[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S769-S781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT
OF 2003--Continued
Amendment No. 2276 Withdrawn
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
withdraw amendment No. 2276 on behalf of Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Withdrawn
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with the approval of the committee, I now
withdraw the committee substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Amendment No. 2285
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I now send a substitute amendment to the
desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) proposes an
amendment numbered 2285.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion on the pending
substitute to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
substitute to Calendar No. 426, S. 1072, a bill to authorize
funds for Federal-Aid Highways, Highway Safety Programs, and
Transit Programs, and for other purposes.
Bill Frist, James Inhofe, Christopher Bond, Gordon
Smith, Lamar Alexander, Richard G. Lugar, Pat Roberts,
[[Page S770]]
Robert F. Bennett, Mike Crapo, Jim Bunning, Ted
Stevens, Conrad Burns, Chuck Hagel, Charles Grassley,
Trent Lott, Saxby Chambliss.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will allow the manager to explain what
went on so our colleagues will fully understand, but I wish to make a
statement. I encourage colleagues who are interested in bringing
amendments to the floor to do that and continue to work in that vein.
Again, my whole purpose over the last week and a half we have been on
this bill has been to make sure people could come to the floor to
discuss the bill, and if there are amendments people feel strongly, we
are going to continue to move forward.
The objective of the leadership on both sides of the aisle is to
complete this bill this week. I encourage people to come to the floor
if they have amendments and to talk to the managers this afternoon.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Since this process started, we have been encouraging
people to come to discuss their amendments. We are now in a position
where they can actually offer their amendments. We had quite a few
Members who worked over the weekend, who also had their staff working.
They brought amendments down, and I thank all of those Members.
We visited with them. As the managers, we accepted some. I think now
we are at the point where we do encourage our Members to bring their
amendments. While we are in this stage right now, let me share a couple
of points that I think are very significant.
There has been a lot of discussion that the formulas are unfair to
some States. I suggest that in almost every case where there is a donee
State that becomes a donor State, it is by a very small amount. On the
average, the disparity between donee and donor is far less.
In approaching this, we actually took the average donor and put 4
cents on it and then from the donee took 4 cents off. I think it is a
very fair way of doing it. But when people talk about the formulas,
let's keep in mind the formulas are real. They have not been real in
the past. They were not real in TEA-21. They tried to do it but they
ended up with a minimum guarantee, which is a political document.
The formulas include such things as total lane miles on the
interstate, on principal arterial routes; vehicle miles traveled;
annual contributions to the highway trust fund attributed to commercial
vehicles; diesel fuel used on highways; relative share of total cost to
repair or replace deficient highway bridges. That is one I am
particularly interested in since, as I have said many times, my State
of Oklahoma is dead last in terms of the conditions of bridges;
weighted nonattainment and maintenance areas; rate of return of donor
States. All of those are in the formula.
This is the first time, since we started this process--at least since
I have been here in 1991 when ISTEA came out--that we actually are
using the formula and staying with it. It has not been easy, because
people who do not like the way their State was treated come down and
say all kinds of detrimental things about the formula, about our
motives, about the bill in general.
The bottom line is, we have been honest with the Senate and honest
with all of the States.
I do not think it will shock anyone to hear that there were political
considerations in the past. We know that from the other body. The House
Member from Pennsylvania was always very aggressive in getting the most
he could for his State. I think a lot of them are like that, and we
have corrected a lot of those.
I would say this: Of all of the ones who are the big players in TEA-
21, and that was 1998, there was Senator Moynihan, whom we loved so
much. His State was 1.25. We had Pennsylvania, which was Congressman
Shuster, 1.21; Rhode Island, of course, Chairman Chafee, 2.17; the
Senator from Montana was not only the ranking on the committee but also
on the subcommittee, 2.18. At the same time all of that happened, my
State was .9050, so we are way down there.
With SAFETEA, our percentages really do not change that much. We do
ultimately bring everybody up to 95 percent and that is what this will
do. Some are dissatisfied because they do not get up to 95 percent
until the sixth year. It is unfortunate we could not come up with any
other way, but it would cost so much money that if we did that, the
ones who would be paying for it would be the donee States, and that
would not be fair to them.
So I feel very good about where we are today. I think we have a fair
bill. Very few people in this Chamber know the hours, the months, and
the years that have been involved in this bill. Certainly the managers
of the bill do because we have been working on this bill for such a
long period of time.
Now that we have cloture filed, after it expires, it is our intention
to go ahead and have a vote on cloture and get the bill completed. I
believe it can be done this week.
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, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for up to 7 minutes as if in morning business and then we
return immediately to the bill, S. 1072.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. INHOFE. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 2286 To Amendment No. 2285
(Purpose: To provide a highway safety improvement program that includes
incentives to States to enact primary safety belt laws)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment
numbered 2286.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is an amendment I submitted the other
day on behalf of myself, Senator Clinton, and Senator DeWine of Ohio.
It is an amendment to increase our national seatbelt use rate to 90
percent, a concept that is well known to the Members of the Senate.
This amendment is identical to the legislation I introduced last year,
S. 1993.
As my colleagues examine the highway bill and what it means to each
of our States, our foremost responsibility, in my judgment, and the
judgment of many, as well as the judgment of the President of the
United States, must be to improve highway safety for the driving
public.
I commend the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee because he has a section in the bill on improving
highway safety. But I fear that somehow the President's proposal--
actually the proposal the President sent up to the Congress regarding
the use of seatbelts--was not included in the final markup. It is for
that reason I rise to include in this bill a provision that was sought
by the President.
Simply by increasing the number of Americans who will buckle up is
the most effective--I repeat, the most effective--step that can be
taken to save their lives and the lives of others. That is the single
most important step.
I am privileged to serve on the Environment and Public Works
Committee,
[[Page S771]]
which has the primary responsibility for reauthorizing TEA-21. The bill
addresses, as it should, highway safety measures such as how to build
safer roads and how to use new technologies to improve safety.
But statistics show that the greatest measure of safety, again, to
drivers, passengers, and possibly third parties not connected with the
vehicle, is through the use of a seatbelt. It is remarkable the lives
that have been saved through the use of this simple device. America has
about a 79-percent use rate of seatbelts. Now, that is quite a
commendation to the drivers all across this country. Seventy-nine
percent of Americans, according to reliable statistics, use their
seatbelts. That has been translated into the saving of tens of
thousands of lives and injuries in automobile accidents. But I believe,
as do many in this Chamber, we can do better.
Those are the facts. Are we just going to have a standstill or are we
going to move forward? Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine, and I think we
should move forward with a firmer approach with achievable goals and
funding.
We have debated the benefits of seatbelt use on many occasions in
this body and elsewhere across America. And whether it is in the town
forums we conduct, town meetings, or here on the floor of the Senate,
there is always that individual who comes back: Don't tell me what I
have to do. What does it matter to you, John Warner--or to any other
colleague with whom I am privileged to serve--what does it matter to
you whether I buckle up?
Well, let's take a look. No one disputes that the absence of wearing
a seatbelt causes more loss of life and serious injury. The statistics
show that the impact associated with the crash, to the extent the
driver can maintain control of the vehicle in those fatal seconds, the
severity of the crash, and perhaps the loss of life can be reduced by
the use of a safety belt--simply said.
Accidents involving unbelted drivers result in a significant cost to
your wallet. Many people are rushed from the accident scene to various
emergency facilities. All of that has the initial cost of the law
enforcement that responds, the rescue squads that respond, and
eventually the costs to the emergency room or whatever medical facility
you might have the good fortune to be taken to, to hopefully save your
life. That isn't free. There is a cost. Regrettably, a number of
persons who suffer these types of injuries in automobile accidents are
uninsured. Again, the cost often devolves down on the good old hard-
working taxpayers--in most instances, the taxpayers who buckle up.
When an accident happens on our roads and highways across this great
Nation, we are all impacted. Accidents cause significant congestion,
which results in lost time and productivity as we try to get to our
work or to our home along the highway where they are engaged in trying
to remove the accident.
More often than not, the accident, with the combined slowdown of
those passing the accident, causes significant congestion for some
considerable portion of time. Either the lane in which we are traveling
moves very slowly because of the accident or, indeed, we come to a
standstill, as often is the case when a lane is closed to clear an
accident. That standstill frequently is necessitated because of the
severity of the injuries experienced in that accident. It takes the
response team longer to get to the accident. It takes the response team
longer in their carefully trained steps to extricate the injured
person. All of that requires needed time.
To give the initial treatment and then to carefully transport that
individual, if necessary, to a medical facility takes time. That costs
money. The road becomes backed up. That is lost time for your mission
on the road, be it for business, family, or pleasure. That is lost time
and productivity. Behind you often are trucks and other vehicles
involved in commerce. That is lost time and delay due to the
seriousness occasioned by injuries and accidents where there has been
the lack of use of seatbelts. It is as simple is that. Those are the
facts. Then, of course, there is the cost to the community for caring
for the injured person who, regrettably, frequently doesn't have the
insurance to pay for his or her costs. The local people in your
communities end up paying the bill.
The legislation we are proposing today will take an important step
forward for the States to adopt either a primary safety belt law or
take steps of their own devising to meet a 90-percent seatbelt rate--
not the Warner amendment or the legislative measure put forth by the
administration upon which we draw our concept for certain portions. The
States can decide for themselves how they achieve a 90-percent goal of
the use of seatbelts in their respective States. That is the purpose of
this legislation--to move every State to a 90-percent use rate for
safety belts.
In a letter dated November 12, 2003, to Chairman Inhofe of the
Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which I am privileged to
serve, Secretary Mineta stated:
President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt
usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease
highway fatalities and injuries.
That is explicit and clear. The Secretary goes on to say:
The surest way for a State to increase safety belt usage is
through the passage of a primary safety belt law.
I have had this debate with Governors and former Governors, even in
this Chamber with former Governors. I think they would tell you that a
primary safety belt law is a tough piece of legislation for the State
legislature to pass solely on its own. I mean that. Frankly, it needs
the impetus of those of us here in the Congress, of the combined
efforts of the executive and the legislative branches of the Federal
Government because it is just one of those things that State
legislatures have extraordinary difficulty grappling with.
Regrettably, in my own State this law has come down to a single vote
defeating it in two consecutive attempts. Stop to think, one vote in
the distinguished General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has
stopped our State from adopting this type of law.
I believe the impetus here will make it possible for our State and
many others to adopt this statute.
As provided in our amendment, States can increase seatbelt use either
by enacting, as I said, a primary seatbelt law. Everybody knows what a
primary seatbelt law is and how it works. It means a law enforcement
officer can literally stop a vehicle if they observe that the
individual is not wearing his or her seatbelt. It is as simple as that.
But a State, if they decide not to enact a primary safety belt law,
can, by implementing their own strategies, whatever they may be--and
there is a lot of innovation out in the States--that would result in a
90-percent safety belt use rate. So that is a challenge to the States.
The current national belt use, as I said, is 79 percent. But many
States--those that have the primary law--are sometimes at 90, or even
above 90, but those that do not have the primary seatblet law are down
sometimes in the 60 percentile. It is the weight of the primary States
that carries the percentile and brings it up to 79 from those States
that don't have an effective law. States with their primary safety belt
law have the greatest success for drivers wearing seatbelts.
On an average, States with the primary seatbelt law have a 10- to 15-
percent higher seatbelt use compared to those with a secondary system.
This demonstrates that secondary seatbelt laws are far more limited in
their effectiveness than a primary law.
Essentially, the secondary laws say that if a law enforcement officer
has cause other than a perceived or actual seatbelt violation--namely,
the driver didn't have it buckled--if they have cause to stop that car,
for example, for a speeding offense or a reckless driving offense or
indeed an accident and they observed there has been no use of the
seatbelt, then in the course of proceeding to enforce the several laws
of the State as regards speeding or reckless driving, or whatever the
case may be, they can add a second penalty to address the absence of
the use of the seatbelt in that State.
Drivers are gamblers. They say: Oh, well, don't worry, I will not
buckle up. State law doesn't require it. Unless they stop me--and they
are not going to stop me today. It is that gambling
[[Page S772]]
attitude that, more often than not, will cause an accident. Then it is
too late.
So we come forward today to build on our national programs. We are
building on what we did in TEA-21. I was privileged to be on the
committee. I was chairman of the subcommittee 6 years ago. I worked
with Senator Chafee, who was chairman of the full committee, and we
drove hard to make progress with the seatbelt laws, and we did it. We
basically put aside a very considerable sum of money to encourage
States--again, using their own devices--to increase uses. As a direct
consequence of what we did in TEA-21, there has been an 11-percent
increase in these 6 years in the use of seatbelts.
Sadly, traffic deaths in 2002 rose to the highest level in over a
decade. It is astonishing. Of the nearly 43,000 people killed on our
highways, over half were not wearing their seatbelts. That is according
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And 9,200 of
these deaths might have been prevented if the safety belt had been
used.
Those are alarming statistics. Automobile crashes are the leading
cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. Stop to think of that: Age 2,
that means a child; that means a parent neglected to buckle up a child.
Automobile crashes as the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to
34. That is our Nation's youth. Do we have a higher calling in the
Congress of the United States than to do everything we can to foster
the dreams and ambitions and the productivity of our Nation's youth? I
think not. And this is one of the ways.
Last year, 6 out of 10 children who died in car crashes did not have
the belt on--6 out of 10; that is over half. I plead with colleagues to
join with me, join with the President who has taken this initiative.
My primary responsibility in the Senate--and this is one of the
reasons I got interested in this subject--is the welfare of the men and
women in the Armed Forces. I say to colleagues, again, the statistics
are tragic. Traffic fatalities are the leading noncombat cause of death
for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They are in that high-
risk age category, 18 to 35.
Someone even took a look at the statistics, the total of the
fatalities least year, and said that represents in deaths approximately
the size of the average U.S. Army battalion. That is several companies
and maybe a reinforced element. Just think, that is the magnitude in
one category of those who serve our United States, the men and women in
the Armed Forces.
I cannot think of any reason why we all cannot join behind this
effort. That alone is a driving impetus for this Senator.
The time is long overdue for a national policy to strengthen seatbelt
use rates. I said a national policy, and that is what this bill
represents, either through States enacting a primary seatbelt law or
giving far greater attention to public awareness programs that result
in more drivers and passengers wearing safety belts. Our goal is 90
percent--90 percent.
I have been privileged to serve on this committee 17 years, and I,
together with many others, notably my dear friend and late chairman,
Senator Chafee, addressed this issue. Our committee is rich in the
history of focusing revenue from the highway trust fund on effective
safety programs. It goes back through many chairmen and members of the
committee.
With jurisdiction over the largest share of the highway trust fund,
our committee has had the vision to tackle important national safety
problems. The legislation before us does provide more funding to help
build safer roads--that is a step forward--but it does not have, in my
judgment, that provision which represents a step up from what we did in
TEA-21, that provision that would represent a recognition of the
President's initiative.
The President has taken a decidedly strong initiative to increase the
use of seatbelts. It is absent from the bill, and this is why we need a
provision to strengthen and to move forward the position of the
Congress on the issue of increased use of safety belts. That is the
purpose of this amendment.
It is just unfortunate, but those with reckless intent quickly
disregard responsible behavior and drive unbelted at excessive speeds
and many times with the use of alcohol. So no increased dollars for
improved road engineering, which is in this bill, can defy in many
instances the type of personal conduct that results in reckless
behavior. It is as simple as that.
Our automobiles now come equipped with crash avoidance technologies
and are more crashworthy than ever before, but these advances are only
part of the solution.
In repeated testimony before the Environment and Public Works
Committee, from the administration, our States, safety groups, and the
highway industry, we are told that three main causes of traffic deaths
and injuries are unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol.
The formula we have devised in this legislation does have a reduction
in the amount a State receives under this proposed bill that we will
consider next year when they fail to achieve the 90 percent safety belt
use rate. It is as simple as that. But the formula is patterned
directly after the law that is on the books now with respect to the .08
legal blood alcohol content level.
The net effect of this legislation is simply to recognize we are
asking that the same type of sanction policy with regard to one of the
three major causes of death--alcohol--be equated to a second cause of
death and injury, and that is absence of the use of seatbelts, bringing
into parallel two of the three principal causes of death and injury on
today's highways.
The administration put forward an innovative safety belt program, as
I said, under the leadership of the President that was a major
component of their new core transportation program, the Highway Safety
Improvement Program. Our amendment incorporates the administration's
bill and includes additional incentives for states to increase seat
belt use rates.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of
documents that show widespread support for this legislation, from the
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, the American Medical
Association, and the letter to Senator Inhofe from the Secretary of
Transportation. One hundred thirty-five organizations across the United
States are in support of this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Medical Association,
February 9, 2004.
AMA Applauds Legislation To Promote Seat Belt Enforcement and Safety
AMA Speaks at Congressional Press Conference to Urge Seat Belt
Amendment Passage
On behalf of the American Medical Association, I'm proud to
stand here with Senator Warner in support of enforcing seat
belt use. Preventing deaths and injuries on our nation's
roadways has been a priority of the AMA for many years. In
fact, over the last seven years the AMA has distributed more
than 16 million brochures on protecting children in motor
vehicles, and just last year we released a physicians' guide
to assess and counsel older drivers. Requiring all states to
enact a primary enforcement seat belt law or achieve a seat
belt use rate of at least 90 percent will help protect
Americans on the road.
We know the wearing seat belts saves lives. Over half of
the 43,000 people killed on America's highways in 2002 were
not wearing seat belts. Tragically, six out of 10 children
who died that year in motor-vehicle collisions were also not
wearing seat belts. Just taking one moment to buckle-up could
make a life-or-death difference to the thousands who
needlessly die on our roadways every year.
For those lucky enough to survive a devastating auto crash,
the health care costs can be staggering. On average,
hospitalization costs for unbelted traffic crash victims are
50 percent higher than for those who buckled-up. The needless
deaths and injuries that result from not wearing seat belts
cost society an estimated $26 billion annually in medical
care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs.
There deplorable statistics are reversible. We can
significantly reduce deaths and serious injuries from motor-
vehicle crashes by enforcing seat belt use nationwide through
a primary enforcement law like the one Senator Warner is now
proposing.
In my home state of Michigan, a primary enforcement law has
been in effect for three years. In that time, nearly 200
lives have been saved, and over 1,000 serious collisions have
been averted because of this change in the law.
As a physician, it is a rare blessing to be in a situation
where we can easily identify the solution to a public health
threat. Passage of the primary enforcement seat belt law will
saves lives. It's that simple.
Ron Davis,
AMA Trustee.
[[Page S773]]
____
Virginia Association
of Chiefs of Police,
Richmond, VA, February 9, 2004.
The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police (VACP)
endorses S. 1993, a bill to create incentives for the states
to enact primary safety belt laws. In 2002 in Virginia, we
had 913 automobile fatalities. Of those 913 fatalities, 438
(62.7%) were not wearing a safety belt. In those 913 fatality
crashes, 9,912 injuries were sustained by unbuckled
occupants.
Under our current secondary enforcement law, Virginia's
front seat safety belt use is 74.6%, which includes drivers
and front seat passengers. Research tells us that front seat
occupants of vehicles involved in potentially fatal crashes
in states with primary safety belt laws have a 15 percentage
point higher belt use than persons in states without primary
laws.
The VACP supports the passage of primary safety belt laws
as a proven tool to increase safety belt usage and reduce
serious injuries and fatalities in the event of a traffic
crash. Public education and enhanced traffic enforcement
efforts have failed to increase Virginia's safety belt usage
rate much beyond 75%. States with primary safety belt laws
consistently experience safety belt usage rates up to 90%.
The VACP believes that the passage of a primary safety belt
law in Virginia will increase belt usage and save the lives
of countless Virginians.
Dana G. Schrad,
Executive Director,
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police.
____
The Secretary of Transportation,
Washington, DC, November 12, 2003.
Hon. James Inhofe,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: With almost 43,000 people dying every
year on our nation's highways, it is imperative that we do
everything in our power to promote a safer transportation
system. The Bush Administration's proposal to reauthorize
surface transportation programs, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003
(SAFETEA), offers several bold and innovative approaches to
address this crisis.
President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt
usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease
highway fatalities and injuries. As a result, SAFETEA's new
core highway safety program provides States with powerful
funding incentives to increase the percentage of Americans
who buckle up every time they get in an automobile. Every
percentage point increase in the national safety belt usage
rate saves hundreds of lives and millions of dollars in lost
productivity.
Empirical evidence shows that the surest way for a State to
increase safety belt usage is through the passage of a
primary safety belt law. States with primary belt laws have
safety belt usage rates that are on average eight percentage
points higher than States with secondary laws. Recognizing
that States may have other innovative methods to achieve
higher rates of belt use, SAFETEA also rewards States that
achieve 90% safety belt usage rates even if a primary safety
belt law is not enacted. I urge you to consider these
approaches as your Committee marks up reauthorization
legislation.
While safety belts are obviously critical to reducing
highway fatalities, so too is a data driven approach to
providing safety. Every State faces its own unique safety
challenges, and every State must be given broad funding
flexibility to solve those challenges. This is a central
theme of SAFETEA, which aims to provide States the ability to
use scarce resources to meet their own highest priority
needs. Such flexibility is essential for States to maximize
their resources, including the funds available under a new
core highway safety program.
I look forward to working with you on these critically
important safety issues as development of a surface
transportation reauthorization bill progresses.
Sincerely yours,
Norman Y. Mineta.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I see other hands.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is appropriate that the occupant of the
Chair at the present time is the Senator from Rhode Island because the
amendment being offered by the Senator from Virginia is one that was a
favorite of one of my favorite people, his father. I can remember many
times he would be talking about this amendment. In fact, I can recall
some disagreements.
I would say: John, your son is a mayor of a significant city. I am
sure if you call him up he will tell you, if there is one thing they
don't want, it is unfunded mandates. I was the mayor of a city for four
terms. The biggest, greatest plague we had was unfunded mandates.
I will reluctantly oppose the Warner-Clinton-DeWine-Murray seatbelt
sanction amendment at the appropriate time. This amendment makes a
significant and damaging change to the core safety program established
in the highway reauthorization bill.
The amendment imposes a new sanction on States that fail to achieve a
90-percent seatbelt rate or enact a primary seatbelt law. Currently,
only 20 of the 50 States meet the requirements of this proposed new
Federal mandate. As a result, if this amendment were to pass, 30 States
would be immediately thrust into a status of noncompliance with this
mandate and the clock would start ticking against them, threatening a
significant penalty through the loss of funding. My State of Oklahoma
is already in compliance. Actually it wouldn't affect us. We are in
compliance with the requirements proposed by this new sanction. But I
fundamentally oppose imposition of new sanctions on the States.
While most agree that seatbelts represent the single greatest factor
in saving lives on our Nation's highways, the decision to pass a
primary seatbelt law is best made at the State level.
The penalties proposed by Senator Warner's seatbelt sanction are
twofold. The first penalty takes effect in calculating apportionments
for fiscal year 2005. This is especially disconcerting because that
gives States who do not already have primary seatbelt laws on the books
only 8 months from now to enact a primary law. It doesn't affect me.
Our State of Oklahoma already has them. This first penalty would
require States in noncompliance to spend 10 percent of the funds
apportioned to them under the new core safety programs on safety
behavioral projects. Under section 405 of title 23, any funds subject
to this transfer cannot be recovered in future years by a State's
subsequent compliance with the seatbelt sanction.
A second penalty would be imposed if States had still not enacted a
primary seatbelt law or brought their seatbelt rate up to 90 percent by
the beginning of fiscal year 2007. States still in noncompliance by
this time would lose up to 4 percent of their apportionments under each
of the National Highway System programs: The Surface Transportation
Program, Interstate Maintenance Program, and the Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. That one is significant to me.
These funds would be completely lost to the States in noncompliance and
redistributed among other States.
You could argue that my position in Oklahoma could be enhanced by the
passage of this amendment because we know there will be some States
that are not in compliance. Certainly our bridges in Oklahoma need as
much help as they can get.
The amendment proposes instituting a huge penalty for States without
a primary seatbelt law. Although I support the increased use of
seatbelts across the United States and would encourage States to enact
primary seatbelt laws to reach this objective, I believe threatening
States with the loss of needed Federal dollars for surface
transportation is not the right approach.
I admire so much the Senator from Virginia and his dedication. I
never appreciated what he had to go through 6 years ago as chairman of
the Environment and Public Works Committee during the last
reauthorization until I became the chairman and am going through it. I
am sure he did a far better job than I. But I disagree with this
particular amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. INHOFE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. WARNER. He is always so courteous about matters such as this, and
particularly with reference to our dear friend, John Chafee, who felt
very strongly about this legislation. It is more than a technicality,
but this is not a sanction in the sense that we simply say each State
should achieve 90 percent. Now, there may be ways by which States can
achieve that other than following this path which, as the Senator
correctly points out, has a certain sequence of penalties. They would
meet the law and completely avoid the other path, where there are
penalties.
[[Page S774]]
My question is this: When America was faced with the problems of
alcohol, which is still prevalent on the roads in our Nation, we, the
Congress, enacted what we call the famous .08 law; am I correct?
Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Didn't we have an identical series of steps in that law
that I have put into this law?
Mr. INHOFE. I know there are similar steps. If you say they are
identical, I am sure they are.
Mr. WARNER. I assure the Senator it is almost identical. You can come
down to where it has worked in the case of alcohol, and now 47 States
out of the 50 have adopted the alcohol legislation. I think, quite
frankly, that we can see a similar number of States quickly adopt this
legislation--a primary seatbelt law to avoid the penalties. So it is
not without precedent, and it also gives the State the alternative of
doing it by some other means than going down the path I have outlined.
Mr. INHOFE. I agree with the Senator from Virginia. I only say, if
your State were to devise a way to get to the 90-percent mark that they
have to get to to keep from being penalized, it would have to take some
reasonable period of time. They would have to establish some criteria
and then try to get there.
I cannot imagine it could be done within 8 months, and these people
would already be subjected to the penalties imposed in the year 2005.
That would be a concern.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague that
we selected that time period because of the language the Secretary of
Transportation forwarded to the Congress. If there could be a means, if
you would be willing to help me devise a formula by which you think a
greater degree of fairness can be achieved, I am open to that.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Senator
from Virginia, as I always do. I think many of us who came to serve in
the Senate who were either Governors or mayors in major cities somehow
have this obstacle or obstruction in our minds on any kind of mandates.
I plead guilty to that. I think other Members might oppose the
amendment, such as the Senator from Missouri who was a Governor. That
is primarily the reason.
I would be happy to work with the Senator from Virginia, and I think
he has an excellent point. I know his heart is right and he is trying
to save lives. That is why we all love him so much.
Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, I will take into consideration the
views of my distinguished chairman and see what we might do to make
that accommodation. I thank the chairman.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while we are waiting for people to come
with their amendments, I will make a few comments relative to
statements that were made on the Senate floor yesterday concerning the
bill.
Comments were made by one Senator who said he would just suggest that
we swap formulas between Oklahoma and Arizona. That was the senior
Senator from Arizona, a very distinguished Senator. I only say that
Arizona and Oklahoma and all other 48 States have exactly the same
formula. You don't have to swap formulas. They are the same.
I also suggest in the case of Arizona, it gets more money than
Oklahoma does under this bill--by about $60 million. So if a swap were
taking place, I think I would go along with that.
I am concerned a little about the statements made that more States
will become donor States. That is true under this bill. Right now, the
disparity between donor and donee is far greater than it will be after
this bill is passed. So if you have a State that goes from a $1.01 down
to 99 cents, that is a small amount, but because it goes below the
threshold of a dollar, then it is now in donor status. So the way we
try to accomplish this is, if you take the average, the average donor
State increased by 4 cents; the average donee State decreased by 4
cents. I don't see that anything could be more fair than that.
Third, I think if you look at the individuals who were driving this
legislation 6 years ago--TEA-21--you found that there were some parts
of the State that were perhaps treated better than other parts.
Certainly, we had three of the most powerful people from the
northeastern seaboard--Senators Moynihan, Congressman Shuster, and
Senator Chafee. When you look at the amounts that they, under TEA-21,
achieved, New York was $1.25; Pennsylvania, $1.21; Rhode Island, $1.26;
and Oklahoma, 90.5 cents, which was the minimum. A critic of this bill
said we should do what we did 6 years ago and immediately go to 90.5
cents as a floor instead of waiting until the sixth year.
The problem with that is there is not enough money. And if we did
that, that would have to come out of the donee State. The other problem
is we are actually much more ambitious in this bill in reaching that
point.
If you look at this State by State--and several times on this Senate
floor we have been challenged by Members from States who felt their
State was not getting a fair shake--keep in mind that every State is
going to increase by at least 10 percent under this bill, and every
State is going to have a donor status of nothing less than 95 percent
at the conclusion of this bill, at the sixth year.
Mr. REID. Will the chairman of the committee yield for a question?
Mr. INHOFE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the issue now before the Senate,
propounded by the senior Senator from Virginia, a unique situation has
arisen in Nevada. In Nevada, the State legislature, last session, had a
debate on whether or not they would have primary seatbelt requirements
for the people of Nevada. They did something interesting. The State now
has a law that requires seatbelts for children but not for adults. I
think this is pretty compromising.
The Senator from Virginia is not on the Senate floor, but I could go
for something like that--that there could be a requirement that States
have a mandate that children have to wear seatbelts. The State of
Nevada debated this and, as far as adults, it failed. So I ask you and
the Senator from Virginia to consider amending the matter now before
the Senate to have a requirement for children. I think that is
something that would be accepted. I think the debate would be very
short and to the point.
I think if he proceeds on his requirement to have seatbelts mandated
for everyone, States that are individualistic, such as Nevada--the
State of Nevada doesn't like to be told what to do. They believe they
are a sovereign State and the legislature meets and debates these
issues. On this issue about primary seatbelts, that was brought before
the legislature just last session. I think it would be very difficult
for this Senator to say that I know more than the Nevada State
Legislature, which not only held hearings on this issue but had a long
debate and turned down this mandate. While I personally may disagree
with that, the point is that the people of the State of Nevada, through
its elected legislature, have spoken.
I hope--I repeat for the third time--that the Senator from Virginia
would consider modifying the amendment now before the Senate and have
this apply just to children.
The question is, through the Chair to the Senator from Oklahoma, how
he feels about this. Before he answers, I wish to compliment the Chair
and his wonderful father who was one of my role models in this body. It
is true he brought this amendment up on a number of occasions, but it
never passed. We are now in the same situation as in years previous.
It seems to me we would be well off if we made incremental
improvement, and I think that improvement would be to make sure this
covers all children.
I again ask the question of my friend from Oklahoma, does he think
that is a reasonable compromise?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, the
argument I recall against the amendment was that the driver himself or
herself would be in a position where they could lose control of a
vehicle by not having a seatbelt on and, obviously, the children would
be safer than if nobody had on a seatbelt.
The Senator makes a very good point. It is one at which I would
certainly like to look.
I can assure the Senator from Nevada, I learned the hard way what our
law was in Oklahoma when we started cranking out grandbabies. We have
11 of them now. I did not realize the seriousness of this bill and I
did not have
[[Page S775]]
one of the young ones in a seatbelt, and I had to pay the penalties. I
learned the hard way they really meant business.
Our law has teeth. I would certainly like to look and see what kind
of results the State of Nevada has had.
Mr. REID. If I could, Mr. President, I try very rarely to boast on
the floor of the Senate, but this is an opportunity I can do so because
I noted a sense of pride with the Senator from Oklahoma talking about
his 11 grandchildren. A week ago last Sunday, I had born into my family
my 14th grandchild. So is it OK if I am a little boastful about that?
Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
Mr. REID. Eleven is OK, but the Senator from Oklahoma still has a way
to go.
Mr. INHOFE. We haven't quit.
Mr. REID. What is that?
Mr. INHOFE. We haven't quit.
Mr. REID. Neither have we. In fact, we have just begun to propagate.
Mr. INHOFE. In terms of population of the State of Nevada and the
percentage my grandchildren constitute in my State, the Senator from
Nevada is way ahead of me.
Mr. President, there are other points about which I could be talking
that were brought up, but I don't think it serves any useful purpose.
We made great progress on this bill. People have said nothing happened
last week. Something did happen last week. We had a chance to bring up
the bill, go over the bill, talk to people, and line up votes, quite
frankly.
We have the vast majority of people believing this is the right bill.
I only regret there are those who try to say it is not fair for one
reason or another. There is no question, if you take this and the last
two 6-year reauthorizations, that this bill is far more fair than any
other authorization we have done.
All these points were kept in mind as to donee States and donor
States. Now that we get up to 95 percent, we are going to forget about
what it was like to be a 70-percent donor State, but I can remember.
This will be an issue that will go away because you figure you are high
enough. This bill got us there.
At the same time, we have donee States, States that have done very
well in the past. I mentioned a minute ago, partially because the
former chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Congressman Bud
Shuster--and I served with him for 8 years in the House on that
committee--perhaps his State got a little higher than it should have
through his anxious approach. However, when you compare that to the
State of Oklahoma--this is an interesting comparison--you can look at a
chart and see you are not getting as much as last year and, therefore,
it is unfair.
That is just not true. My State has roughly the same road miles as
the State of Pennsylvania. If you look at the next 6 years, the State
of Pennsylvania is getting three times as much money as we are getting
in our State of Oklahoma. It doesn't sound like I did a very good job
for Oklahoma.
There are other factors involved. It was called to my attention by
one of the Senators from that State that it is a pass-through State.
Everyone goes through Pennsylvania to get someplace. How do you put
that into an equation? How do you put down how many people stop to buy
products or services in your State? Some of these factors can't be
done.
I will say this: The old bill turned out to be a minimum guarantee.
That was wrong. That was a political document that merely said we will
make 60 percent of the people in this Chamber happy, and we don't care
what happens to the other 40 percent. That was not an appropriate way
to approach that bill.
With the factors of donee, donor, total lane miles, vehicle miles
traveled, annual contributions to the highway trust fund from
commercial vehicles, diesel fuel just on highways, relative share of
the total cost of repair and replacement of deficient highways and
bridges, weighted nonattainment in maintenance areas, and rate of
return for donor States, this formula has worked, and I am very proud
of it.
We have gone through the last 2 weeks complimenting each other and
the leadership. I certainly compliment my friend from Vermont, the
ranking member, Senator Jeffords, as well as Senator Reid, the ranking
member on the subcommittee, and, of course, Kit Bond, the chairman of
the subcommittee under my committee. But I also compliment the staff.
I can promise you, Mr. President, that the staff worked many more
hours than we did. They were down there all this last weekend. All I
was doing was sitting on the phone calling for votes. It was a lot of
hard work, a lot of dedication. I want all the staff members of the
majority and the minority to know how much I personally appreciate
them.
I think it is necessary to have this bill. I can't think of anything
worse than going on these short extensions and no one can plan in
advance. With the bill we have today, we have it set up so we can plan
in advance.
The IPAM part of this bill will allow those projects which are ready
to go to start working, to start those projects going, to hire the
people.
We had a chart a while ago as to the number of people this bill puts
to work. We are talking about almost 3 million people, 3 million jobs
that will be filled as a result of having this bill pass.
I look forward to talking about the amendments, working toward
cloture, and getting this bill passed in the Senate and sent to
conference so we can all go to work in conference and come up with a
good solution to our Nation's highways, roads, and infrastructure
problems, as well as jobs in America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I, first, commend my good friend from
Oklahoma, and then I will give my synopsis of some of the areas of this
bill. I have just never worked with someone who has been more
cooperative--and our staffs--to bring about a consensus in a very
difficult bill. A little change here and a little change there will
change millions of dollars and who it goes to and will bring about a
consensus that will at least make enough people happy to vote for the
bill, which is the ultimate goal.
We have made great progress. I think we are now in a position where
we are going to be able to move forward.
TEA-21 provided record funding levels for transportation, which
allowed States and local governments to make greater investments in our
transportation systems than ever before. S. 1072 will continue that
trend.
In crafting this bill, Chairman Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Reid,
and I wanted to ensure the resources available under this bill would be
spent wisely and responsibly.
During our hearings, we learned of challenges facing communities and
transportation agencies trying to manage a full load of increasingly
complex transportation projects. In response, we crafted a bill that
will improve the delivery and stewardship of the Federal aid highway
program.
First, we have expanded the scope of a program called ``value
engineering.'' Value engineering provides States and local governments
an additional approach to examining transportation projects before they
are finalized. It promotes improved design, construction, and funding
of transportation projects.
Second, we have included provisions to address issues that arise when
State and local governments develop large-scale projects, so-called
mega projects that cost over $1 billion.
To ensure these projects are developed and managed efficiently, S.
1072 requires project management and financial plans.
Finally, to ensure that money received by the States is properly
accounted for, we direct the Secretary to annually review States'
financial management systems.
As my colleagues can see, S. 1072 provides record levels of funding
for transportation investment and the provisions to ensure we are good
stewards of the public funds.
I look forward to going into the amendment process and making sure we
work, hopefully, efficiently and effectively and quickly to get this
bill before us in final form before too long.
I yield the floor, and 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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S776]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the transportation planning process is a
critical component of any surface transportation program or project.
Poor planning may lead to cost overruns, project delays, and even
project cancellations. An early and comprehensive planning process can
help stakeholders and project sponsors to identify and overcome
potential problems so transportation projects proceed smoothly.
Our bill includes several provisions to encourage better planning
practices at both the State and metropolitan levels. We make some
additions to current law to encourage transportation planning agencies
to consider our environmental, natural resource, and community health
issues early in the planning process.
The bill directs transportation planners to consult with relevant
resource agencies when developing long-range transportation plans.
Improved coordination will promote long-range plans and project
proposals that adequately consider and address the diverse implications
of transportation projects. Improved interagency consultation and
coordination is only one component of a successful plan.
As I have said before, transportation investment is about people and
communities. It is about making life better for our citizens by
providing an efficient, safe, and comprehensive transportation system.
A successful transportation program is one that considers the needs
and the wishes of the people it serves. Our bill will enhance public
participation in the planning process, encouraging projects that meet
our infrastructure needs without sacrificing the environment or quality
of life.
Finally, our bill emphasizes the role of new and emerging
technologies in transportation planning. Geospatial mapping
technologies have inspired innovative and successful planning processes
in many States around the country. We encourage States to continue to
develop and implement those technologies and to integrate them into the
transportation planning process.
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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a couple of issues I will address
as in morning business. I ask consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
A Premature BSE Decision
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday the Bush administration called
to end the short-term investigation into the recent mad cow scare.
While many of us believe Secretary Veneman and her staff have done a
good job on many fronts, the decision to suspend the investigation is
extremely premature. Despite the high safety standards met by cattle
producers, consumers still have questions about the safety of America's
meat supply. By curtailing its investigation, the Bush administration
has chosen not to do all it can to settle the questions raised by the
discovery of a single Canadian-born cow infected with BSE.
In 2001, a herd of 81 cattle came into the United States from Canada.
One of those animals turned out to have BSE. USDA, through its
investigation, has managed to locate 28 of the remaining 80 Canadian-
born animals. We are grateful for these efforts, but there is a lot
more work to do. Twenty-eight is not 80.
Last year, USDA Chief Veterinarian Ron DeHaven said:
We feel confident that we are going to be able to determine
the whereabouts of most if not all of these animals within
the next several days.
Six weeks later, those early hopes have been disappointed. Consumers
have a right to know why those other cattle were not found and what
more, if anything, can be done.
If we assume the Canadian index herd were all fed the same bovine
byproduct known to cause BSE, it is possible the other animals
currently in the United States may also have the disease.
An international panel convened by USDA announced last week they
believe some cattle in the U.S. may actually have BSE. While the
likelihood an American consumer would come into contact with the meat
from one of the infected cows is low, Government has the responsibility
to do all it can to instill consumer confidence in the safety and
quality of our food system and the food we feed our families.
That work has not been completed because the investigation has not
been adequately ended. While the risk to human health may be remote,
the Bush administration is doing a disservice to consumers by short-
circuiting the good work USDA has done to locate the Canadian-born
animals in question.
In the face of so many doubts and questions, it makes no sense to cut
this investigation short. Some suggest pressure from the hugely
concentrated meatpacking industry is responsible. A small handful of
meatpackers controls 80 percent of the beef in the United States. In
fact, this is such a significant problem that the Senate approved
legislation as part of its last farm bill to address problematic
concentration in the meatpacking industry. Unfortunately, that
provision was stripped during the conference and was not included in
the final farm bill.
Along with this growing concentration comes greater influence within
the administration itself. I am not suggesting the packers did
something unlawful, but the fact remains they wanted to end this
investigation because it cast a cloud over their products. Evidently,
these are the interests the Bush administration has chosen to advance
above others.
Others have suggested the Bush administration took this step in its
zeal for a single American trading continent--no borders with the
Canadians or the Mexicans whatsoever. In fact, after the farm bill was
passed, the Secretary suggested we should have a continent-of-origin
label for certain agricultural products. If that had been pursued, we
would never be able to differentiate between our highest quality
products and those from Canada and Mexico. As it is, Americans today,
still, do not have the option of knowing where our food comes from.
This is particularly important with regard to beef in light of the
BSE scare. American consumers are simply asking for a label with basic
information about the food they eat. In fact, 80 percent of Americans
have said they would like to know where their meat comes from. That is
why Senators on both sides of the aisle fought for and won approval of
the country-of-origin labeling law. It is why many of us have charged
those opposed to COOL with acting irresponsibly. In a backroom deal
before the BSE scare, Republicans met in private and delayed the COOL
law for 2 years.
The Senate has shown time and time again that we support this
important consumer law and that we want to see it back in law, to
ensure implementation this fall. In fact, the law still requires USDA
to develop the regulations by this fall. So, when we change the date of
implementation back to September of this year, there should be no delay
whatsoever in USDA implementing it on time as the law originally
required. But we should not even have to wait for that. USDA has the
authority to immediately provide this information to consumers, to tell
them where their food and, in particular, where their meat originated.
If we have that, consumers can stay away from Canadian-born cattle, at
least until the animals in question that have not been located in the
United States are actually found.
But to date the administration will have none of it. They will not
help inform U.S. consumers, even though our major export markets have
requested we certify that our exports are born and raised and processed
in our country. I don't understand why the administration will not
provide U.S. consumers the information they want and our foreign
trading partners the information they now demand.
The only answer that keeps coming back to many of us is while COOL is
good for average Americans, it is inconvenient for the large
meatpacking cartel since they would be required to affix a simple label
to their products and track the meat from the stockyard to the store
shelf. So, despite the support of 167 consumer groups representing over
50 million Americans,
[[Page S777]]
the administration denies Americans this basic information.
USDA should reopen the investigation and try to locate all of the
cattle from the Canadian index herd. They should also assist American
consumers and American farmers and ranchers by immediately implementing
a ``Product of the USA'' labeling program under emergency regulations.
Instead of bowing to pressure and cutting short a valuable
investigation, the administration should take a step back and rethink
its priorities. The BSE scare is now hurting all of our ranchers, as
over 40 countries have banned imports from the United States. The
American livestock industry is being tarnished and ranchers are
suffering because of one Canadian cow. The industry should not be
further tarnished by inappropriate Government action. The
administration should reopen the investigation, drop its opposition to
labeling, and implement COOL immediately.
For the sake of America's farmers and ranchers, for consumer
confidence in the safety of our food supply, the administration needs
to do the right thing. Though it might upset a few special interests,
the American people will overwhelmingly support such an action because
it is in their interest. I, for one, will commend the President for his
thoughtful reversal of this misplaced policy priority.
White House Says Exporting U.S. Jobs Is ``Good for the Economy''
Mr. President, the other issue I wanted to discuss briefly is a new
position taken by the administration, reflected in this newspaper. The
article appeared this morning in the Los Angeles Times. The headline
reads, ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.''
I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 10, 2004]
Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas
(By Warren Vieth and Edwin Chen)
Washington.--The movement of American factory jobs and
white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive
transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time,
even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush
administration said Monday.
The embrace of foreign out-sourcing, an accelerating trend
that has contributed to U.S. job losses in recent years and
has become an issue in the 2004 elections, is contained in
the president's annual report to Congress on the health of
the economy.
``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international
trade,'' said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council
of Economic Advisors, which prepared the report. ``More
things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And
that's good thing.''
The report, which predicts that the nation will reverse a
three-year employment slide by creating 2.6 million jobs in
2004, is part of a weeklong effort by the administration to
highlight signs that the recovery is picking up speed. Bush's
economic stewardship has become a central issue in the
presidential campaign, and the White House is eager to
demonstrate that his policies are producing results.
In his message to Congress on Monday, Bush said the economy
`` is strong and getting stronger,'' thanks in part to his
tax cuts and other economic programs. He said the nation had
survived a stock market meltdown, recession, terrorist
attacks, corporate scandals and war in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and was finally beginning to enjoy ``a mounting prosperity
that will reach every corner of America.''
The president repeated that message during an afternoon
discussion about the economy at SRC Automotive, an engine-
rebuilding plant in Springfield, Mo., where he lashed out at
lawmakers who oppose making his tax cuts permanent.
``When they say, `We're going to repeal Bush's tax cuts,'
that means they're going to raise you taxes, and that's
wrong. And that's bad economics,'' he said.
Democrats who want Bush's job were quick to challenge his
claims.
Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for
the Democratic presidential nomination, supports a rollback
of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and backs the
creation of tax incentives for companies that keep jobs in
the United States--although he supported the North American
Free Trade Agreement, which many union members say is
responsible for the migration of U.S. jobs, particularly in
the auto industry, to Mexico.
Campaigning Monday in Roanoke, Va., Kerry questioned the
credibility of the administration's job-creation forecast.
``I've got a feeling this report was prepared by the same
people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq,'' Kerry said.
``I don't think we need a new report about jobs in America. I
think we need a new president who's going to create jobs in
America and put Americans back to work.''
In an evening appearance at George Mason University in
Fairfax, Va., Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina mocked the
Bush administration's economic report.
Edwards, who also supports repealing tax cuts for the
richest Americans and offering incentives to corporation that
create new jobs in the United States, said it would come as a
``news bulletin'' to the American people that the economy was
improving and that the outsourcing of jobs was good for
America.
``These people,'' he said of the Bush administration,
``what planet do they live on? They are so out of touch.''
The president's 411-page report contains a detailed
diagnosis of the forces the White House says are contributing
to America's economic slowdown and a wide-ranging defense of
the policies Bush has pursued to combat it.
It asserts that the last recession actually began in late
2000, before the president took office, instead of March
2001, as certified by the official recession-dating panel of
the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Much of the report repeats the administration's previous
economic prescriptions.
For instance, it says the Bush tax cuts must be made
permanent to have their full effect on the economy.
Social Security also must be restructured to let workers
put part of their retirement funds in private accounts, the
report argues. Doing so could add nearly $5 trillion to the
national debt by 2036, the president's advisors note, but the
additional borrowing would be repaid 20 years later and the
program's longterm health would be more secure.
The report devotes an entire chapter to an issue that
has become increasingly troublesome for the
administration: the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs
since Bush took office, and critics' claims that his trade
policies are partly to blame.
His advisors acknowledge that international trade and
foreign outsourcing have contributed to the job slump. But
the report argues that technological progress and rising
productivity--the ability to produce more goods with fewer
workers--have played a bigger role than the flight of
production to China and other low-wage countries.
Although trade expansion inevitably hurts some domestic
workers, the benefits eventually will outweigh the costs as
Americans are able to buy cheaper goods and services and as
new jobs are created in growing sectors of the economy, the
report said.
The president's report endorses the relatively new
phenomenon of outsourcing high-end, white-collar work to
India and other countries, a trend that has stirred concern
within such affected occupations as computer programming and
medical diagnostics.
``Maybe we will outsource a few radiologists,'' Mankiw told
reporters. ``What does that mean? Well, maybe the next
generation of doctors will train fewer radiologists and will
train more general practitioners or surgeons. . . . Maybe
we've learned that we don't have a comparative advantage in
radiologist.''
Government should try to salve the short-term disruption by
helping displaced workers obtain the training they need to
enter new fields, such as healthcare, Mankiw said, not by
erecting protectionist barriers on behalf of vulnerable
industries or professions. ``The market is the best
determinant of where the jobs should be,'' he said.
Bush's quick visit to Missouri--his 15th to a state
considered a critical election battleground--was the first of
several events this week intended to underscore recent
economic gains. Although U.S. job creation remains relatively
sluggish, the nation's unemployment rate fell from 6.4% in
June to 5.6% in January, and the economy grew at the fastest
pace in 20 years during the last half of 2003.
The format of his visit to SRC Automotive--one that he
particularly likes--involved several employees and local
business owners sharing the stage with the president to
discuss their perspectives on the economy, with Bush
elaborating on their stories to emphasize particular aspects
of his economic program.
Today, Bush is scheduled to meet with economic leaders at
the White House. On Thursday, he goes to Pennsylvania's
capital, Harrisburg--in another swing state that he has
already visited more than two dozen times since becoming
president.
Mr. DASCHLE. When I saw the headline, I had to read it twice.
I actually could not believe what I was reading. Again the quote is
from the headline, ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.''
Our economy has already lost 2.6 million jobs in the last 3 years. We
have 9 million Americans who are unemployed. Long-term unemployment is
at a 20-year high, and 80,000 workers are exhausting their unemployment
benefits every week because our Republican colleagues refuse to extend
temporary Federal unemployment benefits.
What does the White House say? The President's top economic advisers
tell us not to worry. They say shipping American jobs to China, India,
and other countries is actually good for the economy. Those comments
are actually in this article. It is a direct quote, that these American
jobs shipped abroad are good for the economy. They say exporting
computer programming jobs and
[[Page S778]]
other white-collar jobs is actually good for the economy.
The White House acknowledges some workers will be hurt. But then they
say the ``benefits'' of exporting American jobs ``eventually will
outweigh the costs as Americans are able to buy cheaper goods and
services and new jobs are created in growing sectors of the economy.''
How are people without jobs supposed to buy all of these goods and
services? How do you keep a consumer economy going when you export the
jobs? What are they thinking?
The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the
office that wrote the report, says the ``government should try to salve
the short-term disruption by helping displaced workers obtain the
training they need to enter new fields, such as health care.'' That
sounds like a cruel joke.
The President's proposed budget for next year cuts money for Federal
job training.
You have on the one hand the President's council arguing we ought to
train displaced workers but then have the budget presented to Congress
as one which actually cuts the very training the administration is
advocating.
How do people know what fields to train for? How do they know the
jobs they are training for won't be the next jobs targeted to be
shipped overseas with the encouragement of the White House?
Maybe exporting American jobs sounds like a good idea if you are
sitting in some think tank, or behind a desk at the White House, or
here on the Hill. But out in the real world, it is creating real
hardship and anxiety.
I have seen what happens when plants ship their jobs overseas. It
happened in my hometown 2 years ago. Midcom, Incorporated makes
electronic transformers for high-tech companies. They used to employ
200 people in Aberdeen. One Tuesday morning in March of 2001, those
workers showed up for work and were told their jobs were going to be
gone in 3 months, many of them to Mexico and China.
I have met with many of those workers. A lot of them are women in
their 40s and 50s, and their families depended on their incomes to make
ends meet. They don't see how exporting their jobs was a good idea for
the economy, and neither do most Americans.
The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers is
quoted as saying, ``Out-sourcing is just a new way of doing
international trade.'' ``More things are tradable than were tradable in
the past. ``
Not everything is tradable. The dignity that comes from earning an
honest dollar and providing for your family is not tradable. The
security that comes from knowing you can pay the bills and you are not
going to lose your home is not tradable. The sense of patriotism and
community that says we are all in this together is not a tradable
commodity.
The White House report predicts a miraculous economic recovery this
year. They say we could see the creation of 3.8 million jobs. The White
House has said the economy will create millions of jobs every year now
for the last 3 years. And they have been wrong. They are wrong now when
they say exporting American jobs is good for the economy. The White
House has lost more jobs on President Bush's watch than the last 11
administrations put together. They have cut job training in education.
They are blocking Federal unemployment benefits. And now, incredibly,
they are saying that exporting middle-class, white-collar jobs is good
for the economy.
Instead of policies that reward companies for shifting jobs overseas,
instead of letting companies open a post office box in some island
nation and call it their corporate headquarters so they skip out on
paying taxes, America needs a real plan to keep the good jobs we have
here and create many more of them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand there is an amendment of the
Senator from Virginia and the Senator from New York pending. Is that
the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I spoke about this amendment this morning.
For those who may not have been fortunate enough to hear it, let me
reiterate just a few of the important points.
This is a mandate. This is very clearly a mandate with a very severe
penalty on any State that doesn't either have 90-percent usage of
seatbelts or a primary seatbelt law.
I came to this body as a former Governor who has seen so much of the
big brother influence telling State Governors and State legislators
what they have to do, and I said we need to find a better way of doing
things. I also said I happen to be a strong believer in seatbelts. I
have been in a couple of serious accidents. Because I had a seatbelt on
and the shoulder harness, I came away with only a good fright, and,
fortunately, with no serious injuries. I have seen many other people
who were not so fortunate. I believe in encouraging seatbelt usage. I
believe the proper way to do it is through incentives and
encouragement.
Under this proposed amendment, in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, 10
percent of the funds under the Highway Safety Improvement Program would
be transferred to the section 402 program, and beginning in 2007, 2
percent of the Interstate Maintenance, Surface Transportation and
Bridge Programs would be withheld from States that didn't have a
primary seatbelt law or achieve at least a 90-percent safety belt use
rate. The percentage withheld would rise to 4 percent in fiscal year
2008 and thereafter.
Why do I object to that? That is telling the people who pay the money
into the Federal highway trust fund through their taxes on the fuel
they buy that their legislature has to do what we say they should or we
are going to withhold the money from them. I believe we cannot continue
to usurp the activities and the roles of State legislatures and State
chief executive officers.
I introduced a letter from a number of organizations saying:
Currently States face 8 highway safety-related sanctions
and penalties that are designed to force compliance with
various Federal highway safety mandates or goals, including
enactment, by specified deadlines, of various types of State
safety legislation. While our organizations support the
underlying safety goals, we oppose the use of penalties and
sanctions.
They go on to say:
Fewer resources to invest means delays in roadway and
intersection improvements, fewer dollars for upgrading
signage and markings, and less funding available for
investment and safety research.
Also signing this letter are the executive director of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the
executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, the
president and chief executive officer of the American Highway Users
Alliance, the executive director of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the executive director of the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance, the executive director of the National Conference of
State Legislators, the president of the American Council of Engineering
Companies, and the vice president of Public Affairs of the AAA, as
well, I might say not surprisingly, as the executive director of the
National Governors Association.
I hope we may be able to have a vote on that very shortly. But I
would defer to the principal sponsor of the amendment to speak in
opposition to the arguments I have made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy, and
that of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe.
I say to my dear friends: What price do you put on life? No one
disputes this legislation will save lives. I don't know of anyone in
this Chamber who wouldn't put the highest possible priority on saving
lives.
This legislation follows, in many respects, what this Chamber did not
too many years ago when it was faced with the problem of trying to
reduce the actions and loss of life or injury occasioned by the abuse
of alcohol and then driving the automobile.
As a consequence of that, 47 States now have complied with that
statute. It is a success in terms of the limited goals that could be
set realistically by the .08 drinking level. It achieved the goals in
47 States.
We are asking the average American, about 79 percent of our
constituents in
[[Page S779]]
the 50 States--it varies from State to State but overall average,
nationally, 79 percent--who use the seatbelt, we are just trying to
take it from 79 percent up to 90 percent.
That is the purpose, to save lives, very often innocent lives. It is
a well-known, documented fact that in a collision, those who have
safety belts on have a higher degree of physical control over the
vehicle with the hope of trying to reduce the consequences of the
inevitable accident. Without a seatbelt, the driver is often jostled in
such a way that he or she loses total control of the car and often an
innocent individual is injured.
It is the youth of this Nation who will be the principal
beneficiaries of this legislation because, regrettably, it is the young
people who are so often involved in these frightful accidents. For
whatever reason, macho or otherwise, they do not wear their seatbelts.
This law would simply say that law enforcement in the several States,
when they observe a car passing and the driver does not utilize their
safety belt, can pull that driver over. In my State today, that driver
cannot be pulled over unless he or she is committing an offense other
than not wearing their safety belt. Law enforcement can then pull that
driver over if he or she is not wearing their safety belt and levy
whatever penalties are appropriate. But it is that fear of being pulled
over, particularly among those young people, who always seem to be
fighting accumulated points for driving infractions, who will be the
principal beneficiaries.
The men and women of the Armed Forces, regrettably--so many of them,
again, ages 18 to 30--are involved in these accidents. So we are
helping our military because they will comply with this law of the
several States if there is a mandatory seatbelt law.
When my colleagues cast their vote momentarily, stop to think, what
price do you put on a life? I bet if you go back--perhaps I can
resurrect how you voted on the .08 legislation for alcohol; this is a
direct parallel in almost every way.
This is not mandated because the State, on its own initiative, can
devise a program to go to 90 percent. It does not have to follow this
track. Go ahead, there might be a better idea in your State to reach 90
percent. Then there is no problem under this law; you have met the
criteria.
As that bell rings and you approach the Chamber, just ask yourself
the question, What price do I put on a life? Because no one in this
Chamber can stand up and say this law would not save lives, would not
save injuries, would not save money now expended by your local
community to care for those in an accident, many of whom do not have
insurance. And the bill stops at your local hospital, unpaid. We did it
for .08; we can do it for this.
I thank my colleagues for patiently listening to me. My distinguished
colleagues from Missouri read off a list of endorsements and I have 135
groups here. The American Medical Association--I listened very
carefully yesterday at a press conference when this was addressed by
their representative--is strongly in favor of this. My colleague from
Missouri mentioned the chiefs of police. I am proud to say my State,
the Virginia Chiefs, endorse this statute. As I say, the President,
through his Secretary of Transportation, while not directly addressing
this specific piece of legislation, said:
I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the
single most effective means to decrease highway fatalities
and injuries.
I have two cosponsors on this bill. I wonder if the distinguished
manager would enable me just to contact them?
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. In fairness to the Senator's cosponsors and in fairness
to others who may not be easily retrievable at this time, I believe it
would be a good idea to defer the vote. I will move to table and ask
for the yeas and nays but ask the leadership to maybe put it tomorrow
morning sometime. That will give the Senator ample time and provide
time for them to be heard on the bill. Is that acceptable?
Mr. WARNER. That is a reasonable request. I think the distinguished
Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, would require, say, 10 minutes and
the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and the distinguished
Senator from Washington, 10; I will take 5 more minutes; maybe 40
minutes on this side prior to the vote.
Mr. INHOFE. I do not have a problem with that and 40 minutes on this
side at all. Why not plan to do that?
Now I have been told we cannot lock in time agreements on a tabling
motion, so I will withhold.
Let me be sure we all understand: In my State of Oklahoma, it perhaps
makes no difference. We are one of the 20 States that has mandatory
seatbelt laws. In fact, it could be argued we could be benefited by
this because if other States do not comply and are punished, then that
amount of money could go to the States that already comply. So I could
actually benefit.
My problem has always been, as the distinguished Senator from
Virginia knows, it is a mandate. I would prefer not to do it this way.
I know the Senator's heart is right. I know there is another great
person who served in here by the name of John Chafee who felt as
strongly about this as the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Also, Mr. President, we discussed the possibility that I
could amend this because I think the distinguished chairman pointed out
that 8 months is a short time. So if we could have a gentlemen's
understanding that perhaps I could amend it in such a way to take that
clause and revise it to enable States to have more time.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are accommodating the desires of the
managers of this bill. Certainly as the chief proponents of this
amendment, as long as my cosponsors have an opportunity to speak to it,
this matter will be handled fairly.
I yield the floor.
motorcycle safety
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
tells us that almost 5 million motorcycles are registered to operate on
America's roadways, covering almost 17 million miles per year. Many
more are used off-road, and some estimates put the actual number of
riders at up to 20 million.
All these Americans choose to ride motorcycles either for recreation
or for their primary means of transportation, and every year the number
of Americans on motorcycles increases. As that number increases, so
does the number of accidents, including fata accidents. Yet we are
falling tragically behind in training these individuals to ride safely.
The single best way to avoid injuries, fatalities, high insurance
costs, lawsuits, medical costs and all the other factors that come into
play is by avoiding the accidents in the first place.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in its Motorcycle
Safety Program issued in January 2003, said: ``Crash prevention . . .
offers the greatest potential safety benefit for motorcyclists.''
And the single best way to avoid accidents is to provide safety
training.
Training works.
Untrained riders have accidents, and trained riders do not. It is
really as simple as that.
A study of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program designed by Dr.
John Billheimer and completed in 1996 found that rider training
dramatically reduces accidents, and thus eliminates injuries and
fatalities. Specifically, the study stated, ``Analyses of statewide
accident trends show that total motorcycle accidents have dropped 67
percent since the introduction of the California Motorcyclist Safety
Program, with a drop of 88 percent among the under-18 riders. . . . If
accident trends in California had paralleled those in the rest of the
U.S. over this period, the State would have experienced an additional
124 fatalities per year. By any measure, the California Motorcyclist
Safety Program is a cost-effective program that pays for itself many
times over in saved lives and reduced accident rates.''
Even more recent statistics from the Commonwealth of Virginia are
equally telling. Virginia has approximately 110,000 registered
motorcycle. Since 1998, there have been 7,099 motorcycle crashes in
Virginia and 222 of those crashes have been fatal. Yet out of all those
accidents, the number involving riders with formal training is less
than 4 percent of the total, and the number
[[Page S780]]
of fatal accidents involving trained riders is just 1.8 percent. The
vast majority of all accidents--over 96 percent--are riders
without training.
The most far-reaching document yet completed on motorcyclist safety
is the ``National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety,'' a cooperative effort
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Motorcycle
Safety Foundation, the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety
Administrators, and a host of others representing the insurance
industry, law enforcement, riders, traffic safety experts and others.
The National Agenda identified a number of steps needed to reduce the
tragic rate of motorcycle accidents. Uppermost among them is the need
for better training.
Where does motorcyclist training come from? Who does it? How is it
funded?
The truth is, training, and funding for training, is a mixed bag. And
that, is exactly the problem. Most States provide at least moral
support, but there is no uniform process for ensuring that training is
provided, or that the facilities and funding is made available.
In most cases, training is funded almost entirely by the students
themselves, who pay up to $300 per person for the privilege. Many
States also collect money--often a nominal charge of $5.00 for a
motorcycle operator's license. Both these efforts to raise funds are
strongly supported by and promoted by the motorcycling community--but
they want to ensure that the funds are actually used for things that
enhance motorcyclist safety.
As for the curriculum itself, far and away the most frequent choice
is the material created by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF), a
group supported by the major motorcycle manufacturers.
The MSF course material for beginning motorcyclists is extremely
comprehensive. It focuses on teaching the skills and knowledge needed
for safe riding--beginning with the use of proper equipment such as
gloves, boots and helmets, goes on to teach students how to predict and
avoid hazardous situations, and graduates to teaching the physical
skills needed for crash avoidance. This is precisely the course
material that has produced such outstanding results in California,
Virginia and many other States.
You may well ask, ``If training is so successful, why do we still
have so many accidents? The answer is as simple as can be: training
availability lags far behind the demand.
Throughout the country, the waiting list to join a training class
ranges from several weeks to several months.
In California, which has one of the oldest and strongest programs, it
may take as long as 3 months.
In Wisconsin, one of the States where training dollars were totally
eliminated, motorcyclist groups have stepped up to the plate to self-
fund training, but the waiting list may be as large as 7,000 people.
Illinois trained 8,500 people in 2000, but had to turn away nearly
3,000 more for lack of space. Course capacity increased in 2001 and
2002, but the number of people turned away increased faster. In 2003,
almost 11,000 students completed training, but almost 4,000 were told
``Sorry, there's no room for you.''
And that's the story in State after State.
Unfortunately, what that means is that untrained riders are
increasing in number all the time. If you can pass your State's test,
you can ride. And if you just spent thousands of dollars on a new
motorcycle, the chances are you won't be letting that new motorcycle
license go to waste. But a licensed rider isn't necessarily a trained
rider, nor is he or she necessarily a safe rider. It takes training--or
years of experience--to make a safe rider. The statistics from
California and Virginia confirm that for all to see.
At the appropriate time, it is my intention to seek action to
encourage the State to provide more and better support for these vital
training efforts.
Now, let me turn to another concern of the motorcycling community. A
large part of the training needed to produce safe riders consists of
teaching them how to avoid road hazards that simply should not exist in
the first place. In many cases, highway engineering practices focus on
four wheels, not two.
The average driver cruises past such things as bridge expansion
joints, loose manhole covers, the slick sealants used to fill cracks in
asphalt pavement, rough asphalt patches, rumble strips and lane-
dividing buttons that keep drivers awake, and the steel or steel cable
barriers along the side of the road. Yet any or all of these things may
be hazardous to a rider.
The motorcycling community has long sought ways to let engineers and
designers know about those hazards, and work with them to design better
systems. I have seriously contemplated offering an amendment that would
address this issue, but I am happy to report that such an amendment may
not be needed.
That concludes my statement for the movement, but at this time I
would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Environment
and Public Works Committee on this matter.
I have been working in several areas to address the issue of
motorcyclist safety. As part of this effort, I have been working to
establish an Advisory Council to assist the Secretary of Transportation
in developing the appropriate safety specifications for highways and
motorcycles. Fatalities among motorcyclists have gone up dramatically,
rising from 2,112 in 1997 to 3,244 in 2002. Because motorcyclists have
special needs and concerns, I have long been concerned that the
Department of Transportation has not had adequate input from either
riders or experts outside the Department itself. Thus, I proposed
establishing a council of riders and experts to advise the Secretary on
their unique safety needs.
Chairman Inhofe has been very helpful in trying to find the most
appropriate way to get this accomplished. He suggested and I agreed to
work with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials--AASHTO, which is the organization that actually develops
guidelines for highway safety engineering.
I recently received from AASHTO a letter describing a task force it
has developed to identify strategies that can be used to reduce
motorcycle fatalities and injuries. I believe this task force may be
able to accomplish my goal of elevating the unique safety needs of
motorcyclists to greater attention by including both riders and outside
experts in its deliberations. As a result, I have decided not to offer
an amendment to establish an advisory council at this time.
I believe that Chairman Inhofe has had an opportunity to look over
the AASHTO letter and I am wondering if he agrees with me that this
will accomplish what we have been working towards.
Mr. INHOFE. I have read the AASHTO letter to Senator Murkowski and
agree with her that the task force proposed by AASHTO will indeed
accomplish what she seeks to achieve.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from AASHTO
dated February 3, 2004 to Senator Murkowski be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,
Washington, DC, February 3, 2004.
Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: It has been brought to our
attention that motorcycle safety issues are of great concern
to you and your constituents. As you know, motorcycle
fatalities have gone up dramatically in the past several
years, rising from 2,112 fatalities in 1997 to 3,244 in 2002.
The State transportation agencies share your commitment to
addressing this public safety problem.
Motorcycle riding has special needs and concerns.
Currently, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), through the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), is developing
guidance for the State transportation departments on
motorcycle issues as part of the implementation of our
Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Part of this multi-million-
dollar research effort is focused on improving motorcycle
safety and increasing motorcycle awareness. Targeted areas in
which I understand you may share a strong interest include:
Increasing the awareness of motorcycles on the road through
a ``share-the-road with motorcycles'' campaign and stressing
the importance of motorcycle awareness information in driver
training courses, driver handbooks or manuals, and licensing
tests;
[[Page S781]]
Expanding comprehensive motorcycle rider education and
skill testing in all States for novice riders; and
Reducing drinking and driving by motorcyclists through
alcohol awareness messages and targeted enforcement.
As part of this effort, a workshop is being planned for
June 2004 to identify strategies that can be used to reduce
motorcycle fatalities and injuries. You and/or your
constituents are welcome to participate in, and contribute
to, this workshop. The result of this research project will
be the development of a guide for highway officials on
practices than can improve safety for motorcyclists
throughout the transportation system.
Also as part of the implementation of our Strategic Highway
Safety Plan, ASSHTO has committed to the creation of a joint
task force to identify hazards/areas of concern to
motorcyclists, as well as highway practices that can help
minimize these concerns. Examples include the longitudinal
expansion joints on bridges, the slickness of material used
to fill asphalt pavement cracks, and the safety of various
types of guardrail including traditional steel W-beam
guardrail and the newer cable barriers. This joint task force
will consist of members from the State transportation
departments, the American Motorcyclist Association, the
Motorcycle Riders Foundation, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, and the Federal Highway
Administration. Additional input may also be sought from
other noted experts in the areas of motorcycle and highway
safety both here and abroad. The information developed by
this special committee will be used as input into the
revision and update of the various AASHTO manuals and guides.
We are very pleased that you have an interest in this area
and we are committed to working with you over the next year
to ensure that these issues are addressed and that the
resulting recommendations are successfully implemented.
Please contact my office at (202) 624-5800 if you have any
questions regarding this information.
Sincerely,
John C. Horsley,
Executive Director.
Mr. INHOFE. I understand that the Senator has also proposed creating
a new program to encourage improvements in the States' motorcycle
safety programs. I believe this amendment would be very valuable. I
also believe it would be most appropriate offered as part of the
Commerce Committee title, and would like to be added as an original
cosponsor of the amendment when that happens.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chairman for his assistance and will add
him as an original cosponsor when that amendment is offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. INHOFE. 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. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion on the bill to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the cloture motion, which
the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
426, S. 1072, a bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid
highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and
for other purposes.
Bill Frist, James Inhofe, Christopher Bond, Gordon
Smith, Lamar Alexander, Richard Lugar, Lincoln Chafee,
Elizabeth Dole, George Allen, Pat Roberts, Robert
Bennett, Craig Thomas, Richard Shelby, Norm Coleman,
Mike Crapo, Mike Enzi, Jim Bunning.
____________________