[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 14 (Friday, February 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S680-S686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I commend my friend, the junior Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, for his steadfastness in attempting to move this 
most important bill that the Chair just reported. He has worked hard on 
this for months. This week he has worked hard on it. This has not been 
an easy week. I said many times before, as I said earlier speaking with 
the Democratic leader this morning, there is no other legislation we 
will consider this Congress that will do more for the American worker 
or have so great an impact on every facet of American life than the 
bill which was just reported by the Chair, the highway bill.
  Since coming to Congress, I have been so impressed with what 
infrastructure development does for the entire community. It provides 
jobs, but the social benefits are significant. For every $1 billion 
invested in infrastructure, it has been established, and we heard it 
many times, we create more than 47,000 high-paying jobs, skilled jobs 
that generate more than $6.2 billion of economic activity. Again, for 
every billion dollars spent on infrastructure development--for example, 
highway or transit--we create 47,000 jobs. But the spinoff for this $1 
billion is $6.2 billion in economic activity. Even by conservative 
estimates, funding our Nation's infrastructure program at the $311 
billion Bond-Reid level will create hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions, of jobs.
  I thank the two leaders again, Senators Daschle and Frist, for their 
support and for their recognition of the importance of this measure. I 
wholeheartedly agree with the majority leader's statements earlier this 
week when he urged the Members of this body to focus their full 
attention on this legislation. I would say, however, that his focus 
should be on that side of the aisle. We, over here, are marching in 
lockstep toward completing this legislation. There has been a lot of 
stumbling taking place on the other side of the aisle. There has been 
roadblock after roadblock placed before this highway bill by the 
majority. The majority leader said:

       We cannot ask our fellow citizens to join the great 
     American workforce and then stand idly by while our 
     roads decay and that commute to work stretches from 
     minutes into hours. It is a job issue. . . . Our highways, 
     our bridges, our roads, our ports, and our trains are in 
     fact very much the physical expression of the very name we 
     bear, uniting the States of America.

  I agree with the majority leader, but we need help. This bill is 
being held up by the majority. I don't know why, but some on the other 
side of the aisle have failed to recognize the wisdom of their leader, 
Senator Frist. These Members continue to impede our progress on this. 
On the first thing we are doing this year in this session of the 
Legislature, there is a big roadblock, I repeat, on our highway bill. 
Progress is being impeded.
  During last year's budget debate, 79 Senators--and there would have 
been more but we had some out running for President even then--79 
Members of this body voted to support a $311 billion piece of 
legislation for highways and transit. Under the leadership of Senator 
Grassley and Baucus, we have a funding package that meets this goal, 
enjoys bipartisan support, and meets the President's funding criteria.
  I am always amazed at this bipartisan stuff we talk about here. 
McCain-Feingold is said to be a bipartisan bill, the great legislation 
done to improve campaign financing. It was bipartisan. OK, we had 
McCain and Hagel--and there may be a few other Republicans, and I 
apologize to those; I am sure the Presiding Officer was one of them--
who favored McCain-Feingold. Basically, the Democrats pushed campaign 
finance reform.
  On the highway bill, unless something changes, I don't know where the 
bipartisanship is. We know Bond and Inhofe support this legislation. 
But let's have this a truly bipartisan piece of legislation and move 
forward as we did during the budget process; 79 Senators supported what 
we are supposed to be doing in this. With the finance package having 
been completed, every piece of the puzzle is in place.
  I remember I was always very bad working jigsaw puzzles. My little 
bother, he was great, but I, in my little-boy head, was envious of my 
brother Larry. He could do these puzzles. So, what I would do, I would 
hide the last couple of pieces of the puzzle so that way he couldn't 
complete the puzzle. He would come to me for the missing pieces and I 
would say okay, but I would always get something; he would have to 
carry the wood or do something to get the last few pieces.
  We have the pieces to this puzzle. None of them are hidden. This is 
an important, complicated piece of legislation. It has very difficult 
components--highways, rail, mass transit, and the tax portion. 
Everything is done and everything is paid for. There are no new taxes. 
With this last piece of the puzzle now in place, we are ready to move 
forward.
  As my friend from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, so passionately 
communicated last night, now is the time to act. Why would Senator 
Voinovich know? What basis would this man have to talk about this 
highway bill? It could be that George Voinovich was mayor of one of the 
largest cities in America, the mayor of Cleveland, OH. It could be that 
he was Governor of one of the most populous States in America, Ohio. He 
knows, from being a

[[Page S681]]

mayor and a Governor, how important this transportation bill is.
  I think we should listen to George Voinovich, telling us, let's move 
on this legislation. It is important to Ohio. It is important to 
Nevada. It is important to Rhode Island. It is important to Texas. It 
is important to South Dakota. It is important to Tennessee. Every State 
in the Union benefits from this. But we have some people saying: Oh, we 
can't do this, it's pork.
  What in the world is that supposed to mean? Most of the bill is paid 
for out of the highway trust fund. Pork? I don't understand that. Is 
reconstructing a damaged bridge pork? Thirty percent of the bridges in 
America are in a state of disrepair. As has already been established 
here on the Senate floor, there are bridges in America where a school 
bus comes to the bridge, stops, lets the kids out, drives the bus 
across empty, has the kids walk across the bridge and jump back in the 
bus, and take off. Why? Because the bridge is dangerous. They can't 
have a bus full of kids go on a bridge that may collapse at any time.
  Is that pork? One-third--almost one-third of all the bridges in 
America need something done: either be replaced or repaired or 
renovated in some fashion. The busiest two-lane road in Nevada is from 
a place called Railroad Pass to Searchlight, my hometown. It is a 
deathtrap. We are fortunate that half of that--18 miles of the 36 
miles--now is a four-lane road. We are in the process of making the 
rest four lanes.
  Is that pork? A busy two-lane road in Nevada, and people are killed 
and injured on that road all the time. Is that pork? I don't understand 
what the word means. I don't think so. Try to tell that to the truck 
drivers who are tied up in traffic, not being able to move their loads 
across this country because of the traffic on the road from Railroad 
Pass to Search Light. There are examples all over America that are the 
same. Is that pork because you want to move people more quickly?
  As the majority leader mentioned in his statement, people are stuck 
in traffic. What does that do? It pollutes the air. There is no worse 
pollution than a car idling. It prevents people from getting to work so 
they can be productive. If it is a truck or a bus, it holds up the 
ability of commerce to move on, costing all of us more money.
  Those folks who are talking about this bill having too much money 
need to reassess what their priorities are for the country. I 
personally believe this bill doesn't have enough money. It certainly 
doesn't have too much. A long-time Member of the other body, the 
chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the only 
Congressman from Alaska, believes what we have done here in the Senate 
isn't enough. He is over there working with the Republican majority in 
the House trying to get more money. I applaud him for doing that. We 
need more money for highways and transit--not less. This is a 6-year 
bill. I support it. If we can get it passed, I will be happy with it.
  As Senator Voinovich said last night, we must seize this opportunity 
to act. I say it today. We must seize this opportunity to act.
  According to a study by the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials, the current extension--and we should have 
done this bill last year--cost $2.1 billion in project delays and 
caused the loss of almost 100,000 jobs. The extension has interrupted 
State transportation officials' ability to do long-term planning.
  I hope we will not do another 1-year extension. If we do, it would 
make things even worse. These projects are difficult. You cannot 
complete a major highway project in a year. You can't do it. The 
highway projects are multiyear projects. It is the same with transit 
projects. If you don't have multiyear funding, you can't plan, and it 
winds up costing more money. A project that costs $100 will wind up 
costing $300. Multiply that by millions, and we understand.
  We now are fast approaching the busiest contracting season in the 
year. Right now the weather is bad. Look at how things have slowed down 
outside this Capitol building. This isn't the time contractors' work is 
done. In the West, you can do it almost every place, but not here in 
the East, and not in the Midwest. It is too cold.
  Much of the major highway construction and contracting is done in the 
months of March, April, and May. Without a long-term bill and the 
corresponding guaranteed revenue streams, many vital transportation 
projects will be put on hold and others delayed, wasting more money and 
costing thousands more jobs, at a time when millions of willing and 
able Americans are looking for work. How can we let this happen?
  The Democratic leader talked about the fact we created a little over 
100,000 jobs this past month. We should be happy about that. But it is 
really pathetic. It is pathetic. We haven't looked at what happened 
during the month of December when normally lots of new jobs come on 
board. People were expecting 175,000 new jobs. This is what we got--a 
little over 100,000. We will take it. But we will never make up for the 
loss of 3 million jobs that were lost in the last 3 years with 100,000 
jobs a month. It won't work.
  People down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should be beating down the 
doors saying pass this bill. What are they doing? They are carping, 
saying maybe we ought to take another look at this. They are beating up 
on Chairman Young on the House side, saying don't even think about more 
money for highways.
  I hope we can continue working on this. We need to do this. When 
millions of Americans are willing and able to work, shouldn't we 
provide jobs for them?
  We spend a lot of time talking about deficits. But one we don't focus 
on nearly enough is the infrastructure deficit. Senator Daschle had his 
copy of the budget here. He talked about this swirling monetary debt we 
have, and the deficit we are going to have this year. But what we don't 
talk about very much is the deficit we have in the infrastructure.

  When we were in charge of the Senate, I held a hearing and invited 
mayors from around the country to talk about the infrastructure deficit 
they have in their cities. I can remember Atlanta, GA. Their mayor said 
he was looking forward to getting out of office. He said, I am glad to 
be leaving because it is only a question of time before there will be a 
collapse of infrastructure such as water and sewer.
  That is the way it is all over the country. This country is facing a 
growing infrastructure deficit. We are not keeping up with the 
infrastructure needs. That is an understatement. Congestion continues 
to get worse--forget about water and sewer. Americans will lose an 
estimated $67 billion in lost time and productivity, and we will waste 
almost 5.7 billion gallons of gas waiting in traffic this year.
  In addition to the personal tragedy associated with traffic 
accidents, accidents cost $137 billion a year in property losses, 
losses in market productivity, and medical costs. How many of those 
accidents could be avoided by better traffic lights and better 
highways? We know we can do better.
  While our transportation infrastructure has an estimated worth of 
$1.7 billion, much of this system needs an extensive overhaul and a lot 
of maintenance. Over a quarter of the Nation's bridges, as I have 
already stated--in fact, it is 29 percent--are functionally deficient 
or obsolete. I have talked about that a lot. The Federal Highway 
Administration's 2002 Conditions and Performance Report estimates the 
Federal deficit in roads and bridges must be at least $35 billion a 
year just to maintain the current level of system performance. I say 
that is not very good. New investments to improve system performance 
will cost a lot more. We have a duty to close this infrastructure 
deficit.
  A well-maintained national surface transportation system is essential 
to the free flow of people and goods so vital to a healthy and robust 
economy. We have a duty to the Nation to act now.
  Again, I thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Bond for their 
commitment to move this most important legislation.
  I again want to thank Senators Frist and Daschle for their continued 
commitment and support in our effort to move a fully funded 6-year 
reauthorization through the Senate before the current short-year 
extension expires at the end of February. We must act, and we must act 
quickly.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in

[[Page S682]]

morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


              Decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 2 days ago, the Massachusetts Supreme 
Court sent shock waves across America when it held that traditional 
marriage--a marriage between a man and a woman--would be eliminated by 
judicial fiat. It is no secret the American people support traditional 
marriage. Yet some who would criticize that support for traditional 
marriage accuse those who support it of being intolerant.
  What I would suggest to you is the only ones guilty of intolerance 
are those who support the kind of judicial activism we have seen 
demonstrated by the Massachusetts court most recently--one that is 
fundamentally disdainful of democracy itself under the rule of law.
  Most Americans instinctively and laudably support two fundamental 
propositions. First, that every individual is worthy of respect, 
dignity; and second, that the traditional institution of marriage is 
worthy of protection.
  Some opponents of traditional marriage laws, however, have accused 
those who disagree with them of intolerance, even though support for 
traditional marriage reflects traditional values shared by the 
overwhelming number of Americans. These deeply held values deserve more 
respect than that.
  Throughout history, mankind itself, humankind itself, has recognized 
the fundamental importance of marriage and its traditional definition 
as the union of one man and one woman. That understanding is reflected 
in the laws, traditions, and customs of all 50 States. Now I should 
say, apparently, 49 States--unless the Massachusetts Legislature and 
the Massachusetts people are able to somehow overcome this edict by the 
Massachusetts Supreme Court in their attempt to alter this historic 
institution and fundamental building block of our society.
  Common sense and social science alike teach us that, even as we 
respect family relationships of all kinds, we must recognize that 
children are best raised by intact traditional families.
  Accordingly, in 1996, this body, the U.S. Congress, recognized that 
fact by passing a law called the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that 
was supported by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the Senate 
and in the House, and ultimately signed into law by President Clinton, 
a law that reaffirms that marriage is defined as the traditional union 
of a man and a woman. Indeed, three-fourths of the States have approved 
similar legislation. In light of this popular and well-grounded 
national consensus, charging supporters of traditional marriage with 
intolerance is simply outrageous.
  I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who 
said in 1996 as part of the debate over the Defense of Marriage Act 
that ``there are strongly held religious, ethical, moral beliefs that 
are different from mine with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage 
which I respect and which are no indications of intolerance.''
  It was just last September that the Constitution Subcommittee of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, held a hearing to consider 
whether some recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions put the Defense of 
Marriage Act in jeopardy. To me it just made good sense that Congress 
itself, after having passed this law so overwhelmingly, would look to 
see whether judicial activism posed a threat to this democratic 
expression of the will of the American people through their duly 
elected representatives.
  Indeed, there was some debate whether the Supreme Court decision in 
Lawrence v. Texas, which created not just an equal protection right but 
which created out of whole cloth this notion espoused by Justice 
Kennedy and a majority of the Court, to an individual right to autonomy 
in one's sexual relationships, such that government can never regulate 
or intrude.

  Of course, they purported to put marriage, incest, pedophilia, and 
other things like that out of bounds or outside of their decision, but 
the fundamental basis for that decision, legal scholars at that time 
recognized, could easily be transferred to other cases where the very 
definition of marriage and family itself was at issue.
  So it was with great concern that, just a short time after that 
September hearing, we saw the day when we would have to face this issue 
had come much faster than any of us could imagine. The Massachusetts 
Supreme Court, the first court in the Nation, held that--based on the 
very same rationale that the U.S. Supreme Court used in the case of 
Lawrence v. Texas--that Massachusetts could no longer limit marriage 
licenses to couples of the opposite sex.
  In an apparent attempt to create a figleaf of an idea that democracy 
was still alive in Massachusetts and it would not forever be ruled by 
judicial edict, the Court granted the legislature 180 days to bring the 
laws of Massachusetts into line with this new found legal right to 
same-sex marriage. It was a newly discovered right, of course, being 
found primarily in the U.S. Supreme Court decisions of last summer.
  So in an effort to find some way out of this dilemma, the legislature 
asked the Massachusetts Supreme Court whether civil unions would be 
sufficient under the court's ruling to meet the requirement of equality 
of treatment. It was the day before yesterday when the court, 
astoundingly, said ``No.''
  The only thing that would satisfy the Court's decision, its edict, 
would be to give same-sex couples the same treatment as we recognize 
for traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Thus the people of 
Massachusetts, their Governor, their legislature, are now scrambling to 
try to figure out what alternatives are available to them. They hope to 
avoid this runaway train careening down this track--the establishment, 
at least in Massachusetts, of a right to same-sex marriage.
  The thing that was impressed upon me so much about the Massachusetts 
decision when reading it, besides the fundamental holding which sent 
shockwaves across America, was the sheer contempt that the court held 
for traditional marriage. Its intolerance for traditions we have 
recognized in this country, certainly since its founding, and in 
identifying this new right based on no particular or specific text but 
indeed made up out of whole cloth by the court relying on Lawrence v. 
Texas.
  The Massachusetts court did not stop at this enormous step, but 
proceeded to condemn traditional marriage outright, and they did so in 
rather startling terms. After acknowledging, as Senator Kennedy had 
back in 1996 when we were talking about the Defense of Marriage Act, 
that deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions are 
motivating traditional marriage supporters, the Massachusetts court 
said that it still found ``no rational reason'' for laws limiting 
marriage to a man and a woman. And, in fact, it went even further. It 
concludes the traditional marriage is ``rooted in persistent 
prejudices.''
  I know that Members of this body and our colleagues across the 
Capitol, really no one in America, wants to engage in this debate. It 
is understandable. No one, frankly, wants to be painted with a brush of 
intolerance of somehow treating people badly. But as I said, this is 
not about treating others badly, failing to give them respect as 
individuals. This is about the intolerance marshaled by judicial 
activists on the Massachusetts Supreme Court and on benches around the 
country, the massive intolerance they have for fundamental democratic 
values. These are the values that say we, the people, are the judges of 
our own destiny, and no law will be made unless it is founded on the 
fundamental consent of the people, not on casual judicial edict.
  The American people are left in shock when, occasionally, courts come 
out with rulings that defy all logic and all common sense--rulings that 
dramatically conflict with our traditions and our fundamental 
values. These are cases not only like the Massachusetts case, but like 
the case decided by the Ninth Circuit not too many months ago where, 
for the first time in American history, a court has held that to allow 
schoolchildren to say the Pledge of Allegiance and recite ``one nation 
under God'' violated the Constitution. Again, another decision totally 
at odds with common sense, totally at odds with our values and 
traditions, and one

[[Page S683]]

that certainly the American people would not support. Instead, a 
handful of judges who appear to consider themselves smarter, wiser than 
the common man, are telling the American people what they think is good 
for them.

  After all appeals are exhausted, if in fact the American people are 
left with a decision like this Massachusetts decision, make no doubt 
about it, if it stands, it will then be used in a variety of different 
ways.
  Lawsuits will proliferate all across the country, citing the 
Massachusetts decision, based on this U.S. Supreme Court decision 
Lawrence v. Texas last summer as a basis to recognize same-sex 
marriages in other States. Because they will be challenging on a 
constitutional basis, State statutes will then be scrutinized to see if 
they pass muster under this new-found constitutional right made up by 
the Massachusetts court. They will be argued as a basis upon which to 
overturn traditional marriage laws in other States as well. And that 
will happen in State and Federal courts, all across the country.
  The second thing that will happen is that same-sex couples who 
receive marriage licenses in Massachusetts will begin to move to other 
States, and they will file lawsuits in those States and say: Under the 
full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, I have a right, 
under the U.S. Constitution, to have my marriage, which is valid in 
Massachusetts, recognized in Texas or Kansas or Maine or California, 
Oklahoma, Florida--you name it.
  We will begin to see these sorts of lawsuits and claims proliferate 
around the country. And that causes me a great deal of concern when a 
court of law, supposedly--but really a court that is acting more like a 
superlegislature, a legislature wearing black robes, ruling by edict 
and the gavel--makes statements such as this, such as the court in 
Massachusetts did when it called traditional marriage a ``stain,'' a 
``stain'' on our laws that must be ``eradicate[d].''
  I am just baffled at how people, who put their hands on the Bible and 
pledge to uphold the laws and the Constitution of their State and of 
the United States, can find a right that no one else has found to exist 
in the Constitution. I am baffled that they are so openly contemptuous 
of American values and American families and our traditions that they 
would call traditional marriage a ``stain'' that must be 
``eradicate[d]'' from our laws.
  The choice is up to us, whether to live with the dictates or the 
edicts of judges. Judges in other States cannot be held directly 
accountable to us, because we cannot vote on them, we cannot seek any 
sort of redress against those decisions. Yet we have to live with this 
sort of judicial adventurism and judicial activism that challenges the 
basic precepts upon which our society is based.
  The choice we are left with is to decide whether a Federal marriage 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the appropriate response.

  As I said just a few moments ago, last September I held a hearing in 
the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, asking the 
question: Is the Defense of Marriage Act in jeopardy? As I said, we had 
a debate. Some said, well, yes, they thought courts had all the tools 
they needed in order to hold that act unconstitutional, and it was just 
a matter of time before they did that. And there were others who 
candidly said: No, there is no way, no how, that it was never going to 
happen.
  Well, we have learned something since that September hearing. Not 
only has a court shown its willingness to attack the fundamental 
institution of traditional marriage in such a contemptuous, anti-
democratic way, but the day on which other courts are more likely to do 
the same has become incredibly accelerated.
  I believe we are now engaged in a battle over whether this land, when 
it comes to traditional marriage, will be ruled by the whim of judges 
or whether we, the people, will determine our fate and our values and 
the outcome of this very important controversy.
  I believe we stand by and do nothing at our own peril. Because if we 
do nothing, this decision will redefine and trivialize the institution 
of marriage. If you can take the label of ``marriage'' and apply it not 
just to the traditional relationship between a man and a woman--one 
that has been found over countless years to benefit children, to 
provide a stable emotional and economic foundation for children so they 
can then prosper and become responsible, productive adults--if we allow 
a court, making it up as they go along from the sweet mysteries of 
life, to attack an institution as fundamental as marriage--and our 
response is to do nothing about it, then shame on us--shame on us.
  I never imagined in a million years when I ran for this body, the 
United States Senate, in 2002, that I would be coming to the Senate 
floor and defending traditional marriage. And I bet my colleagues here, 
on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers, are scratching their 
heads and wondering: What has the world become? Has the world gone 
crazy? What happened to our understanding of what American values are, 
and our tradition, and our respect for democracy, and our respect for 
the different branches of Government that perform different functions, 
with the Legislature passing laws, the courts interpreting the laws, 
and the President, the executive branch, executing those laws?
  We stand by and do nothing at our own peril. So I believe the time 
has come for the appropriate committees in this body, as well as in the 
House of Representatives across the Rotunda, to convene hearings to 
determine how best we can respond to this startling display of judicial 
activism that so threatens our fundamental institutions and our values. 
As the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee, I intend to work with Chairman Hatch to do just that.
  The day that some speculated would come has now come upon us so much 
more quickly than any of us ever dreamed--the day has come, I believe, 
to confront this challenge to democracy and to the rule of law itself 
face to face.
  We must not flinch. We must not back down. We must not allow people 
to paint our motivations as hateful or hurtful because, indeed, they 
are not.
  No, what we are about is preserving our law, preserving the 
separation of powers where the legislature makes the law and the 
judiciary interprets the law. We are about preserving the fundamental 
building block of our society and the well-being of families and the 
welfare of children. That is what we are for. That is what this debate 
will be focused on.
  I believe the institution of marriage deserves better than it has 
received at the hands of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Our 
institutions of democracy deserve better. The American people deserve 
better. They deserve respect. Our Constitution deserves respect.
  Traditional marriage laws have served as the underpinning of 
civilized society for countless generations. Opponents of traditional 
marriage should demonstrate greater tolerance and respect toward others 
by respecting democracy and the will of the people, and ceasing their 
judicial war against marriage.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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, it has been our intention to get as many 
of the obstacles out of the way and as many amendments here as possible 
relating to the highway bill. The leader told us he wants to have the 
highway bill completed by late next week. I think we can do that. If 
Members have amendments they would like to have considered by the 
managers, our staff will be available this afternoon and Saturday 
afternoon from noon until 5 p.m. in Hart-415.
  If you have any amendments you would like to work out, I strongly 
advise you to bring them down today or tomorrow instead of waiting 
until next week. Again, that will be in Hart, room 415, and anytime 
today or tomorrow, Saturday, between noon and 5 p.m.
  I also note we have been inviting people to come and speak on the 
bill. No one has come down yet. It is now 11:15. In the event that no 
one wants to speak on the bill by noon, we will probably shut down.

[[Page S684]]

  Mr. President, 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. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it feels as if we have been away a 
long time. This was an unpleasant respite and it goes to the issue of 
how safe our country can be. This, the people's property, is not exempt 
from terror or the threat of terror. It does not matter whether we 
define terrorists as someone coming from Afghanistan or the Middle East 
or some faraway place. Terrorism is not different if it comes from an 
individual or a dissatisfied or disgruntled American. We have to fight 
against it with everything in our means. Unfortunately, we see the 
result of this fight within our society, within the Capitol. It is not 
the glorious place it used to be from the outside. We still have the 
responsibility, for the glory of our country, to carry on from the 
inside.
  To our majority leader, we extend our feelings that it could not have 
been an uglier manifestation of differences. He is someone who we all 
know has had experiences. I am sure he finds challenges on his trips to 
Africa and doing the work he has done in flying a single-engine plane 
to go places to perform services for those less fortunate.
  I thank the majority leader for bringing up this bill. I know there 
have been concerns or maybe even disputes from other parts of 
Government not to move ahead with this, to try and reduce it to less 
worthiness. While I have the floor and there is apparently no rush for 
others to follow, I want to say that for my staff, from the Lautenberg 
office, and I think it is probably fair to say those on the staff of 
the entire Capitol who perform as they always do under pressure, they 
manage to get their work done. They are willing to be inconvenienced. 
They are willing to do whatever they have to do to perform their tasks, 
and we greatly respect it.
  That is why I get upset when I hear talk about reducing Government 
until it withers on the vine when we have people here who work so hard 
and diligently to keep things going on behalf of our society and across 
this country.
  I am pleased we are finally taking up S. 1072, the bill that 
reauthorizes our Nation's Federal Surface Transportation Program. I do 
not think there is any other bill we are going to pass this year that 
is as important or more important, let's say, than the highway bill. We 
have to be able to move people and goods efficiently, economically, and 
safely. Otherwise, our economy would choke.
  It is a peculiar anomaly that even as things have slowed down in this 
period of recession, I did not see any less traffic on our roads, or 
any less pollution coming from congestion. So it is important we get on 
with this, and I hope we are not going to get any resistance to what 
appears to be a bill that takes care of needs across this country.
  I hope the President is not approaching this with an objection in 
mind. Whether that objection extends as far as a veto or not, we do not 
know, but I hope he will see this is an essential part of our 
functioning as a society and encourages us to make these investments 
which are talked about so glibly. As the saying goes, when it comes to 
where the rubber meets the road, we do not see it happening. We hope it 
is going to happen now, and the bill will pass--and I think it is 
inevitable we will pass this bill--that it moves along at least at a 
pace that it leaves us with the amounts of funding we are looking at.

  S. 1072 is a complex bill. The major titles come from four different 
authorizing committees. There are lots of Members who deserve credit 
for bringing it to the floor. I think of Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Jeffords and Senator Bond and Senator Harry Reid who had the primary 
responsibility for this measure in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. Also, Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes worked so hard to 
craft a transit title which falls under the jurisdiction of the Banking 
Committee. This title is particularly important to the residents of my 
home State, New Jersey, over 11 percent of whom rely on public 
transportation to get to and from work.
  Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and the rest of the Finance 
Committee had to figure out how to pay for the bill.
  Last but not least, the committee on which I serve, the Commerce 
Committee, reported out its title, which deals with many important 
safety programs, under the able leadership of Senator McCain and 
Senator Hollings.
  This past Monday, the groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow. 
It suggests we face 6 more weeks of winter weather, the kind of dreary 
weather we have grown accustomed to--the kind that we have seen in 
these last several weeks and we did not like any of it. We did not like 
it when it was raining and we did not like it when it was snowing. We 
like to see some rain to make sure we have enough water, but the 
accompanying misery was not pleasant at all. I know I speak for 
everybody when I say that.
  There was another shadow, however, we saw on Monday last, the shadow 
cast by record-breaking deficits in the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2005. Because of these budget deficits, the President is 
requesting, sadly, inadequate funding for our highways, mass transit, 
intercity and freight rail transportation, safety programs and 
environmental protection. When it comes to the future of our surface 
transportation system, the President, with his proposal, is forecasting 
6 more years of traffic congestion, air pollution, wasted fuel, 
unnecessary fatalities, and a stagnant economy.
  The Department of Transportation expects freight traffic to double in 
this country over the next 2 decades. Meanwhile, more and more 
Americans will need to use our roads, rails, and runways to travel to 
their jobs, to school, to medical appointments, to worship, to 
vacation. We are already straining capacity as we follow those 
pursuits.
  The needs of our transportation system are well documented and I am 
disappointed President Bush has declined to acknowledge these needs in 
his vision of America's future. S. 1072 would authorize a program that 
is 25 percent bigger than the Bush administration's current proposal. 
The House of Representatives may consider one that is even 50 percent 
bigger than the Bush administration's proposal. We are on the right 
track, and the President is on the wrong track. I am hopeful we can all 
agree on a final proposal which truly addresses the needs of our 
national transportation system this is something the American people 
deserve.
  A bigger, better highway bill is not just about reducing traffic 
congestion and repairing bridges, as important as those things are. The 
Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, has stated that $1 billion 
invested in transportation infrastructure supports 47,000 good-paying 
jobs, jobs which are located in America. When it comes to trade, we do 
not need to export any more jobs. We have to curb that, and we can do 
it by investing in transportation. One billion dollars invested equals 
47,000 good-paying jobs. We ought to look at it from that aspect very 
seriously.

  Transportation needs vary across the country. I can assure you, when 
it comes to need, my State, New Jersey, is near the top of the list. 
New Jersey is home to some of the oldest transportation routes in the 
country. Roads, bridges, rail tracks, and airports built decades ago 
are in need of repair or replacement. Our portion of the national 
transportation system includes 420 miles of interstate highway and 
6,300 bridges, 1,580 miles of class 1 railroad tracks. There are 49 
public use airports and the largest seaport on the east coast.
  I point this out just to indicate the needs of one State, and I know 
the needs of other States are also acute. This infrastructure makes a 
significant contribution to our national economy. Over 375 million tons 
of general cargo move through the State, mostly on trucks and railcars, 
to and from the Port of New York and New Jersey.
  Newark Liberty International Airport is the eighth largest cargo 
airport in the country. And, mind you, we are only a very small State, 
about 47th in size, and we have the eighth largest cargo airport in the 
country, the 20th biggest in the world, handling over 78,000 tons of 
cargo annually.

[[Page S685]]

  New Jersey lies along the busiest travel routes for freight and 
passenger travel in the country: The New Jersey Turnpike, the Northeast 
corridor, the Port of New York and New Jersey, Newark Liberty 
International Airport, and Interstate 95. There is a very good chance 
that the goods you use have traveled along these routes, or you 
yourself have traveled along these corridors in the last few years.
  While supporting the commercial movement of these goods and 
passengers in the support of our Nation's economy, New Jersey's 
transportation infrastructure must also support over 4 million 
automobiles registered in the State, almost 2 million light-duty trucks 
and sport utility vehicles, lots of buses, and over 100,000 
motorcycles. These vehicles owned by New Jersey residents must share 
the road with all the freight traffic moving through our State, and we 
must do it in a safe, environmentally-conscious, and efficient manner.
  The same goes for rail travel along the Northeast corridor, which 
extends from Boston to Washington, DC. New Jersey commuter trains must 
share the rails at the biggest chokepoint on the entire coast, the 
tunnels under the Hudson River. Right now, during peak travel periods, 
New Jersey commuter trains run every 3 minutes and pretty soon at the 
rate they are expanding it will be every 2 minutes. It is hard to 
believe. This sounds like a subway train, but I am talking about 
commuter trains, each of which carries some 1,200 passengers.
  Because New Jersey's transportation infrastructure is used so 
heavily, both in interstate commerce and by our resident commuters, it 
is important that it remains in a condition sufficient to support all 
this traffic.
  Unfortunately, much of it isn't. I can't overstate this.
  The current condition of our transportation infrastructure is 
terrible. Thirty-nine percent of urban interstate roads in New Jersey 
are reported as being in ``mediocre'' or ``poor'' condition, according 
to the Federal Highway Administration; 24 percent of our rural 
interstate roads are in ``mediocre'' or ``poor'' condition; 37 percent 
of New Jersey's 6,000 bridges are considered to be ``structurally 
deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete.''

  On top of all that, there is at least a $4 billion backlog of rail 
maintenance on the Northeast Corridor. We desperately need to repair 
existing infrastructure and add capacity. The average commuting time 
for New Jersey residents is over 30 minutes, and it is the third 
longest average commute in the country. So New Jersey desperately needs 
a new highway bill and I am pleased the bill the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works has reported authorizes funding levels for 
the core highway and transit programs that are higher than the funding 
levels contained in the legislation that it is replacing, TEA 21, and 
far more than what the President has proposed.
  Under the Committee's proposal, New Jersey is a donor State. That 
means that motorists in New Jersey pay more in gasoline taxes than the 
State receives from the Federal Highway Trust Fund under the allocation 
formulas. New Jersey is not alone in that category. Texas, Florida, 
Wisconsin, California, and many other States are currently contributing 
tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to our Nation's transportation 
system while other States get a windfall--in some instances many times 
over the amount of their contribution.
  Formula fights are unpleasant and difficult to resolve--those fights 
to discuss who gets what under a given formula. Senators who represent 
States that reap more from the Highway Trust Fund than their citizens 
pay in gasoline taxes are understandably reluctant to lose ground, 
especially when their departments of transportation plan the financing 
for large, long-term projects. I think the allocations in this bill are 
a good start but still could use some tweaking. New Jersey, as I said, 
is a donor State and under the Committee's proposal the State will do 
better than it has under TEA-21.
  I look forward to the day when we get 100 cents back on the dollar 
and stop this raid on what I see as New Jersey's contribution to places 
that really don't have the nexus to us that is needed to get to our 
system. I say that, not out of anger and malice, but I am so tired of 
hearing about contributions to Washington, how hard we have to fight to 
get our contributions honored and respected. We don't have a large 
military installation. That is not our choice; that is the way the 
defense establishment was created. But we are 50th in receipt of 
Federal funds compared to what we send out.
  That is not a very welcome fact, I can tell you, in my State or with 
those of us who represent the State of New Jersey.
  New Jersey's motorists will continue to donate tens of millions of 
dollars more than the State receives over the life of the bill. So 
while there is some improvement over the status quo, our State needs to 
do better, and we will continue that fight, given our transportation 
needs.
  I make one final point and that concerns the addition of an intercity 
rail title to this bill. I think it is not only appropriate to have 
such a title in this bill, it is imperative. Intercity rail service is 
an essential part of our national transportation network. That is one 
of the lessons we learned on 9/11, that fatal day, that fateful day in 
American history, when our aviation system was crippled and some 5,000 
airplanes had to be grounded.

  That is one of the reasons I fight so hard to protect FAA in its 
present format as part of the Government, just like we have our 
military units as part of the Government. I think of the FAA as the 
fifth branch of our defense. Those airplanes had to be grounded on 9/
11. The controllers in the towers and centers, the people who control 
the flight service stations--they did this with the skill of a 
physician doing brain surgery. Everything was precise. These airplanes, 
filled with thousands of people--hundreds of thousands of people--were 
in the air, and they were sent to destinations they didn't plan to be. 
Yet they could rely on the FAA to bring them all home safely. I make 
that point as an aside.
  The fact is, the aviation system was turned off and we had to rely on 
other means of transportation. Highways were jammed with cars and 
trucks that couldn't move. Many Americans found another way to get to 
their destinations, and that was passenger rail service.
  There was a group from Washington, legislators, who came up there 
very soon after 9/11 to see what had happened and to see if we could do 
things that would prevent it from ever happening again. They had to 
come up by Amtrak. That was the only possible way they could reach 
their destination--they couldn't fly.
  For this country to have a decent passenger rail service we need to 
make the same commitment to rail infrastructure, the same kind of 
commitment that we have to building highways and runways. It is 
essential. It is not just essential for New Jersey and New York and 
that region or the Northeast corridor, it is essential across the 
country.
  I am not necessarily just talking about long-distance rail. I am also 
talking about those centers and cities where there are numerous 
connections--200-, 300-, or 400-mile-long corridors--that could be so 
well served by more efficient high-speed rail.
  One need only look at what happens in Europe. If you want to go from 
Brussels, Belgium, to Paris, France, you take a train that runs about 1 
hour 20 minutes to cover 200 miles. Imagine if we could go from 
Washington to New York City or vice versa in 1 and a half hours, let us 
say, or 1 hour 40 minutes. It would make life considerably easier than 
now with the crowding we have at the airports and on our highways.
  This is a good bill for the most part. I think it can be improved, 
and I intend to offer some amendments to do just that. I will discuss 
them at the appropriate time.
  I congratulate the managers of this bill for bringing it to the 
floor, Senator Inhofe and our good friend from Vermont, Senator 
Jeffords. I look forward to working with them and the rest of the 
Senate to make a good bill even better and get it to President Bush. I 
am pleading with him now as much as we can in front of the American 
people to say, Mr. President, we have to take care of our 
infrastructure. Everybody knows that. We can define those needs perhaps 
a little bit differently, but we can't deny that that is

[[Page S686]]

the major responsibility at the moment. But we don't make things happen 
here domestically without investing what we have to. Making things 
better here at home with our infrastructure is a perfect example of 
that. I plead with the President openly: Mr. President, please sign 
this bill when it comes to you.
  I am hopeful that we will work out something with the House that is 
not dissimilar to what we have here in the Senate bill. If it is 
better, we will take that. But we want to be at least as good as the 
Senate bill. We hope there is not going to be a campaign that puts this 
highway and interstate funding on a back burner.
  I hope the President will have the wisdom to sign it, notwithstanding 
the fact that we will likely authorize more spending for high-speed 
transit and intercity rail than he wants.
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the country desperately 
needs increased spending on our surface transportation infrastructure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my 
appreciation for the Senate leaders for their strong support in 
reauthorizing the Nation's transportation program, and also my good 
friend from New Jersey who lends his participation and expertise in 
coming up with a good bill. He has worked very hard. I deeply 
appreciate what he has done. Senators Frist and Daschle have spoken 
forcefully to the vital nature of S. 1072, its potential to create jobs 
and spur the economy.
  The American people are counting on us to advance this important 
legislation. With the stellar bipartisanship of leaders Senators Frist 
and Daschle, I am confident we will succeed. Having worked now for many 
months with my good friend from Oklahoma, I know we will succeed.
  As we consider this massive surface transportation bill, there is a 
tendency to focus on the State-by-State funding matter, overlooking the 
important policy initiatives and broad implications that attend to the 
investment of hundreds of billions of dollars.
  I do not question the importance of the funding formulas. We spent 
countless hours examining options and developing an approach that 
benefits all States and balances competing interests.
  But today, and through the course of our debate on S. 1072, I want to 
discuss the many forward-looking refinements that my colleagues and I 
have put forward for consideration.
  Transportation investment is a means to an end. Our Nation has grown 
and prospered through strategic development of ports, trails, roads, 
rails, airports, highways, subways, and byways. In almost every case, 
our great cities can trace their origins--their very existence--to the 
logistics of transportation as one of the many eras of our Nation's 
expansion.
  The form and expanse of our cities and towns are an outgrowth of 
surface transportation technology and investment. In my State of 
Vermont, even today, the distance between village centers reflects 
historic travel times by horse and wagon.
  Older suburbs in the eastern and midwestern United States are located 
along early twentieth century trolley lines--lines later abandoned and 
now being renewed.
  Our great sprawling sunbelt and western cities are a product of many 
key technologies, not the least of which is the modern highway. And it 
is the greatest highway network in the world--the Eisenhower Interstate 
Defense Highway System--that has tied our Nation and its many regions 
so closely together as we move into the twenty-first century.
  Transportation investment truly forms our Nation and its communities. 
That is why our decisions on transportation policy and program 
structure--both in Congress and at home in our States and communities--
must be balanced, well-informed, and forward-looking. I am proud that 
S. 1072 reflects this understanding.
  We are probably coming to a conclusion for the week. I thank all of 
those who have succeeded in making sure this bill is proceeding 
properly, especially my good friend from Oklahoma, with whom I have 
worked. I know he will assist us in making sure this bill becomes a 
reality in the not-too-distant future.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  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 (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. We will be shutting down here shortly, so I will repeat 
the announcement I made earlier. We are going to try to have this 
highway bill completed by the end of the week. To do that, there are 
several things that need to happen. One is that we get these amendments 
in. We have announced before, and we want to make sure the offices 
know, if Members have amendments they would like to have considered by 
the managers, our staff will be available this afternoon and Saturday--
this afternoon, all afternoon and Saturday from noon to 5 o'clock--in 
Hart room 415. We would like to have amendments looked at. I strongly 
urge you to come down. We are going to stay on our timetable to try to 
have this completed.
  I appreciate the comments by the Senator from Vermont and the Senator 
from New Jersey. It is very important we get this done.
  We are beyond the point of turning back and changing things. We have 
spent a year working out all the elements--the environmental portion of 
the bill, the safety portion of the bill, the formula portion--and we 
have probably the best bill we have had during my time, and I go back 
to ISTEA when I was in the other body and TEA-21 here.
  We have considered more than the other formulas and we have now 
abandoned the idea of percentages that will get 60 votes and then 
walking. That is not the way we should be doing it. I think we are 
doing it a lot better.
  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. 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.

                          ____________________