Floor Statements

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Could I inquire as to how long you would like to address the Senate in morning business.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Could I inquire as to how long you would like to address the Senate in morning business.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we have several pages of amendments that are out there. We repeat our invitation on behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords. We want to invite all Democrats and Republicans who have amendments to the highway bill to bring them down. It is going to get crowded later as we go on. Now we have time for adequate consideration, for deliberation, and we encourage Members to bring their amendments to the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first I say to the Senator from Colorado, we miss him on the committee. He was an excellent member of the committee. However, he was replaced by some excellent freshmen who are as enthusiastic as was the Senator from Colorado. While we miss him on the committee, it is still a great committee, and we certainly appreciate very much the comments he made this morning and the contributions he has made to the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the regular order is the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana. He has agreed to set his amendment aside for the consideration of other amendments as they come to the floor, with the understanding he will regain the floor after those amendments are considered and action taken, if action is taken.

We do have an amendment from the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Bond, who has worked tirelessly for years on this bill. I am sure he wants to offer it at this time.

I thank the Senator from Virginia. I serve on the Armed Services Committee under his capable leadership. He chairs that committee. He is also the longest serving member of the committee that I chair, Environment and Public Works. It is very rare that I would oppose something he is in favor of. This might be that exception. But let me give him our assurance that nothing is going to happen to dispose of this amendment until he has adequate time to complete his hearing and come down and be heard on this amendment.

Mr. President, we have talked about this issue several times before. The distinguished Senator from Virginia has very strong beliefs. Those beliefs are shared by the ranking minority member and by several members of our committee. This amendment was added in committee. It is one I voted against at the time. I did oppose it. However, I know there are very strong feelings about it and I want to make sure everybody gets to be heard, and I am sure we will end up with a rollcall vote. I would only make a couple of comments.

There are flexible provisions in the underlying bill that will help States address their storm water needs and maintain their ability to determine how to spend these limited dollars. For that reason I had felt a mandatory 2-percent set-aside in this bill was not necessary.

Currently, States are allowed to use their STP funds for environmental enhancements which include a variety of projects, including storm water mitigation. Our bill gives States the option to use STP and NHS money for storm water mitigation. Our bill allows those States that wish to use highway money to address storm water runoff and help communities comply with phase 1 and 2 on clean water runoff to do so.

I think probably one of the reasons for my opposition to this is I spent 4 terms as mayor of a major city, Tulsa, OK. I have always been a strong believer that the closer you get to home, the better the decisions are. In other words, the idea that somehow Washington knows more about my State of Oklahoma than the people in my State of Oklahoma is something I have disagreed with.

If this amendment should be agreed to and the bill should become law, if we in the State of Oklahoma want to spend 2 percent or even more of our money for this purpose, we can do it. But if we have other priorities that are greater, as determined by those of us in Oklahoma, then I think that should take precedence.

For that reason I will respectfully support this amendment. I am sure there will be more discussion on it later on.

I am sure the ranking minority member will agree with me, we do not want to do anything further other than hear debate until Senator Warner, whose provision it was that was put in the bill in committee, has ample time to debate it and to come to the floor and try to work out any compromises he may be successful in working out with the author of the amendment, Senator Bond.

With that, let me renew our appeal to Members to come down with their amendments. I am glad we are finally getting some activity here, some amendments coming down. It is very important we move on with this bill. We have several pages of amendments. I know a lot of these amendments are going to be agreed to in a managers' amendment we will be propounding before too long. There are some that will have to be fought out on the floor. It is my desire, and I am sure the desire of the ranking minority member, that we get on with these amendments. I have been here long enough to know what is going to happen. We are going to have all day today to handle amendments, and tomorrow. People are not going to bring them down. Then when something happens or when cloture is filed, everyone is going to get hysterical and say, Why didn't I have time to offer my amendment?

You may not have time. We are serving warning to you right now, that could happen. Now there is time and we encourage you to come down. This amendment under discussion now, which the Senator from Indiana has graciously set aside--it is his amendment--is one that will be controversial and I suspect there will be many members on the minority side of our committee who want to be heard. I think they were unanimous in supporting Senator Warner in the committee at that time.

We hope those people will come down and get the debate out of the way so we can proceed with this amendment and with any other amendments that come to the floor. Let's keep in mind, as I said yesterday on more than one occasion, what will happen if we are not successful in getting this bill passed. We are on our sixth extension. The extensions do not work. Our money is not well spent. People are dying on the highways. There are things that are happening that will not happen unless we pass this bill. Without an extension there is not going to be any chance to improve the donor status. My State is a donor State. I remember when it was 75 percent as a guarantee to come back to the States for money paid into the highway trust fund, revenues that were collected in my State of Oklahoma. Now it is up to 90.5 percent. If we had been successful with the bill last year, it would have been 95 percent.

Senator Jeffords and I did everything we could to get our bill passed. We are going to try to make that happen this time. But for those States that are concerned about their donor status, they better be lining up and supporting this. We do not know in conference what is going to come out in terms of a number, but we do know this: Donor status of 90.5 percent will at least go up to 91 or 92 percent. So they are going to be better off, but not if we operate on an extension. If we operate on an extension, we are not going to have any new safety core programs.

They call this SAFETEA. I know there is an effort by the chairman of the committee in the other body to rename it TEALU. I do not have a real problem with that. But it is a safety bill. We have many safety provisions, core programs that respond to the thousands of deaths each year on our roadways. If we go on extensions, we are not going to make any of these safety provisions a reality.

If we go on extensions instead of a bill, there is not going to be any new streamlining. In fact, some of the current obstacles in helping us to get roads built and bridges improved can be corrected, but they can only be corrected if we are able to pass this bill. If we operate on extensions, there is no increased ability to use innovative financing, thereby giving the States more tools.

This is something that is so important. Ever since the Eisenhower administration, we haven't changed the way we fund our road program. There are a lot of ideas out there where we could use the public- private partnership to build more roads and bridges. In fact, we have in this bill a provision that establishes a commission to study various ways, innovative ways to change the way we finance our roads, highways, bridges, and infrastructure in America. But if we are on an extension, if we do not pass this bill, we are not going to be able to do that.

We have one provision in here, Safe Routes to School, which is one I felt strongly about, but I was not the leader on it. There are several on our committee as well as over on the House side. As I recall, this is one of the programs Congressman Oberstar felt very strongly about. If we operate on an extension, we are not going to have the Safe Routes to School Program. We could have deaths of young people as a result of our failure to act. That is why this is so important.

Certainty in planning: On an extension, there is no certainty. You think we are going to get the same amount of money that was already authorized previously, but nothing else has changed. We don't know what is going to happen next year. We don't know whether we are going to have a bill that will be passed a month from now or 2 months from now or a year from now. Therefore, there is no long-range planning that can take place.

I served in the State legislature in Oklahoma many years ago. I know when you start planning for the future

you have to plan for your contract season. It is not as severe in Oklahoma as it is in Vermont or some of the Northern States, but certainly these things have to be considered. We have to have our labor supply ready to absorb, to be able to accommodate a heavy schedule of construction, so we need to be able to plan for that.

In this bill we have a border program, Borders and Corridors. It is very important we do these to accommodate the States such as Texas, California, Arizona, and other border States along the northern border, to help them out with that program. Without this bill we are not going to be able to do that.

There are chokepoints. A lot of people think of the highway bill as just highways. This is intermodal transportation. It affects railroad crossings. Our State of Oklahoma is a State that has a channel. It comes all the way to my town of Tulsa, OK. A lot of people don't know that. We know there are chokepoints where barge traffic will come up; it will go to rail traffic; it will go to truck traffic. This bill addresses intermodal transportation and eliminates chokepoints.

Finally, we have the firewalls. What has bothered me more over the years than anything else I can think of is how people will raid trust funds. Politicians in State legislatures--it has happened here in Washington--when no one is looking and there is a large surplus in some trust fund, what do they do with a large surplus, I ask Senator Jeffords? They run in there and they raid it. Consequently there are no real protections under an extension. But we do have protections in the bill that is before you.

I have every confidence--I don't want to sound as though I am doubting whether we are going to have a bill. But we need to pass it in time to get it to conference, back from conference, get it voted on, and in law by May 31. That is getting very close.

In the Senate we will be going into a recess next week. We will not be here for 7 days. It is my expectation as soon as we get back, we will be in a position to finish this bill, get it to conference, and meet this deadline.

I know I speak on behalf of our minority member, the ranking member, the Democratic member on the committee, Senator Jeffords, in urging people to come down and offer their amendments.

The Senator and I know they are up there right now. Come on down.

Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the ranking member, Senator Jeffords. It is interesting when he reads off the list of people anxious for a bill.

In the case of Oklahoma, when I was mayor of the city of Tulsa, we were interested in being able to plan ahead. We have our Council of Governments saying they need to have it. We have our State department of transportation that says they are going to miss their construction season. We have to get it done.

While Senator Jeffords and I many times philosophically disagree, the fact we agree so much on getting this bill completed speaks well of what we are trying to do. It demonstrates the broad base of support. I don't have any doubt we will be able to get passage. The problem is if we do not get the amendments for consideration, it will be a logjam when we return from recess and could very well be a problem in meeting our deadline of May 31. That is what we need to focus on.

We are in agreement on most of the provisions. There is some disagreement on the formula. Formulas are always a problem. I have been very happy about the way the Senate has done this. After having spent 8 years in the other body and serving on the Transportation Committee of the House of Representatives, I remember meetings we had. I don't say this in a critical way, but they operate on the basis of projects. We do, too, except the difference is we talk about formulas and try to be as equitable as possible and let the States determine their projects.

It gets back to the argument, who is in a better position to know the needs of my constituents in the State of Oklahoma? Is it Washington or our transportation commissioners responsible to the State legislature and the needs in the State?

Some people say in an expensive bill, there is pork. There is no pork in the bill. There are only two projects in the entire bill. People need to understand that.

This will change to some degree when we get to conference because it has to be agreed to by a majority of the conferees on the House, as well as a majority of the conferees from the Senate. To devise a formula that no one will disagree with is absolutely impossible. The only choice we have if we look for unanimity in approving a formula would be to have Senator Jeffords and me go to 60 Senators and say we will take care of you and we will forget about the other 40. We would have a bill and do it and it would be perfectly legitimate and not unethical.

We take into consideration the Interstate Maintenance Program. It varies from State to State. We take into consideration the National Highway System, the lane miles, the principal arteries, excluding the interstate VMT on principal arteries, excluding the interstate diesel fuel used on highways, and total lane miles on principal arteries divided by population. All these things have gone into the formula.

The Surface Transportation Program, which we have talked about, is part of the consideration in terms of total lane miles.

The Highway Bridge Replacement Rehabilitation Program I am particularly sensitive to because Oklahoma ranks last in terms of the condition of bridges. These things have to be considered.

The Recreation Trails Program varies from State to State. There has to be something in a formula that will take into consideration these programs.

Border planning and operations: Since the passage of NAFTA and now they are considering CAFTA, there are unusual situations taking place from State to State. We have low-income States. My State, Oklahoma, is a low-income State. We have low-population States such as Wyoming, Montana, and

some of the States where they still have to have roads, but they do not have the number of people so that has to be part of the consideration and part of a formula.

They have low-population density States, high-fatality States. Some States have higher fatalities than other States. That has to be taken into consideration.

All these things--donor status, donee status--all are important. But the bottom line is, I can take all 12 or 14 factors and put them into a formula program. I can find areas where Oklahoma is not considered as well as Texas or as Vermont. I can find factors that treat Vermont worse than they treat Montana or some of the other States. If someone is looking to be ahead on all factors, there is not 1 of 50 States that can say they are.

I ask our Members to consider that. Formulas consider a lot of things. We have done a good job with the approach we have. It is a harder approach to take than the approach the other body uses. It is easier for them to get a bill on and off the floor. Timing is important. There is not a Member of this Senate who does not agree we need to get a bill passed.

Members may not like the bill as it is. Come on down with amendments. We are waiting for you. We invite Members.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, while we are again encouraging people to bring amendments down to the floor, I would like to make some comments on a statement that was made yesterday that affects our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Yesterday evening, the junior Senator from Delaware discussed his hold on Stephen Johnson's nomination to be Administrator of the EPA. His main complaint about Steve Johnson is about a lack of technical data from EPA on Clear Skies. We are talking about the Clear Skies legislation we considered in our committee that the administration has come forth with.

But there has been no lack of technical data. The EPA has provided the Environment and Public Works Committee with over 10,000 pages of modeling on costs, job impacts, fuel switching, air quality, and deaths avoided for the various multi-emissions proposals.

This information provides extensive detail about the impacts on the Nation as a whole, regions, and individual States. Claims that EPA did not supply sufficient information to make an informed decision simply do not have any credibility.

In fact, this is in direct contrast to 2002, when then-Chairman Jeffords--I have been making all kinds of complimentary remarks about the ranking member, Senator Jeffords. Back in 2002, Senator Jeffords was the chairman and I was the ranking member. He came forth with something he had very strong feelings about, and that was the Clean Power Act. When he marked it up, we had less than 1 week to review a 53-page bill, without any modeling information whatsoever. Let me repeat that: less than 1 week to mark up a 53-page bill, which was substituted for the original 5-page bill. I do not say that critically because we did it. Nonetheless, we did it without the information I believed was necessary at that time. We did not have information.

In addition, the quality of information in 1990--this is back when we considered the Clean Air Act Amendments--paled in comparison to what the executive branch has been able to produce for us using today's more sophisticated models run on powerful supercomputers. The committee had far more information about the impacts of the Clear Skies legislation than the entire Senate had in 1990 during the debate on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.

Now, what has been particularly frustrating is that the EPA data request was used as a red herring to vote against Clear Skies. It is now being used as an excuse to oppose Steve Johnson. I do want to talk about Steve Johnson a minute because it is very unusual we have the opportunity to have a Director with the background of Mr. Johnson.

When we notified the minority last November 15 of our intentions of marking up the Clear Skies bill in February,

they never once raised the issue of needing more data from the EPA until after we delayed the first markup on February 16. Then they mentioned the need to get more data from the EPA almost as an afterthought.

When we offered to delay the markup 2 weeks, in order to negotiate a compromise, we were told they needed data from EPA, which would take 6 months to produce. This, of course, was after our committee already spent 5 years conducting 24 hearings on the topic. We were told, after all this committee work and the 10,000 pages of analysis, that the minority still needed more analysis before they would be willing to even begin negotiating.

Nevertheless, EPA has offered to spend considerable resources to analyze each of the multi-emission proposals using an identical methodology to guarantee that comparisons of the three bills are apples to apples. Yet the charge is being leveled that this offer still is not enough.

Last week, the EPA offered to conduct even more analysis to satisfy Senator Carper, offering detailed data on S. 131, the President's Clear Skies proposal; secondly, the Clear Skies manager's amendment from March 9, 2005--that was ours; S. 843, Senator Carper's Clean Air Planning Act; and, fourth, S. 150, Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act.

The data would consist of the cost of each bill; the fuel mix for electricity production; Henry-Hub natural gas prices; average mine mouth coal prices; regional electricity prices; emission allowance prices; national and regional coal production; the response of electric generating facilities--for example, the capacity retrofitted with pollution control equipment; national and State-by-State emission levels for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury; the national aggregate CO2 emissions; public health and environmental provisions benefits of each bill, such as the total monetized health benefits, premature mortality benefits, and visibility benefits; and the effects of each bill on nonattainment areas--for example, for each current nonattainment area, EPA will list the counties in the area and project whether the area comes into attainment with ozone and particulate matter.

This is for all four pieces of legislation, not just one, everything that has been asked for. This was an unprecedented offer of information by the administration to the junior Senator from Delaware and, frankly, it is more information than I believe he needs in order to move forward on Clear Skies. This is in addition to the 10,000 pages of data the committee has already received. This information would take the staff of EPA 6 to 8 weeks to complete.

Unfortunately, even this offer is not enough. The junior Senator from Delaware is insisting on the same level of analysis that the administration conducted for the President's proposal, which would take a half a year. Strangely, he insists this would allow him to negotiate multiemissions legislation this spring.

This is a level of detail that no administration has ever conducted for a legislative proposal at this stage in the process and, quite frankly, a level of detail that is inappropriate to request. If the EPA were requested to conduct this type of analysis for every bill, we would have to double the size of the EPA, and all of their employees would be working full time on congressional requests. To suggest that a congressional committee needs this type of analysis before it can move on legislation is ridiculous.

In the history of the Clean Air Act, we have more and better quality data today than we have ever had in moving legislation, including the amendments of 1990. Those are the amendments that were so significant and have had such a positive effect on air quality. We have more data than we ever had in moving any environmental legislation.

This demand for data was an excuse for delaying the Clear Skies legislation and, quite frankly, it was an excuse to delay or obstruct Steve Johnson's nomination. This appears to be part of a larger strategy to obstruct this President's EPA nominees. Last Congress, Governor Leavitt's nomination hearing was first boycotted by the minority, then delayed for over 50 days. Today, Steve Johnson is also being obstructed.

For just a moment, I wish to say something about the nomination of Steve Johnson to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is unfortunate we find ourselves in a position of having that nomination filibustered by the Democratic side. Mr. Johnson is not a partisan politician. In fact, he is neither a partisan nor a politician. I can't tell you right now whether he is a Democrat or Republican. I don't think it makes any difference.

Steve Johnson is a career EPA employee who has risen through the ranks under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He joined the EPA during the Carter administration and was promoted to senior management posts during the Clinton administration. He has also been confirmed twice by the Senate, both times without opposition. Stephen Johnson is not a partisan. He is also a scientist and, if confirmed, would be both the first scientist and first career EPA employee to serve as the head of the agency. We never had someone who has a scientific background as Administrator of the EPA, nor have we had anyone who has gone through the ranks of the EPA. There has never before been a nominee who has known this agency so well prior to becoming Administrator.

One of the big problems we have had with Administrators who are not familiar with the agency is when we have something that needs to be done, it takes them forever to sort through to find out where the bad guys and good guys are and where the reports are coming from. He already knows. He spent 24 years doing this.

He is trained in biology and pathology. After graduating from college, he worked for the Computer Sciences Corporation at the Goddard Space Flight Center and was signed to serve as a junior member of the launch support team for the first Synchronous Meteorological Satellite, SMS-1. He joined EPA during the Carter administration as a health scientist in the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. He left EPA briefly in 1982 to join a private lab and then returned in 1984 to EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Throughout the years Mr. Johnson climbed through the ranks, eventually being appointed to senior management positions by the Clinton administration, including Deputy Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator at that time.

I have to say I was there when this happened during the Clinton administration. I asked him a lot of serious questions, and I did not object to his nomination even though it was propounded by the Clinton administration.

In 2001, he was nominated by President Bush to serve as the Assistant Administrator for that program office. He was confirmed without opposition. Just last year when Mike Leavitt became Administrator he was nominated to the No. 2 spot at the agency. Once again, he was confirmed without any opposition.

Steve Johnson's qualifications are beyond question. The question is, why are we here fighting for cloture on not just a qualified nominee but a nominee who has been consistently promoted by both Democratic and Republican Presidents? I believe Jonathan Adler did a good job describing this nomination process when he wrote the following in the National Review:

President Bush's selection of Steven L. Johnson as

administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was

universally praised in Washington, D.C. Democrats and

Republicans, environmental activists and industry lobbyists

all hailed the pick as a positive step for the troubled

agency. Stalwart conservative Sen. James Inhofe . . .

--that's me--

applauded the choice while the Environmental Working Group's

Ken Cook called it a ``spectacularly good appointment.'' The

era of good feelings did not last long, however. Once slated

for a quick and easy confirmation, Johnson is now the victim

of an old-fashioned political obstruction as Senate Democrats

again target the administration's environmental policies.

This isn't the first time in recent history that an EPA Administrator has been held up. In fact, that precedent was set the last time someone was nominated by this President. Governor Mike Leavitt was treated with equal courtesy as Steve Johnson. I know some, including the junior Senator from Delaware, are now saying: I supported Mike Leavitt and was there for him. But that is simply not accurate.

In fact, when the committee was scheduled to vote on the Leavitt nomination, the vote was boycotted by the Democrats. Not a single committee Democrat showed up, including the Senator from Delaware. It was part of the boycott.

The three Administrators previous to Mike Leavitt took an average of 8 days to confirm. Mike Leavitt's confirmation took 50 days, 50 days to confirm a Cabinet-level position for an individual who clearly is qualified.

So this is nothing new for a qualified EPA Administrator nominated by President Bush. It has been nearly a month that Steve Johnson has awaited confirmation. The time has come to confirm Mr. Johnson.

During the debate we will likely hear some negative comments about the President's record on the environment. What you hear from the Democrats will likely be a very distorted view. The facts are very plain, very easy to understand. By virtually every measure, under this President's stewardship, our air, our water, and our land are cleaner. We have a cleaner and healthier environment than we did prior to George W. Bush taking over as President. That is simply the simple truth.

Just to highlight a few of the actions by the President, he signed into law historic bipartisan legislation that has accelerated the cleanup of brownfields--all of the States are concerned about that-- better protecting public health, creating jobs, and revitalizing communities. George W. Bush is the first President ever to require the reduction of mercury emissions by powerplants. I can remember when there were full-page ads during the campaign saying that this President is lowering the emissions. There were no restrictions before he came in. He is the one who made the first reduction in our history. This President has imposed a mandatory 70-percent reduction in mercury emissions from these sources.

Just a year ago, the President announced an aggressive new national goal, moving beyond the policy of no net loss wetlands to a new policy of an actual net increase for wetlands each year. His Great Lakes Legacy Program will help to clean up one of the largest systems of freshwater on Earth, roughly 18 percent of the world's supply. His Clear Skies initiative would have reduced SOX, NOX and mercury emissions by 70 percent--the largest mandated reduction of any President in the history of America. It wasn't Bill Clinton. It was George W. Bush.

Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the environment and our families are healthier because of George W. Bush. The facts don't lie.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, let me say to my good friend from Oregon that the leader is coming down to make a statement. Would he withhold his request until the leader gets here and makes his statement?

I object.

Will the Senator yield?

This has been a very good debate and lively debate, and you both adequately confused me. I think that we should maybe draw this to an end. In a moment I would like to make a unanimous consent request that would limit the debate on the amendment. I have been checking with you individually. So I ask I be recognized at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks and any remarks the Senator from Virginia may have for that request.

I was going to propound a UC that you have 3 additional minutes, the Senator from Missouri has 3 additional minutes, and Senator Jeffords 2 additional minutes, if that is all right.

No, I don't want 2. I already had my 2.

Thank you. So if there is no objection--

Let me go ahead and put this in order, then.

Order Of Procedure

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 8 minutes remaining for debate prior to a vote in relation to the Bond amendment No. 592, with Senator Warner in control of 3 minutes, Senator Bond in control of 3 minutes, Senator Jeffords in control of 2 minutes, and that Senator Warner would be recognized to make a tabling motion; provided further, that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote--

Yes, it is clearly understood. Let me finish here.

Further, that following that vote, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration en bloc of Calendar No. 67, Calendar No. 68; further, that there then be 30 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees; provided further, that following that debate the Senate return to legislative session and the votes occur on the confirmation of the two nominations at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democrat leader, and that following those votes the President be notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

That would be correct.

Madam President, this is the third day we have been on a bill we have been working on for 2\1/2\ years. It is the same bill essentially that was passed last year by a margin of 76 to 21. We are anxious to get people to come down to the floor for amendments. I don't know of anyone coming down at this time. But I encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle to come down and utilize this time so we can get the amendments behind us.

I understand the Senator from Illinois has some comments he wishes to make. I yield to him some of our time at this time.

Madam President, I am anxious to yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, who has an amendment to bring up at this time. But before doing that, I have sat and listened very carefully while Senator Hatch was talking about the constitutional option and the response from the Senator from Illinois. Sometimes you have to leave the individuals and hear what is being said outside this Chamber.

I have a couple editorials I am going to read at this time. The first is from yesterday's Investors Business Daily. Granted, that is generally a fairly conservative publication, and the next editorial I will read certainly is not one that would be identified as even moderate or conservative.

Investors Business Daily says:

Rules of order: The Democrats would have us believe

filibustering is a time-honored constitutional and Senate

tradition. It's not. And it wasn't that long ago that they

felt quite differently.

A showdown now looms after Republicans on the Senate

Judiciary Committee used their 10-8 majority to move the

nominations of Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen for

federal appeals court seats to the full Senate.

Democrats threaten to filibuster these picks, Majority

Leader Bill Frist threatens to employ the unfortunately named

``nuclear option'' restoring the quaint notion that 51 votes

constitutes a majority, and Vice President Dick Cheney says

he's willing to be the tie-breaking vote to ban filibusters

of judicial nominees.

Democrats are trying to portray GOP efforts to restore

majority rule to the Senate as it relates to judicial

nominations as an assault on the traditions of the Senate and

the Constitution itself. As if the filibuster were James

Madison's dying wish.

As a practical matter, the filibuster didn't even exist

until the 1830s, when it was used to block legislation and

not judicial picks. It was used by Democrats to defend

slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act--hardly noble

purposes.

In 1841, the filibuster was used by Sen. John Calhoun to

defend slaveholding interests. In 1957, then-Democratic Sen.

Strom Thurmond held the floor for 24 hours straight to block

civil rights legislation. And in 1964, 18 Democrats and one

Republican blocked the Civil Rights Act for 2\1/2\ months.

In 1916, Senator Robert La Follette, a Republican, used it

to block legislation to let merchant ships arm themselves

against German U-boats. This prompted the Senate in 1917, at

the behest of President Wilson, a Democrat, to adopt the

first cloture rule, rule XXII, requiring a two-thirds to end

debate.

This was amended 60 years later by none other than Robert

Byrd, D-W.Va., the Senate's constitutional guardian and

conscience, who reduced it to a three-fifths requirement.

In sum: For the first 200 years of our republic, Senate

``tradition'' never required 60 votes to approve judges.

Filibusters are neither an idea of the Founding Fathers nor a

historical tradition of the Senate. Cloture rules are a 20th

century phenomenon, with the current rule less than 30 years

old. Systematic filibustering of a president's appellate-

court nominees is totally unprecedented.

Democrats didn't always love the filibuster. In September

1999, in a debate over Clinton appellate-court nominees, Sen.

Patrick Leahy of Vermont thundered on the Senate floor:

``Vote them up or down! That is what the Constitution speaks

of in our advise-and-consent capacity.'' An up-or-down vote,

he said then, was a ``constitutional responsibility.''

The year before, none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy of

Massachusetts solemnly intoned: ``We owe it to Americans to

give these (judicial) nominees a vote. If our Republican

colleagues don't like them, vote against them, but give them

a vote.''

In 1995, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa proposed a plan to end

filibusters identical to one now proposed by Frist. The

Harkin plan was supported by 19 Democrats, including Sens.

Kennedy, Barbara Boxer of California, Joseph Lieberman of

Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and John Kerry of

Massachusetts.

Harkin proposed to establish a declining vote requirement

for cloture so that by the fourth cloture vote, a simple

majority of the Senate would suffice to end debate and allow

a floor vote on the matter at hand.

In the Constitution, when the Framers intended more than

simple majorities, they explicitly said so. For example, they

require a two-thirds majority to convict in an impeachment

trial, expel a member, override a presidential veto, approve

a treaty or propose a constitutional amendment.

Senate Democrats once opposed the filibustering of judicial

nominees; they now support and rail against a ``nuclear

option'' they once proposed themselves. Republicans should

expose this hypocrisy, stop worrying and learn to love the

bomb.

I will not read the whole editorial from the L.A. Times, from yesterday. I will read the first two paragraphs, in deference to my good friend from Indiana.

They said:

These are confusing days in Washington. Born-again

conservative Christians who strongly want to see President

Bush's judicial nominees voted on are leading the charge

against the Senate filibuster, and liberal Democrats are

born-again believers in that reactionary, obstructionist

legislative tactic. Practically every big-name liberal

senator you can think of derided the filibuster a decade ago

but now sees the error of his or her ways and will go to

amusing lengths to try to convince you that the change of

heart is explained by something deeper than the mere

difference between being in the majority and being in the

minority.

At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not

getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think

judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-

or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the

far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these

judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press

ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster. The so-called

nuclear option entails a finding by a straight majority that

filibusters are inappropriate in judicial confirmation

battles.

I ask unanimous consent that this entire editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Madam President, I will say this: It is unprecedented, that for 200 years there has never been a circuit court nominee by any President who had the majority support in the Senate to be filibustered. It never has happened until now.

Exhibit 1

[From the LA Times, April 26, 2005]

Nuke the Filibuster

These are confusing days in Washington. Born-again

conservative Christians who strongly want to see President

Bush's judicial nominees voted on are leading the charge

against the Senate filibuster, and liberal Democrats are

born-again believers in that reactionary, obstructionist

legislative tactic. Practically every big-name liberal

senator you can think of derided the filibuster a decade ago

but now sees the error of his or her ways and will go to

amusing lengths to try to convince you that the change of

heart is explained by something deeper than the mere

difference between being in the majority and being in the

minority.

At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not

getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think

judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-

or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the

far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these

judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press

ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster. The so-called

nuclear option entails a finding by a straight majority that

filibusters are inappropriate in judicial confirmation

battles.

But the Senate shouldn't stop with filibusters over judges.

It should strive to nuke the filibuster for all legislative

purposes.

The filibuster debate is a stark reminder of the

unprincipled and results-oriented nature of politics, as

senators readily switch sides for tactical advantage.

Politicians' lack of consistency on fundamental matters--the

debate over the proper balance of power between Washington

and the states would be another case in point--is far more

corrosive to the health of American democracy and the rule of

law than any number of Bush-appointed judges could ever be.

For one thing, it validates public wariness about politicians

professing deep convictions.

Liberal interest groups determined to keep Bush nominees

off the bench are in such a frenzy that they would have you

believe that the Senate filibuster lies at the heart of all

American freedoms, its lineage traceable to the Constitution,

if not the Magna Carta. The filibuster, a parliamentary

tactic allowing 41 senators to block a vote by extending

debate on a measure indefinitely, is indeed venerable--it can

be traced back two centuries. But it is merely the product of

the Senate's own rule-making, altered over time; the measure

was not part of the founding fathers' checks and balances to

prevent a tyranny of the majority. The Senate's structure

itself was part of that calculus.

The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too

far in empowering a minority of senators. It's no accident

that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in

Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform.

California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those

recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by

hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a

pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in

his support--he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

A showdown is looking increasingly likely, though it isn't

clear that all Republicans want this fight. Some of them

realize they will again be in the minority someday and that

the filibuster is a handy brake on the federal government's

activism. If their caution prevails, or if Republicans take

on the filibuster only in the narrow context of confirmation

battles, we will happily weigh in again in the future, still

on the anti-filibuster team.

Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from Indiana, is he going to be offering an amendment?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the amendment of the distinguished Senator, it is my understanding, is one that has been in consideration in the Finance Committee. There is a freestanding bill called ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act of 2005.'' Is that correct?

Madam President, the chairman of the committee has advised me that they have been working on this bill for quite some time. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and author of the highway bill, I suggest there are titles of the bill that are not within the jurisdiction of my committee. One is the Finance Committee title. The title is not yet here, so we do not have that to consider at this time.

I think it would be more appropriate later on, after we receive the title, to debate that in the normal process of legislation.

I will be glad to respond to any questions the Senator has, after I get one thing taken care of here.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 39, the nomination of J. Michael Seabright, to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Hawaii; provided further that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member or designees, and that at the expiration or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate; provided further that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, as we said over and over again, I have a list of about eight amendments people have said they want to come down and offer. This is the third day now we have been inviting them to come down. So far only Senator Thune has brought his amendment in. We did adopt that amendment. I encourage others to come down.

I think this could very well be considered by most people the most significant vote on a bill we will be considering on the floor this entire year. We want to make sure, while we have the time, that we give adequate consideration and time for the amendments that different Members may have. I invite them to come down at any time during this process. With that, I yield the floor.

It is my understanding the junior Senator from Missouri would like to have the floor for consideration of an amendment. But I will yield the floor at this time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending Bayh amendment for the purpose of adopting an agreed-to amendment, the Talent amendment, and go immediately back to the Bayh amendment.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 568

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

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

Mr. President, right now the pending business is the Bayh amendment. I stress again that both Senator Jeffords and I are inviting anyone to come down with amendments they have. Senator Bayh has graciously agreed to set his aside for the consideration of any other amendments, and then we would go back to his amendment. So I would not want any Members who are watching the proceedings to believe they cannot get their amendment in. We do encourage them to bring their amendments down. I would hate to have all of these stacked up at the last minute. Now is the time to get consideration for amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont brings up a very sensitive subject to me, and that is one of bridges. It seems to me we do have one covered bridge in Oklahoma. I am going to have to check on that to make sure they get a share of this, whatever it is.

We do have a serious problem. The FHWA ranks various States and the conditions of their bridges, roads, and highways. Oklahoma is ranked dead last in the condition of its bridges, and it is a very serious matter. It is also a very serious problem in terms of the number of deaths we have.

One of the considerations that was involved in putting together a formula--and I state again how much work goes into a formula approach. I have said several times that it would be very easy to do it the other way where we just come up with a bunch of projects and satisfy 60 Senators and pass a bill and go home. That is not what we tried to do. One of the considerations we have is the risk in the various States, the number of mortalities.

Once again, at this point it is important to stress why we need to have a bill. We are now on our sixth extension, and extensions do not work. There is not a State of all 50 States that is not very anxiously awaiting this bill because with extensions there can be no planning. If we do not get this done, we will not have any chance to improve our donor States.

Oklahoma is a donor State. We have many donor States, and that is probably the most sensitive single issue in the formulas, is how the donor States are treated. But if we do not get this done, there is not going to be any change. We are right now at 90.5 percent. If we had passed the bill we had last year, which was a little more robust than this bill, by the end of that 6-year period, every State would have achieved at least a 95-percent return. That is the return of money they have paid into the trust fund.

As it is right now, in a lower amount, this would raise it a modest amount but not that much further above 90.5 percent. It would be an improvement, though.

If we do not have a bill and are operating under extensions, there will not be any new safety core programs to help the States respond to the thousands of deaths each year on the highways. In that respect, I think you have to acknowledge that this bill is a matter of life and death. There will be many more deaths if we do not have a good highway bill.

If we don't have a highway bill, there will not be any streamlining of the environmental reviews. Critical projects will still be subjected to avoidable delays that can be avoided with the passage of this bill.

Along that line, I think with all the provisions of this bill that was 2\1/2\ years in the making, there are a lot of provisions that my good friend from Vermont accepted that he would have preferred not to accept. There are many provisions I accepted that I would have preferred not to accept. But this was a give and take in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, and I think that is something people are starving for right now. That is what they have in this bill.

If we do not have a bill, there is not going to be an increase in the ability to use innovative financing, giving us a chance to do something differently than we have been doing it before. Where innovative partnership types of financing have taken place, it has extracted a lot of money from the private sector that is willing to get in there and participate in the TIFIA provisions of this bill, allowing them to do that very thing.

There are a lot of members on our committee who were concerned about the Safe Routes to Schools Program. That is in here. Again, if we are operating under an extension, if we do have an extension, if we do not have the bill, we will not have that. It could be we will have young people killed and injured on the way to school without this bill.

Without this bill, with just another extension, States would continue to have uncertainty in planning and delay in projects. I hope this doesn't need much elaboration. It is only logical. If you know in advance what is going to happen over the next 5 years or so, you can start planning. You can plan your resources, plan your labor, plan the amount of construction that is going to go on in each State so each State will get far more for each dollar spent than they would get on just an extension.

If we just get an extension, we are not going to have any new border program. I think the border States, many of them, should be the first ones down here to encourage that this bill be passed, particularly those who are affected by NAFTA traffic. We have a special provision in here that takes care of borders as well as corridors. In the absence of this, with just an extension, we are not going to have any of these provisions.

Without the bill, we are going to have delay in the establishment of the national commission to score how to fund transportation in the future. We have been doing it the same way for many years. There are better ways of doing it. This bill establishes this commission to study what innovative suggestions might come from the States, ways we can do a better job of financing and getting private participation and get a lot more efficiency into the system.

When you look at what we are faced with today, we have an unusually high price of gasoline. As a result of that, people are not driving as much. If we had a gas tax that was geared to a percentage basis, it would not make any difference. In fact, we would probably increase revenues. But that is not the way it is. It is just a number of cents per gallon, so if there are fewer gallons bought, then there is less money that goes into it.

If we do not have a bill, if we just go on an extension, there will not be any opportunity to address the chokepoints at intermodal connectors. People think this is just a highway bill. They think back in the early days, back when Eisenhower, in World War II, was a major, he realized the inefficiencies we had in this country in transportation when he was trying to move troops and move military equipment around the country. When he became President, he drew upon that experience and established, for that reason, this National Highway System.

This goes all the way back to the Eisenhower administration, but this goes further than it went at that time. Now we have chokepoints. A lot of people are not aware that my State of Oklahoma actually has a port. We have the port of Catoosa, about 10 miles from my home in Tulsa. But there are chokepoints in any transportation system. You can have a channel, air transportation, rail transportation; it has to marry up and be consistent with the movement on the roads. This bill does that. That is why we call it intermodal.

Last, the firewall protection of the highway trust fund would not be continued, thereby making the trust fund vulnerable to raids in order to pay for other programs. In every State, all 50 States, we have experienced problems of people seeing an opportunity to steal money out of the trust fund and raid it, and they do it. They have certainly done it in my State of Oklahoma--not just the highway trust fund but other trust funds, too. I know there are many States that have their own individual highway trust fund where money is coming out of it. This is something we can protect at the national level by having firewalls. The firewalls are intact in this bill.

There are a lot of reasons we have to do this other than just having a highway bill and getting more construction. We have had the opportunity to talk about the complexities of a formula and all the things that are in a formula. I believe it is worthwhile repeating some of them.

Formulas are not just, Are you a large State or are you a small State? They take into consideration many things. There are the interstate maintenance programs that are a part of the formula, as are the interstate lanes, the number of miles to be maintained, your National Highway System miles--

that is part of the formula--the Surface Transportation Program, the total lane miles, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, which is very important. It has taken a lot of time in committee to come up with something on which we could agree.

We have low-income States. Oklahoma is a low-income State. We have low-population States, such as Wyoming and Montana. We have low- population-density States. We have high-fatality-rate States. Everything I mentioned is part of the formula we are working on. We have guaranteed minimum growth States, where growth is very slow, but there is a factor that provides for a floor. We have guaranteed minimum rate of return donor States.

All are part of the consideration of a very complex, very difficult formula that is the proper way to do it. Again, we have said several times in the last 3 days, it would have been a lot easier for Senator Bond and Senator Baucus and Senator Jeffords and myself to have put together a bill that did not have a formula; it just would do projects. But we elected not to do that in order to get the most miles for our money and to be the most fair with all 50 States.

Our forefathers were great when they talked about putting together this system where you have the House and the Senate. One is on population, the other is geographic areas. It is our responsibility to be sure that each of these States is treated properly, is treated fairly. This bill has done that.

The Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, has the pending amendment on the floor. As I stated before, he has agreed to set his amendment aside as soon as there are any coming down. We have a list of about seven or eight amendments that different Members wish to offer. This is the time to offer them.

As Senator Jeffords said, come on down. We want you to come down and offer it. You have much more time to spend on your amendments. You can explain them. We have all day today, and we need to have these amendments on the floor and considered. I know what is going to happen if we do not. We are going to get down toward the end of it. Who knows, there may be cloture invoked where you are almost out of time and everyone is going to be yelling and screaming and crying they didn't have adequate time to consider their amendments. So let me get on record right now and say you have adequate time. We invite you to come down and present your amendments for consideration. As I said, Senator Bayh has agreed to set his amendment aside should you come down and want an amendment considered. Come on down. We are open for business.

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

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

Mr. President, it has been agreed that anyone who wants to seek the floor can seek the floor, and we will be returned to the amendment under consideration, which is the Bayh amendment. We move to temporarily set the Bayh amendment aside for the purpose of the Senator's statement.

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

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

Mr. President, some people are not aware that when you have something as massive as a highway bill, it is not just the committee I chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee, but other committees are involved, including the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee, and the Commerce Committee. As of right now, we don't have the titles that come from those three committees, but we will have one right now.

Amendment No. 573 to Amendment No. 567

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Shelby, I send an amendment to the desk, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, let me reemphasize to my friend from Indiana, as soon as this amendment is disposed of, we will return to the regular order, which is the pending Bayh amendment.

This amendment, which was crafted on a bipartisan basis in the Senate Banking Committee, provides $51.6 billion to address growing public transportation needs across the country.

It provides for record growth for public transportation and for the first time recognizes the growing needs in rural communities across the country, including my State and the State of the Presiding Officer, Oklahoma, which has a rural population of greater than 57 percent. In fact, in the final year of this bill, the rural transportation program is doubled over its TEA-21 levels.

Additionally, it creates a new formula within the urbanized area formula called the ``Rural Low Density'' formula. Rural transit is as challenging to provide as the distances between employment centers and health care centers are great.

This amendment also creates a formula to recognize ``growing States''--those locations which are forecast to grow more quickly than the average over the course of the next 15 years. This change will allow those States, which includes Oklahoma, to be proactive with regard to their transportation needs.

Finally, this amendment makes several modifications to enhance the role of the private sector in public transportation. By creating opportunities for competition, public transportation services can be provided more efficiently.

I am happy to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Shelby on the development of this amendment. I look forward to working with him on final passage and a successful conference report.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, that the language be considered as original text as part of the substitute for the purpose of further amendment.

Mr. President, I thank Senators Shelby and Sarbanes because we cannot really entertain amendments that affect these titles until we have them done. We are anxious to get the other two titles on the bill.

I will repeat our plea for people to come over with their amendments because the Senator from Indiana has agreed that he would set his amendment aside when people come down, with the understanding we would return to his amendment upon completion of those amendments.

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

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

Mr. President, let me repeat one more time, we are going to be open for business, as we were today, tomorrow. We will invite people to come down.

I want to get on the record right now, very often we go through this exercise and when we get close to the end of the consideration of the bill, when cloture has been filed, everyone comes running and screaming, saying they want to offer an amendment. Now is the time to do it. Members can bring them down anytime tomorrow. I certainly invite any Member to come down and offer the amendment tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, today I proudly rise to introduce The Natural Gas Production Act of 2005.

One of the challenges facing our economy is increasing energy prices. Take, for example, natural gas that accounts for 22 percent of American energy consumption. According to the Energy Information Administration, over the next 20 years, U.S. natural gas consumption will increase by over 50 percent. At the same time, U.S. natural gas production will only grow by 14 percent. At a time when natural gas prices are already at an all time high, it is critical that we increase our supply by developing our domestic natural gas.

This legislation will provide an incentive to increase the supply of domestically produced natural gas, which in turn will help alleviate high natural gas prices.

The Natural Gas Production Act of 2005 will add natural gas produced from formations more than 15,000 feet deep (Deep Gas), to the list of qualifying fuels for the Section 29 non-conventional tax credit. Experts consider deep gas drilling at more than 15,000 feet to be a non-conventional source of energy production.

Studies show the resource potential below 15,000 feet for natural gas is great. The Department of Energy's Strategic Center for Natural Gas has estimated there to be 130 trillion cubic feet below 15,000 feet in the lower 48. In comparison, that is equal to the proven and potential reserves on the Alaskan North Slope.

While these vast reserves remain, very little production is occurring from depths greater than 15,000. Deep gas wells require a considerable amount of time and money. On average these wells cost more than $6.1 million, and for wells deeper than 20,000 feet costs can exceed $16 million. Add to that the minimum one-year and longer drilling time and you can clearly see that Federal drilling incentives are needed to help promote and speed production of this enormous potential resource.

To drill a deep well, a drilling rig will employ about 25 people directly. In 1979, 128 deep well completions in Oklahoma created 2,630 jobs. In addition to direct jobs, economists estimate that 60 to 75 indirect jobs will be created as well.

Due to changes in the regulatory governance of the industry and cyclical market conditions over the next two and one-half decades, deep drilling activity all across the country has declined substantially.

I am introducing this legislation, along with Senator Vitter, today to encourage more domestic production in an area of proven reserves that will increase our supply. I thank Senator Vitter for his work and I urge members to support us in this effort. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

If you have any questions, please contact Mike Ference on my Staff at 224-1036.

Mr. President, today I proudly rise to introduce The Natural Gas Production Act of 2005.

One of the challenges facing our economy is increasing energy prices. Take, for example, natural gas that accounts for 22 percent of American energy consumption. According to the Energy Information Administration, over the next 20 years, U.S. natural gas consumption will increase by over 50 percent. At the same time, U.S. natural gas production will only grow by 14 percent. At a time when natural gas prices are already at an all time high, it is critical that we increase our supply by developing our domestic natural gas.

This legislation will provide an incentive to increase the supply of domestically produced natural gas, which in turn will help alleviate high natural gas prices.

The Natural Gas Production Act of 2005 will add natural gas produced from formations more than 15,000 feet deep (Deep Gas), to the list of qualifying fuels for the Section 29 non-conventional tax credit. Experts consider deep gas drilling at more than 15,000 feet to be a non-conventional source of energy production.

Studies show the resource potential below 15,000 feet for natural gas is great. The Department of Energy's Strategic Center for Natural Gas has estimated there to be 130 trillion cubic feet below 15,000 feet in the lower 48. In comparison, that is equal to the proven and potential reserves on the Alaskan North Slope.

While these vast reserves remain, very little production is occurring from depths greater than 15,000. Deep gas wells require a considerable amount of time and money. On average these wells cost more than $6.1 million, and for wells deeper than 20,000 feet costs can exceed $16 million. Add to that the minimum one-year and longer drilling time and you can clearly see that Federal drilling incentives are needed to help promote and speed production of this enormous potential resource.

To drill a deep well, a drilling rig will employ about 25 people directly. In 1979, 128 deep well completions in Oklahoma created 2,630 jobs. In addition to direct jobs, economists estimate that 60 to 75 indirect jobs will be created as well.

Due to changes in the regulatory governance of the industry and cyclical market conditions over the next two and one-half decades, deep drilling activity all across the country has declined substantially.

I am introducing this legislation, along with Senator Vitter, today to encourage more domestic production in an area of proven reserves that will increase our supply. I thank Senator Vitter for his work and I urge members to support us in this effort. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

If you have any questions, please contact Mike Ference on my Staff at 224-1036.

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

Mr. President, I am glad this day is here and that we are proceeding. I certainly encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion to proceed. I have every expectation that it will pass overwhelmingly. It seems as though we are always in a lot of controversy when we talk about a highway reauthorization bill. It doesn't come along very often--about every 6 years. In my tenure here, I have been involved in four of them. This is the fourth, and it is very significant.

It is interesting that even though there is a lot of criticism, when it gets down to the vote, the vote is always overwhelming. I remind my colleagues that last year's bill was at $318 billion--that was contract authority--and there was about $303 billion in guaranteed spending. It passed by a margin of 76 to 21. It is something I know people are interested in, but there are always problems. First of all, let me just say how this is bipartisan. My good friend, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Jeffords--back when the Democrats were in the majority, he was chairman--and I always agreed on these highway issues. It is kind of interesting that those of us who are conservatives really believe this is something we are supposed to be doing here--building infrastructure, building roads. I am particularly concerned that our State Of Oklahoma has not had its fair share. We have been ranked as having the worst bridges in the Nation.

Anyway, we have the bill up. It is going to be essentially the same bill as we had last year. We passed it out of committee. There is always a problem. Let me mention this because it needs to come out in the beginning. There are two different ways to have a highway program. One is to do it--and essentially the other body does it more this way-- by taking projects and adding them, and you pass this, so you know what projects will be there for the next 6 years. If you do that, then the people who are on the inside track would have the best opportunity to have theirs, and there is always an accusation of there being pork and having special projects.

In the Senate, we do it the hard way. We have a formula. When you have a formula, it takes into consideration so many different aspects. There is not one State that could not stand and say, my State is not being treated fairly because of this factor or the other factor. If you look at the formula factors, you have so many factors, such as interstate lane miles, vehicle miles traveled on interstates, contributions to the highway trust fund, the lane miles, principal arteries, VMT on principal arteries, diesel fuel, donee status, donor status, and low-income States. Oklahoma is a low-income State. That should be a consideration. You have a low-population State, such as the one of Senator Baucus, who has been in the leadership working on this issue. They still have to be able to drive even though they don't have a large population from which to get the funds. You have the high- fatality-rate States. You have a factor for the guaranteed minimum growth and the guaranteed minimum rate of return for donor States.

Oklahoma has been a donor State for as long as I can remember. I remember when we had written into the law we would get back 75 percent of what we have paid in. Now it is up to 90.5 percent. If we passed the bill last year at that funding level, it would be 95 percent. It looks like with the figure that we passed out of the committee on the floor that we will be considering today is one that will allow us to get to 92 percent.

I know the formula is not perfect. There are a lot of donor States that think they are not getting enough. A lot of donee States think they are not getting enough. The unhappy donee States complain about the growth rate, but they are ignoring the high rate of return. The unhappy donor States are complaining about the rate of return, but they are ignoring the high growth rates. I have seen unhappy donors trying to rewrite formulas. You cannot do that in a vacuum. I am sympathetic with unhappy States; however, they cannot change the formula in a vacuum and not affect every other State. One of the States is trying to do that right now, and that would adversely affect the rest of the States. It is something that is difficult to deal with. When we get to conference, there are things we can do that we cannot do on the Senate floor. Perhaps some of these things will be done.

With that, I will yield to Senator Jeffords, the ranking member on our Environment and Public Works Committee, for his comments.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his comments. At this time, I would like to recognize that we have four of the real star freshmen, the new Members of this body, on our committee. One, of course, is the presiding officer from Louisiana who made very clear to us the problem of beach erosion in the State of Louisiana. I appreciate his calling that to our attention. Then, of course, we have the new Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. Senator Thune is also on the committee, and we yield to him at this time.

Mr. President, if there is time during the course of this debate, even though we are operating under 1 hour equally divided, I want to go over, so everybody understands, why it is necessary to pass this bill instead of going with another extension because we do not get all the reforms we need without passing this bill.

I have to agree with the Senator from South Dakota that in order to get up to a higher figure in terms of the donor States--and there are a lot of donee States that are supporting us in this effort--it is necessary to have a more robust bill. I am sure we will have an opportunity to debate that and get to conference and see what we can work out.

The chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation has been such a strong, hard worker. The Senator from Missouri has been there every step of the way and has been a part of this great bipartisan effort. So we yield to him at this time for whatever time he wishes to use.

Mr. President, first I thank the senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, for his hard work and for being so articulate. It is interesting that we have heard from Senator Thune from South Dakota, a donee State, and Senator Bond from a donor State, and they are both equally enthusiastic about the fact that we have something that should work, and yet we know that any change in any part of a formula is going to have an effect on all the rest of the States. It does not happen in a vacuum.

I will yield the floor to Senator Bond to respond to a question. I ask the Senator, would he enlighten this body as to, according to HAWA, which two States in America have the worst bridges in terms of their state of disrepair?

If the Senator will yield for another question, he is a former Governor of the State of Missouri. He knows a little bit about how the construction season goes. What kind of problems would he see-- as Senator Thune mentioned, we are in our sixth extension right now--if we were merely to extend this rather than to pass this bill, from a State perspective?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, one of the comments was made by I believe it was Senator Thune about the extensions. Let me make sure we all understand because this is very significant. We have been operating on extensions, and when we operate on extensions we cannot plan in advance. This bill has more provisions in it affecting safety, streamlining, and other factors than any bill of the four that I have been exposed to in reauthorization.

In the event we were to have to go ahead on another extension, there would be no chance of improvement on the donor State of return. In other words, donor State of return is going to stay at 90.5. It is not going to improve. If we were going on an extension as opposed to passing this new authorization bill, there would be no new safety core program to help the States respond to the thousands of deaths each year on our roadways.

I would say to the Senator from Vermont, this is a life-or-death type of a bill before us because more people are going to die if we do not pass the bill, if we just operate on extensions.

If we just do the extensions, there will be no real streamlining of environmental reviews, so critical projects will still be subject to avoidable delay. We see events that do not make any common sense in terms of how many miles can be paved per dollar. We have obstacles that are in the way. We have addressed those obstacles, and it has not been easy.

The Democrats and Republicans on this committee had to give and take. Frankly, there are some provisions in this bill I do not like too well, and I suggest to the Senator from Vermont there are a few he does not like, but one of the major things I think has to be done before we start any meaningful construction in America is to have these streamlining provisions. If we do not have a bill, if we go on with extensions, there will be no increased ability to use the innovative financing, thereby giving States more tools to advance. We are talking about public and private partnerships. We have been building roads the same way now for many years.

I have been notified that the time on our side has expired, and I ask unanimous consent that we be given an opportunity to share the minority time to whatever extent the Senator would like to give us.

I say to the Senator from Vermont, with that very generous offer, as soon as he has someone coming and they want time, I will cease on this side so they can be heard.

The bill offers an increased ability to use innovative financing methods. Out in California and in Texas, they have been able to do some things where they have convinced us they get many more miles and much more local participation by the public-private partnership, by the TIFIA rule, and it is something that we would not be able to do nationwide if we do not get this bill and we just operate on an extension.

There are a lot of people who are very concerned about a provision in our bill that is called the Safe Routes to School. I know the Senator from Vermont has been interested in that. This is something where we would be talking about saving young lives. Right now, the provision is not there. So if we have an extension, it is merely an extension of TEA-21, the one that we have been operating under for the last 7 years.

If we are not able to pass this bill, then the States will continue to have uncertainty in planning, thereby delaying projects and negatively impacting jobs.

The Senator from Missouri commented that for each $1 billion spent, it provides 47,000 new jobs. So this would easily be the biggest jobs bill probably in the history of America. But if we operate on an extension, there can be no planning. There is not going to be the construction.

The Senator from Missouri is from a northern State and so is the Senator from Vermont. In Oklahoma, though, our construction time is longer than it is in Vermont, and it is actually longer than it is in the State of Missouri. It is something that has to be considered because if we have those delays and they cannot plan in advance, we are not going to have the construction. We are not going to be able to correct these problems.

That is why I asked the question of the Senator from Missouri, who is a former Governor of the State. We need to have certainty in planning. I hear every day from Gary Ridley in our Department of Transportation in Oklahoma that we have things we need to do and we need to be planning right now. We can get so much more for each dollar if we do that, and I suggest that other States have the same situation.

If we do not have a new bill and we just operate on an extension, there is no new border program for border States to deal with NAFTA and other traffic. We hear a lot from the border States--California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida--that they like the borders and corridors program. We have a borders and corridors provision in this bill that will give consideration to the fact that through no fault of their own many border States have a lot of traffic that comes up through Mexico and other places that is all in conjunction with NAFTA.

I can recall 10 years ago when NAFTA was voted on I happened to have been the only member of the

Oklahoma delegation that voted against NAFTA. I think I was right and they were wrong, but nonetheless when we look at what we are able to do with the borders and corridors program, it is something that is very critical for those States.

My State of Oklahoma is also affected by that because those corridors come through the State of Oklahoma. If we do not have the bill, we just have an extension, there is going to be a delay in the establishment of the national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the future. As motor vehicles become more fuel efficient, a tax collection system based solely on gas consumption becomes less practical. Right now the greatest problem we have is the cost of fuel. We have been very much concerned about that. If our taxes were based on a percentage as opposed to a number of cents or dollars, then we would not have that problem. But in Oklahoma if we are paying $2.20 a gallon for gas instead of what it was a short while ago, about $1.40, then people are not going to drive as far. When they do not drive as far, that means the tax revenues are going to come down.

There is no reason we have to continue to do business as we have done business for the last 50, 60, 70 years and not come up with new and innovative ways to pay for our system.

In this bill we have a provision for a national commission to look at different transportation funding in the future. One of my complaints when we talk about the highway trust fund is about how we should or should not pay for it. Every time this body has a new idea to encourage people to use fuel-efficient automobiles, either hybrid or electric cars, that ends up with less gallons of gas produced. Yet those cars still damage the highways with the wear and tear that another car does. I have complained if we are going to have a policy, it should not be paid for on the backs of the highway trust fund.

Anyway, those are issues they can look at. They can look at new ways of financing roads and new partnerships. This commission will come together and will perform for us.

If we do not have a new bill and we have an extension, there will be no increased opportunity to address chokepoints and intermodal connectors. This is not simply a highway bill but an intermodal bill, talking about how the highways, railroads, and airlines come together. It is a complicated transportation system.

There was a time in the beginning during the Eisenhower administration when we wanted to have a national highway system. I will share with my friend from Vermont, when President Eisenhower, during the war, was a major, Major Eisenhower, he was the one who realized our traffic system, our road system, our network, was not a transportation issue as much as a national security issue. He was trying to move his troops around from one place to another. So when he became President, one of the first things he wanted to do was set up the national transportation system. We have had it since that time. At that time we were looking at miles of paved roads in America. Now we are looking at the intermodal system that covers all transportation and brings all transportation together. But we won't be able to do that if we extend what we have today because those portions of the bill will not become law.

There are many other provisions we would lose if we do not pass a bill, if we only have an extension. The firewall protection of the highway trust fund would not be continued, thereby making the trust fund vulnerable to raids in order to pay for other programs.

One of the things we run into in Government I can relate to in the State of Oklahoma. In the State of Oklahoma we have had people, when you are looking the other way, come in and raid a trust fund. The impact aid is a good example. Impact aid was started way back in the 1950s. The idea was if Government comes along and takes the land off the tax rolls, you still have to educate those kids living there, so they are supposed to replenish that particular subdivision to the amount of money they lost in revenue. That was a good program. We all supported it.

In the 1960s, people realized there was a fund and no one was looking, so they took the money out of it. This has happened to other trust funds. This has happened to the highway trust fund. I see that as a moral issue.

In fact, when we had our bill out last year, we looked at it as if this is something we can afford to do because it was paid for almost entirely out of user taxes. Now, if you go to the pump and you pay a Federal tax on the gasoline you buy, you assume that will go to building roads and maintaining roads and people do not complain about it. I have never complained about it. I complain about every other tax, but I don't complain about the highway taxes because I know that is how we will pay for it. They have been diverting money out of the trust fund and putting it into other projects.

What we did in last year's bill, and it is in this year's bill also, is restore that so money will have to go to repairing roads that go into the highway system. If we do not pass this bill, it is not going to happen.

To reiterate, regarding the pending bill, 76 Senators voted for it last year. Very few changes have been made. We produced a solid project last year to go to conference with the House. I suggest that given a few changes we would have made, we would have been able to move it out and we would not be here today. This should have happened a year ago. This should not be happening now.

The bill managers are ready and willing to discuss Members' amendments. We want to work with you on your concerns. We hope you will come down and offer amendments. We will have this vote in 9 minutes. How quickly time flies when you are having fun. When we have this vote, I anticipate it will be a successful vote and we will be able to get on the bill and start with amendments. When that happens, I certainly hope all those individuals who have said negative things about this bill-- they didn't like part of the formula, they didn't think they were treated fairly, they thought they were bumping up to the caps for States--come down and offer amendments.

I don't think any of us in terms of Senator Jeffords, myself, Senator Baucus, and Senator Bond, are going to complain. We may not like the amendments, but we want to have the amendments offered, if for no other reason than it is important so people realize you cannot make one change in a bill without affecting everyone else. I know formulas are different.

It would be easier if we had done the easy thing. That is, Senator Jeffords and I could go to 60 Members of this 100-Member body and make them sweetheart deals, give them what they wanted to get their vote, buy their votes, get 60 votes, and tell the rest of them, it is your problem. And we would have a bill today. That is not how we want to do business. We feel we can do it being fair to our colleagues and do it on the basis of a formula.

We had Members who were going to be heard on the motion to proceed and they have not arrived. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I thank the Senator from North Dakota. It is not as great a problem in Oklahoma as the problem in North Dakota because your construction season is shorter than ours. Right now one of our major concerns is that we can get in there and get the contracts in a timely fashion so we can get under construction and do the work we are supposed to be doing.

Also, before the Senator from North Dakota came in, we commented this is somewhat of a life-and-death situation. Last year, nearly 43,000 people died on our Nation's highways. This represents the single greatest cause of accidental death in Americans ages 2 to 33.

The core safety programs will be corrected. According to the Department of Transportation, time in congestion increased from 31.7 percent in 1992 to 33 percent in 2000. We had several discussions yesterday about the cost of fuel and the fact that if you have all this congestion--certainly we know what this is in Washington, DC--the cars are out there idling, burning fuel, not getting anywhere. We need to get this country moving.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from North Dakota.

We are at the time designated to have the vote. This could be one of the maybe two or three most significant votes we have this year. It will allow us to do all that we have been talking about for the last hour. It is rather refreshing during this time we did not have anyone coming down and opposing this motion to proceed.

The Senator from North Dakota is exactly right. We want to encourage people who have a problem to come down. Maybe we can make them better. We want to consider amendments. We want to get this done.

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

Mr. President, in a moment we are going to make a motion to substitute H.R. 3 so we will be considering the Senate-passed bill as it was passed out of our committee on to the floor. I think it is appropriate to make a couple of comments--and, of course, invite Senator Jeffords to also comment if he wants to--on the time we have taken on this bill.

We have worked on this bill for some 2\1/2\ years. It has been bipartisan all the way, all of last year and this year. I think it is something that is a product we can be very proud of. It has provisions in it that if we do not pass will not be considered. If we are on another extension, we will not have the safety provisions. We will not have the streamlining provisions that will help us build more roads per dollar.

We are prepared now to proceed. I understand there is no further debate on the pending motion.