Transportation Equity Act" A Legacy for Users -- (Part 2)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President I will briefly talk about a provision in the Commerce title of the highway bill. We have the Commerce title, Banking, Finance, and EPW title. Section 7370 creates a hazardous material cooperative research program. It authorizes $2 million a year for each year, including 2006 through 2009, for hazardous material transport research projects on topics that are ``not adequately addressed by existing Federal private sector research programs.''

The section goes on to require that at least one of the studies ``provide an assessment of the need and feasibility of substituting less lethal substances than toxic inhalation hazards in the manufacturing process.''

I oppose the provision and hope it can be removed in conference. I will be actively opposing it in conference to see it is removed. There is no such language in the House portion.

The concept at the heart of this provision is called inherently safer technology and it is not about transportation but a longstanding wish of some of the environmental extremist communities. The EPW has spent the last 4 years working on the issue of chemical security and this issue of FIST has arisen several times in the context of the security debate. The idea of inherently safer technology predates September 11. It was around long before the tragedy of September 11. It has never been about security. It has never been about transportation. It is a concept that dates back more than a decade when the extremist environmental community--Greenpeace and others--was seeking bans on chlorine, the chemical used to purify our Nation's water. After September 11 they decided to play upon the fears of the Nation and repackage FIST as a solution to potential security problems. Now they seek to repackage it again as a transportation issue, which it is not.

This issue is not about security. It is not about transportation. It is about trying to find a research justification for giving the Federal Government authority to mandate that a private company change its manufacturing process or the chemicals they use. The study's parameters reveal this intent when it states ``substituting less lethal substances than toxic inhalation hazards in the manufacturing process.''

There are entire books written about the subject of FIST by various groups, including current efforts by the Center for Chemical Process Safety and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers to update their 1996 ``gold book'' on the subject. These are chemical process experts. The Federal Government is not.

I do not believe mandatory FIST is good for our Nation's security. Besides that, it is not a transportation issue. If it is something you want to debate in the Senate as a freestanding bill, do it that way, but do not sneak around behind and throw little a part into this bill through the Commerce title that has nothing to do with transportation.

I mention this and anything else we find in the bill that perhaps we have overlooked that has nothing to do with transportation, we will make every effort to make sure it gets out when it is in conference.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana is being modest because he has had a great deal of influence on the amendments. A critical problem in Louisiana is beach erosion. He has persuaded our committee, in an articulate way, to become much more aggressive in solving that problem. We are a much better committee because of him. I thank him for his hard work on the committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to give a progress report. We are down to four or five amendments now. Many of them have been agreed to or have been withdrawn. We don't have anyone at this moment who is going to ask for a vote tonight. We had previously scheduled a vote at 5:30. We did not anticipate at that time that we would be getting the cooperation we are getting from the Members who have worked things out. So I announce on behalf of the leadership that we will not be having the vote at 5:30 tonight.

Let me make a couple of comments. I know anxieties are high concerning the so-called nuclear option, or what we call the constitutional option. I hesitate to take up time. If anybody comes to talk about the highway bill, we will stop and talk about the highway bill.

If you stop and realize what we really want, what we have been asking for is a vote. People are entitled to have a vote on the floor of this Senate. They are nominees. You may not like the nominees of the President for the circuit court positions, but certainly these people at least deserve an up-or-down vote.

It is kind of interesting to see how the minority has changed its mind from just a short period ago.

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 ..... It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not, I will respectfully request, Madam President, appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote .....

Senator BOXER on May 14, 1997, said:

According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. 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 DASCHLE on October 5, 1999, said:

I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination ..... We have a constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial nominee--a vote against that nominee.

Senator DURBIN on September 28, 1998, said:

I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. The reason I oppose cloture is I would like to see that the Senate shall also be held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not.

Senator FEINSTEIN on September 16, 1999, said:

A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down ..... What this does to a [nominee's] life is, it leaves them in limbo ..... It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no.

On October 4, 1999, she said:

Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.

And on May 19, 1997, Senator FEINSTEIN said:

Mr. President, the time has come to act on these nominations. I'm not asking for a rubber stamp; let's hold hearings on those nominees who haven't had them, and vote on all of them, up or down, yes or no.

Senator KENNEDY on January 28, 1998, said:

The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no.

And on February 3, 1998:

We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.

Senator KOHL on August 21, 1999, said:

[T]here are many other deserving nominees out there. Let's not play favorites. These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an `up or down' vote.

Senator LAUTENBERG on June 21, 1995, said:

Talking about the fairness of the system and how it is equitable for a minority to restrict the majority view, why can we not have a straight up-or-down vote on this without threats of filibuster? When it was Robert Bork or John Tower or Clarence Thomas, even though there was strong opposition, many Senators opposed them. The fact is that the votes were held here, up or down.

Senator LEAHY on June 21, 1995, said:

When President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was the first member of the Senate to declare my opposition to his nomination. I did not believe that Clarence Thomas was qualified to serve on the Court. Even with strong reservations, I felt that Judge Thomas deserved an up-or-down vote.

On October 14, 1997:

I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully filibustered. I do recall earlier this year when the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.

October 22, 1997:

I hope we might reach a point where we as a Senate will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. Bring the names here. If we want to vote against them, vote against them.

June 18, 1998:

If we want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I respect that. State your reasons. I respect that. But don't hold up a qualified judicial nominee ..... I have stated over and over again on this floor ..... that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.

September 16, 1999:

I ..... do not want to see the Senate go down a path where a minority of the Senate is determining a judge's fate on votes of 41 ..... [D]uring the Republican administrations I rarely ever voted against a nomination by either President Reagan or President Bush. There were a couple I did. I also took the floor on occasion filibusters to hold them up and believe that we should have a vote up or down.

Again on September 16, 1999:

I do not want to get having to invoke cloture on judicial nominations. I think it is a bad precedent.

October 1, 1999:

Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch, not delayed for 2 and 3 years. We are talking about people going to the Federal judiciary, a third independent branch of Government. They are entitled to dignity and respect. They are not entitled atomically for us to vote aye, but they are entitled to a vote, aye or nay.

October 3, 1999:

When we hold a nominee up by not allowing them a vote and not taking any action one way or the other, we are ..... doing a terrible disservice to the man or woman to whom we do this.

March 7, 2000:

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ``The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'' Which is exactly what I would like.

October 11, 2000:

I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a [floor] vote, up or down, within 60 days.

Senator Levin on June 21, 1995, said:

The President is entitled to his nominee, if a majority of the Senate consent.

Senator Lincoln at a press conference on September 14, 2000, said:

If we want people to respect their government again, then government must act respectably. It's my hope that we'll take the necessary steps to give these men and these women especially the up or down vote that they deserve.

Senator Reid on March 7, 2000, said:

Once they get out of committee, let's bring them here and vote up or down on them. ..... I think anybody who has to wait 4 years deserves an up-or-down vote.

..... If there is a Senator who believes there is a problem with any judge, whether it is the one we are going to vote on at 5 o'clock or the two we are going to vote on tomorrow, or Thursday, they have every right to come to talk at whatever length they want. But with Judge Paez, it has been 4 years. There has been ample opportunity to talk about this man. He has bipartisan support.

On June 9, 2001, in an interview on Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields said:

[W]e should have up or down votes in the committee and on the floor.

Senator Schumer on March 7, 2000, said:

The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.

..... I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity--vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo.

These are people who are now saying they do not want to have a vote on these nominees. We have nominees who have been waiting not for weeks or months but for years. I believe some of these Senators who before had a philosophy that everyone is entitled to a vote ought to turn around and give the current nominees a vote. I have a great deal of respect for these people, except I would like to have them express some level of consistency.

The issue has become a bit clouded and confusing. When one talks about the various polls, I suggest that one can word a question to get almost any kind of answer one wants. When it gets down to the facts, the Constitution says the President nominates and the Senate is either to confirm or not confirm. It does not say anything about a mandatory supermajority. It just says confirmed. That is a simple majority, Mr. President.

Again, I invite Members to come to the Chamber. We are going to keep the floor open. There will not be any votes tonight on the amendments. We are down to about four amendments, although they should be debated tonight if at all possible. We need to get the debates behind us so we will be prepared to vote tomorrow morning.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while we are waiting for Members to come down to the Senate floor to offer their amendments, to talk about their amendments, and be prepared for votes tomorrow morning, I will share with you that we have had a lot of erroneous reports concerning what is going on in Iraq and in other sensitive areas of the world. Quite frankly, I believe the greatest disservice that has been done to our troops in Iraq has been by the press, by the press not giving an accurate accounting as to what is really happening there.

I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as such I have taken on the responsibility of spending time in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and different places where terrorism may come due to the squeeze in the Middle East. But as far as Iraq is concerned, I will share a couple of experiences.

One was a couple days after the January 30 election. So many people in the media were trying to say the election is not going to come off on January 30, it is not going to happen; democracy is not going prevail there; they are not going to be able to make the deadlines; they are not going to be able to handle the elections and they are not capable of doing it on their own; they do not have the security because they would have to provide all the security for the elections.

Yet a few days after that, you might remember, of the three elements over there, the Sunnis were the ones--not the Shiites or the Kurds--but the Sunnis were the ones wanting to obstruct the elections--the most anti-American of all the groups. Yet the day after the election, the two primary Sunni leaders stood and said publicly that they were surprised it went the way it did. They wanted to be in on this. They wanted to participate. We know subsequent to that they have.

I remember testimonials by different people who had participated in that election. One was a lady who said she could not read the ballot because of the tears in her eyes. She couldn't see the ballot.

Another person told me through a translator that she was in there to vote, and it occurred to her at the time they were voting that this was not just the first time in 35 years of a bloody regime of Saddam Hussein, but it was the first time in 7,000 years that they had an opportunity for self-determination.

It is a huge thing happening over there. Who would ever have dreamed at any time in the last 35 years that they would actually be participating in a free election?

Now we have seen what has happened since then. Sure, the terrorists over there who do not want this to happen are out there and they are killing as many of the Iraqis as possible to try to obstruct this new freedom that is coming their way.

The last time I was there, I decided it would be a good idea to spend time in the Sunni triangle. That is where most of the hostilities are. It was the Sunnis who were the ones holding out last, the ones who were supporting Saddam Hussein. I recall going to Falluja, just a matter of a few weeks ago, and in Falluja there was a general whose name was Mahdi. He was the general, the commanding officer of the brigade. He was the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein. He hated Americans and he had the background to demonstrate how deeply that hatred went, the murders and all these things going on.

Yet that general, after we moved the Marines into Falluja and they started going door to door, and they were embedded with the Iraqis, this general was so impressed with the Marines that he made a statement. When they rotated the Marines out and said the Marines were going to have to go into a rotation, they had become so close working and fighting together that when they all got together before the Marines left, he said they all cried. There was a general looking at me saying: We cried because we didn't want the Marines to leave. He renamed the security forces of Falluja the Iraqi Marines. He named them after us.

While we were there in Tikrit, the home of Saddam Hussein, there was an explosion. It was at a place they called a police station, but it was a training area where they were training Iraqis for the security forces. It killed 10 immediately and seriously injured 30 more so they could not be trained. The families of these 40 individuals who were either killed or were severely injured offered up another member of each of their families to substitute for the one who was killed or the one who was injured. It was the type of sacrifice you would never dream possible a few years before--a few days before, really.

I remember going all over the Sunni triangle in a Blackhawk helicopter, 100 feet off the ground. That is the only safe way to get there. There are terrorists who have SAMs, surface-to-air missiles, although some pretty crude.

Many American families who have sent care packages to the troops over there--candy, cookies, these different things--what they have done with these is repackage them and, as we were going over the Sunni triangle and looked down at these small villages, all the kids were out there and we threw them candy and things like that, and they were waving American flags and cheering. This is not the picture you get from the media.

I applaud the job our guys and gals have done over there, our troops. Of course, many have lost their lives, but people don't stop to realize how many more lives would have been lost if we had not been involved in that area, offering that kind of freedom.

Now we see a lot of terrorists are going into other areas. One of the good things I would announce that is going on right now is down in Africa we are now in the process of assisting Africans in forming five African brigades, and these African brigades, we will put them in a position to help them train themselves so when something like this erupts down there it will not be the Americans who have to do it.

I just wanted to take this time to applaud our troops for the great job they are doing. I really believe, as great a disservice as the press has provided, that the people of America know better. They are showing they do know better.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. INHOFE], for himself and Mr. JEFFORDS, proposes an amendment numbered 761.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The amendment is printed in today's RECORD under ``Text of amendments.'')

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for adoption of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the Dorgan amendment, No. 652.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and the amendment falls.

AMENDMENTS NOS. 636 AND 674 WITHDRAWN

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Ensign amendment No. 636 and the Schumer amendment No. 674 be withdrawn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.