[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 13 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S614-S647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 
                                  2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:50 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1072, which 
the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1072) to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Modified committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 2267, to exempt certain agricultural 
     producers from certain hazardous materials transportation 
     requirements.
       Gregg amendment No. 2268 (to amendment No. 2267), to 
     provide that certain public safety officials have the right 
     to collective bargaining.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. At this point, I will yield to the Senator from Iowa, and 
following his remarks I will seek to be recognized.
  (Mr. ENSIGN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to address the consideration 
that the Senate Finance Committee gave to the portion of the highway 
bill that determines the size of the trust fund, source of the trust 
fund, and our committee's decisionmaking over that. And my speaking to 
the Senate is based on the proposition, thus far, that we are moving 
ahead with the total highway package the way that has been suggested by 
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senate Banking 
Committee, and the Senate Commerce Committee, with my committee working 
in cooperation with those three committees, at that level of 
expenditure.
  Somehow, if the President, in succeeding days, would say he is not 
going to sign a bill that is that big, I will moderate my remarks to 
conform with that. But right now, all I know is what this body has done 
in three of its committees to arrive at where we are now. I want to 
address, within that framework and that environment, the work of our 
committee.
  I will particularly speak about some other Members of this body who 
lack a consideration of the hard work that has been put into this 
product, as well as their philosophical objections to what we have 
done. I don't have any question that any Senator can have any 
philosophical objections to anything he wants, but I want everybody in 
the Senate to know that the 21 members of the Senate Finance Committee 
did not take this product lightly.
  There has been a lot of harsh criticism of the upcoming Finance 
Committee title of this highway bill.
  What I will do is lay out the context of the funding portions of this 
legislation and respond to this harsh criticism. The role of the 
Finance Committee on the highway bill is centered on the highway trust 
fund raising, not expending, funds. Finance Committee jurisdiction 
involves the Federal excise taxes, the highway trust fund, and the 
expenditure authority of the trust fund. The Finance Committee has 
acted in all of these areas as recently as just this Monday.
  The authorizing committee's actions will result in outlays from the 
trust funds of $231 billion for highways, and $36.6 billion for 
transit, spread out over the next 6 years. Essentially, those figures I 
just gave you represent the cash-flow out of the trust fund. The 
Finance Committee's action provided the resources in the trust fund to 
cover the cash outflows and provide a cushion in the trust fund 
balances. This is how we arrived at that action of the Senate Finance 
Committee.
  But some of the critics have said the Finance Committee should have 
funded

[[Page S615]]

the trust fund at the level of the motor fuel taxes and the compliant 
savings resulting therefrom.
  This is a very fair debate to have in the Senate, or in any 
committee, but I want the Members of this body who don't serve on the 
Finance Committee to understand that we had that fair debate in the 
Finance Committee on Monday, and in other sessions before that. This 
committee had to decide otherwise from those critics who have said that 
the Finance Committee should have funded the trust fund at just the 
levels of the motor fuel taxes and compliant savings.
  So I think everybody in this body has a responsibility to be 
realistic and wake up to the facts of life as we are considering this 
legislation and in their responding to it because there will be a time 
when the Senate will express its will on this floor, and we all have to 
face the reality of the legislative process. The will of the Senate, at 
the end of the day, will be to fund highways and transit programs at 
the outlay levels provided by the three authorizing committees of 
Banking, Commerce, and Environment and Public Works.
  So to my critics, some of whom chose to criticize me directly, let me 
remind them that last year I was 1 of 21 votes against the Bond-Reid 
amendment during the budget debate. That wasn't an easy vote. So I 
understand the sentiments for lower funding levels, but Members of this 
body need to understand that 21 is a sizable minority of this body, and 
the vast majority decided more money should be spent on highways and 
transit.

  That was last year, and this is now, today. A majority of the Finance 
Committee dealt with this fundamental reality. So I would like to ask 
the critics to come out of their ivory towers and deal with the reality 
of the Senate.
  The reality that faced us on the Finance Committee was how to bridge 
the gap between the baseline revenue collections and the outlay levels 
of the three authorizing committees, which was considerably higher.
  In consideration of this major problem facing us, the leader of the 
Democrats on my committee, Senator Baucus, and I--and we try to work 
together whenever we can, and that is most of the time--had the reality 
of the Senate to take into consideration. We had to keep in mind the 
institutional issues with which the Senate Finance Committee has to 
deal. We could not and we would not choose an option that would 
undermine the integrity of the trust fund, and we surely are not going 
to do anything to undermine the role of the Senate Finance Committee.
  What do I mean by the integrity of the trust fund? The answer is that 
the Finance Committee needs to ensure that there is a relationship 
between the receipts in the trust fund and the spending from that trust 
fund. To the extent that relationship is undermined, I say to my fellow 
colleagues, the Finance Committee's role is undermined as well.
  I also wish to point out the bottom line for those other 20 Senators 
who, like me, voted against the higher trust fund spending last year. 
Again, the political reality is that the Senate is going to approve 
outlays at the levels approved by these three authorizing committees.
  One option would be a direct general fund transfer. A direct general 
fund transfer erodes the integrity of trust funds, and it dilutes the 
role of the tax-writing committees. It directly delinks highway 
spending and highway receipts, and we believe those have traditionally 
been tied together and should be tied together. Because of that, the 
Senate did not go there.
  There is a danger for us fiscal conservatives of such an approach 
because direct general fund transfers would potentially be open ended 
and no fiscal discipline whatsoever.
  If the Finance Committee had done what the critics argue, what would 
have been the outcome on the floor of the Senate? Does anyone believe 
that we would have been left at the authorized funding amounts? No, we 
all know the funding levels would have gone way up. Where would we end 
up? The answer is that we would end up with a direct general fund 
transfer.
  Any Finance Committee member should be concerned about that bottom 
line result and what that does to the trust fund concept and the 
history of our committee's jurisdiction over that trust fund but, more 
importantly, our responsibility we have to the Senate.
  In the Finance Committee, we decided to maintain the relationship 
between the trust fund receipts and the trust fund spending. It is so 
important then to distinguish between trust fund receipts and revenues 
that is counted for budget purposes.

  Embedded in the trust funds are several policies that burden the 
trust fund. The clearest of these, and one we always hear, is the 
treatment of ethanol. The tax benefit for ethanol is the only--the 
only--energy production incentive that is not borne by the general 
fund. There are billions of dollars in tax benefits for oil and gas 
that are charged to the general fund, for instance. Do Senators from 
oil and gas States understand that the tax benefit for ethanol is the 
only energy production incentive that is not borne directly by the 
general fund?
  Under current law, the use of ethanol is prejudiced in terms of the 
highway trust fund resources. That is because the benefit is charged 
against the trust fund up to this point when we adopt this legislation 
because my VEETC proposal eliminated the inequity by making sure the 
trust fund is fully funded by those who use ethanol fuel. For my 
friends who are always criticizing, the tax benefit for ethanol, like 
that of any other energy source, will be borne then by the general 
fund.
  There are numerous other exemptions from the fuel taxes in addition 
to ethanol. These exemptions further important policy purposes but 
purposes which are not embedded in highway policy. No one takes issue 
with the exemption but whether they should be borne by the highway 
trust fund. We don't hear that argument.
  Contrary to what has been suggested, increasing highway funding in 
this manner is not unlimited like the direct general fund transfers but 
is limited by the universe of exemptions.
  For the 20 other Senators who, like me, last year voted for lower 
highway spending, they have an interest in what the Finance Committee 
did. By maintaining the relationship between highway receipts and 
spending, we maintain a ceiling on the spending. A direct general fund 
transfer does not have such a limit.
  I repeat and remind my colleagues, the bottom line is that the so-
called illusory receipts that Finance came up with result in a ceiling 
on highway and transit spending. Don't these other 20 Senators want 
some sort of a ceiling? The ceiling is not available with a direct 
general fund transfer.
  The Finance Committee bill contains a self-imposed ceiling that 
relates the receipts to expenditures of the trust fund and everything 
connected with the trust fund.
  Do these receipts end up as refunds or exemptions? No, those are 
legitimate policy choices made by Congress in law. I cited the case of 
ethanol. There are others. Those receipts represent the burden users 
put on our roads. The trust fund then properly accounts for these 
users.
  Where we have shifted the burden of an exemption or refund from the 
highway trust fund to the general fund, the Finance Committee has 
provided offsets. In the end the Finance Committee has made sure this 
will not add to the deficit.
  To those who choose to ignore the political reality of the Senate, 
decisions made overwhelmingly by three other committees, decisions made 
last year on the budget we are still operating under with only 21 
dissenters, the rest of the Senate decided there ought to be more 
massive amounts of money spent on roads.
  That is the political reality of the Senate. I say to these people, 
what would you do? What would you do to make the trust fund a relevant 
part of the highway program, where it has been since we have had 
Federal gas taxes? What would you do to maintain the relationship of 
the trust fund receipts and trust fund spending? What would you do to 
avoid an open-ended general fund transfer where there is lesser, or 
maybe absent any, fiscal responsibility?
  I get back to some old sayings that can say it better than I can, and 
I think I read in Lyndon Johnson's biography, ``The Master of the 
Senate,'' that Sam Rayburn said something about any jackass can push a 
barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.

[[Page S616]]

  We have a few people who are trying to kick the barn down. These 
people are not really interested in building a barn like the three 
authorizing committees are, as they tried to put something together. 
Albeit there might be some sort of disagreement about exactly what the 
right and ideal level of expenditure is, but they have worked hard. The 
American people want us building the legislative barn.
  I turn to these people who do not want to build this barn--our 
Federal obligation under highways. It has been a pretty dominant 
Federal policy since Eisenhower and the interstate system, and of 
course a long time before that with other highways. They ought to quit 
kicking and focus on the reality of getting this highway bill done. The 
Finance Committee amendment took a step forward to getting this job 
done.
  The Finance Committee did the job. We provided the funding. More 
importantly, we linked the highway receipts to the spending, and we did 
this in a deficit-neutral way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Finance Committee. I congratulate him and the ranking member for moving 
forward. I found the comments of my neighbor in Iowa to be particularly 
appropriate about the need to build the barn. Again, I express my 
thanks to our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Reid, and the others, for moving forward.
  Right now we are asking that Chairman Inhofe return. He has an 
important meeting right now and he is going to come out to assure we 
can get more of this bill moving. We have a very short time window 
today. I know that on both sides of the aisle we would like to have 
people come down, offer relevant amendments, try to get as much of this 
bill moving as possible, and begin the voting process.
  As I said, we have much work going on just off of the Senate floor as 
we try to move this legislation forward. We have several more pieces of 
SAFETEA to be brought forward. We are working with the other committees 
involved to make sure they come forward. I believe Chairman Shelby from 
the Banking Committee will arrive shortly to bring forth a mass transit 
bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at this time I would like to recognize 
Senator Shelby for some comments about his amendment and then reclaim 
the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, was this a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. INHOFE. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the right to yield 
the floor to another Senator.
  The Senator from Alabama.


                           Amendment No. 2269

(Purpose: To amend chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, relating 
to the authorization of Federal funding for public transportation, and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2269.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the text of this amendment is identical to 
the legislation that the Banking Committee ordered reported from the 
committee by a voice vote yesterday. In other words, it was a unanimous 
vote in the Banking Committee.
  I rise today in support of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 
2004. This is the bill, as everyone knows, that was successfully 
reported out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
yesterday.
  I am proud of this piece of legislation which was crafted on a 
bipartisan basis with cooperation from the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, the committee's ranking member.
  This amendment, which I hope will be part of the bill, provides 
record growth for public transportation at $56.5 billion--a 57-percent 
increase over TEA-21. This funding level tracks with the growth in the 
highway program to $255 billion. This combined funding will go a long 
way toward improving and expanding upon our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. I am pleased, as I said, to be working with the 
Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Senator Inhofe, to 
accomplish this goal.
  Our amendment, which will be part of the bill, we trust, accomplishes 
three important policy goals. It creates funding flexibility, increases 
accountability, and improves the performance and efficiency of the 
transit programs in the United States.
  The bill creates several new formulas to better address growing 
transit needs. A rural low density formula is created to allow for 
transit services in sparsely populated areas where employment centers 
and health care are great distances apart. A growing States formula is 
created to allow communities with populations projected to grow 
significantly in the coming years to put in place needed transportation 
infrastructure. A small transit intensive cities formula is created to 
address the needs of communities where the level of transit service 
exceeds what their population-based formula provides.
  Our bill also creates a super-high density formula to provide 
additional funding for States with transit needs that are particularly 
great because they have transit systems in extremely urban areas with 
high utilization rates.
  The bill increases the accountability within the transit program. It 
rewards transit agencies to deliver products that are on time, on 
budget, and provide the benefits that they promised. Further, this bill 
allows communities to consider more cost-effective, flexible solutions 
to their transportation needs by opening up eligibility of a new starts 
fund to nonfixed guideway projects under $75 million in cost. With this 
change, other solutions can be fostered, such as bus rapid transit, 
which can produce the majority of the benefit of rail at a fraction of 
the cost.
  Finally, the bill seeks to improve the performance and efficiency of 
transit systems nationwide. It provides incentives for the coordination 
of human service transportation activities to eliminate duplication and 
overlap. It increases the focus on safety and security needs with 
transit systems to insulate them against terrorist attacks. It also 
enhances the role of the private sector in providing public 
transportation in an effort to reduce costs and to improve service.
  In short, the Federal Public Transportation Act is a good bill and 
one that will dramatically improve the public transportation program to 
help Americans with their mobility needs in urban and rural areas 
nationwide.
  I commend this to the Senate and ask my colleagues for their support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished 
colleague from Alabama, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs, in very strong support of the Federal 
Public Transportation Act of 2004.
  First, let me express my appreciation to the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, Senator Shelby, who has worked assiduously on this 
legislation, reaching across the aisle in a most cooperative manner to 
develop a transit bill that will begin to address the urgent needs 
faced by communities all across the country.
  As a result of his efforts and those of other members of our 
committee on the transit bill, the Federal Public Transportation Act of 
2004 was reported out of the Banking Committee yesterday morning with 
unanimous support. Every member of the committee supported this 
legislation.
  Let me also acknowledge the contributions made by Senator Allard of 
Colorado and Senator Reed of Rhode Island, the chairman and ranking 
member of our Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, who have worked 
with us step by step to develop the package that is being brought to 
the floor of the Senate.
  I also thank the distinguished leadership of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Chairman Inhofe

[[Page S617]]

and Ranking Member Jeffords, as well as the leadership of the Finance 
Committee, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, with whom we 
have worked closely in order to address a number of important issues 
related to the financing of this bill. Without their help and the very 
committed work of the Senate leadership, Majority Leader Frist and 
Minority Leader Daschle, I doubt that we could be where we are today. I 
think it is important to recognize the broad effort and the broad 
support that exists for this legislation.
  As we approached the expiration of the previous surface 
transportation bill, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, known as TEA-21, the Banking Committee and its Housing and 
Transportation Subcommittee held a series of hearings--some at the full 
committee level and some at the subcommittee level--on the Federal 
transit program and its contribution to reducing congestion, 
strengthening our national economy, and improving our quality of life.
  Over the course of those hearings, which extended over roughly a 2-
year period, we heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, including 
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Federal Transit 
Administrator Jenna Dorn, representatives of transit agencies from 
around the country, mayors, business and labor leaders, 
environmentalists, and transit riders--virtually all of the 
stakeholders in this important matter--and including economic 
development experts, a very important dimension of this, to which I 
will refer again shortly.

  Virtually all of the witnesses we heard agreed that the investment 
that had been made under TEA-21--in other words, the predecessor 
legislation to what we are now considering in the Senate--contributed 
to a renaissance for transit in this country. In fact, transit has 
experienced the highest percentage of ridership growth among all modes 
of surface transportation, growing almost 30 percent between 1993 and 
2001.
  We also heard testimony about the other benefits of transit. For 
example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified that $1 billion of 
capital investment in transit creates almost 50,000 jobs. Moreover, the 
economic development benefits of transit are becoming more and more 
apparent as new systems come into service. For example, we heard 
testimony from one of the county commissioners in Dallas that over $1 
billion had been invested in private development along Dallas's 
existing and future light rail lines, raising nearby property values 
and supporting thousands of jobs.
  We heard from a representative of BellSouth that his company decided 
to relocate almost 10,000 employees from scattered sites in suburban 
Atlanta to three downtown buildings near the MARTA rail stations 
because, as he put it, transit ``saves employees time. It saves 
employees money. It saves wear and tear on the employees' spirit.''
  Transit benefits the economy in other ways as well. For example, 
transit investments in one community can have repercussions in many 
areas around the country. The president of the American Public 
Transportation Association, Bill Millar, who has testified before the 
Senate on a number of occasions and has brought extraordinary 
leadership to this effort, pointed out that when one locality builds a 
rail system or develops its bus system, much of that construction or 
the assembly of those buses may well be done in a different 
jurisdiction. So one has to keep in mind when considering the economic 
benefits, it is not just the area that is upgrading the transit system 
that is getting the money, but that area in turn is spending its money 
on a whole range of supplies and services which take place elsewhere in 
the country. When Texas cities buy buses, for example, it may be a 
company in Colorado that is producing the buses. As Mr. Millar said, 
``While the Federal money would appear to be going one place, the 
impact of that money tends to go very far and wide.''
  Of course, transit is about more than our economic life. It is also 
about our quality of life. During our hearings, we heard a great deal 
about the importance of transit to our senior citizens, our young 
people, the disabled, and others who rely on transit for their daily 
mobility needs. There is a population out there, significant in number, 
whose mobility depends on transit systems. They do not have the 
alternative of the automobile.
  Several of our witnesses observed that the increased investment in 
transit and paratransit services under TEA-21, the previous 
legislation, provided the crucial link between home and a job, school, 
or a doctor's office, for millions of people who might not otherwise 
have been able to participate fully in the life of their community.
  Further, we saw after September 11 how transit can be an important 
lifeline in other respects, as well. We had very moving testimony 
during our hearings about the efforts made by transit operators on that 
day to move tens of thousands of people quickly and safely out of our 
city centers.
  As a result of transit's many benefits, the demand for transit is 
continuing to increase all across the Nation. States that for a long 
time had no interest in transit now have a very keen interest in 
transit. I say to the Presiding Officer, the State of Nevada is 
developing major transit in the Las Vegas area, for example, and it is 
made necessary by the population explosion which has taken place in 
that State over recent decades. Small towns, rural areas, suburban 
jurisdictions, large cities, all are struggling to keep up with the 
need to provide safe and reliable transit service for their citizens.
  The Department of Transportation has estimated that nationally 
communities will need $14 billion per year in capital investment simply 
to maintain the condition and performance of their transit systems, let 
alone what is necessary to improve conditions and service. If we do not 
make this investment today, we will be left with deteriorating 
infrastructure and worsening congestion tomorrow and that, of course, 
would be a depressing influence on our economy and would undermine our 
economic strength and vitality.

  The legislation before the Senate authorizes $56.5 billion in transit 
investment over the next 6 years. This is the amount approved by the 
Senate during consideration of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution and 
represents a substantial increase over TEA-21. Most experts conclude it 
is not adequate to address all the transit needs of the Nation, but it 
does represent a significant step forward in our efforts to improve our 
citizens' mobility and strengthen our national economy through 
investments in our transportation infrastructure.
  The legislation maintains a feature of both ISTEA and TEA-21, the two 
previous surface transportation acts, namely, parity between the 
transit program and the highway program so that they will be able to 
move ahead in a parallel and comparable fashion. We are appreciative of 
our colleagues on other committees for recognizing the importance of 
that proposition.
  Moreover, the legislation maintains the existing 80% Federal match on 
new starts transit projects. Again, that maintains the parallelism that 
has existed between highways and transit so that the decision being 
made at the local level is not weighted in one direction or the other 
because of the match that is required in order to move forward with the 
transportation infrastructure. Mayor McCrory of Charlotte, North 
Carolina, made this point at one of our hearings when he observed that 
``there's a strong need to keep the program 80-20, as we do for other 
forms of transportation, including roads. That does send a strong 
message that transit is as important as our road network.''
  The proposal brought forward by Chairman Shelby provides for growth 
in both the urban and rural formula program, with added emphasis placed 
on the rural program. The committee was sensitive to the needs of the 
rural areas of our country, and the rural program will see significant 
growth in order to help States with large rural areas provide the 
services their residents need.
  The bill also increases the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program. 
This funding is very important to helping cities with older rail 
systems, which in some cases were built almost a century ago, make the 
investments needed to preserve those highly successful systems, which 
move millions of people every working day.
  The New Starts program, which helps communities make their first 
major investment in transit as well as expand

[[Page S618]]

existing systems, also grows under this bill. The New Starts program 
will allow communities to address their growing needs with transit 
investment and gain the benefits of transit that exist elsewhere in the 
country.
  The bill makes a significant change in the New Starts program by 
allowing New Starts funding to be used for the first time to fund 
transit projects that do not operate along a fixed guideway, as long as 
the project is seeking less than $75 million in Federal funds. There 
are a few projects of this type currently operating the Nation, and I 
hope to work with the Federal Transit Administration to ensure that the 
FTA develops an appropriate quantitative methodology for evaluating the 
costs and benefits of such projects, particularly as they relate to 
land use and economic development impacts. As we begin to experiment 
with different forms of transit service, we must be careful not to 
adversely impact FTA's highly competitive and successful process for 
moving projects through the New Starts program.
  While the bill preserves the general structure of TEA-21, several new 
formulas are included to target transit funds more directly to those 
states and cities with extraordinary transportation needs. The bill 
includes a new Growth and Density Formula: the growth portion will 
distribute funds to all states based on their expected future 
population, and the density portion will provide funding to those 
states whose populations are above a certain density threshold. The 
bill also includes an incentive tier to reward small transit-intensive 
cities--those cities with a population between 50,000 and 200,000 which 
provide higher-than-average amounts of transit service. The funds 
distributed under these new formulas will help communities address 
their unique transportation needs.
  So there is an effort in this legislation to recognize the various 
types of transit needs across the Nation. Of course, as you do any 
formula, no one gets as much as they would like to get, but you work 
within certain constraints. Given the framework within which the 
committee had to work, I think we have responded fairly and rationally 
to the needs that have been expressed to us. We have a new growth and 
density formula in this legislation. We make some changes in the fixed 
guideway program to give a little more discretion for smaller projects. 
But, all in all, I think this is a balanced package. I commend it to my 
colleagues, and of course I am happy to discuss with any of them any 
questions they may have.
  I want to highlight just a few more of the bill's provisions. The 
bill includes a requirement that metropolitan planning organizations 
develop a public participation plan to ensure that public 
transportation employees, affected community members, users of public 
transportation, freight shippers, private sector providers--all the 
interested parties concerned about the transportation infrastructure--
have an opportunity to participate in the transportation plan approval 
process. Transportation investments are among the most important 
decisions made at the local level. I firmly believe all interested 
parties should have an opportunity to contribute to this process. Our 
transportation infrastructure is central to making our economy, and 
indeed our society in a broader sense, work day to day. That is why 
this is such a critical and important piece of legislation.
  I am pleased that the legislation includes a new transit in parks 
program to help national parks and other public lands find alternative 
transportation solutions to the traffic problems they are now facing. 
This is a program the administration supports, and it has had very 
strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It is an effort to address the 
problem, made manifest in certain of our Western national parks, of the 
overcrowding that has come with increased visitation. You have people 
who wait in line all day long to get into Yosemite, for example. They 
get to the entrance and they cannot get in, because the park's roads 
and parking lots are at capacity. It is a very serious problem.
  TEA-21 required the Department of Transportation to conduct a study 
of alternative transportation needs in our national parks and other 
public lands, and that study confirmed that the parks are ready and 
willing to develop transit alternatives. This legislation will help the 
parks make investments in traditional public transit, such as shuttle 
buses or trolleys, or other types of public transportation appropriate 
to the park setting, such as waterborne transportation or bicycle and 
pedestrian facilities.
  I also want to note that the bill makes a number of modifications to 
section 5333(b), known as section 13(c), the transit employee labor 
protections. These provisions were the result of extended discussions 
between the transit labor unions and members of the committee who were 
concerned about the impact of 13(c) on the transit program. I note that 
section 13(c) has been a part of every transit bill since 1964, 
providing crucial collective bargaining and job right protections. It 
has served to unify a broad coalition of transit industry and employee 
representatives to form a unique partnership which has worked together 
to expand the Federal transit program to what it is today: an 
unequivocal success. I want to mention one modification which addresses 
the concerns of members regarding issues arising when one private 
contractor replaces another private contractor through competitive 
bidding. Such rights were addressed in the Department of Labor's Las 
Vegas decision dated September 21, 1994, as amplified by letter dated 
November 7, 1994. This legislation includes language in section 13(c) 
to ensure that the Department of Labor's decisions involving so-called 
``contractor to contractor rights'' are governed by the standards set 
forth in the Department's Las Vegas rulings, without otherwise 
affecting employee rights under section 13(c). In addition, I note that 
the changes to section 13(c) are not intended to impact the level of 
protections covering freight rail employees existing on the date 
immediately preceding enactment of this act.
  There are a number of other provisions in the legislation that modify 
previous aspects of the transit programs, but for the most part the 
committee's intention was not to enact major changes to a program that 
has worked well.
  For example, while the bill enhances the role of private-sector 
transit providers in several ways, it was not intended to change the 
long-standing congressional policy that decisions involving the choice 
between public and private transit operators should be left to local 
authorities who are better equipped to make local transportation 
decisions, and the Federal Government should remain neutral with 
respect to such local decision-making. In addition, while the 
definition of public transportation is modified slightly in the bill, 
the intent is to clarify, rather than change, the universe of modes and 
services encompassed by that definition.
  And as I indicated earlier, some of the changes with respect to the 
formula seek to be sensitive to ensuring that all parts of the country 
can participate in the transit programs. But we have tried to 
essentially maintain most of the previous arrangements which have 
worked so successfully.
  I conclude by saying that this amendment provides essential support 
to our local and State partners in their efforts to combat congestion 
and pollution and to ensure that their citizens can access safe and 
reliable transit services. That is why the bill is strongly supported 
by a number of associations representing local officials, transit 
providers, environmental groups, and others.
  In a letter received by the committee yesterday, the American Public 
Transportation Association stated:

       We support your commitment to retain the overall structure 
     of the federal transit program and the decision to increase 
     federal investment in transit infrastructure. This increased 
     investment will not only improve and modernize the nation's 
     transportation system, but it will also create and sustain 
     millions of badly needed jobs.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter, along with 
other letters of support, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will close by saying, as these letters 
demonstrate, the legislation we are considering today is vitally 
important to

[[Page S619]]

keep America moving forward in the 21st century. It is no exaggeration 
to say this is essential legislation for the future strength and 
vitality of our economy and of our society. I very strongly urge my 
colleagues to support the legislation that has been brought forward 
from the Banking Committee, as I said, on a unanimous vote in a markup 
yesterday morning.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                          Community Transportation


                                                  Association,

                                                 February 5, 2004.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
         Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing 
         and Urban Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Shelby and Sarbanes: We'd like to take this 
     opportunity on behalf of our more than 7,000 members 
     providing community and public transportation services around 
     the nation, as well as the millions of Americans who rely on 
     these services every day, to commend you for your leadership 
     in the creation of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 
     2004.
       This groundbreaking legislation builds the kind of 21st 
     century transportation network our nation needs. We're 
     pleased that it recognizes the real character of public 
     transportation and invests in transit for communities of all 
     sizes and locations. At long last, this bill begins to 
     adequately address the transportation needs of rural 
     Americans and of senior citizens.
       Much of the success we've enjoyed in the past six years in 
     community and public transportation was based upon the 
     innovative guarantees and protections for transit financing 
     made by the federal government in TEA-21. Continuing these 
     guarantees in this important legislation is essential.
       There's an old proverb that says the journey of a thousand 
     miles begins with a single step. This bill is a giant step 
     toward building the foundation for America's transportation 
     future.
       We're grateful. Thank you on behalf of our members, and on 
     behalf of the American people.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dale J. Marsico,
     CCTM, Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                   American Public


                                   Transportation Association,

                                  Washington DC, February 4, 2004.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     Ranking Minority member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing 
         and Urban Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the 1,500 member 
     organizations of the American Public Transportation 
     Association (APTA), I write to express our appreciation for 
     your outstanding efforts in marking up the Federal Public 
     Transportation Act of 2004 today. We strongly support the 
     bill and urge Senators to oppose any amendments that would 
     upset the carefully crafted compromise that the Banking 
     Committee developed. In addition, we understand that an 
     amendment will be offered to guarantee funding for transit 
     and highway investment authorized under the transportation 
     bill (S. 1072) now under consideration on the Senate floor. 
     We strongly support that amendment as well, and urge the 
     Senate to adopt it.


                               about APTA

       APTA is a nonprofit international trade organization of 
     more than 1,500 public and private member organizations 
     including transit systems and commuter railroads; planning, 
     design, construction and finance firms, product and service 
     providers; academic institutions, state associations and 
     departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public 
     interest by providing safe, efficient and economical transit 
     services and products. Over ninety percent of riders using 
     public transportation in the United States and Canada are 
     served by APTA member systems.


                     senate banking committee bill

       APTA applauds your leadership in crafting this important 
     legislation. We support your commitment to retain the overall 
     structure of the federal transit program and the decision to 
     increase federal investment in transit infrastructure. This 
     increased investment will not only improve and modernize the 
     nation's transportation system, but it will also create and 
     sustain millions of badly needed jobs.


                               conclusion

       Again, please accept APTA's gratitude and support for your 
     efforts. We look forward to working with you to enact 
     legislation that addresses the nation's critical need to 
     maintain and improve our surface transportation 
     infrastructure. If we can be of assistance in any way please 
     have your staff contact me or Rob Healy of APTA's Government 
     Affairs staff.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                William W. Millar,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                                 February 5, 2004.
     Hon. William H. Frist,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: In January the United States Conference of 
     Mayors met in Washington, D.C. for our 72nd Winter Meeting to 
     chart a new agenda for keeping America's metropolitan 
     economies strong. The cornerstone of that agenda is the 
     reauthorization of TEA-21 that invests in public transit.
       From that discussion we write to express our support for 
     the Senate Banking Committee transit title funding level 
     providing $56.5 billion over six years for the federal 
     transit program with at least $47 billion of the $56.5 
     billion for the transit program from the Mass Transit Account 
     of the Highway Trust Fund. We also urge you to protect the 
     funding guarantees and firewall for the transit program in 
     its entirety.
       Mayors know all too well the negative impacts of increasing 
     congestion on our cities and recognize that anything less 
     than $56.5 billion for transit will continue America's 
     dependence on the automobile and continue the funding 
     challenges for the rail modernization, new starts, and bus 
     programs.
       We applaud the Banking Committee's work on reauthorizing 
     the transit title of TEA-21 and look forward to providing 
     further feedback on other issues in the bill once we are able 
     to review the entire proposal. With strong backing from 
     mayors across the nation, we stand ready to work with you on 
     the reauthorization of TEA-21.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James A. Garner,
     Mayor of Hempstead, President.
                                  ____

                                                 February 5, 2004.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
         Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing 
         and Urban Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shelby and Ranking Minority Member Sarbanes: 
     On behalf of the Surface Transportation Policy Project and 
     its many partner organizations, we are writing to convey our 
     support for the ``Federal Public Transportation Act of 
     2004'', legislation approved February 4 that provides for a 
     6-year, $56.5 billion program commitment to public 
     transportation as well as other critical transportation 
     policies under your Committee's jurisdiction.
       We want to commend you and members of the Committee for 
     renewing the key program elements of current law, ensuring 
     that the recent successes in improving public transportation 
     services under TEA-21 will continue into this next renewal 
     period. Our support for this package, however, is conditioned 
     upon resolving outstanding funding issues with the full 
     Senate regarding funding guarantees and firewalled spending 
     to ensure that the critical feature of TEA-21 that made 
     expanded transit investment and improved services possible is 
     part of the final package. This must ensure that transit 
     providers, other agencies and the public can count on the 
     full $56.5 billion over the 6-year renewal period.
       Specifically, we want to applaud your efforts to protect 
     the core elements of the existing program structure, ranging 
     from continuation of the Rail Modernization program to the 
     Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program, while finding 
     resources to support new policy efforts such as those 
     envisioned under the President's New Freedom Initiative and 
     Transit in the Parks program. Finally, we also want to convey 
     our support for the Committee's affirmation of current law 
     protections for clean air conformity and other clean air-
     related provisions as well as preserving other important 
     current law policies governing NEPA and other project 
     delivery elements. It is our firm position that final 
     provisions in the Senate bill must fully account for the need 
     to consider fairly and fully transportation alternatives that 
     minimize or avoid adverse impacts and affirm locally 
     determined priorities. In this way, this renewal legislation 
     will ensure that State and local investment decisions are 
     more balanced, offering more choices to the public and making 
     continuing gains in air quality and other community health 
     and environmental objectives.
       We support your legislation with the aforementioned 
     condition and urge your colleagues to support it fully during 
     Senate action on TEA-21 renewal.
           Sincerely,
         America Bikes, Association for Commuter Transportation, 
           American Society of Landscape Architects, Chicago 
           Bicycle Federation, Environmental and Energy Study 
           Institute, Environmental Defense, National Association 
           of Railroad Passengers, National Parks Conservation 
           Association, National Recreation and Park Association, 
           Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Smart 
           Growth America, Surface Transportation Policy Project, 
           Union of Concerned Scientist.


[[Page S620]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. While the ranking member and the chairman are in the 
Chamber, I wish to express my appreciation--and I think that of the 
entire Senate--for the bipartisan bill that is now going to be part of 
this highway bill. These two men--the senior Senator from Alabama and 
the senior Senator from Maryland--are legislators. They are 
experienced. They understand when there is a time to be partisan and 
when there is a time not to be partisan. They understand when it is 
important to move forward for the good of this country. And that is 
what they did.
  Without their leadership, we could not be in our present position. We 
have the highway portion of this bill that has been laid down. We have 
a few of our little technical things to do before they are joined 
together perfectly, but the transit portion of the bill--they are both 
excellent pieces of legislation. The transit portion of the bill 
affects all of our country.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, the city of Las Vegas--and Reno to a 
lesser extent--is very dependent on transit moneys now. I cannot say 
enough to express my personal appreciation and that of the Senate for 
the work done by these two fine men. This is good legislation. I hope 
we can move forward on it quickly.
  I wish to say, after having issued this compliment, with which I want 
the Record to be spread, that I have worked with Senator Inhofe on this 
legislation for now more than a year, and Senator Bond, and, of course, 
my distinguished former chairman and ranking member, Senator Jeffords.
  The concern I see at this stage--we have been on this bill for some 
time now, a matter of days--is that we have not moved far. We started 
at the goal line, and we are at about the 5-yard line. We have to get 
to the other goal line, which is 95 yards away.
  There is an issue that has been brought up by the distinguished 
senior Senator from the State of New Hampshire. I was talking to some 
of my friends earlier today. We have very few people in this 
legislative body who are as experienced as the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire--a House of Representatives Member, Governor, now a Senator--
and he has brought forward an amendment he believes in, and he is not 
going to leave until something happens on this amendment. He may leave 
physically, but he is going to be around here. We are going to have to 
dispose of this amendment.
  It is obvious now that the majority will not accept a voice vote. We 
do not have enough votes to table the amendment, and I would not vote 
to table his amendment anyway. So we have, on this amendment, a 
filibuster. That is what it is. It is a filibuster by I don't know how 
many members of the majority, but at least one.
  I think we should recognize that it is holding up this bill. This 
bill is a very important piece of legislation: $255 billion that has 
been supported by trust fund moneys--all but $30 billion of it. The 
other $30 billion has been accounted for.
  In my opinion, the administration has signed off on this. Any veto 
threat they have issued has been related to what they are trying to do 
in the House. So as hard as the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Inhofe, has worked, he cannot do anything as long as he has people on 
his side trying to hold up this bill. I think there has to be a 
decision made on what we are going to do about this. We have spent a 
couple of days hoping the senior Senator from New Hampshire would go 
away. I have had a lot of experience with him and he doesn't go away 
very easily.
  I think we should recognize that we have an amendment that is popular 
and it has been brought here previously and more than 50 people will 
support his amendment. Whether 60 people will support it is another 
question. The leadership should understand that this bill is not going 
anyplace until we dispose of this amendment. It is extraneous, as the 
chairman will recognize. On this side, we believe in this bill and we 
thought, at least during this week, there should be no extraneous 
amendments offered.
  We want to get the bill passed. This is important to the people of 
this country. If we want to create jobs, this is the way to do it: pass 
the highway bill. As many as 2 million jobs could be created with this 
highway bill. So I hope the majority realizes the predicament they are 
in. We are willing to work with them in any reasonable way to try to 
move beyond where we are today. Just giving speeches out here on the 
bill is not going to do the trick. If we want to pass the bill, we are 
going to have to, in effect, get rid of the Gregg amendment. I have to 
be careful how I say this. One of my friends told me something the 
other day. We were in a huddle talking about the bill, and I said: We 
are going to have to figure out a way to get rid of Judd Gregg.
  He said: You better be careful saying stuff like that. In England, 
the history is very clear that on the occasion when the King said the 
Archbishop is causing me a lot of problems, a couple days later three 
people went out and assassinated the Archbishop.
  We certainly don't mean to apply that to Judd Gregg. We are talking 
about his amendment, not him personally. It is a problem with his 
amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I am sure we all appreciate 
that clarification. I often wish the Senators who are not on the 
committee knew the time, effort, the bridges we have crossed, the 
compromises we have made, and the time we have spent. We have some 
provisions that have nothing to do with the formula or the issues or 
the nongermane issues that the Senator from New Hampshire has. It has 
been very difficult. It has taken many hours and committee hearings. We 
have had people coming in from local governments and State governments 
to get where we are today.
  We would like to have gotten to this point back when the other 
authorization ran out but were unable to do it. We made a commitment 
that we would be there, and we are capable of being there now when this 
expires on February 29. So there is going to be every effort to get 
that done.
  I know the Senator from Rhode Island wants to be heard. It will be my 
intention to reclaim the floor at the conclusion of his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Inhofe for his great 
effort to move the highway provisions forward. I very much would like 
to speak about the public transit issue.
  Let me begin by commending Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member 
Sarbanes for their extraordinary efforts on a bipartisan basis to 
ensure that we continue the success that we have enjoyed since TEA-21 
with our public transit programs throughout the country. I also thank 
Senators Daschle, Jeffords, Santorum, and Baucus for their efforts to 
convince the Finance Committee to provide us with the adequate 
resources that were necessary to bring this transit bill to the floor.
  The bill before us today is a strong step forward toward meeting our 
Nation's significant transit needs. Over the course of the last 2 
years, I had the opportunity, first, to serve as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Banking Committee, 
and then as ranking member to my colleague, Senator Wayne Allard of 
Colorado. Our joint tenure as chair and ranking member, respectively, 
allowed us to look deeply at the issues confronting transit throughout 
the United States. We had a number of hearings and we were able to get 
a broad-based spectrum of witnesses to talk about the successes and the 
challenges that face transit throughout the United States.
  We heard from each region of the country--northern and southern, 
rural and urban. Mass transit is not exclusive to one region. In fact, 
what we are finding throughout the country, particularly as 
metropolitan areas grow and transit needs increase and commuting 
increases, every community is looking for ways to incorporate transit 
in their overall transportation plan--not simply to move people but 
also to meet environmental standards, which are increasingly difficult 
to achieve without some type of transit system. We heard from 
businesspeople, environmentalists, senior citizens, the disabled, and 
those making the transition from welfare to work. We heard from the 
administration and from academics who are experts in the field of 
transit.
  Now, while these witnesses did not agree about every detail, they 
shared

[[Page S621]]

one central message: TEA-21 works. The current Federal program for 
transit support works very well, but preserving that success is 
jeopardized by one simple thing: resources. We have to reinforce 
success. If we do not provide the resources and continued commitment, 
we will lose that success; we will disadvantage communities throughout 
this country.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased today that the bill we have before 
us in the Senate makes some changes to current law, but it takes that 
central message to heart and provides increased resources to meet the 
demands of all of our communities for more effective public 
transportation.
  When we passed TEA-21 years ago, transit funding doubled and 
ridership rose by 28 percent--faster than any other mode of 
transportation. Mass transit is increasing faster in terms of its use 
by the American public than any other form of transportation. Another 
example is how this program is being successfully greeted 
enthusiastically by people throughout this country. It is my hope the 
bill before us, which would provide $56.5 billion for transit of all 
types, can help achieve the same levels of return on our investment, 
and that we see a continued increase in ridership and use. That has a 
positive effect in terms of moving people throughout metropolitan areas 
and rural areas to get to their jobs. It has a positive effect in terms 
of making the cost of transportation lower for most people. Also, as I 
mentioned, it has beneficial environmental effects.
  This bill would increase our transit formula programs by 56 percent, 
on average, and no State sees a rate of increase below 37 percent for 
its apportionment, and the vast majority of States are at or above the 
national average.
  The bill is not just an urban transit bill. Indeed, rural transit 
programs would grow from $1 billion under TEA-21 to almost $3 billion 
under this legislation.
  The committee also responded to the needs of States experiencing the 
highest rates of population growth and those States with high levels of 
population density by creating a new program to address the traffic 
congestion so commonly experienced in these areas.
  The bill also increases funding for the Elderly and Disabled Transit 
Program from $90 million in the current fiscal year to $187 million in 
fiscal year 2005 and would continue to increase this essential program 
to a total of $248 million in fiscal year 2009.
  This legislation will also provide significantly greater 
discretionary funding to improve our Nation's bus fleets and expand or 
construct new transit projects.
  One of the areas that was of great concern to Senator Allard and I in 
our deliberations was the impact of 9/11 on our transit system. This 
legislation recognizes that after 9/11, we can't assume that transit is 
just business as usual. We all recognize the vital role that transit 
played in mitigating the damages, both in New York City and in 
Washington, DC.
  The transit system in Washington, DC, was remarkable in terms of 
moving and evacuating the city. The transit system in New York City was 
critical in literally saving thousands of lives as alert and 
experienced transit operators were able to close stations, move people 
out of stations, reroute trains, and save thousands of lives. We have 
to learn from that example. We have to incorporate in this 
legislation--and I am proud to say we do--the responsibility and also 
the flexibility so that local communities can use transit funds to 
prepare their workforce for these types of dangers. It is something 
that is necessary and something, indeed, I am proud to see.
  We held two hearings in the subcommittee with respect to transit 
safety issues. In addition to that, Senator Sarbanes and I commissioned 
a GAO study to look at the security needs for transit systems. Those 
needs are significant. This bill at least attempts to provide the 
resources to begin dealing seriously with those transit security needs.
  Indeed, I am glad recommendations by the GAO have been incorporated 
in the bill before us. I am particularly pleased that urban grant 
recipients will be able to use their Federal funds to better train 
their personnel in security needs, as well as conduct emergency 
response drills to prepare for a potential terrorist incident. Such 
training is one of the single most important things that transit 
agencies can do to improve their passenger security.
  This is an important step forward toward improved transit security. 
But there are two other issues that Congress and the administration 
must address.
  First, the Department of Homeland Security must formally accept its 
responsibility for protecting the millions of Americans who ride our 
bus and rail systems every day. I hope to offer an amendment, when 
appropriate, to this legislation to ensure the Department of Homeland 
Security does take these responsibilities seriously. And second, 
improved transit security will require more resources than we are able 
to provide within the context of this reauthorization bill. I hope I 
can count on all of my colleagues to support increased funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations so that it can use those 
funds to enhance the security of transit systems throughout this 
country.
  One of the unfortunate aspects of the world in which we live is that 
our foes seek the weakest links when they choose to attack us. 
Unfortunately, we have not invested in transit security to the degree 
we have in aviation and port security. It is, unfortunately, the 
weakest link, and we have to improve it.
  Transit is an essential part of our Nation's economy in every region 
of the country. The investments in this legislation will help to ease 
congestion on our highways, reduce pollution, and provide for a 
smoother functioning and more efficient economy. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this important measure.
  Once again, I commend Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes for 
their great efforts, and also Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords for 
their leadership on the highway bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
of the Banking Committee not only for their work on this important part 
of the legislation but also for their willingness to work with me to 
reconcile the environmental provisions that are contained in this 
amendment with the provisions contained in S. 1072.
  S. 1072 amends title 23 of the United States Code to provide for 
adjustments in the transportation planning process. The amendment the 
Banking Committee has admirably drafted contains similar provisions 
that amend title 49 of the code.
  I understand that for the sake of good policy--that is, minimal 
confusion to the entities that must implement this law--the chairman 
and ranking member are willing to work with us to craft provisions that 
are consistent with the two titles. I thank the Senators for their 
help.
  Mr. President, I am also very pleased that the bill the Environment 
and Public Works Committee reported contains a provision that will help 
fund community efforts to provide safe routes to schools for 
schoolchildren who walk or who ride their bikes to school.
  This would include funding for overpasses, underpasses, red lights, 
or other ways to help reduce accidents and keep schoolchildren safer.
  The exact use of the funds would depend on the needs of the local 
community. The funding is important because many school districts have 
a policy of prohibiting bus service for children living within a mile 
or perhaps a half mile of the school.
  A National Academy of Sciences report shows that, on average, almost 
16,000 schoolage children per year are injured or killed during normal 
school travel hours. Let me repeat that number. Almost 16,000 
schoolchildren are injured or killed during normal school travel hours. 
Thus, I support strong funding for safer routes to the schools.
  I know that in my home State of Vermont, especially in the dark 
winter mornings when it is icy, schoolchildren can be at risk while 
walking to school. When Vermont warms up, many schoolchildren may 
choose to ride bikes to school, and we should make it as safe as 
possible for them to get safely to and from school.

[[Page S622]]

  Often school districts do not provide bus service to children living 
near the schools they attend. Yet research shows that many children are 
injured within a mile or so of their homes.
  The provision in our bill will provide $70 million per year to help 
States and local communities reduce these serious risks to 
schoolchildren. The committee report notes that the purpose of this 
program is to enable and to encourage children to walk and bicycle to 
school and encourages a healthy and active lifestyle by making walking 
and biking to school safer or a more appealing transportation 
alternative for those living close to school.
  I look forward to working with the other body on this important 
initiative. I know that safe routes to schools is important to my 
friend, Congressman Oberstar, and to a great many of his colleagues.
  I thank Senators Inhofe and Bond for working with Senator Reid and me 
on this important issue. We worked out a strong provision regarding 
safe routes to school.
  Mr. President, I wish to briefly discuss the freight provisions we 
have included in this bill. We have crafted a package that provides 
considerable flexibility to States and metropolitan planning 
organizations in addressing freight rail concerns.

  We have made improvements to intermodal freight transportation 
projects eligible for the Surface Transportation Program and the 
National Highway System funding.
  We will have each State designate a freight coordinator to assist in 
integrating freight concerns into statewide planning and metropolitan 
planning.
  We have also included funding to improve the condition and 
performance of the National Highway System intermodal connectors. These 
connectors are those last mile connections to ports and other freight-
related facilities that experience a high volume of traffic and have 
not received the proper amount of attention in the past.
  These freight rail provisions make our bill very responsive to the 
needs of the freight community.
  These are important sections of the bill. I wish to emphasize the 
need for transit improvement. As we travel around this Nation, from 
California to New York--wherever we go--we have to develop better ways 
for our transit systems to be more effective. Looking worldwide, we 
have seen incredible improvements in some countries that are very 
populous with the utilization of new transit systems and new modes of 
transportation, such as maglev and other evolving systems. This is very 
important, and it is going to be more important as we continue to go 
forward and continue to increase the number of automobiles on our 
highways.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Before the Senator yields the floor, will he yield for a 
question?
  First, I appreciate the fact the ranking member of the committee is 
bringing up these issues. Everything he mentioned was controversial. 
Fortunately, we didn't have to handle a lot of the problems with 
transit because that was done in another committee, and I certainly 
commend the chairman of the committee, as well as the ranking 
member, as well as the subcommittee ranking member and subcommittee 
chairman. I understand the subcommittee chairman is going to come on 
the floor and make some comments.

  When the Senator talks about safe routes to school, I think that is a 
good example of the weeks and months we spent coming to an agreement. 
Frankly, Senator Jeffords is the one driving force to get up from $50 
million to $75 million. I felt that perhaps priorities could be in some 
other areas.
  In looking at this, I want to commend the Senator for the work he did 
because I think he is right. We probably spent several months just on 
the freight area. Everyone knows that was not adequately addressed in 
TEA-21 and was not adequately addressed in ISTEA. I appreciate very 
much the time the Senator has spent in these very sensitive and 
controversial areas where it was give and take, it was compromise. Many 
times we gave up something we believed in in order to accomplish it and 
come up with a bill, a good bill, which we have right now.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my chairman. I understand his dedication to 
doing so much more as we go forward. We are accomplishing a lot today, 
and yet we still have to sit down and look to the future as soon as we 
are done with the present.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask if the chairman of the committee has any further 
comments to make concerning this particular part of the bill, the 
transit portion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I hope we can get together in the hours to 
come and try to put a package together, perhaps, and move this bill. 
This is an important bill in America for highways and transit. It 
affects everybody in America. It affects every Congressman's district, 
every Senator, and I think it is too important to ignore in any way.
  I commend the senior Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of the 
committee, for the work he has done. He has been pushing this highway 
bill--I know because he has been pushing me--for months and months. I 
do not know how many hours of work he and his staff have put in, along 
with Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and others. This is just too 
important. It affects so many Americans. It covers everything dealing 
with our infrastructure, and it will be good for the economy.
  The Presiding Officer comes from one of the fastest growing States in 
the United States. Moving people in his State, as well as a lot of 
others, is very important. There has to be lead time to plan. I believe 
this is a good bill, considering everything. We have put it together in 
a bipartisan way in the Banking Committee where we, as well as the 
other committee, have authorization for transit. I stand ready to work 
with the principals to move this bill as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I recognize my good friend from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks made by 
Chairman Shelby. I think they are right on point. I want to stress 
again to my colleagues, as I understand it, the highway bill was 
brought out of the Environment and Public Works Committee with an 
overwhelming vote, almost unanimous but not quite. I think there were 
two exceptions, but otherwise all members of that committee on both 
sides of the aisle were supportive of this legislation.
  The transit part that is being offered as a title or an amendment to 
the highway bill came out of the Banking Committee with a unanimous 
vote. I think this reflects the fact that in both venues, both forums, 
a major effort was made over a sustained period of time to address the 
problems Members confronted and to try to develop a formula, an 
allocation, and other provisions of the legislation that would be 
responsive to their needs.
  So I say to my colleagues, this is legislation that has been very 
carefully developed. It has been worked over and over and I think it is 
a very good product. I think it has struck a very good balance. I think 
it contains within it a vision for the country.

  There is a clamor across the country for this legislation on the part 
of the public and on the part of all of the stakeholders who deal with 
these issues. State governments, local governments, the various highway 
and transit groups, business interests, labor interests, are all 
strongly supportive of this legislation.
  The reason they are so strongly supportive is because they recognize 
this legislation is critical to moving the Nation ahead. It is 
essential for the economy. It is essential for enhancing the quality of 
life. People are spending hours trying to get to and from work and we 
need to help address that issue. Seniors, young people, and the 
disabled need these various forms of transportation in order to live 
their lives. I strongly commend this legislation to my colleagues. A 
great deal of work has gone into it by many Members of this body. I 
think it is very important that we move this legislation forward and 
over the next few days to come, I hope we will be able to accomplish 
that and put into place this extremely important legislation.
  Actually, in one of the statements of the majority leader he 
indicated he

[[Page S623]]

thought this might well be the most important legislation to be 
considered by this body in this session of the Congress. I do not think 
that is an overstatement and I again commend this legislation to my 
colleagues. I thank Chairman Shelby for the very productive, positive, 
and cooperative way in which he worked on this legislation and I join 
with him in commending Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for 
the very fine work that was done in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their 
efforts in the Finance Committee that, in effect, developed a full 
package that will make this legislation work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments the Senator made. I know it is 
a very difficult area to deal in, but I think it is also interesting. 
When we look at the chairman, the ranking member, and then the chairman 
of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee, there 
is Alabama, Maryland, Colorado, Rhode Island. There is a huge 
diversity. Most people think that geographically only certain parts of 
the country have an interest in transit. It is not true at all because 
there is equal enthusiasm. I am quite sure, knowing all four 
personalities and the areas they represent, they spent a long time 
putting this together, coming up with the successes they did achieve.
  I would like to go back and review a couple of subjects we have 
talked about, but, first, I understand that perhaps Senator Carper was 
wanting to seek recognition.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. Chairman, when it is appropriate, I will welcome the 
opportunity to speak for maybe 5 to 10 minutes on the bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. The Senator may have longer than that if he wishes, and 
then I would want to reclaim the floor at the conclusion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The Senator from Oklahoma yields 
the floor. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, in 
voicing my thanks for the work that has been done on the legislation 
before us today, and certainly to Senator Inhofe and his staff and 
Senator Jeffords and his staff.
  As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, it has really been a 
pleasure for me these last 12 months to work with our new chairman--
well, not so new chairman--Senator Shelby and our ranking member, 
former chairman, Senator Sarbanes, as we have attempted to craft any 
number of pieces of legislation. Last year, the Fair Credit Reporting 
Act, which I described yesterday, with Senator Shelby, was just a model 
in the way we should be creating legislation in a badly divided 
Congress these days.
  I don't know if the bill before us is going to be held out as a model 
for crafting legislation, but my hope is the product is going to be a 
good one for us and for our country.
  I would like to speak for a few minutes about the transit provisions 
of this bill and then to talk a bit about our support as a nation for 
rail transportation and whether or not we have provided the right 
support and sense of priority for rail, be it freight rail or passenger 
rail.
  Let's go back to the 1970s when something called the Urban Mass 
Transit Administration was created. We talk about legislation. We 
didn't have ISTEA; we didn't have TEA-21; we had a highway bill. Every 
several years the Congress would pass a highway bill. Even after the 
Urban Mass Transit Administration was created, we would pass in the 
Congress from time to time a highway bill.
  In due course, the Urban Mass Transit Administration became the 
Federal Transit Administration. Somewhere I believe in the 1980s, the 
Federal Transit Administration funding was joined with the highway bill 
to become a transportation bill and we began taking money. Today I 
think it is a little less than 3 cents for every gallon of gasoline 
that is sold that will be allocated to the Federal Transit 
Administration to support mass transit services, including buses, 
including rail and a variety of other transit services.
  With respect to the transit provisions of this bill, I think they 
represent our growing awareness that while roads and bridges and 
highways are important and we still love our cars in this country--
cars, trucks, and vans--more and more people are using transit. It is a 
good thing they are. With the kind of congestion we have on our 
highways, with the kind of dependence on foreign oil and the kind of 
problems with air pollution, it certainly makes sense to have people 
get out of the cars, trucks, and vans to use transit to go to work or 
go shop or go to a ball game or any variety of other purposes.
  I would like us to think of our transportation system in this country 
holistically for just a moment. It includes our highways, our roads, 
our bridges. It also includes transit. Last year we spent a fair amount 
of time reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration. In doing so, 
a variety of related programs, including the airport improvement 
program, were reauthorized. You may recall we fund aviation 
improvements, and particularly airport improvements, from a variety of 
user fees and some general fund moneys.

  Last year we focused on aviation and how to improve our aviation 
component of our transportation system. This week we are focusing on 
highways and roads. Today we are focusing a bit on transit.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a consent request? I ask 
unanimous consent to be able to proceed after the Senator from Delaware 
finishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. At a day and age in which some 16 percent of our freight 
in this country is shipped by rail, all told over 40 percent of our 
total ton miles of intercity freight go by rail, we have not yet seen 
fit to say the Federal Government should have some interest, more than 
just a passing interest, in helping to support, to nurture the rail 
component of our transportation system.
  Later, probably not this week but I suspect next week, we will have 
the opportunity to consider that question: What kind of attention, what 
kind of support should we in the Congress and in this country be 
providing for freight rail service? What kind of support should we be 
providing in this country for passenger rail service?
  Amtrak has just concluded a year where they had the highest ridership 
in the history of the company. More than 24 million people rode 
intercity passenger trains, and they had the highest revenue, I 
believe, for any year in their history as well.
  We spend a whole lot of time from year to year in this body talking 
about passenger rail service and Amtrak. We really don't focus much on 
freight rail. I would have us keep in mind, in a day and age where we 
are using some 55 percent of the oil we use to run our cars, trucks, 
and vans, 55 percent of it comes from foreign sources.
  You can take 1 ton of freight, put it on a train here in Washington, 
DC, and take it up to Boston, MA, and you use 1 gallon of diesel fuel. 
Let me say that again. You take 1 ton of freight, put it on a freight 
train here in Washington, DC, take it up the Northeast corridor to 
Boston, MA, and that train will use 1 gallon of diesel fuel to move a 
ton of freight by rail.
  As Governor of Delaware, I was involved a whole lot in trying to 
improve our highways, our roads, our bridges. There has been a lot of 
State money and, frankly, a good deal of Federal money. We are always 
grateful for that partnership. We invest a considerable amount of money 
in transit services. We invest State money in airports along with 
Federal money.
  We also invested State money in rail transportation projects. We did 
not have as a partner in those rail transportation projects the Federal 
Government. However, if it were a highway project, for every 20 cents 
we put up, the Federal Government would put up 80 cents to match. If we 
had the opportunity to choose between projects where we were getting an 
80-20 match, an 80-cent match for our 20 cents on a highway project, 
and we had the option of putting our money and no Federal money in a 
rail project, the funding formula just automatically skewed our 
decisionmaking.
  We may have had a rail project that made a whole lot more sense for 
our State, got a whole lot better bang for

[[Page S624]]

the buck than the highway project, but we were inclined and encouraged 
to use the money for the highway project because of a far better 
return, 80 to 20 versus nothing for our 100 cents.
  What I think some of us will be really asked to think about next week 
is whether it makes sense to say the Federal Government should be at 
least a modest partner in encouraging the utilization of freight rail--
greater utilization of freight rail. Today, the role is almost zero.
  I believe we can do better than that. There are a whole lot of 
different approaches, different ideas and thoughts about creating an 
entity that would issue bonds. The interest on those bonds would be 
paid for by the Federal Government through tax credits. The entity 
issuing those bonds would be essentially paid. There has been 
discussion of adding an extra penny or so to the Federal gas tax and 
using those funds to support rail in some context.
  I know when I served on the impact board--and former Governor Tommy 
Thompson preceded me--he and I both suggested an extra half cent or so 
to the gas tax to provide additional money for capital investments for 
infrastructure. We thought that made sense.
  We may be asking our colleagues next week to look at an approach that 
suggests maybe a source of funding through a gasoline tax. I don't 
think creating an entity to issue new debt is the answer, at least not 
now--but to look for some source of funding that would provide some 
money for the next 6 years to States that have identified good rail 
projects, freight rail, or even passenger rail, which makes sense for 
those States; if they are willing to put up their money in order to 
match moneys from a Federal grant through the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, I think that is an idea that may not have had a lot of 
merit several years ago.
  But, when you travel the highways around here or Delaware or Vermont 
or Maryland, I suspect even some places in Oklahoma, Missouri, 
Massachusetts, we see congestion on our roads the likes of which we 
have not seen in our lifetimes. When you travel to airports, whether it 
is in Philadelphia, or BWI, or other places around the country, the 
kind of congestion we see is congestion I have never seen in my 
lifetime, and the kinds of delays we are facing I have never seen in my 
lifetime.
  When I got out of the Navy in 1973 and got off active duty and moved 
from California to Delaware, about 30 percent of the oil used in 
Delaware back then in this country that year was oil we got from 
overseas.
  When we can move a ton of freight from Washington, DC to Boston on a 
freight train and use one gallon of diesel, that certainly says to me 
there are some lessons for fuel economy in this day and age that we 
ought to pay attention to.
  Senator Jeffords has provided great leadership with respect to clean 
air issues. We are wrestling and wrangling before the committee on what 
is the right approach. We have seen improvements in certain aspects of 
air quality. In the Northeast, we still have huge problems with respect 
to smog and nitrogen oxide; great problems with respect to mercury. I 
believe others here will agree to disagree that global warming is a 
growing concern. But in that kind of environment, the notion that we as 
a nation should be interested in fostering and encouraging a greater 
dependence on rail--freight and passenger--to move people and to move 
goods is I think the right notion.
  I want to close by going back to where I started.
  Again, we worked a whole lot last year on aviation. This week we are 
working on highways, roads, and bridges, and that certainly is 
appropriate. During today's debate, hopefully we will introduce transit 
into the fray. That is another important component of our 
transportation system that should get special attention. I don't know 
how long I am going to be in the Senate. I hope I will be here for a 
while. But I am going to keep reminding my colleagues that rail 
deserves a place at the table. If we provide that place, without even 
providing a huge amount of money, I think we are going to find our 
country and our respective States are well served by that attention.
  I thank the Senator very much for yielding the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield without losing the right to the 
floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yielded to the Senator from Delaware at his request, 
and I asked that I get the floor when he finished. I want to explain to 
the Senator why I wanted to get the floor back. We are on the transit 
section. The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Allard, has been 
waiting to be heard on that. I only inquire about how long the Senator 
will be until we regain the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is a relevant point. If the Senator is here and wants 
to make a brief statement on it, I would be glad to yield now if I have 
the right to follow.
  Mr. INHOFE. How much time does the Senator think he will require?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Probably 20 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If he is here on the relevant part, I would be glad to 
wait. That is an enormously important sector of it. I intend to speak 
very briefly about it, but I don't intend to be longer than that.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Shelby and Senator 
Sarbanes for their bold transit proposal that is before us. Throughout 
this process, they have been resolute in their defense of mass transit 
and the result is the proposal that benefits cities across this 
country. Simply put, mass transit, subways, commuter rail, and rapid 
transit is the lifeblood of metropolitan economies. We cannot expect 
our cities to remain the enormous economic engines they are today 
unless we make the critical investments.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently released a study that shows 
U.S. metropolitan areas have accounted for 87 percent of the Nation's 
economic growth and have generated over 85 percent of the economic 
output, labor, income, and jobs over the past 10 years. Eighty-seven 
percent of the Nation's economic growth was from the cities.
  When we consider statistics like these, I think my colleagues will 
agree this Senate should invest in transportation resources in a manner 
that benefits America's metropolitan areas.
  I am particularly happy to report that the package crafted by 
Senators Shelby and Sarbanes does just that, and all of us in the 
Senate are truly in their debt.
  On another matter, I strongly support the Public Safety Employer and 
Employee Cooperation Act amendment. I commend my colleague of the HELP 
Committee, Chairman Judd Gregg, for sponsoring the Public Safety 
Employer and Employee Cooperation Act, and for offering it as an 
amendment on this bill. I am a cosponsor on this bill which was 
reported out of the committee last fall. We are joined by 25 other 
sponsors of the Senate, including a number of our Republican 
colleagues.
  Our public safety workers play a tremendous role in protecting our 
communities and families. I remember the extraordinary courage we saw 
among those rescue workers, among those firefighters, and among those 
police officers on September 11 in 2001. They entered those burning 
buildings, risking their lives, and after the buildings fell, they 
raised an American flag amid the ruins. That image captures perfectly 
what these brave men and women do. They not only protect homes and our 
lives, they represent the very best that is in us. The courage and the 
sacrifice of ordinary working Americans is our Nation's greatest 
strength.

  We were prepared to call on these men and women on 9/11, and they 
answered the call. It is time to honor them--to honor their service and 
their sacrifice--by giving them collective bargaining rights.
  For more than 60 years, collective bargaining has enabled labor and 
management to work together to improve job conditions and to increase 
productivity. These productive relationships also help workers to 
obtain better wages, better health benefits and pension benefits.
  Collective bargaining in the public sector, once controversial, is 
now widely accepted. It has been common at

[[Page S625]]

least since 1962 when President Kennedy signed an executive order 
granting these basic rights to Federal employees. Indeed, over 30 
States already recognize bargaining rights for these employees. 
Unfortunately, public safety employees in many States still lack the 
right to bargain collectively. They lack a voice on the job. By giving 
them this voice, we will not only help these brave workers, but we will 
also increase the safety and effectiveness of our public services.
  This amendment guarantees the fundamental rights necessary for 
collective bargaining--the right to form and join a union, the right to 
bargain over working conditions, and the right to legally enforceable 
contracts.
  The benefits of this legislation are clear and compelling. First, 
this amendment will improve public safety. Our firefighters and police 
officers are better equipped than anyone else to know how to improve 
our public safety.
  As the former president of the Fraternal Order of Police testified at 
a congressional hearing in 2000: ``Public safety service is delivered 
by rank-and-file officers. Therefore, it is their observations and 
experience which will best refine the delivery of service. To exclude 
them from having any input relating to their job, particularly when 
their lives are on the line, is not only unfair to the officers, but 
the public they are sworn to protect.''

  Unfortunately, many public safety officers do not have this right 
today. They risk their jobs when they speak out about working 
conditions that are a danger to themselves and the public. Take, for 
example, the firefighters in Springdale, Arkansas, who testified to the 
city council about the need for better equipment in staffing. He was 
fired for insubordination. Or the firefighters in Odessa, Texas, who 
set up a Web site and newsletter publicizing the fire department's 
failure to provide them protective masks in the case of a chemical 
attack and were interrogated and disciplined for their actions.
  There are too many examples like this of public safety workers who 
see inadequate staffing and equipment, placing themselves and the 
public at risk, who do not have the right to bargain to change the 
problems in a contract. Our public safety employees know best what is 
needed to keep us safe. Under this amendment they would have the right 
to negotiate these workplace conditions with cities and towns they 
serve. This will lead to greater cooperation, improved labor-management 
relations, and better service.
  One example of this success can be found right here with the Capitol 
Police. When the Capitol Police were granted collective bargaining 
rights, their contract provided for a joint labor-management relations 
committee to review police practices, equipment, and officers' safety. 
As a result of these discussions, the United States Capitol Police were 
given greater access to body armor and upgraded weapons. Over a year 
before September 11, 2001, our officers were already aware of the need 
for increased security in the Capitol buildings, something we are 
reminded of every day, particularly this week.
  Collective bargaining is also more cost effective. A study by the 
International Association of Firefighters shows some States and 
municipalities that have given firefighters the right to discuss 
workplace issues have lower fire department budgets than States without 
such laws.
  Not only would collective bargaining benefit the public, it would 
help these employees who do so much to protect us. Every year more than 
15,000 police officers and 75,000 firefighters are injured on the job. 
On average, 160 police officers and nearly 100 firefighters die in the 
line of duty each year. This amendment gives these workers the 
opportunity to discuss the on-the-job safety concerns with the 
management. It would also give workers a chance to improve their wages 
and benefits.
  Public safety employees without collective bargaining rights are 
often paid less than their representative counterparts. In some of 
these States, it is not unheard of for firefighters to earn less than 
$18,400, the Federal poverty level for a family of four. Many of these 
workers have to pay for their own health insurance. This costs 
thousands of dollars a year they cannot afford.
  Some of my colleagues have previously expressed concern that this 
legislation affects States rights and public safety. This amendment 
would preserve States rights. Each State would maintain and administer 
its own collective bargaining law. States would have the ability to 
decide how they want to provide the collective bargaining rights. 
Indeed, the majority of the States already meet the amendment's 
criteria.
  This amendment also recognizes the importance of community security. 
I strongly believe our police officers and firefighters will always act 
to protect the safety of the public first. However, in order to ensure 
there is no possible risk to this, this amendment expressly prohibits 
the right to strike. My colleagues should, therefore, have no concern 
that this would in any way compromise the safety of our cities and our 
neighborhoods.
  The Federal Government recognized the right to collective bargaining 
more than 60 years ago. Public safety workers are one of the largest 
sectors of the workplace who do not yet have that basic right. Our 
Nation's police officers, firefighters, and emergency rescue workers 
have earned that right. I urge my colleagues to give them that right by 
supporting this amendment.


                                Medicare

  Mr. President, on another matter, the administration is robbing the 
Medicare Program to finance the Bush reelection campaign. That is 
wrong. Today, we call on the Comptroller General of the United States 
to investigate the legality, propriety, and accuracy of this 
unprecedented and improper use of taxpayers' money. The Washington Post 
describes the ads the Bush administration is running as designed to 
build public support for the new Medicare prescription drug law, 
seeking to counteract Democratic criticism that changes to the program 
will harm older Americans.
  The $12.6 million of Medicare money the Bush administration will 
spend on these ads is on top of the $10 million they plan to spend on a 
deceptive mailing to all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries touting the 
new law. There is no purpose for these advertisements except to 
convince senior citizens the Medicare bill is good for them. They are 
nothing more than propaganda for the Bush reelection campaign, using 
$23 million of senior citizens' own Medicare money.
  The merits of the new law are a legitimate subject for political 
debate. Democrats intend to keep talking about this issue all the way 
to November. We will be fighting to rewrite this deeply flawed and 
destructive bill. President Bush will be claiming credit for it, 
defending it, as he did in the State of the Union Message. He is 
entitled to do that. But he is not entitled to use senior citizens' own 
money, the taxpayers' own money, to sell this bill like a car or a cake 
of soap so the President can improve his fading chances of reelection.
  For those who have not seen the advertisement, it features actors 
pretending to be Medicare beneficiaries. Every question the actors ask 
is answered with a variant of a simple-minded slogan which is shown 
throughout the advertisement: Same Medicare, more benefits.
  The advertising campaign is managed--listen to this--the advertising 
campaign is managed by the same firm that works for the Bush reelection 
campaign and for the drug industry. If there is anyone who thinks the 
sole purpose of these ads is not to promote President Bush's 
reelection, they must come from another planet, maybe Mars.
  There is a lot the ads and mailings do not tell the senior citizens 
because the Bush administration understandably does not want them to 
know the facts of the new law. Its bland assurance that the elderly can 
keep their Medicare does not tell them the administration's own 
estimates project over $50 billion in excess payments to Medicare HMOs 
in order to prevent Medicare from competing on a level playing field 
and ultimately privatizing the whole program.
  It does not tell them up to 6 million senior citizens will be forced 
into a vast demonstration program that will require them to pay higher 
premiums if they want to keep their Medicare.
  It does not tell them if the insurance company offering the drug 
benefit in their area charges a premium that is too high or does not 
cover the drugs

[[Page S626]]

doctors prescribe, the only way they can get the drug benefit is to 
leave regular Medicare and join an HMO or other private insurance plan. 
It does not tell them that.
  There is a lot more this ad leaves out. It does not tell senior 
citizens the bill has provided over $100 billion in windfall profits 
for the pharmaceutical companies and that the Government is prohibited 
from negotiating better prices for senior citizens.
  It does not tell them almost 3 million senior citizens will lose good 
retirement coverage and be forced into the inadequate Government 
program.
  It does not tell them if they are poor and on Medicaid they will have 
to pay more for drugs they need and have less access to the drugs their 
doctor prescribes.
  It does not tell them if they wait a year or two and see how the 
program turns out before they join it, they have to pay higher 
premiums. In fact, it does not even tell them they will have to pay a 
premium.
  It does not tell them they are prohibited from using their own money 
to buy supplemental coverage to fill in the gaps in the inadequate 
Medicare benefit.
  It does not tell senior citizens the Bush administration 
misrepresented to their own party and to the American people the costs 
of the bill.
  The more senior citizens learn about this program, the angrier they 
become. I predict when they learn this misleading ad, designed to help 
the President's reelection campaign, is paid for by their own Medicare 
money, they are going to be even angrier.


                              Unemployment

  Finally, I bring to the attention of the Senate an excellent report, 
the Economic Policy Institute report that talks about the wage and 
salary income for workers in this country. It is an ominous report and 
is something all Members who have been traveling around our States 
certainly have found out in talking to any of the workers.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the document printed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [From the Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshots, Feb. 4, 2004]

             Wage and Salary Income Yet To Share in Growth

       The Department of Commerce's advance release on gross 
     domestic product (GDP) estimated that the U.S. economy grew 
     4% in the last quarter of 2003. This is a solid growth 
     number, although well off the extraordinarily high (and 
     unsustainable) 8.2% rate of the third quarter. However, the 
     rise in GDP has not yet translated into higher wages and 
     salaries for many U.S. workers.
       Despite solid GDP growth in the second half of 2003, many 
     Americans continue to rate addressing the economy and jobs as 
     the nation's highest priority. One possible reason for this 
     continued anxiety in the face of rising GDP is shown in the 
     figure below: the current recovery remains the single worst 
     on record in terms of generating the real (inflation-
     adjusted) growth in wages and salary income that is the 
     economic lifeblood of most American families.
       In the 25 months since the recession ended, total wage and 
     salary income is up only 0.4%. It should be emphasized that 
     this is growth after the recession ended and does not include 
     income losses incurred while the economy was contracting. 
     This is the slowest wage and salary growth of any recession 
     since 1959, the first year in which monthly data on total 
     wage and salary income is consistently available.
       Wage and salary income after the previous five recessions 
     was an average of 9.4% higher by this point in the recovery. 
     Prior to this recovery, the worst post-recession spell for 
     wage and salary growth was the last jobless recovery of the 
     early 1990s, which still saw wage and salary income rising 
     nine times faster (3.6%) than in the past 25 months. The 
     current slow growth of wages and salaries means that many 
     U.S. workers are not reaping the benefits of the recent GDP 
     growth.

  Mr. KENNEDY. This is the first time in over 50 years that long-term 
joblessness has reached such high rates. Mr. President, 22.3 percent of 
the unemployed have been out of work for more than 6 months. Without 
workers being offered any Federal job benefits, every week 90,000 
workers are running out of unemployment benefits.
  In the Senate, we have tried more than a dozen times to extend the 
unemployment benefits to ensure that those workers can continue to 
support their families while they look for a job. More than a dozen 
times our Republican colleagues have said no.
  The White House has been silent on the issue claiming ``mission 
accomplished'' on the economy while millions of Americans remain out of 
work. The Bush economy continues to create only one job for every three 
people out of work.
  But yesterday we finally had some good news. Our colleagues in the 
House recognized the unemployment crisis and voted, 227 to 179--
including 39 Republicans--to reinstate the Federal unemployment 
benefits for 6 months. Workers have paid into the unemployment 
insurance trust fund. The trust fund is now $17 billion. The extension 
would cost $6 billion to $7 billion. This is a matter of fairness.
  In December, only 1,000 new jobs were created. Tomorrow we will find 
out how many jobs were created in January. I hope it is good news. But 
I can assure you right now, it will not be enough to restore the 2.4 
million jobs lost under President Bush or enough to ensure that every 
worker who wants a job can have one.
  That is why we need to reinstate the unemployment benefits. Americans 
are suffering. They are struggling to pay their mortgages and keep food 
on their families' tables.
  If the House of Representatives can accept this, in a bipartisan way, 
with 39 Republicans, you would think we would be able to accept it and 
not have it continually blocked.
  I will just show a chart. This chart shows the average number of out-
of-work Americans running out of unemployment benefits without finding 
a job from 1973 to 2003. For 30 years it has averaged 151,000. In 
January of this year, 375,000. Our Republican friends refuse--
absolutely refuse--to permit the continued help and assistance which 
those workers have paid into the unemployment compensation fund, which 
today is $17 billion in surplus.
  The House of Representatives has accepted it. Thirty-nine Republicans 
went along with it. I wait, as many of our colleagues, for the 
amendment that will be offered by our friend and colleague, a leader on 
this issue, Senator Cantwell, who will offer that amendment; and it 
will give an opportunity for the Senate to address this issue.
  But I also point out--I see my leader in the Chamber--the Economic 
Policy Institute, on February 4, issued a presentation of which I cite 
a chart entitled ``Real growth in wages and salaries, 25 months since 
recession's end.'' They go back to 1961, 1970, 1975, 1982, 1991, and 
2001. In the 25 months since the recession ended, wages and salaries 
have only grown 0.4 percent. It is the lowest in the history of any 
economic recovery that has ever been recorded.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. REID. I had to step off the floor, but I did come back and heard 
part of the Senator's statement regarding Medicare.
  It is true, is it not, that the taxpayers of this country are paying 
for political advertisements to talk about how good the bad Medicare 
package is? Is that true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator is absolutely correct. A total of $23 
million will be money that is paid in for our seniors. It is taking 
that money that was to be used for the protection of our seniors, and 
it says $12 million--$6 million will be spent on the television. That 
is on top of the $10 million that will be done for a mailing to all 40 
million Medicare beneficiaries. The ad house that is handling this is 
in charge of the Bush administration's reelection campaign.
  Mr. REID. May I ask another question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Please.
  Mr. REID. So the Senator is saying, not only are taxpayers' dollars 
being spent to promote a bad Medicare program, but that the advertising 
is being done by the President's own reelection media team?

  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely right. I know the Senator is 
in disbelief of the gall the administration would have to take $23 
million out of Medicare to use it with their own ad agency for mailings 
to 40 million seniors and to use on the airwaves in support of a bill 
and in misrepresenting the bill itself.
  I took a moment of time to show how the ad itself is so 
misrepresentative of what is in the bill. But the Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for one other question?

[[Page S627]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Is it also true that in the mailings and the television 
they do not bother to tell what is going to happen after the election 
that takes place in November with Medicare? Because I believe--and 
think the Senator from Massachusetts believes--most of the bad stuff 
happening in this bill comes after the election. Is that true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct, although he is not 
entirely correct. The bonuses that are going to the HMOs--some $12 
billion now will go to the HMOs to treat any person who would qualify 
for Medicare. They will get a 25-percent bonus over Medicare with 
direct subsidies, which is not a level playing field, of which we hear 
so much from the other side, but direct subsidies. Those subsidies 
start in March of this year.
  So you are right, the benefits are way down the road. The benefits 
that will affect the poorest of the poor are going to be after 2006. 
But the payoffs, the bonuses to the HMOs of $12 billion will start in 
March. In fact, the Administration's own internal estimates, that were 
kept secret from the American people, and have just been released, 
indicate that the payoffs will be more than $50 billion.
  So I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from 
Massachusetts being sensitive to the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transit who wants to come down to the floor. He will be here shortly.
  Mr. President, what I thought I would do is continue to go through--
in these moments where there is a little bit of a lull--this section-
by-section analysis, as arduous as it may be to some people. But I 
think we need to have it in the Record so everybody has an 
understanding of not the hours, not the days, but the more than an 
entire year we have worked very carefully with the Senator from Nevada 
and the Senator from Vermont in coming up with the agreements and the 
compromises we have.
  As we had said before, the goals of the reauthorization of TEA-21--
which for the next 6 years we refer to as SAFETEA--have been to 
increase the rate of return to donor States. This is something of which 
certainly the Presiding Officer is fully aware. It is something we are 
all sensitive to.
  My State of Oklahoma, for example, was down in the 70 percent range 
prior to ISTEA. Then with ISTEA and TEA-21 we crept up to 90.5 percent. 
This bill will take us up so every State will be guaranteed to get back 
95 percent. I think that goes a long way. Some people who are a bit 
sensitive to the plight of donor States believe that getting to 95 
percent pretty much resolves the problem.
  That was one of the points we dealt with, and that took a long time 
on which to get an agreement. At the same time we did that, we wanted 
to make sure we were not negatively impacting donee States. We hear 
people come down and complain about the formula approach, their State 
perhaps is not getting what they should be getting. Then we hear later 
on a donee State will come down. We have to recognize, if we don't have 
floors and ceilings and we take care of all the needs of the donor 
States, it is going to affect the others.
  For the fast growing States, that is a consideration in the formula. 
We have never done this before. For those States that are growing very 
fast, we had to put in a ceiling, so we bumped the ceiling; otherwise, 
there wouldn't be anything for the other States.
  We have to keep in mind that the three largest, fast growing States 
are consuming in this bill 26 percent of the growth. Consequently, as 
people have come to the floor, if you try to look at that and say, yes, 
we are sensitive to this, we must do something about the fast growing 
State, and yet at the same time you have one of the States such as New 
York or Pennsylvania that would be negatively impacted by the same 
thing. So this was a compromise all the way through.
  Streamlining is something we tried to address. I was actively 
involved in the other body during the development of ISTEA in 1991 and 
then again in TEA-21 in 1998 on this side. We were not successful in 
doing it. In other words, there are things we can do to streamline some 
of the regulations we have to deal with. Many of those are 
environmental regulations where we can get that taken care of first, 
and we have provisions in this legislation that will do that and end up 
getting a lot more for our dollars.
  The reason we are calling this SAFETEA is that right now we have some 
43,000 deaths on the highway. We are looking now at a trend line that 
is going the wrong way. So it is time to address that. We even have the 
name SAFETEA. That is very appropriate.
  Freight movement: We haven't really spent a long time on addressing 
these things. Nonetheless, this bill does do it. The Federal Highway 
System is a key component to continued economic growth in this country. 
We have talked about the positive effect of this bill when we get it 
passed and get by these parliamentary obstacles. Keep in mind, it 
bothers me a little bit that we have obstacles from perhaps 5 or 6 
people when we had 75 votes to move on and invoke cloture.
  Remember when we saw in one of the publications on the Hill the ``Men 
Working'' sign, and then, superimposed in the middle of that, ``Men Not 
Working.'' That is a sign that we still have a problem. We have an 
economy that is on the rebound now, but jobs are lingering behind.
  There is no program out there that is more of a significant jobs 
program than this bill. The IPAM provisions in the legislation will 
allow those projects which are immediately ready to be completed. I 
know the Senator from Oregon has been very concerned about how quickly 
we can get in there and get some of these jobs going. That is why that 
provision is in there, so you can move immediately to those projects 
that have been approved without going through a long and arduous 
process.
  That is the major concern the American people have with our not 
getting something done. There is a lag behind highway construction and 
getting the job done, we all know that.
  When you talk about deficient bridges, of all 50 States, my State is 
No. 1. People are very sensitive to that. But they also recognize that 
even when we pass this, it is going to take a while to get this done.
  What they are aware of is, you pass this and immediately it is going 
to have a very positive impact on the job market. In calculating job 
opportunities, it is about quadruple the number of jobs that would be 
corrected with this legislation. The reason is this: If a guy has a 
job, he is out building a road; he is also buying goods and services. 
The manufacturing jobs are improving. We are talking about a huge 
issue. There is nothing we can do that would more quickly take care of 
this problem.
  The old bills had what was called a minimum guarantee. TEA-21 had a 
minimum guarantee. We all remember. We remember that formula, the 1104 
formula. As you looked at the formula, each State had a percentage of 
the total amount, and that was what was called the formula. But 
politically speaking, once you get up to the 60 votes you need, it does 
not make any difference what they did. Consequently, it didn't have any 
of the provisions in there that would try to do the most good, build 
the best roads, and take care of the problems in the States where they 
are the most serious. We have done away with that.
  It would have been easier to just go ahead with that because 
everybody understands that and you get 60 people happy and you have a 
bill. But we didn't want to do that because there are a lot of the 
categories of people in the States that need to be taken care of.
  One of the problems we have with the very fast growing States and the 
large States is that while we are going to end up in 2009, at the end 
of this 6-year period, with 95 percent in terms of the donor States, 
the fast growing States, the large States will not reach that until 
2009. I regret that is necessary, but frankly there is no other way to 
make this happen. So what we did was to put the formula into effect and 
let the formula work.
  I have been going through and outlining the various sections of the 
bill. We have done it from the very beginning, section 1101, all the 
way up now to 1620.

[[Page S628]]

  Section 1620 is the Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program. 
As introduced, S. 1072 did address the issue of contaminated storm 
water runoff from highways. Specifically, it expanded the eligibility 
of storm water projects to be able to use a State's funds under the NHS 
program and extended the eligibility of storm water projects to 
mitigate runoff on existing Federal aid highways, ongoing 
reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration projects. 
An amendment was adopted to create a 2 percent set-aside from the 
Surface Transportation Program amounting to nearly $1 billion.
  This is something about which I know a lot of Members have a concern. 
My position has always been that if a State wants to use a 2 percent, a 
State can do it. If you have a mandatory set-aside, it puts us all in 
the position of where not only do we not have a choice, no other State 
has either. When you add it up, that is a lot of money. You are talking 
about a billion dollars. That is something that is going to be dealt 
with, it is my understanding, by interested Members. We will have to 
debate that.
  My concern is getting to the position where we can debate legitimate 
differences of opinion. And that was one on which our committee was 
divided right down the middle. The concern I have right now is we are 
not debating things where there is a legitimate difference of opinion 
or even things that are germane. I hope that we can get to a point 
where we can table all nongermane amendments. I don't think we are 
going to get there, but I would like to get there. If we did, that 
would resolve that problem.
  There are legitimate issues to deal with, with amendments. Section 
1701 is transportation systems management and operations. Despite the 
historic increase in highway investment following the enactment of TEA-
21, operational performance has declined. For example, a trip that 
would have taken 25 minutes during the congested period in 1987 now 
takes an additional 5 minutes. What we are talking about here is we 
have more congestion. I have seen this congestion mount. I was in the 
other body for 8 years. I was on the Transportation Committee during 
that time. The committee structure in the other body is not the same as 
here. In the other body, all they deal with is transportation.
  Over here, we have Environment and Public Works, so we have other 
issues with which to deal. But when I got to the Senate, a vice 
chairmanship of the subcommittee became available. That was clean air. 
We went through the clean air problems we had during the Browner 
administration in the EPA. A lot of the problems that came up in my 
State--in fact, with original proposals that came through, out of 77 
counties in Oklahoma we would have had some 50 counties that would have 
been out of attainment. We worked on that and tried to get something 
done that would be successful.
  But when we deal with this section 1701, we are saying that if you 
are out there taking a trip, going from one point to another, and 
because of congestion you have to stop and let your engine idle and let 
the truck idle, you are using up a lot of fuel unnecessarily, and we 
will quantify that in a moment in our discussion. No. 2, it is a time 
waste. So you have an air quality problem as well as a pollution 
problem. This bill makes several changes to improve the transportation 
system's management and operations, including the creation of a 
foundation for transportation systems management and operations. 
Through the provisions of this bill, transportation systems management 
and operations programs and projects are integrated into the capital 
planning and construction processes. States are given tools for 
reducing traffic delays caused by vehicle accidents and breakdowns on 
highways during peak traveling times. The bill encourages continued 
development and deployment of safety measures, notification systems to 
disseminate safety information on Federal aid highways to motorists and 
public safety agencies as needed. Examples may include traffic 
congestion, freight movement and conditions, amber alert, weather event 
emergency notifications, and border and homeland security 
notifications.
  I have been informed there may be another Member who wants to speak 
for a specific period of time on an unrelated issue.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. I will yield----
  Mr. WYDEN. For a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. First, I express my appreciation to the chairman on the 
committee on which I sit. He has worked very closely with Senator Smith 
and me, and we appreciate that. If it doesn't cause any great travail, 
I was interested in speaking for maybe 10 minutes on a health care 
issue. I see our friend from Colorado. Maybe something could be worked 
out among the three of us whenever the chairman has completed his 
remarks. I think at 1:30 the rule kicks in where you can address other 
issues. If something could be worked out, it would be helpful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is 1:49 when that rule kicks in.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Oregon be recognized for up to 12 minutes on a subject of his 
choice and that Senator Allard be recognized immediately after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wanted to understand where we were. The 
Senator is going to speak for 12 minutes and then I will be recognized 
for 10 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.


                              The MEND Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, skyrocketing prescription drug bills are 
hitting senior citizens in this country like a wrecking ball. It seems 
to me it is critically important that the Congress move on a bipartisan 
basis to put in place aggressive cost containment measures that can 
best be achieved by making sure that the Medicare Program has real 
bargaining power, that the barriers are eliminated to bringing in drugs 
that are safe from other countries, and that seniors are in a position 
to compare prices, with real price disclosure in markets across the 
country.
  Today I have introduced, along with the senior Senator from Maine, 
Ms. Snowe, legislation that would do just that. I believe it is 
critically important for Congress to move on this legislation in the 
days ahead. If for no other reason, the legislation I introduced with 
Senator Snowe should be priority business because of the developments 
in the last week.
  In the last week, it has become clear that the prescription drug 
measure passed last year--a measure I voted for--will cost over $130 
billion more than was originally anticipated. So I think there was a 
strong case for the cost containment measures that Senator Snowe and I 
are advocating today even before the developments of the last week.
  But on the basis of what we have learned in the last week, I don't 
see how you can logically argue that Medicare should not have the same 
authority to bargain for seniors who need those prescription drugs that 
Members of Congress benefit from because of the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program that goes to bat for us.
  So I am hopeful that this bipartisan legislation--which I believe is 
the first significant bipartisan health reform bill this Congress--will 
be considered quickly. Certainly the developments of the last week have 
given, in my view, new impetus for this legislation.
  Our legislation is called the MEND Act, the Medicare Enhancements for 
Needed Drugs Act. It attacks the high prices seniors are facing in four 
major ways:
  First, it leverages the market share of tens of millions of seniors 
into real bargaining power.
  Second, it breaks down the barriers to reimportation of lower cost 
drugs.
  Third, it makes Congress a watchdog against unfair price spikes.
  Fourth, it creates real incentives for seniors to get the best prices 
for their medicine.
  I think colleagues understand, having been home over the last few 
weeks, that there is tremendous concern with respect to this 
legislation. There is confusion about what it stands for. I think we 
have all heard that. But at the top of the list of concerns seniors are 
bringing to us is the question of what is being done to rein in these 
costs. It seems to me that with an opportunity to address this in a 
bipartisan way, which is what I have done with Senator Snowe--we have 
been at this now for 5 years--the Congress could come together.

[[Page S629]]

  Now, if that is not done, it seems to me that given the developments 
of the last week, and the legislation costing $100 billion-plus more 
than anybody anticipated, we are going to see the frustration mount not 
just with seniors but with taxpayers across the country.
  I am going to be talking about this legislation more in the days 
ahead. I am very pleased that the Senator from Colorado was kind enough 
to give me the opportunity to speak for a few minutes in the Chamber 
today. I am very pleased that, with Senator Snowe, we have a 
bipartisan, commonsense proposal that can help America's seniors 
receive the prescription drugs they need.
  Our legislation will give seniors a powerful one-two punch to fight 
back against high prescription drug prices. It will help seniors save 
money on every prescription and give the new Medicare benefit even more 
buying power.
  Under our bipartisan bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
could fight on behalf of seniors for lower drug prices and individual 
Medicare plans would actually have incentives for negotiating prices 
comparable to the VA.
  Seniors should not have to underwrite tax breaks for companies that 
try to keep affordable, reimported drugs out of their hands. Today, 
drug companies get a dollar-for-dollar tax writeoff on their 
advertising, advertising that is helping, in my view, to drive up the 
cost of prescription medicine. In the last year for which we have 
figures, direct-to-consumer advertising cost $2.5 billion.
  What we say in our bipartisan legislation is if the drug companies 
say no to affordable reimported drugs for seniors, then they are going 
to have to say no to the tax breaks that are paid for with seniors' tax 
dollars.
  I hope in this session of Congress we will see an effort on a 
bipartisan basis to improve on the legislation that was passed last 
year. I voted for that bill last year. I still have the welts on my 
back to show for it. But I also came to the floor at that time and said 
I think the Congress can do better in terms of cost containment, not by 
setting price controls, not by some big Government regime that has the 
Government interfering in various kinds of areas where there is no 
appropriate role. But I said there is no logical reason why Medicare 
shouldn't have the same bargaining power to get a good price for 
seniors the Federal employee plan has for Members of Congress. Now 
there is a bipartisan proposal before the Senate that will get seniors 
a fair shake using marketplace forces.
  I hope in the remaining days of this session, legislation can be 
acted on favorably. Senator Snowe and I have worked as a bipartisan 
team for 5 years now in an effort to try to get this prescription drug 
issue right.
  At the top of our seniors' concerns today is the need for better cost 
containment. We can do it with marketplace forces. The Senate now has 
bipartisan legislation that will do just that. I hope my colleagues 
will support it.
  Again, I express my thanks to Senator Allard and look forward to 
working with him on the transportation bill as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his 
comments. I, too, look forward to working with him on these 
transportation issues. We worked together on a number of issues 
throughout our careers. I always look forward to the cooperation he is 
willing to share in a bipartisan way.
  While we are passing out some ``atta boys,'' I want to again 
congratulate the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee 
for getting this bill to the floor. It was not easy. I know he worked 
all last year, and while most of us were on break, he was working hard 
trying to work out compromises so this legislation would be one of the 
first with which we would be dealing when we came back in for this 
particular session of the Congress.
  Historically, transportation issues have not been partisan. Usually, 
it is approached in a bipartisan way. It is very complicated. Every 
State is affected differently. The bill has a highway transportation 
portion and a mass transit portion. Usually, there are some provisions, 
such as we saw this year, that come out of the Commerce Committee. The 
Finance Committee gets involved because there are some issues on how we 
are going to come up with the money that is required.
  I also wish to compliment Chairman Shelby. Chairman Inhofe is 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and then we 
have Chairman Shelby who is chairman of the Banking Committee. A major 
part of the mass transit provisions comes out of that committee. He has 
been working with the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes. I am chairman 
of a subcommittee in the Banking Committee that deals with housing and 
transportation, so I have oversight over mass transit. I work with the 
ranking member, Senator Reed of Rhode Island. They, too, spent a great 
deal of time working on this legislation, and I thank them for working 
in a bipartisan way to reach a consensus on this bill.

  One of the issues we struggled with is how we are going to pay for 
what everybody wants in highway transportation and mass transit. It is 
something with which Congress has been struggling.
  This bill came out of the Finance Committee, and they put in 
provisions. My concern is that we don't add to the deficit and we use 
those dollars that are available in the highway trust fund to finance 
transportation needs, particularly for highways.
  The bill is a step in the right direction. It makes important steps 
in a number of areas. I come from a State that has experienced rapid 
growth. I know a lot of Members of the Senate who come from rural 
areas, particularly in the West and the South, have experienced similar 
growth rates in their particular States. So we all are challenged with 
the transportation problems that come with that rapid growth. One 
problem is mass transit.
  Historically, most of the dollars in mass transit have gone to those 
States that have large metropolitan areas or directly to a large 
metropolitan area, such as New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. But those 
of us who come from relatively small metropolitan areas but are showing 
a lot of growth have never had access to dollars that are required for 
us to begin to move forward with mass transit.
  In the State of Colorado, Denver is our metropolitan area. It was 
very difficult at one point to access the dollars to start mass transit 
systems. There were provisions put in place when we had Chairman 
Alfonse D'Amato from New York. I worked with him to try and put 
together a formula for mass transit where the smaller States could 
begin to participate in some of the mass transit dollars. That 
originally got put in place when Alfonse D'Amato, who was from New 
York, was chairman of the committee. Like I said at the time when we 
were working with Chairman D'Amato, we don't want to take all the money 
for small States, but I think when we have more than 90 percent of the 
dollars in mass transit going just to 11 cities, that is not a good 
balance either. So we needed to work out a formula.
  We worked out a formula where the smaller growing metropolitan areas 
in this country would have some additional access to mass transit 
money.
  We continue to work on that provision in this bill. We are beginning 
to recognize the growth and the needs in many other communities 
throughout the United States and working to give them flexibility to 
approach their transportation problems with different perspectives. We 
give them as many alternatives as they possibly can select in trying to 
meet their transportation needs.
  One area is using buses, what we call rapid transit buses. These are 
buses that have dedicated lanes on highways. In some areas, it is 
cheaper to put down roads and highways than it is to build rail. They 
use that and then use buses instead of mass transit. It has the 
advantage of additional flexibility because the bus doesn't have to 
stop at one particular station. I know my State of Colorado is looking 
at this as an alternative.
  We have money in the section that came out of Banking to provide 
additional flexibility to the States and local communities so they can 
look at these various alternatives as to what they can afford. There is 
no getting around it; when you start putting in a fixed rail system, 
they are very expensive.

[[Page S630]]

  I am happy to report in my State of Colorado, we have a major 
construction project combining expanding highways with mass transit. 
That particular project has been under budget and is ahead of schedule. 
As a result of that, the State is developing a good reputation in that 
regard. We have tried to put incentives in this legislation that says 
to communities throughout the country if you begin to take on these 
projects, we have incentives where you can work on the project, and if 
you are responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and you are ahead of 
schedule and under budget, this is all good news, so we want to 
encourage that type of behavior.
  That is so much of what we have been trying to accomplish in the mass 
transit section of the bill.
  Highways, obviously, are important as far as rural transportation is 
concerned but also is bus service. In some isolated areas of this 
country, there are elderly people, and many rural communities are 
disproportionately impacted by again rural populations. So they need to 
have some other alternatives of being able to get to their doctor or 
being able to get down and around in their communities to take care of 
their vital needs. So we have provided some programs that begin to 
provide bus service for the rural communities.
  Overall, I think there has been a little bit of shift, if one looks 
at this transportation bill, from large States to the smaller States 
and giving the smaller States some flexibility as far as the dollars. 
That is good because that is kind of what is happening with the 
population. There is a lot of population change. People are moving from 
the larger communities and going out into the smaller communities, and 
sometimes it has to do with the quality of life. They are going out in 
the smaller communities because they have smaller classes in the 
schools. They like the rural living. They like easier access without 
having to deal with traffic problems.
  We need to keep this in mind. So there is a provision in there to 
help take care of some of these big issues. We figured out that about 
40 percent of the counties in this country do not have any transit at 
all and they are looking at some ways of trying to meet the needs of 
their local citizens.
  Overall, this package has some good in it. We just need to work out 
how we are going to pay for all of it.
  The other thing I would mention is, the private sector plays a key 
role in all of this. We sort of leaned on the private sector to help 
provide the expertise, and we want to be sure they have an opportunity 
to get into public-private partnerships because it can benefit all 
parties. Many times if it can be opened to a free market approach, it 
holds down the cost of the project. If projects develop into monopolies 
where one company, one group of employees, or one community has such 
control, then we do not have the competition out there to hold down the 
cost of the project.
  I am one who ordinarily believes that if costs for a project are to 
be held down, competition is the way to do it. Rules and regulations 
are passed, as well as having price controls. Basically, it is going to 
be competition that best serves the customers, whatever that transit 
project would happen to be, and also would be a process where we do not 
have an overburdensome bureaucracy which in itself does a lot to add to 
the cost of the project because of so much oversight.
  So it is kind of a balance between where is the proper level of 
regulation so they can assure that things are done right but on the 
other hand hold down on the regulations so there are not unnecessary 
bureaucratic delays.
  This is sort of a broad-brushed approach to our transportation needs. 
We began to recognize that there are lots of ways people can travel, 
and I think we have done that in this particular bill.
  I want to talk a little bit more about my own State of Colorado and 
what is happening. If we look at the highway transportation funding 
formula, Colorado does well as far as the formula is concerned. This 
kind of chart sort of illustrates that. If we look at TEA-21, the 6-
year average is $335 million available for Colorado in the previous 6 
years, per year. TEA-21 is the highway transportation bill that was 
passed and its funding ended in 2003. Now we are on 2004. This is what 
we call SAFETEA. If we look at the funding there, we have $423 million 
in 2004 for Colorado. In 2008, it goes up to $505 million, but in the 
last year we have a real balloon that goes up to $603. Some people say: 
I do not know if it is going to be there.

  Well, it is out there quite a ways, 6 years. In the last 
transportation bill we had, it was available for the State of Colorado. 
In the last transportation bill, they had flexibility that the States 
could use. There were some rather unique happenings in the Denver 
metropolitan area in trying to meet the transportation needs of the 
State as well as that metropolitan area. So for the State of Colorado 
it is about a 46-percent increase. All total, we are talking about 
934.3 million new dollars over and above what was provided in TEA-21. 
If we want to spill those over into jobs, it is estimated that could 
create as much as 44,300 new job opportunities in the State of 
Colorado. So there is no doubt that if the infrastructure is worked on 
and it is done the right way, it can create a lot of opportunity in 
one's State. Certainly in the State of Colorado it is creating a lot of 
opportunity for us.
  Now, when we talk about transportation issues in my State, there are 
a lot of things with which the local communities have to deal. 
Obviously, there are those who have to commute to work who want to get 
to work as fast as possible. There are those who say, look, we have air 
pollution problems and as a result of that we want to restrict the 
amount of driving that goes on. So maybe mass transit is one of the 
ways to do that.
  The first large mass transit line that we put in the State of 
Colorado, in the Denver metro area, out toward what we would refer to 
as the southwest corridor, has helped hold down our air pollution. 
People are using that.
  Some people say we spent a lot of money on mass transit but it does 
not get used. Well, at least as far as the Denver metro area, it is 
being used. In fact, it is being used to the point where it has 
exceeded the amount of revenue that anybody anticipated. The usage is 
much higher. There is so much demand to get on the train that one of 
the things that has become an issue is parking, where are people going 
to park around the various stations in order to be able to take the 
train to work.
  So now this has been moved a step further. With the success of that 
train, they are taking the money and saying, OK, now we can expand it 
out to the major project they are doing now, which is between two major 
business centers. As far as Denver is concerned, it is going to help 
the economy a lot. So when done right, this can create a lot of 
opportunities in the various States.
  Again, I would stress the importance of the provisions that we have 
in here that encourage local control, encourage accountability, 
encourage efficiency so public policymakers in one's State will ask: 
What is it that we can do that will allow this project to move forward, 
without unnecessary delays? Our communities will benefit if we can get 
these projects done under budget and ahead of schedule.
  This is something I think every community should have the opportunity 
to strive for. As policymakers at the Federal level, it is something we 
need to begin to push.
  Again, the issue we are all facing is how to pay for this. I know the 
Finance Committee struggled. We are still struggling with it. What is 
the proper funding level for mass transit? I think the key markers that 
the President and so many Members have talked about is that we have to 
make sure the money is money that does not come out of the general 
fund, that it stays with the--now I am talking about highways--gas tax, 
because the gas tax is an allocated stream of revenue that has gone to 
a special purpose, and that special purpose is to build roads and 
highways and meet the needs of this Nation.
  We need to make sure we stay with that principle. Also, we want to 
make sure we do not begin to spend money on a bill, or through a bill, 
that is going to add to our Nation's deficit. Our deficits in this 
country are reaching historic highs, and we need to do something now to 
get deficit spending under control.

[[Page S631]]

  I think the Budget Committee and the Members of this body are 
beginning to treat that issue in a very serious way. So we still have 
some challenges ahead of us, as we move forward with this particular 
legislation.
  I have a lot of confidence in Chairman Inhofe as well as Chairman 
Shelby. I think they have the ability to shepherd this very 
controversial, very complicated piece of legislation through the 
process.
  This is just one body. You have the House. They take a little 
different perspective on the highway transportation bill because they 
have districts they have to represent, and they don't look at it from a 
State view like those of us here in the Senate.
  I don't like, in my State, to be putting in special projects because 
what happens with special projects is they take away the flexibility of 
the State. You are telling your State where they ought to be spending 
their money on certain projects. I think that ought to be left to the 
States.
  For example, in the State of Colorado we have sort of a complicated 
process. We have a highway commission. They allocate. They make 
recommendations to the Governor and legislature. I don't feel 
comfortable as a policymaker here in Washington telling my Governor and 
the highway commission, people who know what is happening as far as 
their transportation needs, what should be done in the State of 
Colorado. So I try to avoid what is referred to as porkbarrel spending, 
where you earmark any particular projects in your particular State 
because I think that ought to be done in the State level.
  In the Senate that has never been much of a problem. When you get to 
the House side, where Members have their own districts they have to 
worry about, sometimes they worry about not having adequate voice even 
at the State level for the district they represent, particularly if it 
is a rural area, because it gets run over by the masses in the 
metropolitan areas. So on the House side you will see more earmarking, 
but on the Senate side you don't see so much. If I talk to my 
colleagues I try to encourage them to stay away from earmarking 
projects.
  I think the chairman on the Environment and Public Works Committee 
shares those views. He has done a good job of making this a responsible 
piece of legislation. We still have a few challenges ahead of us, but 
it has been a pleasure working with the chairman.
  I see he has made it here to the floor. I don't see anybody else 
right now here who is interested in speaking, so without any more 
comment on anything.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the efforts my 
colleague from Colorado has made on the committee all the way through, 
in addition to the transit portion of this bill. We have had a very 
cohesive committee in the time, well over a year, we have worked on 
this issue.
  I would like to go through a few more sections here until someone 
appears, wanting to be recognized.
  Arguably, this bill could be characterized as the most significant 
bill we will deal with in terms of how it affects so many people.
  Regarding the Real-Time System Management Information Program, real-
time information is the key to enhancing the operation and performance 
in the management of our transportation system. In drafting this 
legislation we adopted the ambitious and important goal of providing 
nationwide capability of real-time traffic and travel information. The 
more up-to-date information available to highway users, the better they 
are able to utilize the highway transportation system efficiently. The 
objectives of the Real-Time System Management Information Program 
include improving the security of the surface transportation system, 
addressing congestion problems, improving responses to weather events, 
and facilitating national and regional travel information.
  As part of this real-time information program, States are required to 
establish a statewide incident reporting system within 2 years unless 
the Secretary grants a longer extension of time.
  We try to recognize all the way through the bill what we don't want 
to do. Having been a mayor of a major city for four terms, I know what 
unfunded mandates are. That is something we don't want to be a part of, 
and we are not. We were sensitive to the problems of States and local 
governments so unique problems we cannot foresee at this time are taken 
care of with the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation.
  Regarding future Interstate System routes, under current law, States 
have 12 years to construct National Highway System roads according to 
the standards of a highway on the Interstate System if they wish to 
designate the highway as a future Interstate System route. Recognizing 
the relative needs of the States and their respective abilities to meet 
these standards, this bill extends the current 12-year requirement to 
25 years in order to give States more time to substantially complete 
the construction of highways designated as future Interstate System 
routes.
  One of the problems, if we didn't do this, is that is making this a 
race to complete projects. The decision that programs should warrant 
more time, we feel, is going to end up being in everyone's benefit.
  Stewardship and oversight is section 1802. Value engineering is 
another important stewardship tool for reducing the total cost of 
projects and improving their quality. Along these lines, States must 
annually certify the adequacy of their financial management systems and 
project delivery systems to meet all Federal requirements for financial 
integrity.
  Accordingly, the Secretary is required to develop minimum standards 
for estimating project costs and to periodically evaluate the States' 
practices for estimating costs, awarding contracts, and reducing costs. 
States must apply a value engineering analysis during the design phase 
of all highway projects on the Federal aid system over $25 million and 
all bridge projects over $20 million to reduce the overall cost of the 
project and improve project quality.

  Not only are States required to meet standards of financial integrity 
for federally funded projects, but they must also determine that 
subrecipients of those Federal dollars also have sufficient accounting 
controls and project delivery systems.
  The bill also contains mechanisms to protect future Federal aid 
projects from fraud by mandating the debarment of contractors who have 
been convicted of fraud related to Federal aid highway or transit 
programs. It mandates the suspension of contractors who have been 
indicted for offenses relating to fraud.
  This has become a problem because there is no mechanism set up to 
keep this from happening. We now will have the mechanism.
  Section 1803 is design-build contracting. Under the current law, a 
design-build contract is defined as an agreement that provides for both 
the design and construction of a project. The goal of design-build 
contracting is to reduce costs by contracting out the design and 
construction of a project to a single contractor. At Senator Cornyn's 
request, the bill expands eligibility for design-build projects to 
include the design and construction of intermodal facilities.
  Section 1804 is program efficiencies financing. To address certain 
program efficiencies in the area of financing, the bill revises current 
law by removing the existing restrictions that States must obligate all 
apportioned or allocated funds or demonstrate they will use all 
obligation authority allocated to it for a Federal aid highway or 
highway safety construction before advanced construction projects are 
approved. This revision clarifies that advance construction procedures 
can be used for all categories of Federal aid funds, and that when a 
project is converted at a regular Federal aid project, any available 
Federal aid funds may be used to convert the project.
  The bill further removes the existing requirement that the Secretary 
first approve an application from the State before authorizing the 
payment of the Federal share of the cost of the project when additional 
funds are later apportioned or allocated to the State.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S632]]

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be speaking, for the next several 
moments, on leader time.


                     DC School Choice Incentive Act

  Mr. President, very briefly, I will address two issues, the first 
relating to a bill we passed 2 weeks ago. In fact, 14 days ago--exactly 
2 weeks ago--the Senate voted 65 to 28 to help liberate Washington, 
DC's schoolchildren from its worst performing public schools. The bill 
itself was called DC Choice. The ``DC'' is obviously the District of 
Columbia. And the ``choice'' really is right at the heart of empowering 
parents and families and schoolchildren to participate in the decisions 
that we know strike right at the heart of opening that American dream 
and giving hope to young schoolchildren here in the District.
  DC Choice had weathered years of debate and even a veto by President 
Clinton, but finally DC Choice is on its way to the District's neediest 
public school children.
  It was 2 weeks ago that we passed a bill that helps schoolchildren 
here in the District. Under the DC School Choice Incentive Act, the 
District will receive 40 million new dollars to support public schools 
and charter schools and choice scholarships. Indeed, nearly 2,000 
District schoolchildren will now be able to receive federally funded 
opportunity scholarships to the tune of about $7,500 each in order to 
attend schools of their choice.
  I take this opportunity to thank some of the people--I regard them as 
true leaders--who made this historic legislation happen.
  First, I commend Senator DeWine for his integrity and fairness in 
guiding the school choice debate. Senator DeWine, as we all know, is a 
consummate gentleman and has been an invaluable ally in the cause of 
justice for the District's schoolchildren.
  I also express my deep appreciation and respect for Senator Judd 
Gregg. His passion for this issue, his dedication to this issue, his 
unflagging commitment to seeing that DC's children get the very best 
education possible, the best education we can offer, really is an 
inspiration to us all.
  Senator Feinstein also deserves tremendous praise for her leadership. 
Her devoted support for DC schoolchildren was critical in moving this 
legislation, this effort forward.
  But in addition to our colleagues, none of this would have been 
possible without the leadership and courage of the city's elected 
leadership, people such as Mayor Anthony Williams. He has been sincere 
and tenacious throughout the discussion and the debate. He has again 
and again reflected his belief in and commitment to the District of 
Columbia's children. Over the last several weeks and months, he has 
shown extraordinary strength and determination in achieving that goal 
of giving children here in the District that hope for the future, that 
opportunity to succeed, to realize the American dream.
  Others who have been instrumental in this effort--Cardinal McCarrick, 
Peggy Cooper Cafritz, Kevin Chavous, and Virginia Walden Ford--have 
demonstrated exemplary leadership in accomplishing passage of this 
legislation. They are, to me, true champions of the public good, and 
the District of Columbia is made better by their leadership.

  I also thank Senate staffers Mary Dietrich, Sharon Soderstron, 
Townsend Lange McNitt, and Denzel McGuire for their hard work, their 
compassion, and their dedication to passage of this bill. They devoted 
long hours to this legislation.
  Washington, DC, the District here, is blessed to have caring and 
committed citizens pressing for change. And with passage of this bill, 
change is coming soon to the District's classrooms.
  Some colleagues--some in this body and others--have implied that they 
want to reverse this historic accomplishment. These individuals, I 
think, by doing so, by expressing they want to see the reversal of this 
historic accomplishment, at least imply to me tolerating the status 
quo. That simply is unacceptable--the status quo--where we do have too 
many failing schools here in the District, where we have frustrated 
parents who see their children locked in these failing schools.
  We have kids here in the District, within blocks and miles of this 
Capitol Building, without hope, without ambitions, without dreams. We 
have an obligation to help reverse this hopelessness, and indeed that 
is exactly what this legislation does.
  We no longer can keep this city's children in the shadows. It is time 
to help lift them up, lift them up to ours and their parents' and their 
families' highest expectations. Lifting the District's children out of 
illiteracy and educational poverty, putting the District's children on 
the path to academic excellence, is just too important. The District's 
leaders want it, the District's parents want it, and, most importantly, 
the District's children deserve it.
  We can all expect intense scrutiny as this choice plan, which is now 
law of the land, unfolds. Critics, I know, are going to assail every 
perceived setback. But also expect the District of Columbia 
schoolchildren to prove them wrong. In cities such as Detroit and 
Milwaukee, where choice has been tried, choice has thrived. We see 
scores go up; we see educational gaps narrow; we see parents much more 
pleased, much happier with their children's schools; and we see that 
public support for school choice rises.
  Choice in the District will succeed because it is based on the belief 
that achievement is for everyone and not just a privileged few; that if 
you open the door to opportunity, hard-working people are going to step 
through that door.
  I am proud of everyone who made the D.C. educational choice happen. 
It begins with the parents, probably ends with the legislators, but 
also includes the elected officials and committed community leaders.
  I am also proud of the District schoolchildren. Now, because of DC 
Choice, they are more likely to have that more cherished of American 
birthrights: a solid education, something we all know is the key to the 
American dream.


                                Marriage

  Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes and comment on another 
issue, an issue that relates to the decision yesterday by the 
Massachusetts Supreme Court. By now we have all heard that, in the 
decision yesterday made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, same-sex 
marriage is the law of that State according to the courts. Indeed, 
same-sex marriage licenses will be issued beginning May 17 in 
Massachusetts.
  Same-sex couples from across the Nation will go to Massachusetts to 
get married. They will return to their home States--whether it be 
Tennessee or Alabama or Wyoming or Ohio, all 50 States--and I would 
think and assume that all of them would sue.
  Some of our best legal minds conclude that courts will require 
recognition of same-sex marriage in every single State in the Nation.
  Marriage should remain the union of a man and a woman. The evidence 
is overwhelming that children do best with a mother and a father. We 
are gambling with our future if we permit activist judges to redefine 
marriage for our whole society.
  I want to be very clear: We reject intolerance. We reject hatred. We 
must treat all our fellow citizens with civility and kindness. But 
marriage should not be redefined by the courts, and we in this body 
cannot let it. We will not let it.
  The U.S. Congress has codified this principle in the Defense of 
Marriage Act. It passed with 85 votes in the Senate and was signed by 
President Clinton in 1996. We must protect, preserve, and strengthen 
the institution of marriage against activist judges. If that means we 
must amend the Constitution, as it seems increasingly likely, then we 
will do just that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                                  Cuba

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to spend some time today 
talking about the issue of Cuba. This was an issue that the Senate 
spent a lot of time on last year, and I am here today to tell my 
colleagues we are just as committed this year.
  Last year, as most Members know, we made tremendous progress toward 
eliminating the Cuba travel ban and

[[Page S633]]

easing the four-decade-old embargo. As part of the appropriations 
process last year, both the Senate and the House passed amendments 
overwhelmingly that would temporarily suspend enforcement of the Cuba 
travel ban.
  I was, frankly, not only disappointed but outraged that this 
provision was taken out of the final omnibus bill. It should not have 
been, especially since the measure passed both bodies by very large 
margins. In stripping out that provision, the leadership broke the 
rules of Congress and defied the will of the majority of both Houses. 
That is simply undemocratic. It is wrong. It is not the way bills 
should be handled.
  While disappointed, I emphasize today that the majority of us who 
favor ending this embargo will work hard this year to pass legislation, 
one way or another, through both bodies of the Congress, through 
conference, and on to the President's desk. Senators Enzi, Dorgan, and 
I have introduced legislation that would permanently end the travel 
ban. Last year, that legislation passed out of the Foreign Relations 
Committee by a vote of 13 to 5, a very large margin. The bill has 33 
cosponsors and is now ready for floor consideration. I respectfully ask 
the majority and minority leaders to make floor time available to 
consider the legislation.

  The fight to end the Cuba travel ban is not over. It has just begun. 
It is ironic that we finally face this moment at the same time that we 
are scrutinizing both the war on terrorism and the stretched Federal 
budget because enforcing the Cuba travel ban means the use of scarce 
Federal resources.
  It is important for Senators to understand that the Cuba travel ban 
is enforced by the same Federal agency--the Office of Foreign Assets 
Control or OFAC--that also is charged with rooting out the sources of 
international terrorist financing and stopping the spread of weapons of 
mass destruction. Somewhere overseas, a massive international financial 
network routes millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden and other 
terrorists. Their access to dollars is their lifeline, their sole means 
of attacking our citizens and our soldiers. Rooting out this network 
and shutting it down is clearly one of our Nation's top priorities. Yet 
the very agency that is charged with this crucial task must divert 
valuable resources to enforce an absurd travel ban that a clear 
majority of Congress has already voted to terminate. It doesn't make 
any sense.
  By its own estimate, OFAC diverts one-sixth of its employee resources 
to enforcing a silly travel ban. How can we justify diverting $1 of 
this limited budget, let alone one-sixth of our resources? Just as 
disturbing, late last week the Department of Homeland Security 
announced that it, too, would divert some of its resources to 
monitoring U.S. citizens who might have traveled to Cuba.
  In a post-9/11 world, I do not understand the administration's 
priorities. I hope this year we can finally change this policy and the 
Senate will have a chance to fully debate the issue so we can finally 
make some sense out of the travel policy we do not have with Cuba.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. What is the matter now before the Senate? Is it the Dorgan 
amendment or the Gregg amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The matter before the Senate is the Shelby 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            MAD COW DISEASE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute to come to the 
floor this afternoon to talk about the report issued yesterday by an 
international panel of experts that was convened by the Department of 
Agriculture to look at this whole issue of BSE, otherwise known as mad 
cow disease. They have, once again, announced--and publicly stated--
what many of us have known for a long time, that there are still many 
outstanding questions about BSE.
  I think the unfortunate fact about all of this is that the one 
question for which there isn't any doubt is the origin of the mad cow 
problem to date: one Canadian-born cow which cost a tremendous amount 
of market and value in the agricultural markets today. The one cow has 
shed an adverse light on American cattle producers in a way that is not 
only unfair but extraordinarily costly to every producer in the country 
today.
  Just yesterday--yesterday--the cost per hundred in the Chicago 
Mercantile Exchange was $75. A couple of weeks ago, it was $118 per 
hundred. So we have seen a precipitous drop in the marketplace. Yet we 
still see a resistance on the part of many with regard to one simple 
effort that could change a great deal of confidence on the part of the 
American consumer--a change that has already been adopted by 43 other 
countries. Forty-three countries currently have country-of-origin 
labeling. We have been told by some of our exporting partners in some 
of those markets abroad that unless we implement country-of-origin 
labeling, we can forget about exporting our products to those 
countries. So we languish with tens of millions of dollars of product 
still on the water unable to unload in those markets, and unable to 
bring the product back to this country because we don't want to further 
jeopardize what fragile market there is.
  We have--I do not recall now the exact figure--tens of millions of 
pounds worth hundreds of millions of dollars out there on ships unable 
to go anywhere in large measure because we continue to refuse to label 
the product. It is not just a question of consumer information, as 
important as that is.
  I find it intriguing that today we label for content. We can tell you 
down to the last gram what is in a can or a package. We can tell you 
what the nutritional value is. We can tell you how many carbohydrates 
there are. We can tell what the calories are and the fat, but we can't 
tell you from what country it has come. It is a remarkable omission.
  What is all the more remarkable is that there are those who actually 
argue that it would be an impractical requirement. We have already 
adjusted to content. We have adjusted to nutrition. But somehow it is 
impractical--and we are told almost impossible--for us to put country-
of-origin label. I don't know anybody who honestly believes that, but 
there are those who profess that.
  There is a reluctance on the part of the administration and a 
reluctance on the part of some in the Congress to recognize what I 
think is inevitable. One day we will have country-of-origin labeling. 
One day we will have the full advantage--I would say the patriotic 
advantage--of ensuring that we know we are eating American beef and 
agricultural products--one day. But that day should have been a year 
ago when we passed the farm bill. We gave them a year. They had until 
last September to implement it, and we have now been put on a 2-
year delay.

  But this international export issue, the consumer information issue, 
and the tremendous advantage in creating greater competence for 
producers alone ought to be arguments that the time has come for us to 
pass country-of-origin labeling without incumbrance.
  For the life of me, I can't understand in this day and age, with all 
the facts on the side of those who argue in favor that there can still 
be the intransigence, that there can still be the reluctance and that 
there can still be the opposition from the administrations, the 
meatpackers, and some of our Republican colleagues in the House in 
particular. This is not a partisan issue in the Senate. There have been 
a number of Republican and Democratic Senators who have worked together 
to cosponsor legislation. An overwhelming number of Members have voted 
in favor--not once but twice so far. We have had ample debate. I must 
say I think the arguments get flimsier and flimsier.
  The international panel that convened and looked at this situation 
once again offer us yet another illustration as to why it is important 
for us to do this now.
  Let's pass country-of-origin labeling. Let's ensure that consumers 
have the same information as fellow consumers have in 43 other 
countries. Let's do for origin what we have already done for nutrition 
and for content.

[[Page S634]]

  We will continue to offer amendments. We will continue to make it the 
policy of this Senate, we will continue to ask for rollcall votes, and 
we will continue to keep the pressure on until this job is done. I 
think it is inexcusable and somewhat embarrassing that in this day and 
age with all the facts presented to us, as they now have been, that 
there could be any question. We need to get this job done--I think for 
good reason among producers and consumers alike. Patience is wearing 
thin.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield 
for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say that the Senator from South 
Dakota, Mr. Daschle, has been leading on this issue for some long, long 
while.
  Country-of-origin labeling is a requirement under the law. We passed 
it. It is just that this administration and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture doesn't want to implement country-of-origin labeling.
  I held up a beefsteak by consent here on the floor of the Senate 
about 2 weeks ago, and I asked the question: Can anyone here tell me 
where this piece of beefsteak came from? Everyone can say where his 
necktie comes from. That is labeled. Just turn it over. But can anyone 
tell where a beefsteak comes from? Could it have come from the plant in 
Mexico where one USDA inspector showed up, and found diseased carcasses 
hanging, covered with feces, getting ready to be put in the meat supply 
for human consumption in the United States? Could it be from that 
plant?

  After that USDA inspection, that plant changed its name, changed 
owner, the inspector has never been back, and that plant is certified 
now to ship into this country. The question was, did that beefsteak 
come from that plant, a plant from Guatemala, Canada, the United 
States? Where? No one knows.
  I ask the Senator from South Dakota, can he tell me which special 
interest has fought so aggressively, so long, and so hard to try to 
prevent country-of-origin labeling and prevent consumers and farmers 
and ranchers from being able to understand where this meat comes from? 
Who has the administration listened to, in deciding not to implement 
current law?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is a very good question, and I must say I know the 
Senator from North Dakota certainly knows the answer, but for the 
record it is the packers. There is an amazing coalition on one side, 
over 160 consumer groups--agriculture groups, good government groups of 
all kinds, people who have said without equivocation, this is good law, 
it ought to be done--160-plus groups on one side, the packers on the 
other side. Guess who has sided with whom? The administration is 
saying, we have to listen to those packers.
  The point made by the Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. 
We have had a change of heart with regard to downer cattle in this 
country and it goes to the point the Senator from North Dakota is 
making. We had the picture of a British downer cow, crippled, sick, 
unhealthy, and that picture was portrayed over and over and over again. 
Rarely was it noted that downer cow was not from the United States, 
that was a British downer cow. But it left the perception there are 
downer cows in this country that were entering the meat system, sick 
cattle, diseased cattle entering the meat system. So that steak could 
have come from a downer cow, a diseased cow.
  What happened? The administration rightfully said, we are going to 
ban downer cattle from the market. I applauded it when they did. Now 
they say, by and large, other countries are beginning to comply, as 
well. But we do not have any assurance that downer cattle are going to 
be prevented from entering our meat processing system even now. While 
we have the safest system in the world, we ought to be able to buy and 
eat and be confident about our beef products because we have such a 
safe system, wouldn't it be nice to know whether or not an imported 
product which potentially could be a product from a downer cow came 
from Canada or Mexico or some other country? Wouldn't it be nice to 
know we have that additional confidence that we are eating beef where 
downer cattle have been expressly prohibited?
  That is what we are talking about, improving upon an already good 
meat safety system. That, too, is a good reason why country-of-origin 
labeling ought to be law today.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would allow me to inquire further, the 
opposition to country-of-origin labeling, as the Senator indicated, 
comes from the big meat packing plants, the beef packing plants. Eighty 
percent of the beef packing is controlled by four companies. It is a 
case of big interests versus the rest.
  The ranchers of South Dakota and North Dakota produce the best 
quality beef in the world. We know that. They know that. So the 
question is, why should the consumers not be able to have access to the 
information about where this beef comes from at the meat counter when 
they purchase the meat? Is it South Dakota beef, North Dakota beef, 
Guatemala beef, or Mexico beef?
  I will read the specifics regarding the Mexican plant because it is 
important. I discussed this previously in the Senate. In 1999, in May, 
one inspector from this country paid a surprise visit to a meat packing 
plant in Mexico. He found ``shanks and briskets contaminated with 
feces; disease condemned carcass was observed ready for boning and 
distribution into commerce.'' Then the Mexican officials took note, 
went to work to restore that plant's ability to sell meat in America. 
The Mexican plant regained the export license, it switched owners, it 
switched its name, and it now sells meat in America.

  The question is, in South Dakota, when you buy a beefsteak, is it 
coming from a ranch in South Dakota? The consumers ought to have a 
right to know and ranchers and farmers want them to have that right. 
This Congress and this President ought to stand up for the interests of 
people out there farming and ranching in this country who demand this 
country-of-origin labeling become law.
  Senator Daschle has led the fight for some years. I appreciate the 
fact today you said you will not quit. We will get this done. And 
whether it is forcing them to see the light or feel the heat, one way 
or the other, this administration has to stand aside and get out of the 
way and let us get this done for the American consumer.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I reiterate my thanks to the Senator from 
North Dakota because he has been right alongside those fighting from 
the very first. I remember during the debate on the farm bill he was in 
the room as we began writing country-of-origin labeling. He was 
extremely helpful in ensuring we did the right thing in terms of the 
way the legislation initially was drafted. His point is well taken.
  Today, we see an unusual phenomenon. It is not often producers and 
consumers merge, coalesce, and form the coalition they have in support 
of public policy. But in this case, it is one of those occurrences. One 
hundred and sixty organizations, consumers, producers, virtually every 
good government organization that cares about nutritional issues and 
agricultural issues, food and production issues, have joined together 
to say the time has come for us to do this. We have to do it now in 
light of BSE, in particular. Let's get this job done.
  The international experts convened. They, too, said there are a lot 
of questions out there. We need to make sure we get the right answers 
to those questions. I am simply saying, as a result of yet another 
report, we have one more reason why country-of-origin labeling should 
be law today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                         State of Intelligence

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, George Tenet gave a speech today at 
Georgetown that was profoundly disturbing to me and I want to visit 
about it for a moment.
  I am not on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I am not someone who 
claims to have substantial knowledge or detailed knowledge about all of 
these issues. I spend a great deal of time concerned about economic 
issues and think I know something about some of those, but I do not 
pretend to be an expert in foreign policy or intelligence issues.
  I, as have all of my colleagues, have sat in rooms with a label 
called ``top

[[Page S635]]

secret'' and listened to briefings, top-secret, classified briefings 
from Mr. Tenet, from the Vice President, from National Security Advisor 
Condoleezza Rice, from Secretary Powell, and others. I, like others, 
have watched what has happened in recent weeks with the testimony from 
David Kay in which he came to the Senate as a witness and said, look, 
we got it all wrong. We were all wrong about the intelligence with 
respect to Iraq.
  I listened to David Kay describe his assessment of the intelligence 
system--again, this is the top weapons inspector, appointed by 
President Bush--and what he said was, this country got it all wrong. 
Its intelligence service got it all wrong. He said, they failed the 
President.
  They did not just fail the President of the United States, if they 
failed. They failed the President and they failed those in Congress who 
they looked right in the eye as they gave top-secret briefings to us 
about their assessment of intelligence. They failed the American 
people, in my judgment. So this failure was much greater than just a 
failure to properly inform the President.
  This country has an enormous stake in making sure we have an 
intelligence community that works, one we support, and one we are proud 
of. Why? Someplace this afternoon there are intelligence agents who are 
pouring over the thinnest of hints about what terrorists might be 
deciding to do to murder Americans, to attack an American city, to 
commit a terrorist act against our country, and we must rely on those 
intelligence agents and the intelligence community to understand it and 
to get it right, not to exaggerate it, not to misinterpret it, but to 
understand it and get it right. The safety and security of this country 
depends on it.

  None of us wants the intelligence community to be held up in anything 
other than the highest esteem. I want to be able to say the 
intelligence community gets it and gets it right. But I cannot do that 
at the moment.
  Something is wrong, and we must fix it. When the top weapons 
inspector comes to the Congress and says, look, the intelligence was 
all wrong, it failed the President, you don't need much more than that 
to understand somebody has to be accountable. We have to, posthaste, 
begin to fix that which failed us.
  I have not heard of all of Mr. Tenet's presentation; I just heard the 
highlights a bit ago in which he was defending the CIA. But let me 
describe one of the reasons I found Mr. Tenet's remarks so distressing.
  Last evening I happened to be watching something on ``60 Minutes.'' 
They were interviewing a gentleman named Greg Thielmann. Mr. Thielmann 
had been in charge of analyzing Iraqi weapons threats for Secretary of 
State Colin Powell's Intelligence Bureau. He was the one who, after 25 
years, became the Acting Director of the Office of Strategic 
Proliferation and Military Affairs. He was responsible, before he 
retired, for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat.
  He and his staff had the highest security clearances. They saw 
virtually everything, whether it came in to the CIA or the Defense 
Department. He was, by all accounts, admired by everyone, and had a 
long and distinguished career.
  During the ``60 Minutes'' interview, Mr. Thielmann describes watching 
the February 5, 2003, presentation Secretary Powell made to the United 
Nations. He says at the time Secretary Powell made that presentation he 
was nonplused by what Secretary Powell was saying. He says what Powell 
was saying about a range of things was not at all in concert with the 
intelligence the State Department had. About the charge that Iraq was 
importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons--
he said:

       This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary 
     Powell's speech for us.

  He is talking now of those who were part of the intelligence-
gathering part of the State Department.
  Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said 
they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium--fuel for an atom 
bomb. But they got information from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory--
those are the scientists who enrich uranium for our bombs, our nuclear 
weapons--and the experts there advised that the tubes were all wrong 
for a bomb program and the aluminum, apparently, it turns out, after 
further inspection, was exactly what the Iraqis wanted for artillery.
  So they sent the word up to Secretary Powell this is not about 
nuclear weapons, it is about artillery, and the fellow who is at the 
Oak Ridge Laboratory, Houston Wood, said:

       I guess I was angry, that's the best way to describe my 
     emotions. I was angry at that.

  Mr. Thielmann was talking now about Secretary Powell's speech to the 
United Nations. He said he found that the tubes could not be what the 
CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick, and 
certain to leak.
  The transcript says:

       ``Wasn't going to work. They would have failed,'' says 
     Wood. . . .

  And they reached that conclusion in 2001.
  They reported to Secretary Powell's office that they were confident 
the tubes were not for a nuclear program. And then nothing happened. 
About a year later, when the administration was building the case for 
the war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of the New York 
Times. And Mr. Wood says:

       I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes 
     that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that 
     people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges.

  The New York Times reported that senior administration officials 
insisted the tubes were for an atom bomb program.
  Again, Mr. Wood, the expert from Oak Ridge Laboratories, says:

       Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made 
     their determination, their evaluation, and now we didn't know 
     what was happening.

  The scientists had already said this cannot be for the development of 
nuclear weapons.
  So in his United Nations speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there 
was a disagreement about the aluminum tubes, but he said most experts 
agreed with the nuclear theory. Mr. Powell said:

       There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most 
     U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in 
     centrifuges used to enrich uranium.

  Most of the experts--nearly all of the experts--are at Oak Ridge. And 
Mr. Houston Wood, at Oak Ridge, claims he does not know anyone in 
academia or a foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal.
  He said: I don't know a single person anywhere who believed that 
these aluminum tubes were for a nuclear program.
  Now, I do not understand this. It appears to me that information was 
available that would have debunked several key portions. I have not 
talked about the alleged yellowcake purchase from Niger, which was in 
the President's State of the Union Address, which turned out to have 
been wrong, or the UAVs, the most sensitive of information, which 
turned out to be wrong.
  Mr. Thielmann, who was, again, the top official at the State 
Department for the gathering of intelligence for presentation to 
Secretary Powell, talked about some of the slides Secretary Powell was 
using. He talked about the stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of 
chemical weapons. He said part of the stockpile was clearly in these 
bunkers. He was showing slides:

       The four that are in red squares represent active chemical 
     munitions bunkers. How do I know that, how can I say that? 
     Let me give you a closer look.

  Up close, Powell said you could see a truck for cleaning up chemical 
spills. It is a signature for a chemical bunker.
  Quote:

       It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes 
     wrong.

  But again, Mr. Thielmann, who is the top intelligence person who is 
providing information to Powell, said:

       My understanding is that these particular vehicles were 
     simply fire trucks. You cannot really describe [that] as 
     being a unique signature.

  In fact, it is interesting, when the weapons inspectors showed up 
over there, that is what they discovered, it was firetrucks. And in 
other circumstances, that which was part of the slides shown, they were 
trucks with cobwebs in them and had not been used for a long while. 
There was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

[[Page S636]]

  So this is a ``60 Minutes'' presentation from the last evening, in 
which a top intelligence person, with all the clearances, having seen 
all the intelligence, says Secretary Powell, and others, would have had 
the intelligence to deal with these questions easily.
  This debate is not about pulling Saddam Hussein out of a rat hole. 
Saddam Hussein was more than a rat. Saddam Hussein was an evil man who 
killed thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands. It is the case our 
country has opened mass graves the size of football fields, and those 
graves contain the skeletons of thousands and thousands and thousands 
of Iraqis. The world is much better off because Saddam Hussein has been 
apprehended and no longer runs the country of Iraq.
  But the question for this country--and it is an important question--
is, when the call is made the next time--perhaps an hour from now, 
perhaps a month from now--to have our intelligence community make an 
accurate assessment, will they make an assessment that is accurate? 
Will they fail us? Will they fail the President? Will they fail our 
country? This is a very significant issue.
  Mr. Tenet's speech today was not only defensive, but Mr. Tenet's 
speech failed, in my judgment, to acknowledge what the country has 
widely acknowledged, starting with David Kay and others, that the 
intelligence failed us with respect to Iraq. And that bothers me a 
great deal.
  Now, I know there will be people who come to the floor of the Senate, 
and they will say none of this really matters. Saddam Hussein was a bad 
guy. He was; no question about that. But if you say that good 
intelligence does not matter, then don't sleep very well tonight 
because terrorists want to commit terrorist acts in this country. 
Terrorists want to kill people in this country. The only way we are 
going to make certain we protect this country is through good, strong 
intelligence.
  I worry a great deal about an intelligence community that does not 
seem to be accountable, does not get it right, and no one cares. The 
President ought to be furious about what is happening. The Congress 
ought to be apoplectic about what is happening. Both should demand on 
an urgent basis a complete, thorough review of what went wrong and how 
to fix it--not tomorrow, not yesterday, but right now. I don't see that 
urgency at all. What I see is the President finally getting pushed and 
nudged the last couple days, saying: I will put together an independent 
commission that can investigate intelligence, only under pressure.
  Then we have people who come to the floor and say: There is no 
problem here. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy found in a rat hole. It is 
better that he is in jail.
  Every single one of us--Republicans, Democrats, the White House, and 
the Congress, and especially the American people--must rely on a strong 
system of intelligence that gets it right to protect this country's 
long-term security. To the extent that, as David Kay indicated, it 
failed and to the extent that, as so many others have testified, 
circumstance after circumstance that was alleged was not accurate, and 
to the extent now that Mr. Tenet continues today to seem to believe all 
was well and all those who are critical are somehow just plain wrong, 
America is weakened for that.
  We will strengthen ourselves when we understand we must rely on good 
intelligence. And if we have not received good intelligence, we must 
fix that system now. It must be done posthaste. It must be job one. 
There is an urgency for us to take action now to make certain the next 
intelligence assessment, perhaps an hour from now, to try to protect 
this country will be an assessment that is accurate and one upon which 
we can rely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to respond to a few of the comments 
our colleague from North Dakota has just made. I begin with the 
proposition that it does help to have been on the Senate Intelligence 
Committee or to be a member of the committee today to conduct a more 
thoughtful, reasoned discussion of this debate than has generally been 
characterized by the media accounts.
  People in the media tend to try to capsulize everything in an 
attention-grabbing headline way when in fact intelligence is a very 
complex, difficult proposition that needs to be handled and approached 
in the most cautious and careful manner.
  I think it is important for those people who have been on the 
committee or, as the Senator from Missouri sitting next to me noted, 
currently just received briefings as a member of the committee--it is 
important for them to be able to respond when comments have been made 
such as those just concluded.
  David Kay did not say we got it all wrong. I invite anyone who would 
like to bring to this floor a quotation from David Kay that says ``we 
got it all wrong'' to do so. He did not say that. I know that is what 
opponents of the Bush administration wish he had said, but he didn't 
say that. Let me quote to you some of the things he did say.
  He was asked a question by Senator McCain testifying before the House 
Armed Services Committee:

       You agree with the fundamental principle here that what we 
     did was justified and enhanced the security of the United 
     States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?

  David Kay:

       Absolutely.

  But then Senator Kennedy asked a question that kind of got to some of 
the points our colleague from North Dakota just made. He asked:

       Many of us feel that the evidence so far leads only to one 
     conclusion: that what has happened was more than a failure of 
     intelligence, it was the result of manipulation of the 
     intelligence to justify a decision to go to war.

  David Kay:

       All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence 
     in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite 
     frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other 
     than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with 
     regard to WMD.

  That is exactly the conclusion that other Members of this body 
articulated. I won't quote names, but I remember several of my 
colleagues, including a Member on the other side of the aisle, saying 
pretty much the same thing.
  President Clinton said almost exactly the same thing. In fact, in 
1998, we overwhelmingly passed a resolution in this body authorizing 
President Clinton to take action to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in 
Iraq precisely because of this. The intelligence that existed then, 
that existed before then, and that existed before our most recent 
conflict with Iraq all verified what David Kay said was true.
  So far from saying that we got it all wrong, David Kay is saying we 
were perfectly justified in taking the action we took. Part of getting 
it all wrong would have been the information that we had regarding the 
violations of the U.N. resolutions. What did David Kay think about 
that?
  He said:

       In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to 
     this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I 
     reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of 
     the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that 
     Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come 
     clean about what it had. We have discovered hundreds of 
     cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the 
     testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under 
     the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been 
     reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did 
     they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not 
     to do it and they hid the material.
       Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They 
     maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had 
     the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there 
     was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they 
     were doing was illegal. I hope we find even more evidence of 
     that.

  This is what David Kay actually said. One of the arguments made was 
that, somehow or other, the CIA and our intelligence community were 
pressured by the Bush administration to somehow modify the intelligence 
to suit their nefarious purposes, the implication being that the 
administration wanted to go to war and needed to somehow manipulate the 
intelligence to reach that conclusion.
  Here is what David Kay said about that:

       And let me take one of the explanations most commonly 
     given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that 
     would fit the political agenda of one or another 
     administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation. 
     And never--not in a single case--was the explanation, ``I was 
     pressured to do

[[Page S637]]

     this.'' The explanation was, very often, ``The limited data 
     we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that 
     there's another explanation for it.'' And each case was 
     different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth 
     and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I'm 
     convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did 
     not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the 
     military term, ``inappropriate command influence'' that led 
     them to take that position.

  Some people in saying, well, maybe we didn't get it all wrong, but 
what was the real state of intelligence here and did it comport with 
what we thought we knew--I thought the colloquy between Senator McCain 
and David Kay at this hearing was most interesting.
  Senator McCain:

       Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass 
     destruction; true?

  David Kay:

       Absolutely.

  Parenthetically, I would note, this is not an answer from a man who 
is saying we got it all wrong because, remember, the allegation had 
been that Saddam Hussein had developed and used weapons of mass 
destruction. So he didn't say: We got it all wrong. He said: 
Absolutely.
  Senator McCain then:

       He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes 
     or no.

  David Kay:

       Oh, yes.

  Senator McCain:

       OK. And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned 
     chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s?

  David Kay:

       Yes, sir.

  Senator McCain:

       We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear 
     program.

  David Kay:

       Yes.

  Senator McCain:

       And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use 
     weapons of mass destruction.

  David Kay:

       Clearly.

  Senator McCain:

       So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no 
     doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and 
     use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in 
     your mind?

  David Kay:

       There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, 
     Senator.

  There is one final thing I would like to talk about that David Kay 
actually said. Senator Clinton asked him a question at that hearing as 
follows:

       I think that rightly does raise questions that we should be 
     examining about whether or not the U.N. inspection process 
     pursuant to 1441 might not also have worked without the loss 
     of life that we have confronted both among our own young men 
     and women, as well as Iraqis.

  David Kay:

       Well, Senator Clinton, let me just add to that. We have had 
     a number of Iraqis who have come forward and said, ``We did 
     not tell the U.N. about what we were hiding, nor would we 
     have told the U.N. because we would run the risk of our 
     own''--I think we have learned things that no U.N. inspector 
     would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam and 
     the tremendous personal consequences that scientists had to 
     run by speaking the truth. That's not to say, and it's not 
     incompatible with the fact that inspections accomplish a 
     great deal in holding a program down. And that's where the 
     surprise is. In holding the program down, in keeping it from 
     break out, I think the record is better than we would have 
     anticipated. I don't think the record is necessarily better 
     than we thought with regard to getting the final truth, 
     because of the power of the terrorist state that Saddam 
     Hussein had.
  The bottom line is that David Kay recognizes that, while the U.N. 
inspectors found certain things, the inspections that he performed were 
even more helpful because of the pressure that the Iraqis had been 
under when Saddam Hussein was in power. But what David Kay said--if you 
read all of the rest of the testimony--was basically this: There are 
many things we found about Saddam Hussein's weapons program. We even 
found some weapons, and we talked to a lot of Iraqis who told us that 
he had every intention of reinitiating the programs once the sanctions 
were lifted. Everything was in place for him to do that.
  The thing that puzzled David Kay is that we had not found the stocks 
of chemical weapons, primarily. We knew that he had artillery shells, 
some of which were filled with chemical agents, and others that could 
be filled with chemical agents, and that he had large stocks of those 
agents, as well as some biological agents.
  How do we know that is true? Because the Iraqis admitted that and the 
U.N. inspectors confirmed it. He admitted it in 1998. He never 
explained what happened to those stocks thereafter.
  Now, one would think that when he admits that he has the stuff--and 
we know that he used that same kind of weapon before--that if he 
doesn't prove to us that he got rid of it--in fact, he offers no 
explanation about where it is--you have to assume that he hasn't. It 
would be imprudent to assume otherwise.
  So to suggest that David Kay came back and said, no, we got it all 
wrong, that is wrong. What he puzzles about was why we had not found 
this stock of artillery shells.
  Before the military activity was taken, all of the Senators were 
invited every day at 9 o'clock to go to the secure area of the Capitol 
to visit with the general and CIA people who briefed us on the status 
of the war. Every morning, if colleagues will remember, one of the 
things they briefed us on was how close our troops were getting to the 
red line--that line around Baghdad--where we had information that 
artillery with chemical shells could be lobbed against our soldiers. We 
did everything we could to stop that. We bombed warehouses of 
artillery, and we were trying to take out the command and control that 
would issue the orders. We dropped millions of leaflets on the military 
commanders of the Iraqis, saying they would be war criminals if they 
carried out orders to fire those artillery shells against our troops.
  We were surprised when we took the Baghdad Airport and they had not 
fired the artillery shells. We thought they were going to use them. We 
went to a lot of trouble to take them out. Maybe we took them out. 
Maybe we ruined their plan with command and control. Maybe they had 
gotten rid of them by then. Maybe they buried them or sent them to 
Syria.
  Secretary Rumsfeld testified yesterday that there are about five 
different scenarios that could explain why we have not found the 
artillery shells so far. David Kay says he is not sure we will ever 
find them, or that they existed on the day we went to war against Iraq. 
Maybe they had been destroyed, although you would wonder why Saddam 
Hussein didn't tell anybody about it. Maybe they were sent to other 
countries or maybe they were given to terrorists. That would be a 
terrible thing, but we don't know.
  Obviously, we had no evidence that they no longer existed. At one 
time, they existed. So it is far from David Kay saying we got it all 
wrong; he is saying that we got it all right, except--and I am 
paraphrasing here--for the fact that we cannot explain what happened to 
those weapons, and he wonders whether they existed when we went to war.

  What does George Tenet have to say about it? Our colleague says that 
George Tenet's comments were defensive. Maybe they were a little 
defensive. If you have been the subject of attack for several weeks 
about how you got it all wrong, you would be defensive, too.
  I found his speech today to be a very interesting presentation, a 
careful presentation about what, in fact, we knew, why we knew it, and 
why it would not have been prudent for us not to take action on it. I 
thought this to be particularly interesting.
  One of the things that he said was:

       To understand a difficult topic like Iraq takes patience 
     and care. Unfortunately, you rarely hear a patient, careful, 
     or thoughtful discussion of intelligence these days. But 
     these times demand it because the alternative--politicized, 
     haphazard evaluation, without the benefit of time and facts--
     may well result in an intelligence community that is damaged 
     and a country that is more at risk.

  I don't find that defensive. Rather, I find it an attempt to try to 
put this discussion into a thoughtful, careful way of analyzing where 
we were right and where we were wrong, and how to make sure we are as 
right as possible in the future. He went on to say:

       By definition, intelligence deals with the unclear, the 
     unknown, the deliberately hidden. What the enemies of the 
     United States hope to deny, we work to reveal. The question 
     being asked about Iraq in the starkest terms is, were we 
     right or were we wrong? In

[[Page S638]]

     the intelligence business, you are almost never completely 
     wrong or completely right.

  He goes on to detail the information we had about the missile program 
of the Iraqis. I would like to say to colleagues, with respect to the 
missile program, it appears that we got it right. He talks about what 
we thought we knew, what he told the President we thought we knew, and 
what we believe is the case of our military actions. And with respect 
to their efforts to develop missiles that were in violation of U.N. 
resolutions, they appear to have gotten that pretty well right.
  His conclusion on that was this, and I will quote it:

       My provisional bottom line on the missiles: We were 
     generally on target.

  He says that because he urges us to consider the fact that there is 
still a great deal of information left to be discovered in Iraq. They 
are nowhere near complete in their effort to try to find what Saddam 
Hussein had and to analyze how dangerous it was.
  With respect to that general proposition, I want to quote this:

       And to come to conclusions before the war other than those 
     we reached, we would have had to ignore all the intelligence 
     gathered from multiple sources after 1998.

  He detailed many here. He said:

       My provisional bottom line on missiles: We were generally 
     on target.

  Regarding the unmanned aerial vehicles, he said:

       My provisional bottom line today: We detected 
     the development of prohibited and undeclared unmanned 
     aerial vehicles. But the jury is still out on whether Iraq 
     intended to use its newer, smaller, unmanned aerial 
     vehicle to deliver biological weapons.

  With regard to nuclear weapons, he said:

       My provisional bottom line today: Saddam did not have a 
     nuclear weapon, he still wanted one, and Iraq intended to 
     reconstitute a nuclear program at some point. We have not yet 
     found clear evidence that dual-use items Iraq sought were for 
     nuclear reconstitution. We do not yet know if any 
     reconstitution efforts had begun. But we may have 
     overestimated the progress Saddam was making.

  That is in contrast to what he said before the first gulf war when he 
noted that that colored the way they approached their analysis with 
respect to his nuclear program.
  Then, with respect to a biological program, he said:

       My provisional bottom line today: Iraq intended to develop 
     biological weapons. Clearly, research and development work 
     was underway that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent 
     production if seed stocks were available. But we do not yet 
     know if production took place. And just as clearly, we have 
     not yet found biological weapons.

  Finally, with regard to the chemical weapons, he said:

       My provisional bottom line today: Saddam had the intent and 
     capability to quickly convert civilian industry to chemical 
     weapons production. However, we have not yet found the 
     weapons we expected.

  I will quote a little more on this point:

       I have now given you my provisional bottom lines, but it is 
     important to remember that estimates are not written in a 
     vacuum. Let me tell you some of what was going on in the fall 
     of 2002.

  He proceeds to detail several kinds of sources that came to the 
attention of the intelligence community, sources which provided 
information which no rational intelligence leader would have ignored: 
Saddam Hussein calling together his nuclear weapons committee--I am not 
going to go into all of this detail. He quotes, ``A stream of reporting 
from a different sensitive source'' that caused the intelligence 
community to advise the President, the Vice President, and others that 
they believed Saddam Hussein was actively trying to pursue these 
programs.
  He said:

       So what do I think about all of this today? Based on an 
     assessment of the data we collected over the past 10 years, 
     it would have been difficult for analysts to come to any 
     different conclusions than the ones we reached in October of 
     2002.

  That is what George Tenet said. You can say he is being defensive. I 
say it is important for George Tenet to speak out and to explain to the 
American people how difficult it is to get intelligence, what we 
thought we knew at the time, what he advised our leaders of, what we 
think we know today.
  He also noted the fact they have instituted efforts internally to try 
to discover why they didn't know things perhaps they should have known, 
how they can do it better in the future.
  When you combine that with what David Kay said about the fact there 
was no evidence that our leadership in any way pressured our 
intelligence community to come to different conclusions, you have to 
stand up to the people who gathered this intelligence and presented it 
to the leaders. They maybe didn't get it all right, but they did their 
best. And with respect to our leadership, there is no reason to believe 
they didn't treat this information with the utmost of seriousness and 
honesty; that they presented it to the American people, exactly as 
George Tenet said today. They presented it in an honest way and that it 
would have been irresponsible of them to have acted any differently, to 
have presented it any differently given the information that had been 
presented to them.
  I think that had the President, knowing what he now knows and all of 
this would eventually come out even though a lot of it is classified 
information, if the President had not taken action and, God forbid, 
something had happened, a lot of people on the Senate floor, in the 
Senate, around the country, and certainly pundits would be saying: Why 
did President Bush ignore these warnings? Why did he ignore what the 
intelligence community came up with?
  There are some people who are saying that with respect to the attack 
of 9/11 when the President had virtually nothing, in fact, when we had 
obviously no reason to believe that on September 11 there would be an 
attack from the airliners that would be used by the al-Qaida 
terrorists, and yet with virtually nothing to go on, people are saying 
the President should have known and done something about it.
  With all of the evidence we had about Saddam Hussein and all of the 
evidence with regard to Iraq, to have ignored that would have been 
absolutely irresponsible. My colleagues who are criticizing him today 
for acting would then be criticizing him for not acting, I believe.
  In a political season, you are darned if you do and darned if you 
don't. We understand that. But I think it is important, as George Tenet 
asked us to do, especially for those of us in the Senate, especially 
those of us who served on the Intelligence Committee, to urge people to 
approach this subject from a sober, careful, nonpoliticized point of 
view because lives are at stake.
  We make decisions and the executive branch and military make 
decisions based upon our intelligence. We have to make sure that the 
way we restructure intelligence, the funding decisions that we make, 
and the other things we do are not based upon quick judgments, on 
political judgments certainly, but rather are based upon a calm 
analysis, a reflection based upon perspective and certainly an 
understanding of the difficulties that the intelligence community 
faces.
  When you do all of that, I think you can come to no other conclusion 
than what David Kay came to, that George Tenet said, the President, the 
Vice President, Secretary Powell, before the United Nations, that there 
was a problem here that could not be ignored.
  It would be absolutely wrong for anybody to suggest today that we got 
it all wrong and that for some reason that is President Bush's fault 
and certainly not for anyone to suggest that somehow or another our 
leadership misled the American people in order to go to war. That would 
be the absolute height of irresponsibility. No President, Republican or 
Democrat, I can think of would ever do such a thing.
  I am disappointed that some--and I am not referring to anybody in 
this body at this point--that some people would actually suggest that 
would be the case. But when we talk about the intelligence the way it 
has been discussed here today, it leads to that kind of conclusion. I 
think that is unfortunate.
  I urge all of my colleagues to try to discuss this in a relatively 
impassioned way, a carefully constructive way so working together we 
can craft the kind of policies that will provide for our security in 
the future, protection of the American people, and certainly the 
protection of the people we send into harm's way to protect us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague's admonition in using care in

[[Page S639]]

discussing this issue is admirable. Care is exactly what we ought to 
use when we evaluate what has happened and not happened.
  My colleague, incidentally, has just made the point that there was 
intelligence that suggested that Iraq posed a threat. And that was 
exactly my point. That is exactly the intelligence that was represented 
to this body and to the House and to the American people. But it turns 
out the intelligence, the specific intelligence, that was presented was 
wrong.
  My colleague also, at the start of his presentation, defied anyone to 
show him a quote from Mr. Kay that said he was wrong or we were wrong. 
I will do that. My colleague will likely want to then revise his 
remarks. My hope is he might do that.
  Here is the front cover of Newsweek this week. Mr. David Kay--and 
this is in quotes--says:

       We were all wrong.

  I will go to the inside on page 27, again a direct quote of Mr. Kay:

       It turns out we were all wrong probably in my judgment.

  This is testimony before the Armed Services Committee. On a third 
point, in the fourth paragraph of his prepared testimony given before 
the Armed Services Committee, quoting David Kay:

       Let me begin by saying we were almost all wrong.

  My colleague challenged someone to come up with a quote. There are 
three of them, and my hope is the record might at least stand on direct 
quotes that are presented here before a committee of the Senate.
  If one dare whisper these days--just whisper--about these issues, it 
is perceived as a frontal assault against the President of the United 
States. That is sheer, utter nonsense.
  The question before this body and this country, in my judgment, is if 
the top weapons inspector appointed by this President goes to Iraq and 
comes back to us and says that body of intelligence that was given us, 
given our country, given our Congress before we went into Iraq was all 
wrong, we have an obligation to address that issue, not later, but now. 
We have an obligation not to try to protect someone in the 
administration or in Congress. We have an obligation to protect the 
American people not later, but now.
  I am not on the Intelligence Committee. I have deep admiration for 
all who do serve, Republicans and Democrats. But I would hope, just as 
one Member of the Senate, that the most significant energy in this body 
to follow where this string leads and try to determine what is wrong, 
what happened, what persuades Mr. Kay to come and say, ``It turns out 
we were all wrong,'' I would expect my colleagues on the Intelligence 
Committee, without respect of politics, just to follow that string to 
find out what on Earth happened and how do we fix it immediately.
  To suggest that somehow that we ought not worry about this, that 
invading Iraq was fine because Saddam Hussein was an evil man, just 
changes the subject. Sure he was an evil man. We found him in a 
rathole. He was a rat in a rathole. He is a killer, a murderer. The 
world is better off because he doesn't lead Iraq. That is not the 
question.
  The question is what trust, what confidence do we have in this 
country's system of intelligence today? Our intelligence system needs 
to pore over information about chatter, about satellite photos, about 
raw intelligence to determine who might be planning an attack tonight 
on an American city, who might be designing right now to kill 
Americans. I want that intelligence community to get it right. I want 
it to be the finest intelligence community in the world. I am sorry 
that I say Mr. Tenet is defensive. I am sorry to have to say that I 
think he got it wrong. But David Kay says it and others say it.

  All of us in this Chamber depend on our intelligence community. We 
spend a great deal of money on it. I want the finest we can possibly 
have protecting this country. If anyone believes our intelligence 
community got it all right, did just fine, then they ought to sleep 
like a baby--go to sleep early and sleep late and have a great night's 
sleep. But if they believe, as Mr. Kay does--and, yes, that is what he 
believes. I have quoted three different occasions where he said we got 
it wrong, and if someone believes, as many respected foreign policy 
thinkers and intelligence thinkers do believe, that there is something 
wrong, something significantly wrong that we need to address, then we 
ought to join together, Republicans and Democrats, and not worry about 
who might be criticized, just decide we are going to fix it. That is 
our job.
  It is not our job to protect the Senate, to protect the President. It 
is our job to protect this country. I worry a great deal about what is 
going on. My colleague went far afield and made a defense of the Iraq 
resolution. Well, a good many of us in the Senate and in the Congress 
voted for that resolution. Now we discover Mr. Kay suggests the 
intelligence got it all wrong, the basis for that resolution got it all 
wrong.
  Mr. KYL. Will my colleague yield for one moment on that?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. KYL. I really do appreciate that. I think what the Senator 
referred to and what he read was that Mr. Kay said: We all got it 
wrong. But he did not say: We got it all wrong.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. KYL. Go right ahead and read that again. That is the distinction 
I would make. We did get one thing wrong. We cannot find the weapons.
  Mr. DORGAN. With due respect, and I have great affection for my 
colleague from Arizona, he has it wrong. Let me read from the fourth 
paragraph of Mr. Kay's testimony given to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee: ``Let me begin by saying we were almost all wrong.''
  Now, this is not about parsing words. It is Mr. Kay saying: Look, the 
intelligence was wrong.
  I say to my colleague from Arizona, my point is not about the 
President, it is not about the Vice President, it is not about 
Condoleezza Rice or Secretary Powell or Mr. Tenet. It is about whether 
this country is well served by the current intelligence community. Do 
they have it right or not? If they got it wrong, as many suggest they 
have, and it is pretty hard to make the case they got it right, then 
what do we do about it?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for two quick 
questions?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield for one question and then 
another.
  Mr. BOND. Well, the most important question and I know this is a very 
important debate--the Senator from Maine was hoping to speak on the 
bill and I wondered how much longer the Senator from North Dakota was 
going to speak.
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, I do not have a gauge on the tank. In fact, I 
barely came to the Senate expecting to speak for 5 minutes and then the 
Senator from Arizona piqued my interest and I decided I had to go find 
some quotes and respond to his presentation. I know the Senator from 
Maine has been here awhile, and I will not be much longer.
  Mr. BOND. If the Senator will yield for one additional question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BOND. Does the Senator realize all the rest of the Intelligence 
Committee is in S-407 receiving a 300-page report compiled over 8 
months by the entire staff of the Intelligence Committee, after over a 
couple of hundred interviews and reviewing tens of thousands of 
documents, which goes right to this question and which we in the 
committee will be working on and trying to present either in classified 
or we hope mostly unclassified material so we can carry on this debate? 
Is the Senator aware that the reason there are not members of the 
Intelligence Committee here is that they are getting that information 
right now? Is the Senator aware of that?

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am aware of that. I might say I have 
high hopes that that study, which has been underway for some long 
while, will be helpful to us. I must say also that there is a portion 
of the study that is a black hole. The study that is going on up there 
and will be released deals only with the gathering of intelligence, 
which I think shortchanges this Senate and the American people, because 
it does not deal with the use of that intelligence. But we can deal 
with the issue of the use of intelligence at another time. I wish it 
had been done in the same report.

[[Page S640]]

  Again, this issue of intelligence is critical to this country's 
protection and security interests. I believe that is something on which 
we would agree. We share that understanding, and my hope is that up in 
407--the Senator from Missouri refers to a room in the Capitol Building 
that is a room where the Intelligence Committee meets. It is a room 
where top secret briefings are given. One of the things that persuaded 
me to come to the floor this afternoon is I have sat in that room. I 
have sat in that room with a neon sign that says ``top secret'' up on 
top flashing, and I have had the very people who developed this 
intelligence assessment look me in the eye and give me information that 
I now know to be wrong. That bothers me a lot.
  I do not know how that happened. I do not know whether it was just 
bad collection of data, bad interpretation of data, or misuse of data. 
I do not have the foggiest idea, but I am saying this, that as one 
Senator I have been sitting in that room, I have asked direct 
questions, and I have had people look me in the eye and give me an 
answer that I now know to be wrong. I think most Senators who have had 
that experience are concerned about it.
  I say to the Senator from Missouri, because I do not know whether he 
heard me say it, I have great admiration for those who serve on the 
Intelligence Committee. I do not serve there. I do not profess to be an 
expert in intelligence or foreign policy, but all of us have an 
obligation to be as informed as possible about all of these issues.
  I expect the most aggressive Members of this Senate, following the 
trail of where this leads, to be those who serve on the Intelligence 
Committee. If Mr. Kay truly believes we got it all wrong, quote, 
unquote, then I would expect the Intelligence Committee to lead the way 
in finding out why that happened and how we get to a point where we 
never have that assessment again when it comes to this country's vital 
national interests.
  Again, my colleague from Maine has been patient and I would not have 
spoken at this length except that I was intrigued and interested by my 
colleague from Arizona.
  So I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will take less than 1 minute, because I do 
not want to excite my friend any further, to say that all of us on the 
Intelligence Committee not only share the commitment to getting to the 
bottom of what went on, but we also know that David Kay said it was 
absolutely right and prudent to go into Iraq because it was more 
dangerous than we knew in certain areas. I hope the report we issue 
will answer questions that I and the other members of the Intelligence 
Committee have raised and that all Members of this body ought to be 
raising, and that we will provide some recommendations for curing the 
problems we find.
  I hope now we can turn back to the SAFETEA bill, S. 1072, which is 
very important. I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Senate begins consideration of the 
transportation legislation, let me first commend the distinguished 
managers of this bill, Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Jeffords, 
and Senator Reid for their efforts to bring this vital 6-year 
reauthorization bill to the Senate floor. I particularly wish to 
recognize the efforts of Senator Bond. He has been a tireless champion 
of improving the transportation infrastructure in this country. He has 
worked night and day to craft a well-balanced bill. I hope we can move 
forward in considering this bill without undue delay.
  This legislation would be very beneficial for the people of Maine and 
for our national economy. Nationwide, our transportation system is the 
lifeblood of economic development, the catalyst for the creation of 
thousands of jobs. Our transportation system affects our 
competitiveness, both within the United States and competing 
internationally.

  For our economy to prosper, we need an integrated modern 
transportation system that realizes our goal of cost-effective and 
efficient modes of transportation while also recognizing the need for 
continued progress in improving the quality of our air. That is why I 
have not only supported funding for our highways and our bridges, but 
also I have advocated increased Federal funding for mass transit, for 
passenger rail initiatives, and alternative means of transportation as 
well.
  In a large rural State such as Maine, an effective transportation 
network is absolutely essential. Maine has 1.3 million people spread 
out across roughly 34,000 square miles. Our State has by far the lowest 
population density in all of New England. Consequently, continuing to 
upgrade and improve our roads, highways, and bridges is essential to 
Maine's future prosperity. It is also a vital part of the economic 
strategies in our State that are aimed at increasing job opportunities 
for all of our citizens.
  It is my hope that the Federal funding that is included in this 
legislation will support a strong partnership with the States that will 
allow us to build, repair, and maintain our surface transportation 
system into the 21st century.
  The bill would also allow us to pursue some high priority 
transportation projects over the next 6 years. For example, as a native 
of Aroostook County in northern Maine, I understand how important it is 
to construct a north-south highway, a modern limited access highway 
through Aroostook County. This project has been in the works for more 
than 20 years. The interstate, when it was first constructed, for some 
reason stopped at Houlton, ME, rather than going through Aroostook 
County to the Canadian border. For that reason there have been economic 
development projects underway for some time, calling on us to construct 
a north-south highway to the Canadian border.
  This project has been funded through the preconstruction stages and 
is currently undergoing the necessary review to complete the required 
environmental impact statement.
  Northern Maine desperately needs the transportation and safety 
improvements such a highway would bring. For this reason I have made it 
my top transportation priority since being elected to the Senate in 
1996. I hope the higher funding levels authorized by this legislation 
will enable the State of Maine to continue moving this vitally 
important project forward to the construction phase.
  Just as I believe that the Aroostook highway project is critical for 
the transportation system and the economy of northern Maine, I also 
believe that an east-west highway, potentially running from the 
maritime provinces in Canada through eastern, central, and western 
Maine, to Quebec and northern New York State would significantly boost 
economic growth, job creation, and development throughout the entire 
region. This is an important transportation project, not only for that 
region of Maine but also for our Canadian neighbors.
  Maine, like many other States in the Northeast, is facing an aging 
transportation infrastructure. It requires maintenance, rehabilitation, 
and in some cases outright replacement. The most urgent example of this 
problem is the Waldo-Hancock Bridge, a major suspension bridge that 
carries U.S. Route 1 over the Penobscot River, south of Bangor, and 
acts as a gateway to downeast Maine, one of the State's most widely 
visited regions.

  The nearest alternative for crossing the Penobscot River is some 20 
miles away in Bangor, and any interruption in the service would thus 
require a detour of at least 40 miles.
  Unfortunately, due to safety concerns, last summer the State 
Department of Transportation had to lower the weight limits for 
vehicles using this bridge. The condition of the bridge has been 
declining steadily for a number of years, and despite efforts by the 
State to rehabilitate the existing structure, it has now become evident 
that the bridge must be replaced as soon as possible.
  While providing States with adequate funding to move forward with 
high priority projects such as the east-west highway, the Hancock-Waldo 
bridge, and the Aroostook highway, as well as the funding of other more 
routine highway and transit projects as a major focus of this 
legislation, I also see this bill as an opportunity to address some 
important transportation safety issues.

[[Page S641]]

The most pressing transportation safety issue in my State has to do 
with Federal truck weight limits.
  Under current law, trucks weighing as much as 100,000 pounds are 
allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from the border of Maine with New 
Hampshire, to Augusta, our capital city. At that point, right before 
Augusta, trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds are forced off 
Interstate 95, which proceeds north to Houlton. Heavy trucks are forced 
onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through our cities, our towns, 
and our villages.
  Augusta is an example of the problems this creates. When the trucks 
leave the interstate, they frequently travel down Western Avenue to 
encounter two heavily traveled traffic circles. These traffic circles 
have some of the highest accident rates in our State, and having these 
large, heavy trucks travel through the congestion of Western Avenue, 
around these two traffic circles and then continue on secondary roads 
poses a serious safety threat.
  A uniform truck weight of 100,000 pounds on all of Interstate 95 in 
Maine would reduce highway miles and travel times necessary to 
economically and efficiently transport freight throughout Maine that 
would result in both economic and environmental benefits.
  Moreover, Maine's extensive network of State and local roads would be 
better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. But 
most importantly, as I indicated with my example of the traffic circles 
in Augusta, ME, a uniform truck weight limit on the interstate would 
keep trucks on the interstate, which is designed to handle heavy 
trucks. That is where they belong rather than on the roads and highways 
that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.
  Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too 
many heavy trucks are diverted from the interstate and onto local 
roads.
  Senator Snowe and I have an initiative to deal with this issue. We 
hope to work closely with the managers of the bill to address this very 
important traffic safety issue.
  With 3,400 miles of coastline and 14 inhabited islands, there is 
another very important feature of transportation that affects my 
constituents. The Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat 
Discretionary Program is vitally important to the Maine State Ferry 
Service and the Casco Bay Island's Transit District, which provide 
critical transportation services to Maine's island communities. I have 
joined with my colleague, Senator Murray, and a bipartisan group of 
Senators in sponsoring the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act, which 
would significantly increase funding that is available for ferry 
projects. We hope to pursue this proposal as the debate on this 
important legislation continues.
  While this highway reauthorization legislation includes funding for 
traditional transportation programs, I am also pleased that it includes 
increased funding for both transportation enhancements and the 
Recreational Trails Program. Both have allowed States to greatly expand 
their bicycle path systems.
  In Maine, for example, 94 bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways have 
been built with funding from these special programs.
  I also believe that it is in our national interest to pursue and 
strengthen passenger rail services in the United States and to help 
maintain the solvency of Amtrak, even as we put reforms in place. 
Currently, there is no long-term stable funding source for passenger 
rail in the United States. Since 1971, when Amtrak was created, $25 
billion has been spent on passenger rail. This contrasts sharply with 
the $750 billion that has been invested in our highways and aviation.
  As the Senate moves forward in considering a wide range of 
transportation issues and funding questions in this vital bill, I look 
forward to working with all of my colleagues to make sure we pursue the 
goal of ensuring that our roads, our highways, and bridges are able to 
meet the needs of our citizens and commerce as we move forward in the 
21st century.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise in support of the transit amendment 
to the highway funding bill.
  As a member of the Banking Committee, I commend Chairman Shelby, 
Senator Sarbanes, and their staffs for their hard work and their 
willingness to reach consensus on this important measure.
  I also commend members of the Finance Committee for also discharging 
their duty to fully finance the transit spending authorized in the 
budget. Our Democratic leader, who also sits as a member of that 
committee, was particularly helpful in that regard.
  The legislation passed yesterday by the Banking Committee was no easy 
achievement. The members of the Banking Committee have different 
transit needs for their States. There are some Senators on the Banking 
Committee from mostly rural States, others from States with largely 
urban centers, and others whose States have a combination of both.
  The transit title, which was unanimously approved yesterday in the 
Banking Committee, goes a long way toward balancing these needs. 
Although this legislation is not perfect, it does come close to 
achieving a national transit policy, which is a goal I believe was not 
achieved in the highway funding portion of the bill.
  The transit bill has a number of important provisions:
  It provides $56.5 billion for mass transit over the next six years. 
This amount is a significant investment for the future. I am hopeful 
that more progress can be made to increase assistance for those regions 
that rely heavily on mass transit but whose aging infrastructure needs 
repair and modernization.
  If anybody were to deny that a problem exists in this regard, I would 
urge them to read an article which appeared in yesterday's Stamford 
Advocate entitled ``Metro-North Struggles To Keep Cars in Service.'' It 
describes how a combination of cold weather and aging railcars has 
knocked one-third of the aging New Haven Line out of service for 
several weeks.
  In fact, about 37 percent of the New Haven Line is out of service for 
maintenance. The Metro-North Line has lost 230 out of its 800-car fleet 
for repairs. Thousands of commuters in Connecticut rely on this service 
to get to and from work, travel to and from school, and to see their 
families.
  The legislation devotes significant resources to the Job Access as 
well as the Elderly and Disabled transit programs, which have been 
successful in providing transportation services to many of the most 
vulnerable members of society. Such transportation services enable low-
income individuals, as well as senior citizens and the disabled, to 
have access to jobs, education, and training, which ultimately fosters 
self-sufficiency and improves their quality of life.
  The transit title also includes funds to small communities with 
significant transit infrastructure that currently do not qualify under 
existing formula programs. Many cities in Connecticut and throughout 
the region could benefit from this program.
  Finally, I am pleased that the transit amendment includes language I 
authorized to promote the establishment of medical access programs. 
Many Americans lack transportation services to take them to the 
hospital to see a doctor, get medication, or undergo dialysis.
  Often their only choice is to call an ambulance, even if it is not 
truly a medical emergency, because such services are reimbursed under 
Medicare. By encouraging community transit systems to establish medical 
access programs, we can reduce costs to Medicare while serving as a 
lifeline to those Americans in need of health care.
  I am hopeful that more progress can be made to increase our 
investments in mass transit. I am grateful to Chairman Shelby and 
Senator Sarbanes for listening to other Senator's concerns throughout 
this process, and I look forward to working with them as this 
legislation moves forward.
  I as unanimous consent to print the article to which I referred in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Stamford Advocate, Feb. 4, 2004.]

             Metro-North Struggles To Keep Cars in Service

                        (By Katherine Didriksen)

       Metro-North Railroad is bracing for another bout of wintry 
     weather today while it

[[Page S642]]

     struggles to fix widespread equipment problems caused by 
     recent bitter cold and drifting snow.
       The railroad has been unable to run a regular schedule 
     during peak morning and evening hours for several weeks as 
     more than one-third of its aging New Haven Line fleet has 
     been knocked out of service.
       ``(The railcars) are just dying faster than we can fix 
     them,'' Metro-North spokeswoman Marjorie Anders said. ``It's 
     cumulative.''
       Heavy electrical components, including traction motors and 
     motor alternators, are particularly hard-hit by extreme cold 
     and dusty snow, she said.
       Trains have had decent on-time performance despite the car 
     shortages, but customers will face standing-room-only 
     conditions all week, Anders said.
       Metro-North has lost 230 railcars out of its 800-car fleet 
     to repairs. The railroad reached a high of 217 disabled 
     railcars on Jan. 21. On the New Haven Line, 126 of 342 
     railcars, or about 37 percent, are out of service for 
     maintenance.
       On an average day, 50 to 60 cars are out of service for 
     maintenance, Federal Railroad Administration-mandated 
     inspections or major repairs, said Harry Harris, chief of the 
     Connecticut Department of Transportation's bureau of public 
     transportation.
       ``You never run 100 percent of your fleet. You can expect 
     to have about 18 percent out for one reason or another,'' he 
     said. ``When you start reaching 80, 90, 100 cars, you are 
     cutting in substantially to the fleet.''
       Today's forecasted wintry mix offers the railroad little 
     time for repairs and presents other challenges. Cold and 
     freezing rain causes problems with equipment on the ground, 
     including track switches, Anders said.
       Trains on the New Haven Line will continue to run under a 
     speed restriction overnight to reduce stress on the overhead 
     catenary wires that become brittle and taut in the cold, she 
     said.
       ``It's getting pretty bleak,'' said Jim Cameron, vice 
     chairman of the Metro-North-Shoreline East Rail Commuter 
     Council. ``They absolutely are desperate for capacity now.''
       Commuters are getting increasingly angry and upset, he 
     said.
       ``My frustration is that they still don't understand the 
     enormity of the situation or who's at fault,'' Cameron said. 
     ``Commuters don't like being kept in the dark, and they don't 
     like being lied to.''
       The lack of communication lies on Hartford's shoulders, 
     rather than on the railroad or the state DOT, he said.
       Extreme weather is exacerbated by the state's aging 
     equipment. The bulk of the New Haven Line fleet was 
     commissioned in 1973--an average train lifespan is about 20 
     years--and the catenary wire system was built in the early 
     1900s.
       ``It's a real challenge to keep all this equipment going,'' 
     Harris said. Repairs are complicated by a lack of maintenance 
     space and replacement parts, he said.
       Connecticut also hosts the only commuter railroad service 
     that runs a dual-powered system of third-rail and overhead 
     catenary wires, Harris said. A new car that fits the dual-
     powered system has a price tag of $4.5 million, he said.
       ``There is no quick solution, barring some kind of an 
     economic miracle,'' Harris said. Commuters are not likely to 
     see funds for new railcars until 2006, he said.
       In the meantime, Metro-North and the state DOT are merely 
     looking to survive the winter.
       ``The worst-case scenario is no service,'' Anders said. 
     ``We're not even close to that.''
       The railroad alerted passengers to the following timetable 
     alterations through Monday: In the morning rush hour, the 
     6:42 a.m. train from New Haven, due in Stamford at 7:30 a.m. 
     and arriving at Grand Central at 8:18 a.m.; and the 7:37 a.m. 
     train out of Port Chester, N.Y., due in Grand Central at 8:20 
     a.m., are canceled.
       During the evening rush hour, many trains departing Grand 
     Central will be combined or canceled:
       The 4:11 p.m. train from Grand Central to South Norwalk and 
     the 4:16 p.m. train to New Haven are combined, departing at 
     4:16 p.m.
       The 4:49 p.m. train from Grand Central to New Haven will 
     terminate at Stamford. Customers for stations east of 
     Stamford must take the 5:01 p.m. train. Darien passengers 
     must take the 5:04 p.m. train to Danbury.
       The 5:09 p.m. train from Stamford to New Canaan and the 
     5:26 p.m. train to New Canaan are combined, departing at 5:26 
     p.m.
       The 5:23 p.m. train from Grand Central to Bridgeport and 
     the 5:28 p.m. train to South Norwalk are combined, departing 
     at 5:28 p.m.
       The 5:44 p.m. train from Grand Central to Bridgeport and 
     the 5:49 p.m. train to South Norwalk are combined, departing 
     at 5:49 p.m.
       The 6:37 p.m. train from Grand Central to Harrison, N.Y., 
     and the 6:40 p.m. train to Stamford are combined, departing 
     at 6:40 p.m.
       The 7:07 p.m. train from Grand Central to Harrison and the 
     7:10 p.m. train to Stamford are combined, departing at 7:10 
     p.m.
       For additional information, customers can consult 
     www.mta.info.

 Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a 
few words about the highway bill. This legislation is of immense 
importance not only to my State of Alaska, but to the Nation as a 
whole. It is unlikely that this Congress will do anything of greater 
importance for our economy.
  We all know that if our economy is our strength, transportation is 
our circulatory system. Without it, we cannot function. And make no 
mistake, we are not keeping up with the task.
  Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor condition. Twenty-
nine percent of our bridges need replacement or repair. Urban rail and 
bus systems are in equally poor shape.
  According to the Department of Transportation, we should be spending 
over $100 billion per year on highways and over $20 billion per year on 
transit. But we cannot do that. We are constrained by reality. The 
components of the Senate bill will approximate only half that amount.
  That is deeply disappointing to the Nation's 12,500 road construction 
contractors, and it is deeply disappointing to all our States and to 
their municipal governments, and to all our constituents.
  We do not live in a perfect world. And given that reality, our job is 
to pass the best bill we can possibly pass.
  It was no easy task to develop the bill before us today. We owe a 
tremendous debt of gratitude to the leaders of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee for their efforts, and to the leaders of the 
other committees necessary to make this bill a reality. No one could 
have worked harder and longer than Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Bond and Senator Reid.
  Is this a perfect bill? No, indeed. There are many things I would 
like to see changed. For example, I strongly agree with the comments 
made by Senator Voinovich about the need for additional streamlining so 
that projects can get off the ground faster.
  For my own State, I would like to see greater flexibility in a number 
of areas. I would also like to see greater recognition given to the 
fact that my State is far behind all the others in road miles, and that 
lack is holding back not only our economy but limiting our ability to 
contribute to the Nation as a whole. This bill does not address that 
fact to satisfaction.
  By the same token, I understand that many of the donor States want to 
see more of their highway fuel tax dollars returned to them, and 
returned faster. I cannot blame them. At the same time, I want to 
remind my colleagues of this very important fact: This bill is not 
about my roads or your roads. This bill is about our roads.
  We are all in this together. Let's not forget that fact.
  The bill before us will increase every State's minimum guarantee to 
the 95 percent level they have long sought. And it will ensure that 
every State will see a significant increase in real dollars, an average 
increase of over 35 percent.
  We cannot afford not to move forward.
  In the last decade, travel on the Nation's highways increased almost 
30 percent. By 2020, projections indicate travel will increase by 
another 50 percent. Those number don't just indicate a need; they 
demand a response. They demand that we move forward on this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 1072 is the pending business.


                      Amendment No. 2269 Withdrawn

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I think I have an amendment pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2269 is pending.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S643]]

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I understand that if I ask that the 
amendments be set aside so I can send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration, there is an objection to that; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has not yet been an objection.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I did not hear the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not yet an objection.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, it is my understanding that 
there will be an objection.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that we have an 
objection to further amendments so that we can't set aside some of 
those that have been here and we are not making the kind of progress I 
think we should be making on this bill and that some in this body will 
not allow us to make progress and consider a germane amendment that has 
broad support. What I am going to do is file the amendment and 
hopefully get to it in due course.
  Two days ago, I came to the floor to express my support for this 
bill. I praised the managers for their work in putting this compromise 
together. I said that the bipartisan spirit of this bill led me to 
believe we could actually get something accomplished, which is contrary 
to the predictions of many people for this session of Congress. I even 
borrowed from one of my models when I was Governor: Together we can do 
it. And together we can. We can get this bill passed if we have enough 
folks who are willing to compromise and understand there is an enormous 
need to deal with the infrastructure problems and challenges of our 
country and also understand the need for the jobs this bill will create 
in our respective States.
  Today and yesterday we have seen, however, that some do not want to 
work in a bipartisan manner and pass this bill which will put hard-
working Americans back to work and jump-start our sluggish economy, 
particularly in States such as Ohio. This is the case even though 75 
Members voted to invoke cloture and proceed to the bill. Sadly, until 
this logjam is broken, we can't even make progress on issues of broad 
agreement.
  Regardless of these difficulties, I am pleased to announce that this 
amendment represents an agreement reached by the transportation 
community and the historic preservation community. I greatly appreciate 
the work of the many groups that worked on this amendment, including 
the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Action, the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. I 
commend the Ohio Department of Transportation, especially Gordon 
Proctor, Tim Hill, and Michelle Holdgreve, for their tireless effort. 
They have worked very hard with us on this amendment. The hard work by 
all these interested groups have led to this carefully crafted 
compromise amendment that I believe will go a long way in expediting 
the time and decreasing the cost of transportation construction 
projects.

  This amendment addresses section 4(f). Section 4(f) of the Department 
of Transportation Act of 1966 prohibits the Department of 
Transportation from approving any highway project that uses publicly 
owned land or a historic site of national, State, or local 
significance, unless, one, there is no prudent and feasible alternative 
that avoids such resources or causes less harm to them, and, two, the 
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to those 
resources.
  If publicly owned land or a historic site is chosen for use in the 
project, an evaluation must demonstrate that the use of other 
alternatives would have resulted in unique problems. ``Unique 
problems'' are present when there are truly unusual factors, or when 
the costs to the community's disruption reach ``extraordinary 
magnitude.'' This test was introduced in Citizens to Preserve Overton 
Park v. Volpe, referred to as the ``Overton Park criteria.''
  Section 4(f) was developed in the late 1960s to address a real 
problem. Construction of the Interstate Highway System was at its peak, 
and these projects took the path of least resistance, which, in many 
cases, was parkland because it was easy to acquire and cheap to build 
through.
  The passage of section 4(f) was intended to protect parks and 
historic sites that could be adversely impacted by construction of the 
Interstate System. We all understand that. That makes sense.
  Today, however, highway projects are more likely to involve 
maintenance and modernization of the current system. The problem is 
that section 4(f), which basically prohibits all use of protected 
resources, is difficult to apply to projects that would have some, but 
not significant, impact on a protected resource. Yet this law has never 
been amended since its creation almost 40 years ago. We need to address 
our attention to that.
  When highway projects have resulted in litigation, section 4(f) has 
been a frequent cause. Moreover, inconsistent interpretation of the 
Overton criteria has been identified as one need for changes in section 
4(f) to allow for a more balanced interpretation of its requirements. 
One of the reasons for this litigation is the subjective terms used in 
the law: ``prudent and feasible,'' ``all possible planning to minimize 
harm,'' ``unique problems,'' and ``extraordinary magnitude.''
  I will tell you, these provisions are a lawyer's dream and a 
nightmare for the courts that have to interpret it and the States and 
U.S. Department of Transportation, which has to enforce the law. The 
result has been needless confusion, significant delays, and high cost 
for issues that defy common sense. What we are talking about here is 
common sense.
  In my State of Ohio, for example, a privately owned barn was 
considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It 
was in the path of a needed road improvement. Let me clarify that the 
barn was eligible because it was more than 50 years old. Soon, we won't 
be able to do any improvements because sidewalks will be 50 years old 
in this country. After considerable delay, needless studies, and 
significantly increased costs, a decision was made to avoid the barn. 
The road improvement was rerouted and the barn protected. This is the 
barn in this photo that we were protecting because it was over 50 years 
old. Look at that.

  The cost to reroute this was $100,000 and 4 months of delay. Anybody 
who knows about highway projects knows that for every day of delay, it 
costs money. Time is money. However, the barn fell down due to owner 
neglect a few years later.
  The point is that, while transportation planners have to do all they 
can to protect something that is ``eligible'' for the register, the 
private owner of the place, or even another Federal agency, can destroy 
it without sanction. That just doesn't make any sense.
  Section 4(f) was enacted in 1966, 37 years ago. It only applies to 
the U.S. Department of Transportation, not any other Federal agencies. 
It is an extremely stringent law that has been interpreted by the 
courts, as they say, in vastly different ways.
  While it was created with good intentions and at a time when the law 
was arguably needed, U.S. DOT and State departments of transportation 
have become good stewards of the environment.
  One of the things that happens in Washington is we give no credit at 
all to State organizations or local organizations, in terms of their 
concern about the environment. So often, we think we are the only ones 
who really care about the environment.
  Section 4(f) requirements have been identified by State departments 
of transportation as a significant deterrent to timely environmental 
reviews of transportation projects. The requirements to avoid section 
4(f) resources applies in all cases, even when the impact is minor, 
resulting in situations in which a minor historic property is protected 
at the expense of other more sensitive environmental resources or 
communities.
  In April of 2003, the General Accounting Office reported the 
transportation stakeholders consider section 4(f) reviews as burdensome 
and inflexible and that alternative approaches could protect historic 
properties and take less time to reach resolution.

[[Page S644]]

  In that report, a large majority of the stakeholders indicated that 
historic property protections under section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 offered a more flexible mediation 
process. This law requires that Federal agencies consider the effect of 
properties either in or eligible to be in the National Register of 
Historic Places. It brings all parties into the discussion and allows 
for better outcomes that preserve the goals of the transportation 
project, while protecting historic properties. This concept is included 
in this compromise amendment.
  We are using something with which people are familiar. It worked in 
other places and it can work in terms of highway construction.
  Currently, section 4(f) does not provide exceptions for impacts with 
no adverse affect or even a beneficial effect. For example, in Ohio, a 
new highway project adjacent to a publicly owned golf course was being 
constructed, and the golf course asked if work could be performed to 
alleviate persistent flooding. However, the work would have required a 
section 4(f) study. As a result, the work wasn't performed and the golf 
course still floods to this day just because of this 4(f).

  In more extreme cases, projects with very minor impacts on protected 
sites have had to be realigned at high social, environmental, and 
economic costs. The peculiarities of the law led to well-documented, 
unintended consequences.
  The confusion over existing law and problems with delays has led to 
several attempts at remedies. AASHTO, the organization that represents 
all 50 State transportation departments, voted unanimously to reform 
section 4(f).
  Section 4(f) is also one of the highest priorities of our own U.S. 
Department of Transportation, which proposed changes to section 4(f) in 
its surface transportation reauthorization proposal, SAFETEA, which is 
what we worked off when this bill was being put together.
  This amendment remedies many of the problems with section 4(f). While 
many groups would have preferred greater reform, the final text is a 
compromise that satisfies major stakeholders in this debate. Again, 
this was a compromise between a lot of groups, including 
transportation, environmental, and historic preservation groups.
  Specifically, the amendment states that section 4(f) requirements are 
satisfied if the Secretary makes a finding of de minimis impact to a 
protected site. For historic sites, such a finding occurs if the 
project has no adverse effect on a historic site and there is written 
concurrence from the State or tribal historic preservation officer.
  So we go through this process, and it is looked at as de minimis and 
has to be signed off by the people who care.
  For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, such 
a finding only occurs if the project will not adversely affect the 
activities, features, or attributes of the resource, and there is 
written concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the 
resource. The amendment also requires public notice--the public knows 
all about this; there is nothing under the table--and public comment on 
the process. So we vet this decision so everybody knows what is going 
on.
  What is good about this amendment is it allows for better community 
outcomes. This amendment would require the Secretary, when making a 
finding of de minimis impact, to consider all ``avoidance, 
minimization, mitigation, and enhancement measures'' that have been 
incorporated into the project. The language serves an important 
function: It builds in an incentive for projects' sponsors to 
incorporate environmentally protective measures into a project from the 
beginning, in order to support a finding of de minimis 
impact. Otherwise, the resource would be avoided and the project would 
move forward without providing any of the associated benefits to the 
community.

  In addition, the amendment requires the Secretary to promulgate new 
regulations to determine standards to define whether avoiding a 
protected resource is prudent and feasible.
  The purpose of this amendment is to achieve greater clarity and 
consistency with regard to the application of the Overton Park standard 
in a variety of circumstances. Let me provide some examples of problems 
with the section 4(f). I have already done one. Let's look at others.
  In Pennsylvania, the State department of transportation had to make a 
highway improvement. This project required that one of two farms near 
each other be sacrificed. One of them was an inactive farm eligible for 
the registry that was barely maintained and its owner lived out of 
State. The second was a working farm owned by a man and his two sons 
who were actively working the land.
  The owner of the second farm intended to pass the land down to the 
family to continue the farming operation. Section 4(f) forced the State 
department of transportation to demolish the nonhistoric farm, even 
though it was actively being farmed and planned to be part of the 
family's livelihood for years to come. In the end, the historic farm 
was bought and developed.
  This is ridiculous. Section 4(f) led to the destruction of both 
farms. It forced the officials to go against a hard-working family for 
a rundown farm that happened to be 50 years old. And then this law 
couldn't even protect it from being developed.
  This amendment would at least have allowed the State preservation 
officer to make a balanced decision considering all of the information 
and alternatives.
  Another good example comes from our neighboring State of Kentucky. A 
farmhouse and a farm was deemed historic. As a result of the project 
development process, the best alignment for a four-lane highway was 
found to be through the property and would separate the historic house 
from the rest of the farmstead. However, through coordination with 
historic preservation groups, the highway was realigned so that it 
would cross in front of the house, impacting only a small strip of land 
at the front edge of the property.
  Everyone involved thought it was great. Then came section 4(f). 
Section 4(f) required total avoidance of this historic farmhouse. The 
result was less desirable, more costly, and required the acquisition 
and removal of a home that was not historic.
  In the end, the family whose home was to be relocated bought the 
historic house from the contractor, tore down the old house, and 
relocated their modern house where the historic house had stood.
  Let's think about this. This is a picture of the historic house. What 
happened was, they wanted to take a little piece of this property, but 
oh, no, under section 4(f), you can't do that. Oh, no. So they went 
across the street to a house more modern and said: We are going to take 
your property. These people had to relocate their house. They relocated 
their house. Do you know where they relocated it? They tore the old 
house down and relocated the modern house to where the old house was 
located.
  That is the kind of result we get from section 4(f). It 
is understandable that this needs to be changed.

  This is a compromise amendment that has broad support and will 
correct a problem that has plagued State and local officials for nearly 
40 years. It is time for this inflexible and outdated law to be fixed.
  I congratulate all involved on this work. Again, historic 
preservation groups came together and said: This is crazy; let's see if 
we can work something out. And they did it.
  I think it is unfortunate this amendment will not be considered 
today. As I said, it has broad support.
  I wish to say one other thing about the highway bill. There is no 
question that there is an overwhelming need for this legislation. In 
fact, if you look at the needs that have been projected by the 
Department of Transportation, the amount of money we are spending 
doesn't meet the need, but it is a reasonable compromise to start to 
address forthrightly some of the problems I have in Ohio, you may have 
in Texas, Mr. President, or the chief sponsor may have in Oklahoma, and 
around this country.
  It also provides needed jobs for people in our respective States. To 
my knowledge, this is going to be the only jobs bill to come out of 
this Congress at this time. Those jobs are needed.
  I was talking with some of my colleagues the other day and they said: 
It is not needed and there are no projects out there ready to go. I 
would like to say that in my State we have $164 million of work that, 
if the money were

[[Page S645]]

there, could start tomorrow. It could start tomorrow.
  The economy in my State is not doing too well. We are getting killed 
because of manufacturing. We need this bill. There was a great 
conservative President of the United States named Ronald Reagan. He is 
on the altar and worshipped by conservatives all across America. He was 
a real conservative, a real fiscal conservative. In 1983, unemployment 
was up. I remember because I was mayor of the city of Cleveland. People 
needed work. Ronald Reagan, in his wisdom, saw a need out in the 
country. He went to Congress and asked for the emergency jobs bill. 
That bill extended unemployment benefits. That bill provided moneys to 
cities and counties.
  When I was mayor, we were really hurting. It provided us $12 million 
for public works so I could put people to work. It provided $6 million 
to Cuyahoga County. That was Ronald Reagan, a fiscal conservative, a 
man of compassion. He reached out, saw these people on the unemployment 
line, saw that jobs were needed. He also understood that we had some 
real infrastructure needs in this country, and on April 1 of 1983, 
Ronald Reagan said: I don't want to borrow the money; I don't want to 
borrow the money to provide more money for highways, and suggested and 
got the Congress to agree to increase the gas tax by 5 cents.
  It seems to me that some of my colleagues--and I consider myself a 
conservative--ought to look at the reality of all of this. I suggest to 
our administration, our President, who is compassionate, and his 
advisers, that they ought to also look at the needs we have.
  I went along with a grant to Iraq because I wanted to rebuild their 
infrastructure, and we are borrowing that money. We are borrowing a lot 
of money for a lot of purposes. I think Senator Grassley and the 
Finance Committee have tried to come up with some reasonable ways of 
paying for this bill and some offsets. Some people may nitpick it, but 
the fact is, they did genuinely try to do something about it.
  Everyone who is concerned about it ought to look at this 
realistically. This is a very modest, responsible proposal that deals 
with great infrastructure needs in this country.
  I come from a just-in-time State, and our roads and bridges are in 
bad shape. I come from a State where we have thousands of people who 
lose their lives because our roads are not what we want them to be--
route 24, particularly. So we have these needs. This is not porkbarrel. 
We have real needs.
  On top of that, the frosting on the cake is we need the jobs. I am 
hoping that the Holy Spirit will enlighten our President and his 
advisers and Members on my side of the aisle and on the other side of 
the aisle to do something good for America and get on with this bill, 
get it passed, and get the money on the street so we can put some 
people to work and get on with our infrastructure needs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have some remarks in conjunction with 
the statement of Senator Voinovich. I will yield to the Senator from 
Florida as soon as I make a couple of comments.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment offered by 
my colleague from Ohio, Senate Voinovich. First, I thank him for 
working so hard on this very important issue. I know this issue has 
been controversial, and I appreciate his dedication to working out a 
compromise. Senate Voinovich's amendment adds much-needed reforms to a 
provision in current law commonly referred to as section 4(f) review.
  Section 4(f) was approved by Congress as part of the Department of 
Transportation Act of 1966 to protect public parks, recreation areas, 
wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public and private historic sites.
  It is important to protect our historic treasures and environmental 
and recreational resources. Our Government has invested money in 
establishing and maintaining these resources for the public's use. We 
should not allow another department to turn around and diminish those 
investments without good reason.
  Unfortunately, court decisions have led to an interpretation of 
``avoid at all costs.'' In addition to adding significant time delays 
caused by extensive study of alternatives, this interpretation has led 
to some really bad public policy decisions--decisions that defy common 
sense.
  For instance, does it make sense to spend a hundred thousand dollars 
to shift an alignment in order to avoid an old, abandoned, dilapidated 
barn? I don't think so, but it has happened. Should private citizens 
lose parts of their front yards to road expansion so that we can save 
the supposed parkland between the current road and the ditch that runs 
alongside it? I don't think so, but it has happened.
  Those are just a couple of examples of where section 4(f) is 
obviously broken and desperately needs to be fixed. I am pleased that 
Senator Voinovich has brought us such a fix.
  The State of Oklahoma DOT is pleased with this language. Our folks 
who actually deal with this issue on a regular basis believe this will 
help them make better decisions with less delay.
  I think this amendment represents good policy all the way around--
transportation officials will be able to make commonsense decisions, 
particularly when it comes to projects that will have minimal impacts, 
and we can all be assured that these important environmental and 
cultural resources are protected.
  It is my understanding that this language was developed by a wide 
range of stakeholders, including Ohio DOT, AASHTO, the National Trust 
for Historic Preservation, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense 
and the Natural Resources Defense Council. I commend Senator Voinovich 
for bringing forward this section 4(f) amendment, and I am happy to add 
my support to it. I regret that we cannot consider his amendment today, 
but I assure the Senator that I will work to have his amendment 
adopted.
  Mr. President, what my friend from Ohio is saying is what we have 
been saying since Monday morning.
  The Senator is exactly right. I do not know how many times I have 
stood on this floor and said those of us who are conservatives 
historically have to stop and look at what is Government here for. 
Conservatives are generally big spenders when it comes to defense, when 
it comes to infrastructure. We need to defend America and we need 
infrastructure. Right now, I am sure there are some States that are not 
as sensitive as the Senator from Ohio and I are because they do not 
have the problems, but when we look at what this bill is doing to try 
to correct the problem of, just as an example, our deteriorating 
bridges, my State of Oklahoma ranks dead first in terms of the 
deteriorated condition of bridges, and I chair the committee.
  We are going to have to get a bill through. There has been some 
recent suggestion that it be pared down a little bit. I can assure my 
colleagues the figure we are talking about right now is a figure that 
is not acceptable to those on the other side of the Capitol, and this 
is the only way we can get one.
  I thought we were making some headway. We have all of these little 
procedural hurdles. We are not able to send the amendment of the 
Senator to the desk, but I will tell the Senator right now I am going 
to do what I can about it.
  First, I do agree with the Senator's amendment and I know how hard he 
has been working on it. A lot of people do not realize this section was 
approved by the Congress as part of the Department of Transportation 
Act of 1966. It is obvious it is not working now and we need to do 
something about it. Certainly the Senator is as enthusiastic about 
protecting any of our historical sites as we are, but we need to have 
something that is workable.
  I know there is someone else who wants to speak, but let me give the 
Senator my assurance, as chairman of the committee, I will do 
everything I can to make sure he gets his amendment in, which I 
support. More important than his amendment, we want to get this bill 
passed so we can get America back to work again.
  Remember, not long ago one of the publications in the Capitol had a 
``men working'' sign on it, and they put a ``not'' right in the middle: 
Men not working. That is exactly what is happening right now. If we 
play around

[[Page S646]]

with the reductions, with the temporary extensions and all of that, we 
are not going to be able to get people back to work.
  We have the infrastructure needs. We have the needs for jobs, and I 
will be there beside the Senator from Ohio doing what I can to make 
that a reality.
  Before I yield the floor, let me ask my good friend with whom I was 
privileged to share this morning's chairmanship at the National Prayer 
Breakfast--one of the truly great moments of my life with my good 
friend. We are trying to stay on the highway bill. We have others who 
are going to be coming down. Could I inquire as to how much time the 
Senator from Florida would like to have?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Probably no more than 8 or 10 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that he be given 15 minutes and 
then after I be recognized as having the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from 
Oklahoma. It has been a pleasure working with him as the cochairman of 
our Senate prayer breakfast, and now having the opportunity this 
morning with 4,000 people assembled at the Washington Hilton to cochair 
the National Prayer Breakfast with him--which really is a misnomer 
because it is an international prayer breakfast. We had people from 150 
nations. We had five heads of state there. Of course, we had dual 
speakers this morning in the persons of former Congressman J.C. Watts 
and Congressman John Lewis. They were both riveting. I appreciate his 
collegiality and considerable cooperation as we entered into this 
delightful once-a-year event that occurs in Washington.
  I say to the Senator from Ohio, though, before he walks out the door, 
that as he was talking about the transportation bill providing jobs, we 
have a saying in the south: ``Amen, brother.'' We need the jobs in 
Florida, too. Indeed, they are needed all over the country and that is 
why I will support this bill, and that is why I did.
  I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member of the committee 
in how they have fashioned this bill. There are parts of this bill I 
would like to see improved. For years, my State of Florida has given a 
dollar in in tax and only gotten back about 80 cents. Over the years, 
my senior colleague, Senator Graham of Florida, has been working on 
that. Since I have been in the Senate the last 4 years, I have been 
working with him to improve that. We have got that ratio up to 90.5 
percent that we get back for every dollar we send.
  In the bill the chairman and the ranking member have crafted, over 
the 6-year period that will rise to 95 percent. Floridians will be very 
grateful for that. I wish it could rise 1 percent a year over those 6 
years instead of the way it is crafted, which is that it stays at a 
90.5 percent return on Florida's tax dollar and then it jumps in the 
sixth year to 95 percent return on the dollar, but that was part of the 
give and take.
  I would certainly like to improve it, but I am grateful for it, 
because finally this battle Florida has had for ages in getting a 
return on its tax dollar, particularly a gas tax dollar it sends to the 
Federal Government, is going to get some equalization, particularly 
with other States that have in the past gotten in excess of a dollar's 
worth when they send in a dollar to the Federal gas tax trust fund. I 
have lots of good things to say about it, but, oh, does it make it 
tough in this environment in which we are, a highly charged partisan 
environment in an election year in which the deficit that was just 
announced 3 days ago is over a half a trillion dollars.
  Now, deficit is a fancy word, but let me say to my colleagues simply 
what I think it means. It means if we are spending this much in this 
coming fiscal year, but we only have this much coming in in tax 
revenues, the difference, since we are spending more than we have 
coming in in revenue, is the deficit. That has been estimated, in the 
President's budget, at $525 billion. That is over a half trillion 
dollars.
  Well, what does one do? Where does it come from? If spending is going 
to be here, but the tax revenues are only here in a given year, what is 
to be done? The difference is borrowed, and that difference then, when 
borrowed, is added to the national debt.
  We can see if we are borrowing to the extent of over half a trillion 
dollars a year, it does not take too long to see the national debt just 
continue to go out of sight, and then on that debt we have to pay 
interest. When the interest rates go up after this year, then that is 
another big slug out of the Federal budget we will have to pay, 
interest on the national debt.
  Goodness gracious. And think what we could be doing with money: $200 
billion a year in interest. Think what that would buy in the programs 
that are being cut under this President's budget. These are programs 
such as law enforcement assistance from the Federal Government such as 
the COPS program, putting police on the beat, on the street. That is 
being cut. Education expenditures are being cut. Children's health 
programs are being cut. Environmental programs are being cut. I could 
go on.
  Yet that creates the environment, the fiscal reality, that in times 
of huge budget deficits, if you are going to get that figure from here 
to match your revenues, you either have to cut spending or raise taxes 
or, in the alternative, stop tax cuts that are projected to go into 
effect in the future and don't let them go into effect, or both, in 
order to get your Federal budget into balance.
  We had a chance 3 years ago. We were in a surplus situation with so 
much surplus projected over 10 years. We could have paid off the 
national debt if we had been wise and conservative in our approach. But 
we didn't. We went and blew it. We were like drunken sailors, spending 
and enacting tax cuts that were targeted to the more well off among us. 
The result is what the President's budget just said. In the budget that 
was just released, the deficit spending this next fiscal year is going 
to be over half a trillion dollars.
  This is not conservative fiscal policy. This is wild and reckless 
policy. When you give a continued tax cut to the rich to be financed by 
out and out borrowing, that is not conservative fiscal policy. That is 
out of control fiscal policy.
  By the way, guess where we borrow that money. We borrow it from 
Social Security recipients, because we are taking it out of the Social 
Security trust fund. Guess where else we borrow it. We borrow it from 
other countries and their companies and their investors. You think it 
is just you and I who buy U.S. Treasury bills? Some of us do. And we 
borrow it from us. But you would be shocked to know how much of the 
Nation's debt and the new borrowing that will occur is being bought up 
by corporations and governments in China and Japan. If they end up 
having a good bit of our debt that is owed to them, what does that do 
toward putting us in a vulnerable position in the future with regard to 
our foreign policy with those countries, China and Japan? If they own a 
lot of our debt or, put another way, if we owe them a lot of money, 
that is not a position in which I think America ought to be.
  There are some clever little tricks in this budget, too. They are 
very technical. For example, one provision is that people are 
encouraged, if the President's proposal is enacted, to take money out 
of their individual retirement accounts, IRAs, or their 401(k) plans 
and put them over into basically a privatizing of Social Security 
accounts. But the little fiscal sleight of hand is that when you take 
it out of an IRA, you are going to have to pay taxes on it. Lo and 
behold, that gins up an additional $15 billion over this 5-year 
projection in the budget of new tax revenue, to make it appear as if 
there is going to be more revenue coming in than there is.
  This is really not an economic document. It is a political document. 
Unfortunately, it is a political document that is not a conservative 
political document. So I am looking forward to us getting our fingers 
into this budget and beginning to pick it apart. But what it does when 
you have a budget this much out of control is it makes it so much more 
difficult for very important programs such as this transportation bill 
that will provide so many jobs, that will cause dollars to be spent and 
circulated and restore the economy--it causes it to be a very difficult 
time in which to enact this kind of legislation, particularly at the 
level that some of us would like.

[[Page S647]]

  Mr. President, I wanted to share my thoughts on this subject.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the statement of my friend from Florida.
  I would say, in terms of who the villain is in the deficit we are 
facing right now, there are two big villains. One is the war, and then 
the economy. As we started losing economic ground, a downturn back in 
March of 2000, people didn't realize for every 1 percent change in 
economic activity it translated into $45 billion in revenue. In other 
words, as the economy is rebounding now, the revenue is coming back up. 
Even continuing in the effort, the war effort--which I am afraid is 
going to last for quite a while--we are going to be facing end strength 
problems and that will have to go on.
  I believe the best thing we can do is do it through the economy. At 
the same time there are certain things that have to happen in America. 
We have to do something about roads in America. I probably have as many 
townhall meetings as anyone. I suggest the Senator from Florida does, 
too. I can't remember one I have had where they haven't said something 
about roads.
  In Oklahoma what they say is, we can always tell when we are around 
Thanksgiving time, when we have family coming in, we have friends 
coming in, we can always know when we get to Oklahoma because of the 
roads. I add to the Presiding Officer, when they come from Texas they 
make that comment about Oklahoma roads. So we do have a very serious 
problem. It seems to be more serious in my State.
  Part of that is due to the donor status we have had for quite some 
time. Of course, we have not had the money with which to do it. I feel 
an obligation, and believe it is very appropriate for conservatives, to 
get out and vote in favor of this type of an infrastructure program. 
This translates directly into jobs, translates directly into the 
economy, translates directly into increasing economic activity and 
additional revenue that will come into Government.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________