Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 53 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4370-S4378]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 3, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal aid
highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and
for other purposes.

Pending:

Inhofe amendment No. 567, to provide a complete substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is the third day we have been on a
bill we have been working on for 2\1/2\ years. It is the same bill
essentially that was passed last year by a margin of 76 to 21. We are
anxious to get people to come down to the floor for amendments. I don't
know of anyone coming down at this time. But I encourage all Members on
both sides of the aisle to come down and utilize this time so we can
get the amendments behind us.
I understand the Senator from Illinois has some comments he wishes to
make. I yield to him some of our time at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the committee.
Let me say I share his sense of urgency about the underlying bill. This
is a bipartisan bill, a bill Democrats and Republicans want to see
passed, a bill to finance the building of roads and bridges and
airports, to finance mass transit in what is critical infrastructure
for America's economy. I do not have an amendment to the bill, but if I
did, I would offer it because I think those who have them should bring
them to the floor so we can move and get it done before we take a
recess next week. I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side to follow
the admonition of the chairman.
What brings me to the floor was a statement made earlier by the
Senator from Utah which made reference to me. Senator Orrin Hatch and I
are friends. We disagree on a lot of things.
We vote differently on a lot of issues and we debate furiously, but
we get along fine. I think that is what life should be like and what
the legislative process should be like. He made a reference earlier to
this whole question of the nuclear option, to which I would like to
return for a few moments.
First, what is the nuclear option? People who don't follow the Senate
on a regular basis have to wonder are they using nuclear weapons on the
floor of the Senate? What could it be? ``Nuclear Option'' was a phrase
created by Republican Senator Trent Lott to describe a procedure that
might be used to change the rules of the Senate. The reason Senator
Lott called it the nuclear option was because it is devastating in its
impact to the tradition and rules of the Senate.
I will put it into context. The Senate was created to give the
minority in the Senate, as well as in the United States, a voice. There
are two Senators from every State, large and small. Two Senators from
the smallest State have the same vote on the floor of the Senate as
Senators from larger States, such as California, New York, Illinois,
and Texas. That is the nature of the Senate. The rules of the Senate
back that up. The rules of the Senate from the beginning said if any
Senator stood up and objected, started a filibuster, the Senate would
come to a stop. You think to yourself, how can you run a Senate if any
Senator can stop the train? Well, it forces you, if you are going to
move something forward in the Senate, to reach across the aisle to your
colleagues, to compromise, to find bipartisanship, so that things move
through in a regular way and in a bipartisan way. That is the nature of
the filibuster.
Over the years, it has changed. You saw the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington,'' when Jimmy Stewart stood at his desk, with his idealism
and his youth, arguing for his cause until he collapsed on the floor.
He was exercising a filibuster because he believed in it so intensely.
We have said over the years that you can do that to any nominee, bill,
or law on the floor of the Senate; but if a large number of Senators,
an extraordinary number of Senators, say it is time for the filibuster
to end, it would end. The vote today is 60 votes. So if I am perplexed
by an amendment offered by one of my colleagues, and I stand up to
debate it and decide I am going to hold the floor of the Senate as long
as my voice and body can hold out, I can do that, until such point as
60 colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, come together and say:
Enough, we want to move to a vote. That is what it is all about.
So what has happened is the Republicans now control the House,
Senate, and the White House. What they have said is they want to change
the rules. They want to change the rules in the middle of the game
because they don't like the fact that Democratic Senators have used the
filibuster to stop 10 judicial nominees President Bush has sent to
Congress, sent to the Senate.
Now, for the record, the President sent 215 nominees; 205 were
approved and only 10 were not. Over 95 percent of the President's
judicial nominees have gone through. We have the lowest vacancy rate on
the Federal bench in modern memory. So we don't have outrageous
vacancies that need to be filled quickly. We decided--those of us who
voted for the filibusters--that these 10 nominees went way too far;
their political views were inconsistent with the mainstream of America.
They were not consistent with the feelings and values of families
across the country on issues as diverse as the role of the Federal
Government in protecting health and safety, which is an issue nominee
Janice Rogers Brown takes a position on that is hard to believe. She
has taken a position on a case--a famous case called the Lockner case--
which would basically take away the power of the Federal Government to
regulate areas of health and safety when it comes to consumers and the
environment. It is a radical position.
And then another nominee, William Myers--my concern about him and the
concern of many Senators is the fact that he has taken a radical
position when it comes to our Nation's treasury and heritage, our
natural and public lands. He has taken a position where he backs
certain lobby groups, but there is one that we think is inconsistent
with mainstream thinking in America. So there is an objection.
Other nominees have taken what we consider to be far-out positions
that don't reflect the mainstream of America and we have objected,
which is our right. Now the President says: Enough, I am tired of
losing any nominee to the Senate. Don't we have 55 Republicans? Should
we not get what we want?
He is not the first President who has felt that way. Thomas Jefferson
felt that way. Thomas Jefferson, in the beginning of his second term,
came to the Senate and said: I am sick and tired of the judges who have
been appointed to the Supreme Court. I want to start impeaching them.
You know what Jefferson's party said? No, Mr. President, you are
wrong. The Constitution is more important than your Presidential power.
They said no to Thomas Jefferson.

Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing at the beginning of his second
term. He was unhappy that his New Deal legislation was being rejected.
He

[[Page S4371]]

came to the Senate and said: Let's change this and make sure we can put
more Justices on the Supreme Court and get the votes we want.
His Democratic Party in the Senate said: No, Mr. President, we love
you and we are glad you were elected, and we support your New Deal, but
you have gone too far. Presidential power is not more important than
the Constitution. They said no to him.
So now comes President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and they have
said: We don't like the fact that we only have 95 percent of our
nominees approved; we want them all. We want to change the rules of the
Senate--in fact, we will break those rules to change them so that
President Bush can get every single nominee. Unfortunately, very few on
that side of the aisle from the President's party are willing to stand
up and say to this President, as Senators have said to President
Jefferson and President Roosevelt: You are going too far. What you are
doing here, sadly, is going to abuse the Constitution to build the
power of the White House.
The Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, came in earlier and made a
statement. He said every nominee should have an up-or-down vote. On its
face, that sounds reasonable. We understand the rules of the Senate
allow the filibuster and an extraordinary majority for nominees. What
Senator Hatch failed to mention was that when he was chairman of the
Judiciary Committee during the Clinton administration--those 8 years--
over 60 Presidential nominees for the bench who were sent up by
President Clinton to his committee were buried in committee without so
much as a hearing. They didn't even have a chance to stand up and
defend themselves, explain their point of view. Senator Hatch said, no.
Over 60 Presidential nominees for President Clinton were stopped by
Senator Hatch on the Judiciary Committee. I know; I served on the
committee. I watched it happen. I heard Senator Hatch say every nominee
should have an up-or-down vote. He is suffering from political amnesia.
He has forgotten when he was in charge, 60 nominees never even had a
hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote.
So we come to this point, a point where I think the issues are very
clear. The Republicans are prepared, with the help of Vice President
Cheney--who announced over the weekend he supports them--to break the
rules of the Senate, which are in a book that is seldom drawn out of
our desks. The rules of the Senate say it takes 67 votes to change the
rules of the Senate. That is a big number, 67 out of 100. The
Republicans know they don't have 67 votes to change the filibuster
rule, so they have decided to do it differently. They are going to wait
until Vice President Cheney is in the chair, and they are going to make
a point of order that we should just have a simple majority vote on
judicial nominees. And Vice President Cheney is going to rule--he
already said he would--and that is that. That is the end of the story.
So they are breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of
the Senate, to eliminate a tradition and rule that has been around for
200 years. They are changing the rules in the middle of the game. The
net result of that is this: The Senate will lose power when it comes to
checks and balances. The President will have more power. It will mean
that the President--this President, unlike President Jefferson and
President Roosevelt--will trump the Constitution and will basically
say: I am going to take more power away from the Senate. And his party
will go along with that, even though President Jefferson and President
Roosevelt had members of their own party stand up and say: Mr.
President, you have gone too far.
The net result--the one that troubles me the most--is that we are
talking about lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. If you take
people who are so far out of the mainstream and stick them on a Federal
bench for life, let me tell you, we don't have a clue what that is
going to mean. But it is certainly worrisome that they could rule and
change laws that we value as Americans--laws that, frankly, cross both
political borders and Democrats and Republicans have supported. When
you put somebody on the bench with that much power for a lifetime, then
you have to worry about them.
So we have tried to come to some conclusion. Senator Reid of Nevada,
our Democratic leader, came to the floor to describe in general terms
what he has been doing. For weeks, he has been negotiating with Senator
Frist and speaking to other Republican Senators about avoiding this
constitutional confrontation, avoiding a constitutional crisis,
avoiding this effort to change the rules in the middle of the game. He
has made an offer--a good-faith offer--to bring some of these judges
forward, to talk about rule changes that are in the best interests of
this institution; and, frankly, Senator Frist said yesterday: No, we
are not talking about it anymore. It is over.

That is unfortunate.
It is important that we continue a dialog. The good thing about the
filibuster is that it brings us together in order to move a nominee or
a bill. Republicans have to reach across the aisle to Democrats and
Democrats have to reach across to Republicans. That is the way it
should be in this Chamber. It should not be a line down the middle and
a wall that cannot be breached. That is exactly what we face if the
Republicans go forward with the nuclear option.
When I return to Illinois, they say: Senator, can we come together to
pass this highway bill Senator Inhofe is bringing to the floor? We will
and it will be a good, bipartisan bill. We have been waiting, but let's
pass this bill on a bipartisan basis. They say: Senator, can't
Democrats and Republicans work together to do something about health
insurance? You don't even talk about it on the Senate floor. I think we
can. I know that business interests, as well as labor interests, want
us to bring up this issue and resolve it. We should do it on a
bipartisan basis. They say: Senator, can't you sit down and find a
Republican who wants to put more money into our schools for No Child
Left Behind, so that we can have better schools, better teachers,
better students?
Of course, we should move toward bipartisanship. But the nuclear
option, sadly, is going to divide us, split us. Make no mistake, if the
nuclear option goes forward, this will be a different Senate and not
very good in the process, I am afraid. A lot will happen that will be
bad for us. Some have said on the floor, well, certainly at that point
the Democrats are going to shut down the Senate and the Government.
Trust me, that is not going to happen. We saw that tactic once.
Remember the name Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America? He was
so emboldened by Rush Limbaugh, he said if we shut down the Federal
Government, nobody will notice. We noticed in a hurry and it hurt the
Republican Party when they did it. We are not going to make that
mistake. We believe that important functions of this Government must
move forward. The defense of America, the support of our troops, the
passage of critical appropriations bills, the passage of a highway
bill--those issues are moving forward. But the ordinary day-to-day
business of the Senate, otherwise, is going to be changed a lot.
If the Republicans are prepared to break the rules to change the
rules, sadly the Senate Democrats will have to say we must play by the
rest of the rules. That means more time on the floor, more debate,
Senators spending more time at their desks, more time in session, more
time in Washington. You hear the complaint that 5,000-page bills come
before us that nobody reads. We will read them. Important amendments
will be read. Debate will take place, and instead of the Chamber almost
always being empty, it may be almost always full. Things will change.
I think there is a better way. Senator Reid has suggested a better
way--that cooler heads prevail, that those truly interested in not only
the institution of the Senate but the value of the Constitution come
forward. We can protect the filibuster. We can make certain that we do
it in a sensible way. But we can only do it if we are in a dialog.
Senator Frist's comments yesterday are worrisome. At this point, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the
Chicago Tribune. It is an editorial of April 25, which supports the
Democrats and opposes the nuclear option.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4372]]

[From Chicago Tribune, Apr. 25, 2005]

Democracy and the Filibuster

The most surprising thing about the Senate battle over the
filibuster is that a dusty 200-year-old procedure could
generate such fresh controversy. Republicans say Democrats
have abused it so badly to block judicial nominees that it
should be removed from their arsenal. Democrats say it is an
indispensable tool to prevent the president from turning the
federal courts over to extremist judges.
But the debate is really just the latest argument about the
central issue of our system of government: how much power the
majority should have.
There is no question that Democrats have misused the
leverage afforded by the filibuster. This device is supposed
to ensure that the Senate gets a full hearing on any
controversy before it votes. Facing a Republican president
and a Republican majority of 55 senators, however, Democrats
have deployed the threat of a filibuster not to delay votes
but to prevent them.
Contrary to Republican claims, though, this tactic is not
unprecedented, and it wasn't invented by the Democrats.
Republicans tried to filibuster several judges named by
President Clinton, even though they controlled the Senate at
the time.
Democrats were right to complain then, as Sen. Patrick
Leahy did in 1999: ``If we don't like somebody the president
nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this
anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the
minority of senators really shame all senators.'' Republicans
are equally justified in objecting now.
But changing Senate rules to bar the use of filibusters
against judicial nominees, as Republican leader Bill Frist of
Tennessee has threatened to do, would be shortsighted and
ultimately unhealthy. The filibuster, whatever its potential
for misuse, is a vital safeguard against majority excesses.
As such, it buttresses a constitutional framework ingeniously
designed to keep the many from running roughshod over the
few.
Although Americans have great faith in democracy, a Martian
political scientist arriving here with no knowledge of our
federal framework might think its purpose was not to empower
the majority but to frustrate it. The Constitution contains a
variety of mechanisms designed to make sure that public
sentiment doesn't automatically get translated into policy.
The Bill of Rights, for instance, places certain subjects
off-limits. The separation of powers, dividing authority
among three different branches of government, serves as
another check on the will of the people. A president can
overrule the 535-member Congress and sustain a veto with as
few as 34 senators. The Senate itself, of course, is at odds
with pure democracy, because it allocates equal
representation to each state, regardless of population.
The filibuster is merely a Senate rule, not a
constitutional provision. But the reason it has survived for
so long is that it fits well into the overall structure of
our government.
Devices that obstruct the will of the majority can be an
awful nuisance. But in the long run, the protections they
offer against democratic excesses are worth the price.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Chicago Tribune, I can tell, is no
liberal newspaper. They have a newspaper that takes conservative
positions regularly, and they have decided that the nuclear option is
the wrong way to go.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am anxious to yield the floor to the
distinguished Senator from Indiana, who has an amendment to bring up at
this time. But before doing that, I have sat and listened very
carefully while Senator Hatch was talking about the constitutional
option and the response from the Senator from Illinois. Sometimes you
have to leave the individuals and hear what is being said outside this
Chamber.
I have a couple editorials I am going to read at this time. The first
is from yesterday's Investors Business Daily. Granted, that is
generally a fairly conservative publication, and the next editorial I
will read certainly is not one that would be identified as even
moderate or conservative.
Investors Business Daily says:

Rules of order: The Democrats would have us believe
filibustering is a time-honored constitutional and Senate
tradition. It's not. And it wasn't that long ago that they
felt quite differently.
A showdown now looms after Republicans on the Senate
Judiciary Committee used their 10-8 majority to move the
nominations of Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen for
federal appeals court seats to the full Senate.
Democrats threaten to filibuster these picks, Majority
Leader Bill Frist threatens to employ the unfortunately named
``nuclear option'' restoring the quaint notion that 51 votes
constitutes a majority, and Vice President Dick Cheney says
he's willing to be the tie-breaking vote to ban filibusters
of judicial nominees.
Democrats are trying to portray GOP efforts to restore
majority rule to the Senate as it relates to judicial
nominations as an assault on the traditions of the Senate and
the Constitution itself. As if the filibuster were James
Madison's dying wish.
As a practical matter, the filibuster didn't even exist
until the 1830s, when it was used to block legislation and
not judicial picks. It was used by Democrats to defend
slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act--hardly noble
purposes.
In 1841, the filibuster was used by Sen. John Calhoun to
defend slaveholding interests. In 1957, then-Democratic Sen.
Strom Thurmond held the floor for 24 hours straight to block
civil rights legislation. And in 1964, 18 Democrats and one
Republican blocked the Civil Rights Act for 2\1/2\ months.
In 1916, Senator Robert La Follette, a Republican, used it
to block legislation to let merchant ships arm themselves
against German U-boats. This prompted the Senate in 1917, at
the behest of President Wilson, a Democrat, to adopt the
first cloture rule, rule XXII, requiring a two-thirds to end
debate.
This was amended 60 years later by none other than Robert
Byrd, D-W.Va., the Senate's constitutional guardian and
conscience, who reduced it to a three-fifths requirement.
In sum: For the first 200 years of our republic, Senate
``tradition'' never required 60 votes to approve judges.
Filibusters are neither an idea of the Founding Fathers nor a
historical tradition of the Senate. Cloture rules are a 20th
century phenomenon, with the current rule less than 30 years
old. Systematic filibustering of a president's appellate-
court nominees is totally unprecedented.
Democrats didn't always love the filibuster. In September
1999, in a debate over Clinton appellate-court nominees, Sen.
Patrick Leahy of Vermont thundered on the Senate floor:
``Vote them up or down! That is what the Constitution speaks
of in our advise-and-consent capacity.'' An up-or-down vote,
he said then, was a ``constitutional responsibility.''
The year before, none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy of
Massachusetts solemnly intoned: ``We owe it to Americans to
give these (judicial) nominees a vote. If our Republican
colleagues don't like them, vote against them, but give them
a vote.''
In 1995, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa proposed a plan to end
filibusters identical to one now proposed by Frist. The
Harkin plan was supported by 19 Democrats, including Sens.
Kennedy, Barbara Boxer of California, Joseph Lieberman of
Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and John Kerry of
Massachusetts.
Harkin proposed to establish a declining vote requirement
for cloture so that by the fourth cloture vote, a simple
majority of the Senate would suffice to end debate and allow
a floor vote on the matter at hand.
In the Constitution, when the Framers intended more than
simple majorities, they explicitly said so. For example, they
require a two-thirds majority to convict in an impeachment
trial, expel a member, override a presidential veto, approve
a treaty or propose a constitutional amendment.
Senate Democrats once opposed the filibustering of judicial
nominees; they now support and rail against a ``nuclear
option'' they once proposed themselves. Republicans should
expose this hypocrisy, stop worrying and learn to love the
bomb.

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

I ask unanimous consent that this entire editorial be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I will say this: It is unprecedented,
that for 200 years there has never been a circuit court nominee by any
President who had the majority support in the Senate to be
filibustered. It never has happened until now.

[[Page S4373]]

Exhibit 1

[From the LA Times, April 26, 2005]

Nuke the Filibuster

These are confusing days in Washington. Born-again
conservative Christians who strongly want to see President
Bush's judicial nominees voted on are leading the charge
against the Senate filibuster, and liberal Democrats are
born-again believers in that reactionary, obstructionist
legislative tactic. Practically every big-name liberal
senator you can think of derided the filibuster a decade ago
but now sees the error of his or her ways and will go to
amusing lengths to try to convince you that the change of
heart is explained by something deeper than the mere
difference between being in the majority and being in the
minority.
At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not
getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think
judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-
or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the
far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these
judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press
ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster. The so-called
nuclear option entails a finding by a straight majority that
filibusters are inappropriate in judicial confirmation
battles.
But the Senate shouldn't stop with filibusters over judges.
It should strive to nuke the filibuster for all legislative
purposes.
The filibuster debate is a stark reminder of the
unprincipled and results-oriented nature of politics, as
senators readily switch sides for tactical advantage.
Politicians' lack of consistency on fundamental matters--the
debate over the proper balance of power between Washington
and the states would be another case in point--is far more
corrosive to the health of American democracy and the rule of
law than any number of Bush-appointed judges could ever be.
For one thing, it validates public wariness about politicians
professing deep convictions.
Liberal interest groups determined to keep Bush nominees
off the bench are in such a frenzy that they would have you
believe that the Senate filibuster lies at the heart of all
American freedoms, its lineage traceable to the Constitution,
if not the Magna Carta. The filibuster, a parliamentary
tactic allowing 41 senators to block a vote by extending
debate on a measure indefinitely, is indeed venerable--it can
be traced back two centuries. But it is merely the product of
the Senate's own rule-making, altered over time; the measure
was not part of the founding fathers' checks and balances to
prevent a tyranny of the majority. The Senate's structure
itself was part of that calculus.
The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too
far in empowering a minority of senators. It's no accident
that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in
Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform.
California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those
recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by
hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a
pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in
his support--he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
A showdown is looking increasingly likely, though it isn't
clear that all Republicans want this fight. Some of them
realize they will again be in the minority someday and that
the filibuster is a handy brake on the federal government's
activism. If their caution prevails, or if Republicans take
on the filibuster only in the narrow context of confirmation
battles, we will happily weigh in again in the future, still
on the anti-filibuster team.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from Indiana,
is he going to be offering an amendment?
Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I am.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Madam President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The highway bill is the pending business.

Amendment No. 568 to Amendment No. 567

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 568,
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh] proposes an amendment
numbered 568.

Mr. BAYH. Madam 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that
the provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket
economy countries)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE ___--OVERSEAS SUBSIDIES

SECTION __01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Stopping Overseas
Subsidies Act of 2005''.

SEC. __02. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO NONMARKET
ECONOMY COUNTRIES.

Section 701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1671(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(including a nonmarket
economy country)'' after ``country'' each place it appears.

SEC. __03. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by section __02 apply to petitions
filed under section 702 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after
the date of the enactment of this title.

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his
courtesy.
The highway bill we are currently debating is important, vitally
important to building a strong economy for our Nation. It will create
jobs today and raise productivity tomorrow, strengthening the American
people in the global economic competition we face and, in so doing,
offer better prosperity and security for our children.
This is only a small part of a bigger picture. It is only the
beginning of what must be done if we are to ensure American prosperity
and national security and a future for our children of which we can be
proud.
The American people need a debate--a debate that starts today--about
how to create that prosperity in a global economy, about what we must
do and to what we must commit ourselves, and also about what we have a
right to expect from others. It is a debate that will take time--time
today, time this week, time repeatedly this year and for the
foreseeable future. It is a debate that will define our generation and
affect the American people for generations to come. It is a struggle
from which our current leaders have all too often been missing,
incoherent, naive, and shortsighted, and that must change.
As my colleagues know, I feel so strongly about this subject that I
recently placed a hold--the first time I have done such a thing--on the
prospective nomination of Ron Portman to be our next trade negotiator.
I want to emphasize this action is not personal on my behalf. I met
with Mr. Portman. He is a fine man. I have every reason to believe he
is eminently qualified for the position for which he has been
nominated. But our obligation in this Senate is not merely to confirm
him in his new job but, in addition, to confirm that American workers
and businesses can labor in a system where, through hard work,
ingenuity, and sacrifice, they have a fair chance in the global
``economyplace'' to succeed. That, too often, is not the case, and the
indifference and the inaction that has led to this must change.
Our amendment enjoys broad bipartisan support. I am proud to say
Senators Collins, Graham, and others support this undertaking. They
know it is essential. We have bicameral support. Representatives
English, Davis, and many others support this amendment. They too know
that something must be done.
Our approach enjoys support by both business and labor--the National
Manufacturers Association, and many representatives of organized
labor--because they have waited too long for justice, and the time for
justice has arrived.
We have the broad support we enjoy because of a building consensus in
our country. Even in a divided society, even in this divided
institution, action is needed and can no longer be delayed or denied.
What is that consensus, Madam President? It is the American people
must devote themselves to succeeding in a global competition, that we
must provide for those who are adversely affected by that global
competition, and that American workers and businesses have a right to
expect that our competitors in this competition will play by the same
set of rules as do we.
America must commit itself, we must commit ourselves--it is our
obligation--to doing those things that are necessary to succeed in the
global marketplace. Nothing else will do. We cannot wall up our
country. We cannot shut out those with whom we would compete. We saw
the consequences of that in Eastern Europe under communism. So when the
walls come down, as they invariably do, they could produce nothing that
the rest of the world could consume.
It reminds me, in some ways, of the siren song of protectionism of
the Greek king who once sought to turn back the tide and stood on the
beach commanding it not to come in, only to drown in the process. We
must not follow that path. But to avoid following

[[Page S4374]]

that path, we must have a strategy for success in the global
marketplace that involves a robust commitment to research and
development in the new goods, the new services, the new technologies of
the future that will command good wages in the global marketplace,
particularly in the area of energy independence.
We have an opportunity, as a society, to create hundreds of thousands
of good-paying jobs, to address our imbalance of payments, to
strengthen our finances, our economy, our environment, and our Nation's
security in the process. That commitment has been missing for too long.
It is penny-wise and pound-foolish when we cut back on our investment
in research and development. It demonstrates a lack of national will
when we do not commit ourselves to increased energy independence. That
must change.
What also must change is an increased commitment to an education for
every American child, particularly the less-fortunate third, so they
can be economically relevant in the global marketplace of today and
tomorrow with the skills and the talents and the abilities to be
globally competitive.
For too many of our less fortunate children, that still is simply not
the case. So we have to redouble our efforts in K-12 education, and we
need to open up the doors of access to college opportunity for every
American child who is willing to work hard, play right, and do right
themselves to get there.
The growing gap between the haves and have nots in America today
increasingly is defined by those who have a college education and those
who do not. Over the last 20 years, those who dropped out of high
school or got a high school diploma that did not mean very much because
the grades were the result of social promotion rather than actual
achievement have seen their standards of living decline precipitously.
Those in our country who received a college degree have seen their
standards of living increase marginally. Those who have gotten an
advanced degree have seen a dramatic increase in their prosperity and
standard of living. So if we want to be globally competitive, we need
to invest in the talents and the skills of our children and ensure that
every child can have a college opportunity. That is a debate for
another day. More needs to be done. More must be done if we are going
to win the battle of global economic competition.
We also must do our part by committing ourselves to a course of
fiscal sanity. The current budget imbalances simply are not
sustainable, and they exacerbate the trade imbalance and the borrowing
we must undertake from abroad. When it comes to our own budget deficits
and imbalance, we only have ourselves to blame. We have to summon the
national will to restore our finances, to ensure that we have a strong
financial, fiscal situation in this country, to ensure that our
children will inherit from us something better than our unpaid bills
that have to be paid with interest to foreign countries and
increasingly foreign banks. That is not right. We need to correct that
situation. We need to redouble our efforts to increase our national
savings through incentives for Americans to save more in the private
sector so that we will increasingly be able to finance our demands at
home.
We need to look through the prism of innovation in all that we do to
ensure that we can be more rapid, more nimble, in terms of bringing new
goods and services to market, and when we do that we need to ensure
there is robust protection for our intellectual property rights abroad.
All too often, that is not the case. We cannot allow a situation to
develop where, when we do our part through research and development,
through education, through fiscal sanity, through increasing our own
domestic savings, through becoming more competitive and innovative, the
fruits of that labor of that American genius are stolen by those abroad
through violating our intellectual property rights. That cannot be
allowed to continue further.
In addition to having a positive strategy for economic success in a
global marketplace, we also have a moral responsibility to those who
may be dislocated through no fault of their own as a result of that
global economic competition. We must reach out to those Americans who
are displaced and ensure that they have an opportunity to get back on
the ladder of success, that every American has the prospect of being
upwardly mobile in the global marketplace and that we do not just say
to them, well, if they grew up 30 or 40 years ago and did not get the
education they need, if they happen to be employed in the wrong
industry that is suffering dislocations, that is too bad for them; they
are in the scrap heap of history; they are on the wrong side of
history; tough luck. That is social Darwinism, and we cannot take that
path either.
For those of us who will benefit from the fruits of the global
marketplace, consumers and industries that are globally competitive and
enjoy comparative advantage, we have to take some of that success, some
of those benefits, and put it into training, retraining, job placement,
pension and health care portability, so that every American has a
chance to be upwardly mobile and successful in the global marketplace.
There is also a growing consensus that even when we have done our
part, even when we have adopted a strategy to be successful, even when
we have defined our comparative advantage, when we provided for those
who will be dislocated through no fault of their own, even when we have
done all of that, others must do their part, too. We cannot stand idly
by and watch the ingenuity, hard work, and sacrifice of the American
people undone by the premeditated cheating--and that is what it is--of
other countries because of their own narrow self-interests.
American workers and businesses too often are getting the shaft
today, and that is not right. It is not right when those of us in the
Senate stand idly by. It is not right when those in the administration
turn a blind eye to this. That must change. We must enforce the rules
of open global competition, and that is what our amendment will do.
That is our obligation to our fellow citizens and our children.
The cheating--and as I have said, that is what it is--comes in many
forms, such as the theft of intellectual property. I am told that more
than 80 percent of the business software in China today is pirated.
Barriers to U.S. exports, some in the form of tariffs, some not tariff
barriers, such as our beef exports to Japan today--more on that in a
moment--through currency manipulation, which we voted on in this Senate
not long ago, giving a built-in 25- to 30-percent advantage to
countries that do that--in this case, China--not because our workers
are not as smart, not because they do not work as hard, not because the
products are not as competitive, are simply because of financial
engineering. Tens of thousands of Americans, when they get up in the
morning, before they get dressed and go to work, start off with that
kind of disadvantage through no fault of their own. How can we possibly
look them in the face and tell them they are getting an even shake in
the global marketplace? How can we possibly call that free trade? It is
not. We know it is not. And it has to change.
Illegal subsidies is another form of cheating. Free rent, free power,
loans never intended to be repaid--that is not free trade. It is the
opposite of free trade. It is economic engineering by other countries
to the detriment of American workers and businesses, and that has to
stop. It is well known.
In its recent report to the Congress, the congressionally mandated
and bipartisan U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
stated:

There was a general consensus in the testimony that China
remains in violation of its WTO obligations in a number of
important areas.

In a hearing before the Ways and Means Committee 2 weeks ago, a
representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce highlighted a number of
concerns:

. . . China's post-WTO accession use of industrial policy--

Not free trade, industrial policy--

including the use of targeted lending, subsidies, mandated
technology standards rather than voluntary, industry-led
international standards, discriminatory procurement policies,
and potentially, antitrust policy--to structure the
development of strategic sectors is of mounting concern.

Industrial policy, not free trade. That is what we seek to change, a
global competitive marketplace where the

[[Page S4375]]

laws of comparative advantage will rule, where citizens of every
country will have a right to work hard, think smart, be nimble, bring
goods and services to the marketplace, and let the best man and woman
win. Too often that is not the case today. It is the case on the part
of our workers but not on the part of their competitors, and that is
what has to stop. That is what this amendment will do.
Our Government is well aware of this but too often chooses to turn a
blind eye. The time for the Senate turning a blind eye has to stop. I
think about the case of Batesville Tool and Die in Indiana and the fact
that their competitor, in this case from China, sells their product in
the United States of America for one-half of a penny above the cost of
the raw materials, leaving nothing for labor, nothing for
transportation, nothing for marketing. There has to be an illegal
subsidy there. It is the laws of physics and the laws of economics.
Currently there is nothing in our law that allows us to do anything
about it. If the laws of economics are going to make sense, our law
better insist that we have a right to end this kind of industrial
policy and cheating. That is what our amendment will change.
I think about the National Association of Manufacturers, an
organization that embraces free trade, and a pair of pliers they held
up when we announced our amendment a few months ago, a pair of pliers
sold at the cost of raw materials--the same thing, leaving nothing for
anything else. Obviously an illegal subsidy violating the rules of the
WTO is in place there, and that has to change.
I think about a foundry I visited in northeast Indiana where they
stopped production so that I could address the workers several months
ago. A foundry is a dirty business. These guys had soot on their faces
and grime on their clothes, and they gathered around to hear me speak.
I looked at them, and I in good conscience could no longer look them in
the face, knowing the kind of burdens they labor under, the unlevel
playing field, the kind of cheating that takes place, knowing they are
willing to work hard for a living, and that too often that can be
undone by those who are not willing to do the same or are willing to
cheat to have their way. That is what has to stop, and that is what
this amendment will change.
The time has come to take a stand. Our prosperity is at stake. The
global marketplace, the global trading system, cannot work. When our
global competitors have a comparative advantage, we buy their goods,
but then when we have a comparative advantage, when American workers
can produce something quicker, smarter, and cheaper than anybody
else, they still do not get to sell their products abroad. They are
still defeated at home because of cheating. It just will not work, and
that is what this amendment will help to change. Our national
sovereignty is at stake, our very sovereignty as a nation.

I do not know how many of my colleagues or the American people
noticed several weeks ago that the President of the United States got
on the phone and he called his colleague, the Prime Minister of Japan,
and he said: You have been keeping our beef exports out of your country
for too long. We are pretty good at producing beef in the United
States, and you are using the excuse--and it is an excuse now--of the
mad cow scare a couple of years ago as an informal trading barrier to
keep our products out. You know what, we buy a lot from you. You ought
to bring this nontariff barrier down. It is only the right thing to do.
So they had this exchange, and then shortly thereafter, whether by
accident or not, the Prime Minister happened to say, well, maybe the
time has come for Japan to start diversifying its financial holdings
out of dollar-denominated assets, and for the next several hours the
value of our currency, the value of our money, began to go into a free
fall until some bureaucrat down in the bowels of the Finance Ministry
came out and said the Prime Minister did not really know what he was
talking about, it is not true.
Well, that is one thing. But a couple of weeks before that, there was
a rumor going through Seoul, the same kind of thing--maybe the South
Koreans would start diversifying out of dollar-denominated assets. That
started a run on our currency, too.
It is not a sign of strength, it is not a sign of independence, it is
not a sign of security when something as fundamental as the value of
our money can be undermined by a slip of the tongue or a premeditated
statement or a rumor sweeping a foreign capital. That is not the sign
of a great nation; it is the sign of dependency, of weakness. It is
something that can no longer be allowed to continue if we are going to
have the kind of security for our children that we want them to have
and that they deserve.
Make no mistake, our Nation's security is at stake. A strong military
and the current financial imbalances we are running cannot be sustained
indefinitely.
There was a book several years ago by Paul Kennedy called ``The Rise
and Fall of Great Powers.'' It pointed out that the undoing of great
nations had all too often been the result of their economic and
financial weakness.
The percentage of GDP we are currently spending on national security
and military expenditures substantially outstrips that of our economic
competitors, freeing them to invest a substantially greater percentage
of their wealth in productive assets.
As the only global superpower and the principal leader in the war
against terror, we cannot afford to cut back on our investment in
national security. At the very least, we can insist that those who
benefit from our efforts in the fight against terror, who benefit from
our efforts to provide for global security, play by the same set of
economic rules so that we do not undercut the very prosperity that
allows us to fight the war on terror and provide for global economic
security. The two have to go hand in hand. For the last several years
there has been a decoupling that cannot go on indefinitely. If we do
not correct this situation, we not only undermine our prosperity and
our financial strength, we undermine our very sovereignty and our
Nation's security. The debate about leveling the field and enforcing
the rules on global trade is very much, in the long run, a debate about
national security as well.

Finally, let me sum up by saying two things. First, I know a lot of
people want to talk about China. We had a debate on that and a vote
with regard to currency manipulation a couple of weeks ago. Our
relationship with China is one of the most important relationships over
the next 50 to 100 years. They are a great nation with a great culture
and a bright future. Our relationship with them will be at times
complex and difficult. It is only going to work if the relationship is
mutually beneficial in a number of ways, and in the economic arena as
well.
The nation of China has its challenges and we want to see them
successfully meet those challenges. But we have challenges, too, and
they must be committed, equally committed to seeing us meet our
challenges if this relationship is going to work as it must. It is
simply not right that to ease the absorption of surplus workers in
agriculture in China, we are asked artificially to throw out of work
and put out of business American workers and businesses in our
heartland. That is fundamentally not just. Stability and growth in
China are important, and we should help them in that regard but not at
the cost of our own. It is time that we insisted we achieve both.
Let me conclude by saying I am optimistic about our future. With the
right kind of leadership there is little that the American people
cannot accomplish. But as the old saying goes: If you don't know where
you are going, well, any road will lead you there. We must have a
strategy for success and prosperity. If we do, I am convinced we can
get the job done because we have done it before.
If I had been addressing this Senate 100 years ago, more than half of
our workers would have been employed in agriculture--more than half.
Today it is about 3 or 4 percent. As we made the transition from an
agricultural economy to a manufacturing-based economy, the United
States of America did not dry up and blow away. There were difficulties
but we met the challenge. We reinvented our economy and increased our
prosperity and our standing in the world as a result.
If I had been addressing this Senate 50 years ago, more than 30
percent of

[[Page S4376]]

the American workers would have been employed in manufacturing. Today
it is about 12 percent. Again, as the global economy began to change,
as our domestic economy began to change, we did not dry up and blow
away. There were difficulties. There were challenges. But we have been
growing the service sector of the economy and the innovative and other
parts of the economy.
So as we fight to save every kind of manufacturing job where we can
be competitive in advanced manufacturing and other sections of the
manufacturing sector, we have grown other parts of the American economy
as well. We can continue to do that but only if we are willing to stand
up for American interests and competitiveness and not allow the genius
of our people to be stolen and undermined by the premeditated cheating
and self-interest of other nations to which we turn a blind eye, or
don't have the stomach to stand up to. That has to stop and that is
what our amendment will do.
It will enable the American people to preserve our prosperity--when
we are right, when we are competitive, when we have an advantage--and
will enable us to go on and grow parts of our economy and grow good
jobs at good wages where we have that advantage and allow our consumers
to buy products from countries where they have the advantage. It will
do right by our children. It will do justice to our workers. It will
strengthen our national security, our sovereignty, our finances, and
our prosperity. It is the right thing to do, and that is why I propose
this amendment and that is why I ask for my colleagues' support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the amendment of the distinguished
Senator, it is my understanding, is one that has been in consideration
in the Finance Committee. There is a freestanding bill called
``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act of 2005.'' Is that correct?
Mr. BAYH. That is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the chairman of the committee has
advised me that they have been working on this bill for quite some
time. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and
author of the highway bill, I suggest there are titles of the bill that
are not within the jurisdiction of my committee. One is the Finance
Committee title. The title is not yet here, so we do not have that to
consider at this time.
I think it would be more appropriate later on, after we receive the
title, to debate that in the normal process of legislation.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
First, let me say I am profoundly disappointed by the way this issue
has been handled over the past several weeks.
My staff has been working hard with some of the proponents of this
legislation to fully understand the pros and cons of the legislation.
In fact, a meeting was held with the proponents just prior to a press
release being issued saying that a hold was being placed on a nominee
unless a vote were taken on the bill.
I thought we were making good progress. Needless to say, I was very
surprised to learn of that development. No one asked me about it.
Let's be clear, I share concerns about China's economic policies and
the impact of those policies on international trade and the U.S.
economy.
At this point, however, I'm not convinced that the Bayh amendment is
the best possible policy response we can provide to China's economic
policies.
The amendment would substantively change United States trade law, and
it is imperative that the repercussions be fully understood before we
move ahead with the proposed change.
That's why the committee process should not be circumvented. The
Finance Committee has jurisdiction over issues of international trade,
and its expertise should be brought to bear on any trade issue before
its consideration by the full Senate.
When that process is not respected, we run the risk of adopting ill-
thought out policy which in the end could undermine the very intent of
legislation that is rushed in as an amendment, as Senator Bayh proposes
we do in this case.
For starters, I understand that the bill may not even be necessary,
as it's possible this change could be implemented administratively
rather than legislatively.
We should explore with Administration officials the feasibility of
implementing an administrative change, what that would entail and how
that might best be accomplished.
The proposed legislation doesn't give the Commerce Department any
flexibility to develop appropriate regulations and procedures to
implement this provision.
Such a significant change from established practice should at least
incorporate sufficient flexibility so that it can be implemented
properly. Otherwise, proponents run the risk of undermining their very
goal.
Why wouldn't proponents want to ensure that such a significant change
in the operation of our trade laws is implemented properly?
Again, that's why the Finance Committee should have the opportunity
to address the details.
There are other repercussions that should be examined. How does the
proposed legislation relate to China's accession to the WTO for
example?
Is it consistent with the terms of our bilateral agreement on China's
WTO accession?
Those questions should be answered before we move ahead on this
legislation.
Another very serious issue is the relationship between this
legislation and existing U.S. trade law.
It's quite possible that by adopting this bill we could undermine the
application of U.S. antidumping law, and I doubt any of my colleagues
would advocate that result.
It is even possible that this amendment could force us to relinquish
application of the nonmarket antidumping methodology in dumping cases.
That question needs to be addressed thoroughly before we move ahead
on this legislation. Proponents may offer blanket assertions to the
contrary, but that is not sufficient, in my view.
We should not run the risk of undermining our trade laws by pushing
this amendment onto a bill today.
I hope Senator Bayh will reconsider his decision and withdraw the
amendment.
If not, I hope my colleagues will join with me in opposing his
amendment until we can fully appreciate its repercussions.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. I will be glad to respond to any questions the Senator
has, after I get one thing taken care of here.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 p.m. the Senate
proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 39,
the nomination of J. Michael Seabright, to be U.S. district judge for
the Southern District of Hawaii; provided further that there be 30
minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking
member or designees, and that at the expiration or yielding back of the
time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the
nomination with no intervening action or debate; provided further that
following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as we said over and over again, I have a
list of about eight amendments people have said they want to come down
and offer. This is the third day now we have been inviting them to come
down. So far only Senator Thune has brought his amendment in. We did
adopt that amendment. I encourage others to come down.
I think this could very well be considered by most people the most
significant vote on a bill we will be considering on the floor this
entire year. We want to make sure, while we have the time, that we give
adequate consideration and time for the amendments that different
Members may have. I invite them to come down at any time during this
process. With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. BAYH. Did my colleague have a question?
Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding the junior Senator from Missouri
would like to have the floor for consideration of an amendment. But I
will yield the floor at this time.

[[Page S4377]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

amendment no. 582 to amendment no. 567

Mr. TALENT. Madam President, I have an amendment to send to the desk.
I ask unanimous consent the Bayh amendment be set aside so I can do
that, offer the amendment; and then, at the end of the 3 or 4 minutes I
am going to use to offer the amendment, that we would go back to the
Bayh amendment. That would be my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Talent] proposes an
amendment numbered 582 to amendment No. 567.

Mr. TALENT. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a
program to promote the safe and efficient operation of first responder
vehicles)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. FIRST RESPONDER VEHICLE SAFETY PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, shall--
(1) develop and implement a comprehensive program to
promote compliance with State and local laws intended to
increase the safe and efficient operation of first responder
vehicles;
(2) compile a list of best practices by State and local
governments to promote compliance with the laws described in
paragraph (1);
(3) analyze State and local laws intended to increase the
safe and efficient operation of first responder vehicles; and
(4) develop model legislation to increase the safe and
efficient operation of first responder vehicles.
(b) Partnerships.--The Secretary may enter into
partnerships with qualified organizations to carry out this
section.
(c) Public Outreach.--The Secretary shall use a variety of
public outreach strategies to carry out this section,
including public service announcements, publication of
informational materials, and posting information on the
Internet.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
year 2006 to carry out the provisions of this section.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. TALENT. Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my
friend from Indiana for allowing me to get this amendment pending. I am
very hopeful we will eventually get it accepted. I am working with the
chairman and ranking members of both the full committee and
subcommittee to get that done.
The purpose of the amendment is to address the problem of the
increasing number of accidents occurring in which either parked first
responder vehicles are rear-ended by other vehicles or the first
responder is struck after leaving the vehicle.
In first responders--such an antiseptic term--we are talking about
our police officers, our ambulance workers and drivers, our
firefighters who are dealing with the issue of a car that is parked on
the side of the road, maybe because the police officer pulled the car
aside, or because the car has been abandoned, or it is on fire. It is
all too often the case in this country that our first responders who
are working on those situations are injured or killed by a passing
vehicle.
I will share the story of a Missouri law enforcement officer who
tragically lost his life this way. I know there have been many more
such as him around the country. Michael Newton was a State trooper for
the Missouri highway patrol. He stopped a vehicle on Interstate 70 in
Lafayette County, MO, for a traffic violation on May 22, 2003. He and
the other driver were sitting in the patrol car when they were struck
from behind by a pickup carrying a flatbed trailer. Trooper Newton died
at the scene. The driver he had stopped suffered serious burns. Trooper
Newton was only 25 years old. He left a wife, two young sons, many
loving relatives, and a community that deeply mourned his loss and was
very grateful for his service to the State of Missouri.
In 2003, 193 other people lost their lives in crashes involving
emergency vehicles, including 141 lives lost in crashes involving
police vehicles, 29 lives lost in those involving ambulances, and 24
lives lost in crashes involving firetrucks.
According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund,
vehicle-related incidents are the No. 1 cause of police officer
injuries and the No. 2 cause of police officer deaths. In 2004, 73 out
of 153 police officer deaths were vehicle related. Not all of those
involved parked cars, but most of them did.
I was very surprised to see those statistics and deeply concerned
that we have not informed people and raised their awareness about this
problem. That is what this amendment is designed to do. My Pass With
Care amendment requires the Secretary to start a nationwide publicity
campaign through public service announcements, developing a Web site,
providing informational materials, to increase public awareness of this
crucial safety issue.
Our first responders, our police, our firefighters, our ambulance
workers dedicate their lives to helping protect the rest of us. They
save so many lives through their heroic efforts. If more people realize
they can help protect our first responders by quickly and safely
pulling over when they hear an emergency siren or being more careful
when they see a first responder vehicle parked on the road or the
shoulder of the road, that will reduce the risks for our law
enforcement, health workers, and firefighters.
The amendment requires the Secretary, in consultation with the
National Highway Safety Administration, to develop and implement a
program to promote compliance with State Pass With Care laws and ``move
over'' laws. Those laws govern how motorists pass and yield to first
responders' vehicles.
The Secretary, under my amendment, would compile a list of best
practices to promote compliance with such laws, would conduct an
analysis of the various State and local laws that deal with the safety
of first responder vehicles, and from that analysis develop model
legislation that States can adopt should they choose to do so.
Unfortunately, only 27 States currently have Pass With Care laws or
``move over'' laws. The amendment would help give guidance to the
remaining States on drafting laws that would help save lives. The
Secretary would be authorized to enter into partnerships with safety
organizations and engage with public outreach to help improve first
responder safety.

This is not an amendment that would be coercive on the States. I
tried to be sensitive to that in drafting it. It is what we can do as
an alternative to mandating the States in this area to help provide a
clearinghouse of information for them to help develop model legislation
and also in appropriate ways to develop an increased public awareness
of this problem.
If people become more aware of this as the bill goes through and as a
result of an awareness campaign the Secretary would conduct, that in
itself would probably reduce the number of deaths.
I was surprised to hear of the number of first responders who are
imperiled. If we can help them by raising awareness, I think we ought
to do it. I am pleased to introduce the amendment on behalf of our
first responders at risk on our roads and highways. They should not be
at risk. I urge the Senate to pass the amendment to help strengthen
these laws, and ensure the safety of our first responders.
I certainly am willing to work with the managers of the bill to help
deal with any concerns they may have regarding the wording of the
amendment.
I yield the floor and 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

[[Page S4378]]

____________________