. Some thought they were too strict. Nonetheless, they are there. But if we do not pass a bill, we do not have them, so they are still going to be stumbling along trying to build roads with all kinds of obstacles out there that are obsolete.

If we do not pass a bill, we will not have the ability to use the innovative financing that is given to the States. This bill, for example, has recognized something that I believe is very important; that is, we should expand the opportunity of the States to have more chances to get involved, more opportunities to use innovative financing methods that may work. My State of Oklahoma is different from the State of Vermont, for example. What works in Vermont may not work in Oklahoma. But we recognize that. This bill will allow the States to be able to start being creative in expanding their ability to pay for more roads in a way that is a custom that would be workable within their States. That is a very important aspect of this legislation.

If we are operating on an extension and do not have a bill, we are not going to have this program called the Safe Routes to School. The Safe Routes to School Program is one that is certainly supported strongly by the Senator from Vermont, as well as many of the Members of the other body. This is something that many people feel very strongly about, that some people think is one of the most important parts of this bill: the Safe Routes to Schools. This will save young lives in America. If we do not pass this bill--and we are not going to pass it if we are working on an extension--young lives could very well be lost.

One of the biggest problems we are having right now--I know my State of Oklahoma is not a lot different from other States--is we are sitting back there with the department of transportation, we are sitting back there with highway contractors who have the labor set up, all ready to go to work, all ready to repair roads, to build roads, to build bridges, and there is no certainty. They do not know for sure we are going to pass a bill. If we do not pass a bill, we may be on a 1-month extension, we may be on a 2-week extension, we may be on a 1-year extension. There is no way we can plan ahead and get the most from our dollars if we do not have a bill. There would be 5 years remaining on this bill for people to be able to plan for the future. So that certainty is very important.

A lot of the States are border States. My State of Oklahoma is not a border State, but a lot of them are. They have to deal with the NAFTA traffic. This bill has a borders program as well as a corridors program built into it to take into consideration some of the unique problems that come with the expanded traffic from trade. If we do not pass a bill, we will not have any help for these people. If we do pass a bill, we have provisions to be helpful to them.

The bill calls for a national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the future. There are some ways, if you look way down the road, maybe 5 years from now or 10 years from now, where maybe-- just maybe--we can do something different for a change.

We have said several times here, and others have mentioned it, that this interstate highway program initially came into being many years ago, back in the 1950s, when Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States. He observed during World War II, when he was General Eisenhower, that he was not able to get the troops and supplies moved around the country, to get them in place, to be shipped over to fight our battles.

When he became President, what is the one thing everybody remembers about Dwight Eisenhower? They remember the roads program, the highway program. It was funded in a way with taxes the same way we are funding it today. So we are talking about a half century, nearly, that we have been funding this program the same way. With this bill, we have established a commission that will look at new ways of partnering, new, creative ways of funding roads.

I can tell you, many people have come to our committee--we have had hearings on this--and they have talked about how much better we can do it if we just have a chance to get away from this mold we have been living in, the methods we are using and have been using for the last half century. If we just operate on an extension, we do not have a chance to do any of that.

This bill is more than just a highway bill. We have talked about bridges and highways a lot. But this is an intermodal transportation bill. A lot of people do not realize it, but my State of Oklahoma is actually a navigable State in terms of barge traffic coming in and out of the State. We have chokepoints with regard to train travel, channel travel, air travel. This bill addresses those chokepoints. At the present time, without this bill, that is not going to happen.

Lastly, and this is probably the most important thing, the bill has firewall protections to make sure people--I have always thought of this as a moral issue. If somebody is driving up to the pump and he or she pays that tax, I never hear anyone complaining about the high taxes on motor fuel because they recognize and believe all that money is going to go to road improvement, to new roads and new bridges. But, in fact, that is not the case because, like any trust fund, the propensity of people in elected positions--whether it is State or Federal--to spend the taxpayers' money is insatiable. They will go and rob these trust funds, whether it is the Social Security trust fund, the highway trust fund, or any of the other trust funds we have, and put it in other programs. It is when nobody is looking. Well, we have firewalls in this bill that would preclude that from happening.

One of the things I liked about the bill we had last year was that we changed all those provisions where they had been using trust fund money to support policies that have nothing to do with transportation. We are, to a great extent, going to be doing that with this bill, too.

So the urgency of passing this bill is upon us. We have to do it this week. It would be Monday at the latest, but this week, I would say, in order to get it to conference, come back from conference, have the conference report adopted in both the House and the Senate, and then signed by the President. We can do that if we move expeditiously now, but if we do not, it is not going to happen. We have a May 31 deadline. What is today? May 11. Today is May 11. So we have 20 more days to get this all the way out of the Senate, into conference--of course, the House has already passed the bill, so they are waiting for us now--have it considered in conference, and then have it sent back here. That is not much time.

Things do not happen very quickly around here. But I know Senator Jeffords and I will do everything that is necessary in that conference to make sure we come out with a good bill, get that bill back here, passed the House, passed the Senate, and to the President's desk, to have a highway bill. If we do not do it, none of these 10 things I mentioned are going to happen--none of them.

There may be parts of the bill you don't like. There are parts of the bill I do not like. But I hope people realize that just operating on an extension, after we are on our sixth extension now, is no way to do business. We are here to do a better job for the American people.

Hopefully, some people will be coming down to the Chamber.

I yield the floor to Senator Jeffords.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his excellent statement. I agree with all of it.

I see the Senator from New Jersey is not in the Chamber, but let me make one comment. When I was talking about the withholding of funds and the Federal mandates, he is accurate in the fact that funds would not be withheld. It would mandate that 3 percent of the money of the portion of funds that would go to his State would be taken from the surface transportation program, the National Highway System, and the interstate maintenance programs. That is the problem I have. In a way that is withholding money. That is a mandate that is backed up by withholding funds.

It is my understanding we have two Members who are due to bring their amendments. We encourage them to come.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

We are encouraging Members to come to the floor. The Senator from Iowa is prepared to offer an amendment, and another behind him. I am hoping we will be able to get these amendments so we can perhaps have some stacked votes tonight--maybe 6 o'clock or so-- whenever the leadership on both sides agrees that is the appropriate time.

I will state again how significant it is we pass this bill. It will be very costly in terms of dollars if we do not get it completed. There are a lot of programs incorporated in this lengthy bill that I do not agree with and we debated them for 3 years. I had to lose some and I won some.

This is one I don't think there is one member of the committee I chair of 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats who will say they got everything they wanted. Maybe that is a sign that we did a pretty fair job. We need to have the bill passed.

We need to do what we can to avoid another extension. An extension causes all of the 10 problems I outlined a few minutes ago. There is a clear right and wrong in this case. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we do have at least one amendment, the Lautenberg amendment, that is ready for a vote. It might be that the Harkin amendment will be ready for a vote also, if the Senator can get ready in the next 30 minutes. I announce it is our intention to have a vote at 5:30, and there will be either one or two or even three votes, depending on what comes down between now and 5:30.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

We are trying to lock in votes for tonight, and I was preparing for a unanimous consent request, but to do that we would have to give--I think the Senator needs to give the other side at least a couple of minutes to respond. The request would be to have two votes take place beginning at 5:30 on the Lautenberg amendment and the Harkin amendment. Could I interrupt the Senator to make that unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that--

We want to ask unanimous consent to proceed to a vote on the two amendments beginning at 5:30.

I have been informed, if we are not able to get it at this time, we will not be able to have the votes tonight. I would rather have them tonight.

I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 625 to be followed by a vote in relation to the Harkin amendment No. 618, with no second degrees in order to the amendments prior to the votes and with the time until then equally divided; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate between the votes.

Yes. There is no objection to that. That will be included by UC.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Talent amendment at the desk, which is identical to the amendment previously agreed to, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now go into a period of morning business, providing that each Senator can speak up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would like to have the Senator add to his unanimous consent request that following his remarks we return to the bill H.R. 3, as amended, for consideration of amendments.

Mr. President, I wish to make one comment. We are on the bill, and I compliment Senators Grassley and Baucus for the great work they have done. We have put together a good bill, and it is necessary to go out to the proper committee, the Finance Committee, to see what we can do to enhance this bill and make it a little bit more robust. They have done a great job, and I compliment them on that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his comments and a very excellent explanation as to how the Finance Committee is coming up with some more money to try to make this a better bill.

Senator Jeffords and I have been trying to get people to come down with amendments for several days now. We are pleased that Senator Hutchinson and Senator Nelson of Nebraska have an amendment. It is one to which we have agreed, but there may be others who want to be heard on it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about S. Res. 135 which recognizes the outstanding accomplishments of the National Asphalt Pavement Association, NAPA, as it celebrates it 50th Anniversary on May 17, 2005. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Bond, Jeffords and Baucus. NAPA is the only national association that exclusively represents an industry comprised of 1,500 asphalt companies nationwide, employing over 300,000 men and women.

Today when we think of highways and roads, we think of the cars and trucks that use these facilities. We think of the agricultural products being shipped from farm to market, or packages being shipped from factories right to our homes. We think of mothers picking up their children after

school, and families taking trips to the beach during the summer. Of course, we also think of commutes to and from work.

What I have just described is our American economy in motion, and none of it would be possible without quality highway pavements of which asphalt is one. Just 50 years ago, the country faced a transportation crisis. In 1955, it was not easy to travel from city to city because the Interstate Highway System did not exist. The roads were unsafe, slow, and difficult to use. Traveling from city to city, which today could be done in hours took days.

In the early 20th century, asphalt pavements helped get America out of the mud. In the latter half of that century, the new Interstate Highway System improved our mobility and helped sustain our country's economic growth. The Interstate Highway System's pavements literally were the foundation upon which the United States and her people were able to emerge as the leaders of the world.

It was no accident that NAPA was formed just as the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was winding its way through Congress. The industry was challenged by the need to construct long lasting pavements that could meet the tougher standards of the Interstate Highway System. In rising to that challenge, the first ambitious program announced by the association was the Quality Improvement Program. Ever since then, dedication to helping its members deliver the best quality asphalt pavement has been a top priority.

I am very proud of the fact that the late John W. Kelly, of the firm Amis & Kelly Construction Company in Oklahoma City, was one of the founding fathers of NAPA. From 1958 to 1960, John W. Kelly served as the second president of the Association. NAPA has also enjoyed 50 years of strong partnership with the Oklahoma Asphalt Pavement Association which was formed in 1952.

I congratulate NAPA and its members for 50 years of leadership and involvement in constructing a world-class road system.

Mr. President, we are overdue getting on the highway bill. We are preparing right now to offer a substitute amendment. We are prepared to do that, but Senator Specter had said he wanted to speak for a period of time as in morning business. He has been planning to do that, and I will yield 15 minutes to him for that purpose.

That is my understanding. You remained here with me all last week inviting Members to bring their amendments down. We said we would be getting close. Who knows, we may even get a cloture vote, and then at the last minute hysteria will set in. Now is the time to bring them down and consider them.

Let me comment on the great work the chairman of the transportation subcommittee, Senator Bond, has done. We need to get to it now. This is probably very likely the most important single bill of this session.

Mr. President, in a few minutes it is our intention to bring up the substitute amendment, to have the pending amendment withdrawn and bring up the substitute amendment. We are not quite ready for that. We are waiting for a few things to be done in a few minutes. I think it will be worked out, but the managers' amendment is going to do a lot of things to offset some of the problems people had with the bill. When that time comes, we want a chance to go over it in detail and make this a reality.

The amendment is going to bring the total size of the bill up to $251 billion. This includes $199 billion for highways, $5.8 billion for highway safety, and $46.6 billion for mass transit. This amendment would add $6.8 billion in additional receipts to the highway account of the highway trust fund, all of which are offset in the amendment--also, thanks to the good work of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus of the Finance Committee. They have made a yeoman effort and have been able to have us increase this highway funding and have it paid for.

Highway funding would increase by $8.9 billion over the EPW-reported bill. That is the bill that came out of our committee. It includes a 5.1-percent increase in both apportioned and allocated programs. It also increases the minimum rate of return to donor States to 91 percent immediately. Right now, as you know, it is 90.5 percent. It would raise it to 91 percent in 2006 through 2008. This increases the growth ceilings so more States get to 92 percent more quickly.

In other words, we are to go to 91 percent immediately, and in 2006, and then eventually all States will be at 92 percent in this period of time.

The donee States, the ones that are actually getting back an amount that is in excess of the amount that is paid in, they would have a guaranteed minimum growth rate being increased from 10 percent to 15 percent every year. The average growth rate increases from just under 25 percent to almost 31 percent.

The amendment also includes firewalls to ensure the highway trust fund dollars are spent on this Nation's transportation needs. There has been a problem over a long period of time. People have been very offended by the fact that these trust funds have been raided and somehow these moneys are diverted to other causes. Senator Bond and I, and I think the vast majority, and certainly 76 percent of this Senate, agree that we should have firewalls; we should protect that money and make sure it goes to highway spending.

Finally, the mass transit funding increased by $2.3 billion to $46.6 billion. This represents a dramatic increase in the transit share of the bill from 18.18 percent under TEA-21--that is what it was when we passed it 7 years ago--to 18.48 percent. The safety programs have increased, which Senator Lott has talked about in the purview of his committee. They have increased their funding over levels in S. 1072, last year's bill, which was funded at $318 billion.

Last year, during consideration of the $318 billion Transportation bill, the Senate voted 76 to 21 in favor of funding the highway bill at $255 billion, in mass transit at $56 billion. This vote should be even more of a resounding victory for adequate funding levels for transportation, especially considering this bill is funded at a lower level.

I remind my colleagues of the vote on the Talent amendment to this budget resolution which received over 80 votes from Senators who voted to support it.

This amendment gave flexibility to increase the funding for the bill as long as it was offset, which is exactly what Senators Grassley and Baucus have done in their portion of this amendment.

This is the amendment we do want to bring up. We are not quite ready to seek unanimous consent to bring it up.

I ask Senator Bond, the subcommittee chairman, if he seeks recognition now. Let me have him recognized. If he wants to yield to Senator Inouye, he can do that.

Yes, I yield for a question.

I respond to the Senator from Illinois, I am not sure what was shared with all the Democrats. I do know that Senator Jeffords and Senator Baucus--we have been working together. They are the ranking members of the subcommittee and whole committee. We have done this jointly. This has been done all together. Whether that was shared with all the Members, I have no way of knowing.

I thank the Senator from Illinois.

I remind the Senator, as chairman of this committee I went first to Illinois before going anywhere else to have a field hearing, which we had in Chicago and went over some of the needs. They made it very clear to me that there are needs in Illinois, and the Senators from Illinois are very anxious to get this bill under consideration.

Again, the only frustration I have on amendments is that for 4 days last week we talked about this, begging people to bring down amendments.

The Senator from Illinois knows as well as I know what could very well happen: we could get into a cloture situation where then we would be out of time.

It seems as if it is the nature of the Senate that you just do not do anything until you have to do it. Now you have to do it. So we want them to come down. It is our hope now to get to the managers' substitute. We are not in a position to quite do that yet; however, we can certainly entertain amendments and have amendments discussed and lined up. Then we can talk about the necessity of having this bill. That is essentially what we are doing right now.

I can assure the Senator from Mississippi, his frustration is no greater than mine because I will have people stop and talk to me about amendments--fine, bring them down; let's discuss them--and they do not show up. That is what we want to make sure happens.

I think the Senator from Illinois is right. We are on our sixth extension now. We worked on this bill for 2 years prior to the time we brought it to the floor last year. So this has been a 3-year process. My concern is if we end up just getting another extension, we are not going to get anything done that really needs to be done. If we are concerned about doing something for donor States, we are not going to do it with an extension because it is going to be the same thing as we have been having under TEA-21 as of 7 years ago.

If our concern is about the Safety Corps, the Senator from Mississippi is right. It is his committee that deals with the Safety Corps programs. Certainly the State of Oklahoma is high on the list of deaths on the highways. We have to get this done.

I suggest it is a matter of life and death that we get a bill because if we operate off of extensions, we are not going to do anything to improve safety on the highways. The Senator from Mississippi made that very clear. We are not going to have any real streamlining of environmental reviews. We have some good elements in this bill that are going to be able to help us build roads faster with less money than we could on an extension. If we are operating on an extension and do not have a bill, we are not going to have any increase in our ability to have innovative financing thereby giving the States more tools.

What we have tried to do in this bill is to give a lot more of the power back to the States. It has been my belief, and I think shared by most members of my committee, that the closer you get to home, the more people are aware of their specific needs. There are a lot of people who have some excellent ideas on innovative financing that the States are going to be able to do. This is in the bill.

The Safe Routes to School Program--the Senator from Vermont is very much interested in that. It is one that is handled in this bill. However, if we go on an extension, extension No. 7, we are not going to have the Safe Routes to School Program.

The States are considered to have uncertainty. We have come back from

about a 7-day recess. I talked to our people, our highway people, our department of transportation in Oklahoma, and they cannot have any kind of planning for any kind of certainty as to knowing what is going to happen in the next year and the year after that and for the next five years unless we pass this bill. They are begging, pleading: Why can't you get this done because it has to be done in order for us to plan for the future.

I am particularly concerned about this because as to bridges, for example, in my State of Oklahoma, we are dead last in the Nation in terms of the condition of our bridges. And we cannot get anything done and plan for the future unless we get a bill.

There are a lot of people in a lot of States who are concerned about the borders program. It is critical to the border States that are dealing with the NAFTA traffic. This bill deals with that. With an extension, it is not going to happen. If we do not do this bill, we will have a delay in the establishment of this national commission to explain new ways to fund transportation.

I can tell you we have not done it any differently than when Dwight D. Eisenhower was President of the United States. He came along and recognized a problem in our transportation system as a result of the problem he had during World War II in moving troops and equipment around. Looking at our transportation system, the first thing he did when he became President of United States was to set up a National Highway Program and get it started. We have been funding our roads and our highways and our improvements and our bridges and infrastructure the same as we did during the Eisenhower administration. The bill sets up a national commission to go over some creative types of changes in funding where we can do a better job.

Right now, we are looking at the consideration, shortly, of the managers' amendment. If we do, it has been reported that even that amount, which is higher than the amount that was reported out of my committee, is going to do nothing more than just maintain what we have today. It is not really going to provide anything new. So we need to recognize that.

I have to say this, too. There are a lot of different philosophies that are represented in this Chamber. I am one of the most conservative Members. Yet there are some areas where conservatives do spend more money, and one is in infrastructure, which is what we are supposed to be doing here. We do not want to delay this national commission we set up in this legislation. I believe it is time to make a change for the better.

With the bill, we have increased the opportunity to address the chokepoints for intermodal transportation. This is kind of interesting. People do not realize this is not just a roads bill. This is an intermodal bill that considers chokepoints between channels and railroads and roads. We deal with that. It is an intermodal bill. A lot of people are not aware of the fact that in my State of Oklahoma, we are actually navigable. We have a navigation channel. This bill deals with the chokepoints between rail, road, water, and other air transportation.

And there is the firewall. If there is one thing that has bothered me over the years I have been on this committee--I have been on this committee for 11 years; and before that, in the other body, I was on the Transportation Committee for 8 years, so that is 19 years. During that time, when I have gone back to my State, the thing people are offended by is that there are always raids on the highway trust fund.

People have their own programs, they may be good programs, but they try to go in and get money out of the highway trust fund to support those programs. We have seen this happen over and over again in establishing policies in the Senate, that they highway fund it. How should we fund it? Let's fund it with transportation funds.

I believe that is a moral issue.

When the American people go to the pump, they do not mind paying a tax, but when they find out that tax is not going to highway construction and highway improvements and highway maintenance and intermodal transportation, they are understandably very nervous and very offended.

We have the firewall protection of the highway trust fund to make sure that these trust funds are not going to be vulnerable to raids in order to pay for other programs. I know there are a lot of people who feel they are not as excited about the way the formula was put together. I would like to say something about that. This is significant.

There are two ways to do a highway bill. I know one of the ways that was a little more prevalent in the other body was to come up with projects. You have 435 Members who have projects of significance. Instead, we believe that decisions on the priority of expenditure of transportation dollars should be made at the local level. In other words, it is easy to come up here and pass something and go home and say: Look what I got for you; I am bringing this home.

What we prefer is to have an equitable distribution of moneys that come into the highway trust fund to go back to the States and then let the States make these decisions. If there are States that don't want to do this, that is fine. But in the State of Oklahoma, I can assure you the closer to the people at home, the better the decisions. The people in the eight transportation districts in my State of Oklahoma are far better informed on the needs and priorities of where money should be spent on transportation than they are here in Washington. There are a lot of people who think that no decision is a good decision that is made in Washington. I don't agree with that.

We have a different way of doing it than the other body. We have a formula. Our formula takes everything into consideration. We are talking about interstate lane miles; vehicle miles traveled on the interstate; the contributions to the highway trust fund; the lane miles and principal arteries, excluding the interstate VMT on principal arteries; surface transportation programs; total lane miles--all these things are considered--the Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program; we have rankings to see what is really nationwide that should be attributed to this. Certainly, I am a little bit prejudiced, being from Oklahoma where our bridges are in the worst shape of any of the 50 States. We are going to correct that, and we can correct that with this bill.

We have congestion mitigation, air quality improvement programs, and these are very significant. These are the things that come in under the formula that goes out to the States. We have the Recreational Trails Program. We know all about that. We take into consideration low-income States. There are some States that are lower income States, and the people are not really able to pay for quite as much as some other States. We have low-population States, but they still have to have roads. Consequently, that has to be a part of the formula. We have low population density States. Some States have much higher fatalities than other States. That tells you they need to do something. The SAFETEA core program is in this base bill and will be continued. If we get around to the managers' amendment, then we will have something in there. Guaranteed minimum growth, you have to have some consideration in there because there are States that are growing very rapidly. Some States are on the other side.

We have donor States, donee States. These are things that are considered. A lot of people realize we have many States, including my State of Oklahoma, that are donor States. In other words, we don't get back as much money as we send to Washington to go into the highway trust fund. In TEA-21, we put in a minimum figure of 90.5 percent. In the bill we had last year, it would bring all these donee States all the way up to 95. That was good, but it took $318 billion over 6 years to do that. We were not able to get it out of conference.

By the way, as the Senator from Missouri said, that bill passed the Senate by 76 to 21. That gives you an idea. If we get the bill up here, all we have to do is get by all these procedures, and we will pass a bill. It will take into consideration all the things I mentioned. This is not just a political table. In fact, politics didn't enter into it. We don't have projects in this Senate bill. The House bill does. When we go to conference, we are going to iron those things out, and we are going to come out with a good bill. But you can't do that until you get all the amendments in and get a vote.

I encourage Members to offer their amendments and to discuss the highway bill. I know there are some Members who were requesting time for that purpose.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding you want to speak as in morning business.

Can you hold it to, say, 25 minutes?

I further ask unanimous consent that the time you take be the time, following you, given to Senator Specter, who is wanting to have about that amount of time.

It is my understanding then that the Senator from Massachusetts will go for 25 minutes. Then the Senator from Pennsylvania will go for 25 minutes.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, a few minutes ago we had an agreement that we would allow the Senator from Massachusetts to speak up to 25 minutes as in morning business and that the Senator would follow him with the same amount of time. That is what we would intend to do. We thought that would be satisfactory to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

I object, yes.

That is correct.

I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 this evening the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Talent amendment, with the time equally divided until the vote and no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we resume the highway bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending substitute amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I now send a substitute amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Missouri. He has worked tirelessly, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Environment and Public Works Committee. You always hear that working with Senators is like herding cats. I think we have learned that on this bill. It is very difficult. Of course, by the very nature of the Senate, one person can hold things up. But I don't think there is anything this year we are going to be dealing with that is more important than our highway reauthorization bill.

Last year we passed a good bill out of committee. We were unable to get it out of conference last year. This year I am sure that situation will change.

As we work on it this week, I agree it is an ambitious schedule to get it done, but I am anticipating we are going to have to at some point file cloture. I would certainly tell any of the staff and Members who might be listening that we are open for business. We now have the substitute amendment on the floor so we know what we are working with. We would ask them to bring their amendments down. We can't do anything with an amendment unless we see it, unless we have it before us.

I know what is going to happen if we don't do that. When we come up against some deadlines, trying to get this passed out of here at the end of the week, people are going to be saying they didn't have time. You have time now. We are waiting for you. We want you to bring them down.

The substitute amendment we adopted has some changes in it. We did increase some highway funding by $8.9 billion. That would be the highway funding portion. That was over the EPW bill that we passed out of the committee that we chair. And it includes a 5.1-percent increase in both the apportioned and allocated programs. It also includes the minimum rate of return for donor States to 91 percent and working up to 92 percent. This is not as ambitious as it was last year, but last year we were dealing with a bill that was $318 billion over a 6-year period. This is going to be about 251 over the remaining 5 years of the 6-year reauthorization.

Last year's bill, the donee status was improved more dramatically so that for States such as my State of Oklahoma and the State of the Presiding Officer, we would have that up to a minimum of 95 percent. That means we would get back at least 95 percent of that which is collected in our respective States. We can't quite do that with the smaller amount, but certainly it is enhanced a little bit with the amendment we just agreed to consider.

So we have a lot in here, and they are going to be a part of this bill. Again, the only thing that needs to be done right now is for amendments to be brought to the floor. By the way, Senator Bond is right when he says there are a lot of Members who are not happy, and they won't have enough money in their States. I am not happy about the amount of money in Oklahoma. There was a lot of compromising over a 3- year period to get us where we are today. However, if you are not happy, offer an amendment. We will consider it and we will vote on it. That is what the process is all about.

We have a lot to be done in the next 4 days. We expect that we are going to be doing it. We are encouraging people to come down with their amendments.

I chair the EPW committee, but we also have some titles in here by the Banking Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Finance Committee. We have been talking to those chairmen. I believe they are ready. So we could entertain amendments on any of these sections or any of the titles of the bill.