[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 11, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4906-S4929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS--Continued

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, due to the recess, I ask unanimous consent 
that notwithstanding rule XXII, all first-degree amendments to the 
highway bill must be filed at the desk no later than 2 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, regular order.


                 Amendment No. 606 to Amendment No. 605

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment that was 
sent up just before the recess.

[[Page S4907]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine], for himself, and 
     Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 606.

  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 as follows:

  (Purpose: To establish the effect of a section of the United States 
 Code relating to the letting of contracts on individual contributions 
to political campaigns, and to require the Secretary of Transportation 
  to consider State laws that limit political contributions to be in 
         accordance with competitive procurement requirements)

       After section 1703, insert the following:

     SEC. 17__. LETTING OF CONTRACTS.

       Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section prohibits 
     a State from enacting a law or issuing an order that limits 
     the amount that an individual that is a party to a contract 
     with a State agency under this section may contribute to a 
     political campaign.''.
       At the end of subtitle G in title I, add the following:

     SEC. 17__. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 5323(h) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and identing 
     appropriately;
       (2) by striking ``A grant or loan'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--A grant or loan''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Procurement requirements.--The enactment of a law or 
     issuance of an order by a State that limits the amount of 
     money that may be contributed to a political campaign by an 
     individual doing business with a grantee shall be considered 
     to be in accordance with Federal competitive procurement 
     requirements.''.

  Mr. INHOFE. May I inquire of the Senator about how long he will be 
taking for his opening remarks?
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesy. I 
suspect that my statement will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 
minutes and Senator Lautenberg an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that at the completion of the 
remarks of the senior Senator from New Jersey, the junior Senator be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I once again thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Before I begin, I echo the remarks of the majority leader and 
minority leader congratulating and thanking the members of the Capitol 
Police for their efforts in protecting all of us, which they so ably do 
day in and day out. It is a testimony to their forethought that we were 
so efficiently able to move from the Capitol and protect folks. We are 
blessed with their efforts. I also thank the Sergeant at Arms and the 
Secretary of the Senate for their efforts and look forward to saying 
``thank you'' personally to all of the individuals involved.
  I think I have asked that the pending amendment be set aside and we 
move to amendment No. 606, if I am not mistaken. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Amendment No. 606 is the pending 
question.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Lautenberg, who will be joining me in a minute, to offer an amendment 
to the SAFETEA Act, S. 732. Our amendment addresses a serious problem 
where Federal highway and mass transit contracts are awarded by States, 
those situations where Federal money and State money are intermixed in 
contracting administered by the State. These contracts are often or can 
be influenced, either by perception or reality, by political 
contributions. The Government contracting issue I am speaking of is 
commonly known as ``pay to play.''
  To address this issue in situations where States administer these 
contracts with both Federal and State money or where Federal money is 
administered by the State, Senator Lautenberg and I are offering this 
amendment to allow States to set contracting rules that limit campaign 
contributions by contracting providers. This is something that has been 
in Federal law for over 50 years where there are straight Federal 
contracts. Unfortunately, there have been far too many cases across the 
country where in these circumstances businesses have made contributions 
to public officials or campaign committees and then expected to 
influence the awarding of Government contracts. It is not an attractive 
situation.
  Last year, two Governors lost their careers in public service due to 
pay-to-play scandals in their States. Other high-profile instances of 
pay-to-play corruption have occurred across the Nation, particularly in 
my home State where, on a bipartisan basis, our State legislators and 
Governors have reacted. But this is not unique to New Jersey. It has 
gone from New Jersey to California, from Philadelphia to Los Angeles 
and beyond. The problem is widespread and needs to be addressed.

  Corrupt practices of pay-to-play have serious implications for the 
public. They have the effect of limiting competition in many ways 
because those who give political contributions then get the edge on 
those who might want to compete to do the business. They often reduce 
the quality of infrastructure projects--I will talk about a couple of 
situations that we see, particularly in my home State--and they lower 
the confidence of the public in elected officials and in public service 
in general.
  Finally, and most important--this certainly is the case in my State--
they raise the cost of doing business for the government and ultimately 
to the taxpayer.
  This practice is often more like legalized bribery than I think any 
of us would like to admit, and it results in a corruption tax that all 
citizens end up bearing. So I think there is a reason to make sure that 
we act.
  I regret to say this disease has really impacted my State of New 
Jersey. It is something that, unfortunately, has infected both sides of 
the aisle in the State, both parties. It really needs to be addressed.
  Just last month, dozens of local public officials--and I mean dozens, 
both Democrats and Republicans in one of our counties--were indicted 
for soliciting or taking bribes from people doing business with their 
towns, and it was often in conjunction with political contributions. 
Sadly, New Jersey taxpayers have been hit with this hidden corruption 
tax, higher costs of doing business in our State, and I think it needs 
to be moved against.
  Our Governor, with bipartisan support in both Houses, was able to 
institute a serious pay-to-play ban that requires that any political 
contribution be less than $300 from anyone who wants to do business 
with the State. It is a straightforward, easy situation.
  Honestly, time after time we have had the public trust broken in this 
contracting procedure, where Federal and State funds have been misused. 
We had a motor vehicle inspection contract where there was only one 
bidder. It was a cost-plus contract that ended up being over $200 
million above cost. It ended up costing the Federal Government and the 
State a lot more than was necessary. Again, it is a corruption tax. We 
have had other places--the EZ-Pass toll collection system--where 
politically favored vendors were able to win no-bid contracts. It seems 
to me we need to make sure we put competition on a level playing field. 
That is what this amendment is all about.
  Fortunately, New Jersey and several other States, as I suggested, 
have, on a bipartisan basis, addressed this issue. It is about 
contracting law, however, not campaign finance. It is setting the rules 
for who has the ability to bid. Unfortunately, the Department of 
Transportation recently informed the State of New Jersey that these 
commonsense limits may not apply to highway or mass transit contracts 
that use Federal funds. The Department of Transportation argued that it 
might limit competition when, in fact, I do not understand how limiting 
the amount of a campaign contribution has anything to do with whether 
someone is going to qualify to participate in a contracting bid. The 
State is now seeking an injunction in the Federal courts and there will 
be all kinds of litigation about this over a period of time. Whether it 
gets overruled or not, I think it is appropriate to institute the 
possibility that, if a State legislature wants to take the stand that 
they

[[Page S4908]]

would like to set rules for contracting, on contracts they administer, 
they have the ability to do it.
  I think this is important, both for promoting competition but also 
for ensuring that there is clarity and confidence in the public bidding 
process, not only in my State but in a number of other States which 
have also bought into these kinds of rules. It is really a cross-
section across the country in various places.
  I have here a series of States--Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, West 
Virginia, South Carolina--a number of places. These are States, as 
shown in the light green, that already have bills before their State 
legislatures. There are an enormous number of local jurisdictions that 
have also done it: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago--24 
jurisdictions in my own State of New Jersey.
  We think this is an important States rights issue. We should be able 
to enact laws that fight corruption without interference from the 
Federal Government. I hope we will look at this in a context that we 
want to make sure that what would work in those individual States is 
actually attended to.
  Banning pay-to-play is consistent with current Federal practice when 
it is only Federal contracts that are being awarded. The Government 
already bans pay-to-play for Federal contracts that are awarded 
directly.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission, along with a municipal 
rulemaking board, prevents pay-to-play when Government bond issues are 
at stake--again, a contracting issue, not a campaign contribution rule. 
In fact, I was instrumental and involved in this as an employer on Wall 
Street 10 years ago, to ban contributions from bond underwriters 
because it interfered too regularly with the overall process.
  We think we can make a difference. These rules have worked when they 
have been instituted. They certainly have in the bond underwriting 
business, and they have Federal rules. The Federal Government is 
refusing to allow States such as New Jersey to enact similar contract 
reforms. I think this is an important step going forward.
  I want to clarify something about this amendment. We are not 
establishing a Federal pay-to-play rule in Federal highway contracting. 
Some of the opponents would have you believe that. Those rules are 
already set by the Federal Government. It is merely respecting the 
rights of the State to establish and maintain their own State 
contracting practices. It only impacts contributions to State-level 
candidates, not Federal-level candidates. Federal campaign finance laws 
are in no way affected.
  This commonsense measure has the support of a number of groups that 
work to protect the integrity of government spending: Public Citizen, 
Common Cause, the Brennan Center for Justice.
  I ask unanimous consent to have letters of endorsement from these 
groups printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    The Campaign Legal Center,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2005.
     Re Safe-TEA/TEA-LU Highway Bill and the Government 
         Contracting Reform Amendment
       Dear Senator: The Campaign Legal Center strongly urges you 
     to support the Government Contracting Reform Amendment to the 
     Safe-TEA/TEA-LU Highway Bill, which protects the right of 
     states to enact and enforce ``pay to play'' laws.
       For more than 50 years federal law has prohibited political 
     contributions to federal candidates from federal government 
     contractors. In recent years, state and local governments 
     around the nation have followed Congress' lead by enacting 
     similar ``pay to play'' laws to protect the integrity of the 
     procurement process.
       The right of states to enact and enforce ``pay to play'' 
     laws has recently come under threat. Late in 2004, the 
     Federal Highway Administration determined that a New Jersey 
     State Executive Order limiting the size of political 
     contributions from government contractors to state candidates 
     violates federal law competitive bidding requirements, 
     established by 23 U.S.C. Sec. 112, for state highway 
     construction contracts involving federal funds.
       This Federal Highway Administration action affects not only 
     New Jersey, but also threatens enforcement of similar ``pay 
     to play'' laws in Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina and West 
     Virginia. Further, the Highway Administration action curtails 
     the right of other states around the nation to enact their 
     own ``pay to play'' laws.
       The Government Contracting Reform Amendment sponsored by 
     Senators Corzine and Lautenberg amends 23 U.S.C. Sec. 112, 
     which establishes the competitive bidding requirement for 
     contracts involving federal highway funds, to state that 
     ``Nothing in this section prohibits a State from enacting a 
     law or issuing an order that limits the amount that an 
     individual that is a party to a contract with a State agency 
     under this section may contribute to a political campaign.''
       Similarly, the Government Contracting Reform Amendment 
     amends 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5323, which establishes general 
     provisions for the award of contracts involving mass 
     transportation funds, to make clear that state ``pay to 
     play'' laws ``shall be considered to be in accordance with 
     Federal competitive procurement requirements.''
       State laws restricting political contributions from 
     government contractors are consistent with, and advance the 
     purposes of, the federal law contracting requirements for 
     highway and transit funds. Competitive bidding requirements, 
     and reasonable restrictions on contributions from contractors 
     who do business with the government, both advance the 
     government's interest in avoiding real and apparent political 
     corruption and preserving the integrity of the contracting 
     process.
       We urge you to support the Corzine-Lautenberg Government 
     Contracting Reform Amendment to the pending Safe-TEA/TEA-LU 
     Highway Bill, to protect states' rights to enact and enforce 
     ``pay to play'' laws.
           Sincerely,
     Meredith McGehee,
     Paul S. Ryan.
                                  ____

                                        Brennan Center for Justice


                                         at NYU School of Law,

                                     New York, NY, April 27, 2005.
     Re Safe-TEA Act of 2005 and the Corzine pay-to-play amendment

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: I write on behalf of The Brennan Center for 
     Justice to support Senator Jon Corzine's ``pay-to-play'' 
     reform protection amendment to S. 732, the ``Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act of 2005.'' Since its inception in 1995, the Center's 
     Democracy Program has been working in the area of campaign 
     finance reform on federal, state, and local levels. We 
     believe that the amendment is important for ensuring that 
     states maintain the flexibility to choose effective tools for 
     protecting the integrity of government contracting.
       Systems for government contract bidding have long sought to 
     satisfy the laudable and compatible goals of contracting with 
     low-cost and ethical bidders. For example, current federal 
     law regarding state transportation projects that use federal 
     money provides that ``[c]ontracts for the construction of 
     each project shall be awarded only on the basis of the lowest 
     responsive bid submitted by a bidder meeting established 
     criteria of responsibility.'' 23 U.S.C. Sec. 112(b)(l) 
     (emphasis added). Federal law expressly charges the state 
     transportation department with establishing the criteria of 
     responsibility. 23 C.F.R. Sec. 635.114(a).
       Several recent scandals regarding government contracting in 
     New Jersey prompted New Jersey to establish a criterion of 
     responsibility for government contracting, which prohibited 
     the state from contracting with an entity that has 
     contributed to a candidate for or holder of the office of 
     Governor, or to any State or county political party 
     committee, within certain time frames. See New Jersey 
     Executive Order 134 (September 22, 2004). The executive order 
     explicitly stated that ``the growing infusion of funds 
     donated by business entities into the political process at 
     all level of government has generated widespread cynicism 
     among the public that special interest groups are `buying' 
     favors from elected officeholders.'' Id. Courts have 
     recognized that contributions from government contractors 
     present a severe risk of engendering corruption or the 
     appearance of corruption, and thus have generally upheld 
     ``pay to play'' contribution bans. See, e.g., Blount v. SEC, 
     61 F.3d 938,944-48 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (upholding 
     constitutionality of SEC regulations that prohibit 
     municipal finance underwriters from making campaign 
     contributions to politicians who award government 
     underwriting contracts); Casino Ass'n of Louisiana v. 
     State, 820 So. 2d 494 (La. 2002), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 
     1109 (2003) (upholding ban on contributions from riverboat 
     and land-based casinos); Gwinn v. State Ethics Comm'n, 426 
     S.E.2d 890 (Ga. 1993) (upholding ban on contributions by 
     insurance companies to candidates for Commissioner of 
     Insurance).
       Recent action by the Federal Highway Administration, 
     however, has threatened to strip New Jersey and other states 
     of their capacity to determine criteria of responsibility, 
     undermining legitimate state efforts to protect against 
     corruption, or the appearance thereof, in government 
     contracting. The FHA took the unprecedented position that it 
     would not authorize federal funds for use in New Jersey 
     transportation contracts because of Executive Order 134. The 
     FHA took this position even in light of the scandals in New 
     Jersey, and despite the facts that (1) all bidders would have 
     notice of New Jersey's responsibility criteria and (2) 
     contracting awards still would be granted to the

[[Page S4909]]

     lowest bidder. The State of New Jersey is challenging the 
     FHA's position in court. In the meantime, however, New Jersey 
     was forced to rescind much of its executive order since it, 
     like most states, significantly relies on federal funding for 
     many of its transportation contracts. No state should be 
     forced to compromise legitimate and well-grounded efforts to 
     protect the integrity of its government in order to receive 
     federal transportation funds.
       The FHA's position could also undermine the FHA's goal of 
     awarding contracts only to responsible bidders and may risk 
     actual, or the appearance of, corruption in the process of 
     choosing bidders. Without rules prohibiting ``pay to play'' 
     arrangements, states may deem entities ``responsible'' not 
     because they have displayed any objective characteristics of 
     responsibility, but rather because they have made 
     contributions to government officials. Federal ethical 
     standards should provide a floor beneath which a state may 
     not go, but federal law should not be used to restrict a 
     state from implementing stricter ethical standards that it 
     deems necessary to protect the integrity of its government.
       Senator Corzine's amendment proposes that a provision be 
     added to the Safe-Tea Act of 2005 stating that ``[n]othing in 
     this section may be construed to prohibit a state from 
     enacting a law or issuing an order that limits the amount of 
     money an individual, who is doing business with a state 
     agency for a federal-aid highway project, may contribute to a 
     political campaign.'' For all the reasons discussed above, we 
     urge you to adopt the amendment to ensure that federal 
     highway funding provisions are not wrongly interpreted to 
     permit interference with state efforts to both prevent 
     corruption or the appearance thereof and restore public 
     confidence in its government.
           Sincerely,
     Suzanne Novak.
                                  ____

         Public Citizen, Common Cause, Public Campaign, Democracy 
           21, Center for Civic Responsibility,
                                                   April 28, 2005.
     Re Safe-TEA Act of 2005 and the Corzine pay-to-play 
         amendment.

       Dear Senator: Next week you will be considering the ``Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act of 2005'' (Safe-TEA Act). Public Citizen, Common Cause, 
     Democracy 21, Public Campaign and the Center for Civic 
     Responsibility urge the Senate to adopt the Corzine ``pay-to-
     play'' amendment to the bill respecting states'' rights to 
     address the problem of corruption in government contracting.
       Sen. Jon Corzine's amendment proposes that a sentence be 
     included in the Safe-TEA Act, as was done in the House 
     version of the bill, allowing states to implement a very 
     narrow and limited reform of government contracting 
     procedures: restricting potential government contractors from 
     making large campaign contributions while negotiating a 
     government contract to those responsible for awarding the 
     contract.
       Known as ``pay-to-play,'' many state and local governments 
     are being burdened by the all-too-common practice of a 
     business entity making campaign contributions to a public 
     official with the hope of gaining a lucrative government 
     contract. This practice of attempting to skew the awarding of 
     government contracts in favor of large campaign contributors 
     has taken a serious toll on public confidence in state and 
     local governments across the nation.
       Last year, two governors in one week--Gov. George Ryan of 
     Illinois (once considered for a Nobel Peace Prize) and Gov. 
     John Rowland of Connecticut--lost their careers in public 
     service due to pay-to-play scandals. A trial is currently 
     underway in the City of Philadelphia concerning corruption 
     charges in the awarding of government contracts with some 
     members of Mayor John Street's administration. Similar 
     scandals have recently racked California, Hawaii, New Jersey, 
     and the City of Los Angeles.
       Unfortunately, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
     has decided to make it difficult, if not impossible, for 
     states to address this serious problem. For example, the FWHA 
     has decided to punish New Jersey for reforming its 
     contracting system by withholding federal highway funds from 
     the state. We believe you will agree with us that this 
     federal intervention is unjustified and counterproductive. 
     That is why we urge you to support language that makes clear 
     that states have the right to ensure that their contracting 
     procedures conform to the highest ethical standards and offer 
     the best value for taxpayers.
       New Jersey Gov. Richard Codey reluctantly suspended the 
     state's pay-to-play rules for competitive bid contracts 
     pending the outcome of a court challenge to the FHWA 
     decision. [New Jersey v. Mineta] ``This is a temporary 
     measure forced on us by the federal government,'' Codey said. 
     ``I am not happy about it. In making this necessary, the 
     federal government is dead wrong, but I cannot jeopardize 
     nearly $1 billion in federal transportation funds.''
       The FHWA has placed itself in the odd position of imposing 
     its preference for a disclosure-only regime on states and 
     localities that have decided a stronger pay-to-play policy is 
     necessary to address their problems of corruption in 
     government contracting. As the FHWA memorandum opines: ``. . 
     . the disclosure of lobbying and political contribution 
     efforts for the year preceding a contract bid is a reasonable 
     means to meet the DOT's Common Rule requirement that the city 
     assure that its contract award system performs without 
     conflict of interest. This is distinct from a provision that 
     actually excludes those making otherwise legal contributions 
     from competing for a contract.''\2\
       Many state, local and non-governmental jurisdictions 
     strongly disagree with the FHWA: disclosure is necessary but 
     not sufficient to end actual or apparent corruption in 
     government contracting. Instead, New Jersey and four other 
     states, the federal government and the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission, along with dozens of local 
     jurisdictions, have opted for a narrowly-tailored system of 
     contribution restrictions on government contractors, in 
     addition to disclosure requirements, as a more effective 
     means to curtail pay-to-play abuses.
       Sen. Corzine has introduced the pay-to-play protection 
     amendment before you this week, which would add to the Safe-
     TEA Act: ``Nothing in this section prohibits a State from 
     enacting a law or issuing an order that limits the amount 
     that an individual that is a party to a contract with a State 
     agency under this section may contribute to a political 
     campaign.''
       Pay-to-play restrictions are far from draconian measures. 
     They are a narrow remedy that focus exclusively on a specific 
     problem. Pay-to-play restrictions are easy for the business 
     community to live with--the SEC's Rule G-37 championed by 
     former SEC Chair Arthur Levitt, which served as a role model 
     for New Jersey's pay-to-play policy, has not resulted in 
     draining the pool of bond bidders--and pay-to-play 
     restrictions are limited in scope and constitutional.
       The Federal Highway Administration may believe it knows 
     better than the states how to address their problems of 
     actual and perceived corruption in government contracting, 
     but the FHWA has not yet had to suffer the consequences of 
     corruption scandals that the states have faced. The Senate 
     should join the House and include this amendment to the Safe-
     TEA Act of 2005 allowing the states the authority to assure 
     their citizens that contracts are awarded on merit.
       For more information, please contact Craig Holman, Public 
     Citizen, at 202-454-5182.
           Respectfully Submitted.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I also want to note the House of 
Representatives included a similar measure in its version of the 
Transportation bill. It was a bipartisan amendment sponsored by New 
Jersey colleagues, Frank LoBiondo, a Republican, and Bill Pascrell, a 
Democrat. This was passed unanimously, the same language, by the House.
  In my view, this is an imperative step to allow States to have better 
control and more transparency and honesty in their contracting 
processes. I think it will move to save money for our States and put in 
place a greater sense of credibility for the public when it deals with 
its oversight of public contracting. I think we owe the taxpayers this, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the Corzine-Lautenberg amendment. 
We should join the House, in my view, in instituting this ability for 
States to control their own contracting process.
  I yield the floor.
  I understand my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, along with our other 
colleagues who left the Senate at the time of the recess, will be 
returning to speak to this amendment. I will yield the floor, but I 
would appreciate it if we could reserve the right of Senator 
Lautenberg, upon his arrival, to come back and be next on the queue to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking unanimous consent in a 
formal request?
  Is there objection to the Senator's request to allow Senator 
Lautenberg the ability to speak when he returns to the Capitol?
  Mr. BOND. I would amend that request to say, when I am finished 
speaking, Senator Lautenberg may speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to the 
request as modified? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are a number of things that need to be 
cleared up as we consider this amendment. First, the Senator from New 
Jersey has mentioned that several States have their own pay-to-play 
restrictions. But according to the Federal Highway Administration, 
those States are ones that are restricting contributions where there 
are not competitive bids. They are talking about no-bid contracts.
  I do not doubt that New Jersey has had problems with no-bid 
contracts. I will leave it to my colleagues to discuss some of those 
problems. What we are talking about is changing the competitive bid 
system so that one State

[[Page S4910]]

can opt out of a mandate that the Federal Government has imposed. That 
mandate is, when using Federal aid to highway dollars, you have to bid 
it competitively because when we as national taxpayers are funding 
projects, then we have a right to see that they are done on a 
competitive-bid basis, to make sure that the Federal taxpayers get the 
best bargain for their money.
  The name of my colleague, the other Senator from New Jersey, is 
attached to the amendment. I find it interesting that his reputation is 
one of sanctioning and penalizing States that do not conform to Federal 
laws, so it was alarming to me to see this amendment from the New 
Jersey Senators that will exempt them from complying with Federal 
regulations. In my State there are a lot of things our chosen 
Representatives, the people who serve Missouri in the Missouri General 
Assembly, choose not to do. There are various mandates that impose 
burdens on our State that will limit its ability to get funds. If we 
are going down the road of exempting our States from mandates of the 
Federal Government on Federal highway aid dollars, I think the Missouri 
General Assembly and the Missouri Governor would pass along to me quite 
a number of mandates they wish to have taken off of their backs.
  We just passed another mandate to take $900 million out of the 
highway trust fund to pay for storm water improvements for local 
governments. I think that is an unfortunate mandate; it was adopted by 
a very close vote. I hope we will be able to revisit it. But when you 
start exempting a State from the competitive bid contracts to allow 
them to impose their own campaign finance laws through the Federal 
highway aid system, that, to me, does not seem to be a proper use of 
the Federal highway tax dollars. We have a right to expect that we get 
the best bargain for the money and that is through competitive bids.
  This amendment, as I read it, limits competition and changes the 
current Federal process. Political contributions have absolutely no 
effect on the selection of Federal aid highway projects because, unless 
otherwise approved by the Secretary, construction projects are awarded 
only on the basis of the lowest responsive bid that meets the 
established criteria, based on the State's department of transportation 
engineering estimates.
  Very simply put, unless the Secretary of Transportation waives it, 
you have to take what the State Department of transportation has put 
together in its request for bids, and make the best bid complying with 
that, that is responsive, at the lowest price.
  That does not offer opportunities for corruption. There may be people 
in New Jersey and other States who find other ways to corrupt the 
system. I do not deny that. I think they should be punished. But there 
is no reason, in my view, to repeal the competitive bid standards. If 
States want to regulate their State projects by limiting competition, 
by all means, they should be free to do it.
  If it is a State contract, States can put in anything they want. 
There are other States, as I mentioned earlier, that currently have 
pay-to-play laws in place, but there are four States that have pay-to-
play laws, two of which--Ohio and South Carolina--only apply to no-bid 
contracts having no effect on highway and transit projects because 
these are let under the competitive low-bid method.
  I believe the Senators from New Jersey think they are being singled 
out by the Federal Highway Administration as Kentucky and West Virginia 
have similar pay-to-play laws--but both Kentucky and West Virginia have 
exceptions to their provisions. Kentucky excludes contracts awarded 
competitively on the basis of the lowest and best bid, while West 
Virginia's exception is the restriction that only applies during 
negotiation and performance of the contract.
  These provisions are clearly different from what the Senators from 
New Jersey seek for their State. To open the process in other States, 
we do not need to have Federal aid highway dollars used as a means of 
changing campaign finance laws or changing the competitive bid process 
which gives us the best bid on the projects that are funded with 
Federal dollars.
  I don't want to see State laws preempting Federal laws, but if we are 
going to go down that road, as I said, I have a number of amendments, 
and I would certainly ask support for all the areas that Missouri wants 
to exempt from some of the mandates, many of which I think are 
unnecessary from the Federal Highway Administration laws.
  At this point, I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment 
because it provides a very different standard which New Jersey is 
attempting to use in its award of competitive-bid contracts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. If I might ask the Senator from Missouri, if he has read 
the New Jersey legislation, in no way by my reading of that legislation 
does it supersede the competitive bidding requirement.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CORZINE. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding 
rule XXII, all first-degree amendments to the highway bill must be 
filed at the desk no later than 3 o'clock. We are extending it from 2 
o'clock to 3 o'clock because of the evacuation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. I see the Senator from Missouri is no longer in the 
Senate, but I make very clear the amendment Senator Lautenberg and I 
are proposing in no way undermines the standard that there need be 
competitive bids in the Federal highway funds or in Federal funds that 
mix both State and Federal dollars.
  This is about contracting rules that would encourage competition, not 
discourage competition. I believe if we were put side to side with 
Kentucky and West Virginia, we would find the New Jersey contracting 
rules are parallel. We would find this is one of the reasons the House 
unanimously agreed to this because it is an additional step that in no 
way undermines the standards that exist by the Federal Government.
  Again, it reflects the desires of the State legislature and the 
Governor to have stronger, stricter rules on contracts administered by 
the State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I start by commending the chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee for his work on behalf of 
getting the funding raised for the Transportation bill.
  It is critical. There is not a State that would not like to see more 
money for highways, transit or whatever else they do--perhaps even for 
long-distance rail service.
  The manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, had to 
wrestle with not only his conscience, but colleagues who felt 
differently. There were over 20 ``no'' votes. I wonder if those 
Senators would forgo the extra money that resulted from the increase in 
the size of the bill. Perhaps that could be polled.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Corzine, for generating this amendment 
which I share in sponsoring to ensure integrity in highway contracting. 
My friend and colleague from New Jersey has always fought against 
corruption in public activities and contracting. I am proud to stand 
and fight alongside him to make sure every State has the right to make 
choices about how it conducts its campaign financing laws and how it 
looks to better management of the process so corruption is avoided. 
That is what this is about.
  One has to look at the bill. It is relatively simple. Frankly, I 
thought it would be something that could be accepted on its face by 
unanimous consent. There is no punitive measure in here.
  I understand our colleague from Missouri said I was big on sanctions. 
How right he is. I am big on sanctions. We raised the drinking age to 
21. When our colleague, Senator Dole, was the Secretary of 
Transportation under President Reagan, we sanctioned States who did not 
put that into law.
  Guess what the outcome is. Twenty thousand young people have been 
saved over the last 21 years. That is what the sanctions did. Would it 
be better to not have sanctions and have the freedom for the teens to 
get on the highway and kill themselves? I don't think so. It

[[Page S4911]]

worked. We tried the carrot. But there were not enough carrots to take 
care of it, so we had to use the stick. That is what you do. That is 
what the red lights are for. It is a stick. It says: Do not cross over 
when traffic is going the other way, et cetera.

  We are a nation of laws. That is what the structure of our society 
is. There are sanctions against those who would try to buy a gun permit 
when they are spousal abusers. There are sanctions. They go to prison. 
Yes, I like that kind of sanction.
  When we look at what we are trying to do, unfortunately, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce says it should not happen, it reduces competition. 
Nothing could be further from the truth because now the little guys 
who, in their judgment, make a campaign contribution--we foster that 
notion around here: Contribute if you can. Contribute even if you 
cannot, we sometimes say. But it happens. Money flows. So we say to 
some small contractor or some attorney or some engineer who has a two-
person business: Well, maybe there is an exemption for small business. 
But, on balance, they are saying the smaller companies cannot make a 
contribution because then they would be barred from competing. 
Competing with the big guys? It is outrageous.
  So this amendment fixes a problem in Federal highway law that 
actually prevents States from taking effective steps to curb 
contracting abuses.
  Earlier this year, the Federal Highway Administration withheld some 
$250 million in highway funding from the State of New Jersey. It had 
already been allocated. What happened? We had to change the law. We had 
to open a loophole so people could contribute, even though our Governor 
at the time and the legislature agreed: No, we should not permit it. I 
am not defending it. I am saying I defend States rights. And many of 
the people here, particularly our friends on the other side, defend 
States rights. I think the State ought to be able to decide whether it 
wants to clean up the campaign finance laws.
  Spokesmen for the FHWA said a State contracting rule designed to 
prevent actual and potential corruption was ``inconsistent'' with 
current Federal law. I do not know where they get that one.
  What had New Jersey done? The State had simply banned certain large 
political contributions by recipient of State contracts. Its mission 
was to ensure fairness and transparency in the contracting process, and 
our State ought to be commended for it. Instead, New Jersey was 
punished for exercising its own judgment. The Governor signed it. The 
legislature passed it, the Governor signed it, and it became law. Why 
cannot we do that?
  The relevant Federal law, section 112 of the highway title, calls for 
competitive bidding. The administration has taken the strict view that 
if some bidders are excluded, that could limit competition. Would we 
say that in the vetting of a company's executive leader, if he had a 
criminal past and they did not make a contribution, it would be all 
right? No, it certainly would not be all right for that company to 
start doing State business. But the fact is, if the playing field is 
tilted toward one company, there is no true competition. Maybe the big 
guys can afford to do that. They can rule the roost. But that is what 
our State wants to protect against.
  States should not have to choose between receiving Federal highway 
dollars they need and restoring public confidence in the Government 
contracting process. What an anomaly we had here a little while ago. We 
had people voting to increase highway spending when it is threatened 
that the President is going to veto it, and we are way over the limit 
the White House proposed for the highway bill. Seventy some Senators 
said: Oh, yes? Impose limits? Well, we are not going to stick with your 
limits. We are going to raise the limits because our States need 
bridges and highway fixing and investments in transportation. That is 
what we want--70 some Senators. So it was not all Democrats. It was a 
mix.
  It is hypocritical to continue to prohibit States from taking 
effective measures to maintain the integrity of their contracting 
process. Federal law already prohibits political contributions from 
Federal Government contractors. So why shouldn't States be allowed to 
do it, if they want to--one State by itself, any State that wants to do 
it? This amendment simply allows States to enact similar reforms when 
they so choose.
  The House of Representatives has already approved a similar provision 
in its version of the transportation bill. I ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment to promote good Government, to promote 
competition. It is a vote for States rights, and a vote against 
corruption in public contracting.
  Once again, I commend my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, 
for his initiative.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
  I want to take a few minutes, if I can, to pause from this debate on 
the amendment to make a few comments about the underlying highway bill. 
I wanted to have a chance to do this when we debated the motion to 
waive the budget point of order, but I was not able to do so because of 
the unanimous consent agreement that limited time for debate.
  So I thought I would do it now because I am very grateful to my 
friends, the managers of this bill on both sides of the aisle, Senator 
Jeffords and Senator Inhofe, my good friend and a zealous worker for 
better transportation infrastructure, Senator Bond and, of course, 
Senators Grassley and Baucus for their amendment which we adopted 
earlier increasing the size of this highway bill. I thought it was 
important that those of us who feel strongly about this come down and 
say so.
  We have a problem with transportation infrastructure. The problem is 
getting to be so big that awareness of it has penetrated even here in 
Washington. But everybody in America, at least everybody in Missouri I 
talk to, already knows about it, and has known about it for a very long 
time. Because they have to drive on these roads. They have to use the 
rail and the transit. For them, it is not an abstract question of 
public policy. For them, it is a question of getting where they need to 
go, to do what they need to do, safely and on time, to make this 
country run. It is getting harder and harder because the roads are no 
good.
  I am going to try to contain my frustration about this issue. It is 
hard because this is not rocket science. A lot of the issues we 
confront here are very difficult.
  This really isn't that difficult. We know how to build roads. We know 
we need to do it. The question is whether we have the will to do what 
we obviously need to do and what will empower our people to help us 
create the wealth and opportunity that will then enable us to do the 
other things we need to do.
  I said there was a problem before. The statistics have been repeated 
often enough, but I guess in the Senate nothing is ever said quite 
enough so I am going to repeat them. Thirty-two percent of the Nation's 
roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 37 percent of the urban roads 
are in poor or mediocre condition; 28 percent of the bridges are 
substandard. I can show you some substandard bridges in Missouri. As a 
result of this, our Nation loses about $65 billion a year in lost man-
hours and lost productivity because people are stuck on the highways. A 
recent report said it was three times what it used to be in 2003. We 
lose $50 billion a year in extra maintenance costs because our cars and 
our vehicles are damaged as a result of the bad roads.
  Who among us has not had the experience of hitting a pothole and 
saying to ourselves, ``There goes that shock absorber. That is another 
front-end alignment I will have to get''?
  This is common knowledge throughout America. The Department of 
Transportation studied it in 2002, 3 years ago. The problem hasn't 
gotten any better since then. They concluded--and this is a rather big 
study--that $375 billion is what we needed in the next highway bill to 
address the problem. We don't have $375 billion in this bill. We have 
under $300 billion. We have less than we had last year. We have more 
than we would have had, if not for the heroic efforts of the bill 
managers. But we don't have enough even with what they have added. Yet

[[Page S4912]]

people on this floor say that this is too much.
  This is a problem I have been working on with my friend from Oregon, 
Senator Wyden. We believe it is time to begin using bonding as part of 
our Transportation financing package. We have proposed the Build 
America Bond Act. A number of people have joined us in cosponsoring the 
bill. My friend from New Jersey is one of them. This is legislation 
that would create a federally chartered, nonprofit corporation that 
would issue about $38 or $39 billion in bonds and set aside $8 or $9 
billion of that in a fund which would then accumulate interest over 
time and be used to pay off the principal. Then we would have $30 
billion for immediate investment in the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure.
  We could get that money out in the next construction season or two. 
We could begin taking some of these vital projects that are constantly 
moved to the right, moved from 2010 to 2015, to 2020, and start moving 
them back to the left on the time line. We could build some of the 
bridges we need, fix some of the roads that are substandard.
  We also have a provision in the bill that says some of the bonds have 
to be in low enough denominations that Americans can purchase them, 
average folks can go out and buy a $50 bond, a $25 bond, knowing that 
they are investing in American roads, transportation infrastructure, 
and jobs to make America competitive for the future.
  I am pleased that we have made some progress on this. The bill 
managers were good enough to include a provision for the underlying 
corporation in the bill. We don't have authority to issue the bonds 
yet, but we have the corporation in the bill.
  I am also very grateful to the managers of the bill for including in 
the substitute amendment my amendment to authorize private activity 
bonds, $15 billion in transportation highway infrastructure bonds.
  These bonds could be issued in a partnership between States and 
localities and private companies for specific projects. The localities 
would repay the principal through a variety of revenues, including 
annual appropriations or charging rent for the infrastructure that was 
built. Since the bonds are tax exempt, it means the holders would pay 
no taxes on them to the Federal Government. They would be preferred by 
the market. We could get $15 billion in a kind of bond money out there 
right away to begin addressing the problems that the country is facing.
  Nobody really argues with what I have said. That is one of the things 
that is frustrating. The people who supported the budget motion, who 
want the bill to remain small, don't argue that there is no problem. 
You can't argue the fact that there is a problem. What they say is: We 
can't fix the problem because we have a deficit. We can't spend more 
money on transportation infrastructure because we already have a 
deficit.
  Investment in transportation infrastructure is dynamic. That means it 
helps grow the economy. It helps produce revenue. We understand that in 
every other context. Nobody argues with that in any other context 
except the highway bill. All the economic models say about $1 billion 
in investment in transportation infrastructure produces 47,500 jobs. 
Every dollar invested returns $5.75. That is the multiplier effect.
  The same people who are saying we can't spend money on highway and 
transportation infrastructure will stand up in the context of a trade 
bill and say: The reason it is OK to pass an open trade bill--and I 
have supported many of them--even though we will be trading with 
countries that have lower wage rates than we do, is that we are still 
competitive because we have a more sophisticated financial system, a 
more sophisticated telecommunications system, and a more sophisticated 
transportation system. They are right. That is one of the reasons we 
can be competitive with countries that pay lower wage rates because we 
can get our products to market because decades and decades and decades 
ago other Senators and other Congressmen had the foresight to invest 
in transportation infrastructure.

  I know we have a budget deficit. We have a transportation deficit. It 
isn't going to get better if we don't do anything. Saying we can't 
invest in transportation infrastructure because we are worried about 
the budget is like a farmer who is hard pressed saying: You know what, 
I am afraid my cash flow isn't what it should be. I am not going to buy 
fuel for the combine.
  It is like a homeowner saying: The budget is tight. I am really hard 
pressed. I am not going to fix the hole in the roof because that might 
cost money.
  This is a problem that is not going to get better if we don't do 
anything about it. Every 5 or 6 years we pass another highway bill, and 
the people who are concerned about the cost say: It is bigger than it 
was 5 or 6 years ago. Yes, it is bigger. Every year, even though the 
highway bill is bigger, the gap between what we are spending and what 
we need gets bigger, too.
  This year, even under the amendment we adopted earlier, we have about 
a $80-billion gap. I guarantee, if we don't do something about it, 5 
years from now it will be bigger than that.
  What do the people who opposed the amendment on budget grounds want 
to do? What can you do to build more transportation infrastructure? You 
can raise taxes. They don't want to do that. I understand that. It is 
hard to raise gas taxes when gas prices are up. That is a hard thing to 
do. They don't like bonding either. That is out. They don't want 
general revenue to be used for highways. That is out. Now they are 
saying they don't want other streams of revenue. Even though it would 
pay for it, they don't want that used either. So they are all for 
fixing infrastructure as long as we don't use taxes, bonding, general 
revenue, or any other revenue to do it.
  Stop and ask yourself a question for a second: What is the domestic 
achievement of the Eisenhower administration that people remember? The 
building of the interstate highway system. Roll Call magazine, one of 
the Capitol Hill magazines, did a survey of congressional scholars and 
asked them what the most significant bills were that the Congress 
passed in the last 50 years. No. 4 on their list was the interstate 
highway bill passed in the 1950s, which they pointed out intensified 
economic growth, boosted domestic tourism and made possible just-in-
time manufacturing processes.
  How can anybody say that investment in transportation infrastructure 
does not produce economic growth?
  I know we have a vote coming up soon. I will close by saying a couple 
things. In the first place, the bill where we now have it--I was going 
to say it is the least we should do, but the truth is it is not as much 
as we should do. I urge the bill's managers to go to conference with 
this bill as it now is and do everything possible to hold this number 
or, if possible, find some way to inject more money into transportation 
infrastructure this year. I know they are committed, and they are going 
to try to do that. I urge them to stand by their commitment. This is 
worth doing, and it is worth doing now. We cannot afford to give 
another 5 or 6 years away to the locusts and then come back here and 
face the same problem we have now, except it is bigger.
  I believe in the people of this country. I am not one to focus on the 
problems we have. Any Senate, any time in the Nation's history, if it 
wants to focus on the problems of the country, can get discouraged. I 
know we are fighting a war now, and we have education issues and health 
care issues we have to address, and they are all very big.
  The reason I am optimistic is I believe in the American people. I 
believe in the productivity and ingenuity of the American people. The 
answer to all these problems, broadly speaking, is to empower them, to 
let them have the resources they need--which is one of the reasons I 
have been for tax reduction--so they can make the economy grow. Let 
them do what they do in their everyday lives, raising their families, 
doing their jobs, running their small businesses, to keep the economy 
growing and make us prosperous and strong and free. But the American 
people cannot on their own build roads. They can do a lot of things on 
their own or together in private businesses or associations of one kind 
or another, but they cannot build roads. That is a job the Government 
has to do. We will deal with the transportation deficit, and the 
American people will deal with the budget deficit as well if they can

[[Page S4913]]

get to work in the morning. Let's help them do that.
  I congratulate the managers on adopting the amendment. I hope we can 
do even better in conference.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do have a statement I wish to make in 
opposition to the Corzine amendment; however, the junior Senator from 
South Dakota is here. I would like to yield to him for up to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the right to yield 
time.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
good work in moving this bill along. This is legislation that is long 
overdue. It is time that we move forward to vote so we can get help to 
these highway departments across this country, particularly in States 
such as mine, Northern States, where we are going to lose the 
construction season if we don't get something done, get a bill passed, 
and get a permanent authorization in place.
  I speak in opposition to the pay-to-play amendment that has been 
offered to the Transportation bill.
  For my colleagues who might not be aware of this issue, the Acting 
Governor of New Jersey issued an executive order last September which 
blocks anyone who makes political contributions to state officials, 
candidates or parties in excess of $300 from bidding on any contract 
for services, material, supplies or equipment or to acquire, sell or 
lease any land or Federal building where the value of the contract 
exceeds $17,500.
  While it is clearly New Jersey's prerogative to institute such pay-
to-play laws when it comes to State contracting, this New Jersey 
executive order effectively violated the free and open competition 
provisions governing Federal Aid Highway and Transit Contracting and 
went much further than pay-to-play laws in other States.
  It's my understanding that New Jersey's Acting Governor, Richard 
Codey, issued this executive order in response to corruption and kick-
backs that were uncovered with respect to no-bid State contracts.
  Seeing that almost all of the contracts that occur under the Federal 
Highway and Transit programs are based on sealed low-bid contracts, the 
Senate should not adopt this amendment because it would undo the 
existing uniform rules that all States must follow when it comes to 
Federal contracting.
  Congress has specifically stated in past highway and transit 
authorizations that we should encourage fair and open competition.
  Congress should encourage competition by cultivating the broadest 
group of competent qualified contractors to do the work. We want to 
ensure that we are getting the best work done for the best price.
  The low bid system was used to build our interstate system and 
National Highway System. It provides the highest quality product at the 
lowest possible price through competition. It should be maintained and 
strengthened, not weakened by adopting the amendment by the Senator 
from New Jersey.
  Soon after New Jersey's Acting Governor issued his Executive Order 
last year, the U.S. Department of Transportation was forced to withhold 
a portion of New Jersey's transportation funding because the State was 
not complying with Federal contracting requirements--this was done 
after the U.S. Department of Transportation attempted to work this 
issue out with New Jersey Officials.
  Soon thereafter, the New Jersey legislature stepped in and passed a 
bill on March 22, 2005 that excludes Federal aid highway funding from 
the Governor's previous pay-to-play executive order--thereby restoring 
New Jersey's Federal transportation funding.
  I share the Senator from New Jersey's concern about illegal activity 
when it comes to no-bid contracting. However, there is nothing that 
currently prohibits states from taking action to prosecute those 
responsible for such illegal activities.
  Further, since the current low-bid sealed contracting process used on 
Federal transportation contracts protects against instances of 
corruption or impropriety, and the fact that the New Jersey legislature 
has ensured that its pay-to-play regulations don't impact Federal 
transportation contracts, I'm a little puzzled why this amendment is 
needed--unless of course the Senator from New Jersey is seeking to 
change the existing Federal contracting process.
  Federal contracting law already includes a process for the exclusion 
of contractors who have acted illegally--and the Federal Government 
also has a debarment process that prohibits contractors who have 
committed fraud or bribery from bidding on future contracts.
  Because the State of New Jersey is currently suing the U.S. 
Department of Transportation in Federal district court concerning the 
previous withholding of Federal transportation funds, now is not the 
time for the Senate to weigh-in on this matter. The Senate should allow 
the court to hear the case on its merits.
  My colleagues will also be interested to know that the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee rejected this amendment when we 
marked up the transportation bill on March 16.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation has informed me that there has 
not been one single case of kick-backs or corruption with regard to 
low-bid Federal aid highway contracts in New Jersey.
  Most importantly, the U.S. Department of Transportation opposes this 
amendment and has informed me that the Corzine Amendment would create 
an unmanageable patchwork of local restrictions and requirements when 
Federal aid funds are used on a project.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and to allow the 
Federal Highway Administration and those State governments that are so 
interested in getting a highway bill put into place to enable them to 
address the critical transportation needs this country faces, to get 
this highway bill passed and defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I agree with the comments of the 
Senator from South Dakota. He has dramatically shortened my speech 
against the Corzine amendment because he said some things I would have 
said. I emphasize that the problem is not with sealed bids, it is with 
no bids. It could be that they have unique problems in New Jersey, but 
I would not want those problems that are there to encumber what we are 
trying to do in States such as Oklahoma and New Hampshire and South 
Dakota. There had been abuses that are pretty well known in New Jersey.
  An example is the case of the law firm of DeCotiis, FitzPatrick, Cole 
& Wisler, which has reportedly thrived by exploiting a system that 
encourages politicians to reward their political contributors with 
State contracts that are no-bid contracts--not low-bid but no-bid 
contracts.
  The Record, a New Jersey paper which did an extensive investigation 
into this DeCotiis firm and their relationship to public officials, 
stated in a December 2003 article that:

       A sweeping review of DeCotiis's work for towns and public 
     agencies shows how high rollers in this pay-to-play 
     sweepstakes reap huge returns from investments in the right 
     politicians. In a study of DeCotiis's legal bills for towns 
     and public agencies across New Jersey, as well as interviews 
     with dozens of elected officials, the Record has found that 
     the DeCotiis firm billed at least 128 government entities for 
     nearly $26.6 million during the 2\1/2\-year period starting 
     January of 2001. From Alpine to Atlantic City, in 15 of New 
     Jersey's 21 counties, and in many departments of State 
     government, DeCotiis's lawyers are charging the taxpayers for 
     contracts that, under Jersey law, can be awarded without 
     competitive bidding.

  I have other examples of corrupt kinds of dealings, but I believe my 
point has been made that here the issue is with no-bid contracts, not 
sealed-bid contracts.
  I question, also, the constitutionality of something in terms of the 
first amendment, but that has not even been discussed.
  There could be a problem. I would be sympathetic to the problem and 
perhaps the Senator from New Jersey will be holding a position in the 
not too distant future where he can deal directly with some of the 
problems that are within the State of New Jersey but are not all over 
the country.
  So I join my colleague from South Dakota in urging the defeat of the

[[Page S4914]]

amendment, and at the appropriate time I plan to move to table the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments. I can 
understand the point of view if the bipartisan legislation from the 
State of New Jersey would in any way interfere with low-bid, sealed 
contracts on Federal projects. I would not be in favor of this, either. 
No-bid contracts should not be an accepted way of doing business in 
government. At least from the legal advice and understanding that I 
have of the New Jersey legislation, it does the opposite. It requires 
that it would conform both to Federal regulations and adds the 
additional element that there be restrictions on those participating 
who have contributed more than $300 in a contract that is over $17,500.
  Practically speaking, the reality is that the Department of 
Transportation, and Republican and Democratic administrations in New 
Jersey--and I suspect this can very well be the case in other places--
sets specifications. Those who both lobby and contribute often arrange 
those specifications, so there are situations where those who have the 
ability to participate in the bidding contracts are limited and those 
specifications are written in a way that gives a bias to the 
contracting exercise. All this legislation that the State of New Jersey 
is asking for, its States rights ability to impose, are supplemental to 
the rules and regulations that the Department of Transportation is 
taking, and I believe it will protect the public and enhance the 
confidence for the State of New Jersey.
  It is not an imposition on any other State. They do not impose these 
pay-to-play rules. It has no impact on another State. We are only 
asking for the ability of the State of New Jersey to put down the rules 
that the State legislature, on a bipartisan basis, believes will lead 
to lower costs and greater transparency to the bidding process.
  I understand there is a difference of view, but I feel strongly about 
it and ask my colleagues to consider the fact that this is a 
supplemental and in no way undermines Federal regulations, does not 
impose this standard on any other State, and does go a long way toward 
dealing with concerns that people on both sides of the aisle in my 
State believe are undermining public trust and raising the cost to the 
Federal Government and the State government in doing business in our 
State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments, even though I 
disagree with them, of the Senator from New Jersey. I know he is 
sincere. I know there is a problem and he is trying to correct the 
problem and there is an honest difference of opinion.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce opposing the Corzine amendment, a letter from the American 
Road & Transportation Builders Association opposing the Lautenberg-
Corzine amendment, and also a letter from the Transportation 
Construction Coalition, which is, I believe, almost every labor union 
in the United States, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2005.
     Hon. Daniel Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: As the Senate continues debate on H.R. 
     3, the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (TEA-2l), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
     strongly opposes an amendment by Senators John Corzine (D-NJ) 
     and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that attempts to change federal 
     competitive highway and transit contracting rules.
       For over 25 years, federal law has forbidden states from 
     implementing ``pay-to-play'' provisions for state highway and 
     transit construction contracts (23 USC Sec. 112). Federal 
     highway and transit contracts are awarded in an open-bid 
     environment, and it is unnecessary to have an individual 
     state attempt to change these federal contracting rules.
       In November 2004, the state of New Jersey passed an 
     executive order with language that included federal highway 
     and transit contracting in the state's ``pay-to-play'' 
     provisions. On January 21, 2005, the U.S. District Court for 
     New Jersey ruled against the state and reaffirmed the federal 
     statute, which led to New Jersey's final ``pay-to-play'' law 
     continuing the longstanding exemption of ``pay-to-play'' for 
     federal competitive highway and transit contracting.
       Supporting the Corzine/Lautenberg amendment would adversely 
     affect the ability of business leaders to support candidates, 
     and thus, undermine the importance of allowing business 
     executives and their employees the ability to legally 
     participate in the political process, while other groups 
     would not be impacted.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will consider using votes on 
     or in relation to this issue for inclusion in our annual 
     ``How They Voted'' ratings. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is 
     the world's largest business federation representing more 
     than three million companies and organizations of every size, 
     sector and region.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                    American Road & Transportation


                                         Builders Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.
       Dear Senator: As the Senate continues debate on H.R. 3, the 
     federal surface transportation program reauthorization bill, 
     the American Road & Transportation Builders Association 
     (ARTB) urges you to oppose an amendment by Senator Frank 
     Lautenberg that would modify federal transportation 
     procurement standards to allow states to penalize 
     transportation construction firms that participate in the 
     political process.
       The Lautenberg amendment would allow states to preclude 
     individuals who have made financial campaign contributions to 
     state and local officials from competing for federal-aid 
     highway and transit construction work. By excluding 
     individuals who exercise their right to participate in the 
     political process, the amendment would contradict the open 
     competitive bid system of procurement that has been a 
     hallmark of the federal transportation programs for almost 50 
     years. Under this system, contracts are awarded to the lowest 
     qualified bidder. Political contributions, or the lack 
     thereof, have no role in the awards outcome.
       An ARTBA analysis of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
     bid data for the period 1958 to 2003 found that winning 
     highway contractor bids on federally-funded projects have 
     averaged 6.7 percent below the government's own internal cost 
     estimates for the advertised jobs. In total over the 45-year 
     period, the winning contractor bids have come in $22.8 
     billion under estimated cost.
       This analysis proves that the low-bid system works in the 
     public interest. It also shows that highway contractors have 
     been giving the public outstanding value for their tax 
     dollars. Transportation construction industry contractors 
     routinely build highways and bridges that meet exact 
     government specifications for materials, quality, durability 
     and environmental protection for substantially less than the 
     government expects to pay.
       Consequently, we urge you to protect the integrity of the 
     open competition, low-bid system for transportation 
     construction work and oppose the Lautenberg amendment to H.R. 
     3.
       Sincerely,
                                                   T. Peter Ruane,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                       Transportation Construction


                                                    Coalition,

                                                      May 9, 2005.
       Dear Senator: The 28 national associations and construction 
     unions of the Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC) 
     urge you to oppose the Lautenberg amendment to H.R. 3, the 
     highway and transit program reauthorization bill. The 
     Lautenberg amendment would restrict competition for federal 
     highway and transit work and apply a nationwide solution to a 
     state-specific issue.
       The Lautenberg amendment would allow states to prevent 
     companies from performing federal-aid highway and transit 
     work funded by this bill if they made legal contributions to 
     state and local elected officials. The amendment is based on 
     a New Jersey law that significantly limits competition for 
     transportation construction work by blocking any individual 
     that made political contributions of more than $300 from 
     bidding on any contract that exceeds $17,500.
       The ``pay to play'' laws of other states typically focus 
     only on no-bid contracts. The New Jersey version, however, 
     applies to a much broader class of projects. Highway and 
     transit projects are typically procured using the lowest 
     competitive bid method, which requires an objective and 
     public evaluation of sealed bids.
       Congress has specifically stated in past highway and 
     transit reauthorization bills that states should encourage 
     fair and open competition. States accomplish this objective 
     by cultivating the broadest group of competent qualified 
     applicants to perform transportation construction work and by 
     excluding companies that have acted illegally. The low bid 
     system was used to build the nation's highway system and 
     provides the highest quality product at the lowest possible 
     price.
       We urge you to oppose the Lautenberg amendment to H.R. 3. 
     The amendment would significantly undermine the federal 
     commitment to the competitive bid system.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to table the Corzine amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S4915]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), and the Senator from New Mexico 
(Mr. Domenici).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid (NV)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed (RI)
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coleman
     Dayton
     Domenici
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there has been a great misunderstanding 
around here as to how we came up with offsets, how we are going to take 
care of paying for an additional amount of money in this package.
  I compliment the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, 
along with the ranking minority member of the committee, Senator 
Baucus, for the hard work they have put in on this legislation and, 
quite frankly, disagree with the criticism to which they have been 
subjected.
  I want to reemphasize, if I could, that it is important we get this 
legislation done. I am very pleased we have two more amendments that 
are down here. The deadline for the filing of amendments is now over as 
of right now. We do have several amendments. We are going to invite 
these people to bring their amendments down. I am pleased there are two 
amendments that are already down here. We look forward to taking up 
those amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 625

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 625.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself 
     and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 625.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 provide funding for motorcycle safety programs in States 
                     without universal helmet laws)

       At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. UNIVERSAL HELMET SAFETY STANDARD FOR OPERATION OF 
                   MOTORCYCLES.

       Section 153 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``fiscal year--'' and 
     all that follows through ``(2) a law'' and inserting ``fiscal 
     year a law'';
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``fiscal year--'' and all 
     that follows through ``(B) had in effect at all times a State 
     law described in subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``fiscal 
     year had in effect at all times a State law described in 
     subsection (a)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``fiscal year--'' and all 
     that follows through ``(B) had in effect at all times a State 
     law described in subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``fiscal 
     year had in effect at all times a State law described in 
     subsection (a)'';
       (3) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection (a)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (a)'';
       (4) by redesignating subsections (i), (j), and (k) as 
     subsections (j), (k), and (l), respectively; and
       (5) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
       ``(i) Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2009.--If, at any time in fiscal year 
     2008, a State does not have in effect and is not enforcing a 
     law that makes unlawful throughout the State the operation of 
     a motorcycle if any individual on the motorcycle is not 
     wearing a motorcycle helmet, the Secretary shall transfer 1.5 
     percent of the funds apportioned to the State for fiscal year 
     2009 under each of subsections (b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of 
     section 104 to the apportionment of the State under section 
     402.
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2010 and thereafter.--If, at any time in 
     fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2008, a State does 
     not have in effect and is not enforcing a law described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transfer 3 percent of the 
     funds apportioned to the State for the succeeding fiscal year 
     under each of subsections (b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of 
     section 104 to the apportionment of the State under section 
     402.
       ``(3) Applicable provisions.--Paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) 
     of subsection (h) shall apply to obligations transferred 
     under this subsection.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to address 
motorcycle safety on our roads. In 1995, Congress repealed the 
motorcycle helmet law, which I authored in 1991. Since the law has been 
repealed, motorcycle deaths have nearly doubled, and my amendment would 
simply reinstate the helmet law.
  Head injuries are one of the leading causes of death in motorcycle 
crashes. Under my amendment, States that do not require motorcycle 
riders to wear helmets would have funds, but they would have them 
shifted to motorcycle safety programs.
  Last month, the Department of Transportation released preliminary 
findings that over 3,900 people were killed in motorcycle crashes last 
year. This is almost double the number of motorcycle crash victims of 
10 years ago when the Federal helmet law was repealed.
  If we look at the chart, we see what happened since 1996, the year of 
operation after the law was repealed. We had a much smaller number, and 
it grew on a regular pattern up to 2004, the last recorded year.
  This is not just a matter of more riders on the roads. The rate of 
deaths per mile traveled has almost doubled as well. We have learned an 
important lesson from this data: Helmets save lives. Repealing helmet 
laws have led to more deaths.
  By coincidence, I had a talk with one of our colleagues before when 
we were voting on the previous amendment. He recalled for me the fact 
that he had a motorcycle accident. During the time of the fall, he 
said, as he bounced around the pavement, he thanked the Lord that he 
was wearing a helmet that had a face piece to it. It saved him from 
what they said would have been almost instant death.
  Funny enough, when people look at me and they see the white hair, 
they can't believe I am an expert skier, having done so for 59 years. I 
have two children who are competitive skiers, one lives in Colorado, 
and I have a granddaughter who is on her way to becoming a competitive 
skier. We are skiers. Skiing is in our blood, and we ski fast and hard. 
I had a fall 2 years ago, 2 days after I bought a helmet. I hadn't worn 
it for the 50-some years before that. When I fell, I fell so hard I did 
a tumblesalt in the air--and I'm not an acrobat--and I landed on my 
head. I didn't realize, for a month, I was hurt, until my vision 
started to blur and my balance was unsteady. I was rushed to a 
hospital--I was with my wife in New York City--and the next day on an 
operating table and had what they call a hematoma. Doctors had to go on 
two sides of my head with

[[Page S4916]]

a drill or whatever they use to get there and drain the fluid that had 
gathered. I thank God regularly that I am in the condition I am after 
that kind of accident. But the difference was that helmet. I had the 
helmet 2 days.
  I went back to the ski shop, and I said: I thought this was supposed 
to prevent my getting hurt. He pointed to a tiny crack in the helmet, 
and he said to me: If you hadn't been wearing this helmet, that crack 
would have been through your skull, and we would not have been here 
talking about it. So I am a confirmed user of helmets.
  I had been on the board of a hospital in New Jersey and worked very 
closely with our principal medical school and its hospital. I talked to 
the emergency room physicians. I know that much of the head and neck 
trauma that comes about comes about as a result of motorcycle 
accidents.
  A Transportation Department survey showed that from 2000 to 2002, 
helmet use among motorcycle riders dropped from 71 percent to 58 
percent nationally. They stopped using helmets, mostly.
  The Transportation Department found that in those States where 
universal helmet laws had been repealed, helmet use plummeted from 99 
percent to 50 percent. In other words, where helmet laws are on the 
books, almost every rider wears a helmet. Where there is no such law, 
only about half of the riders are protected against head injury.
  My amendment, to be simply understood, would reinstate the minimum 
safety standard which first was enacted in 1991. This is not a matter 
of ideology or so-called States' rights. It's a matter of doing what is 
right. Helmets save lives. Universal helmet laws work.
  No matter what some people might suggest, riding without a helmet is 
not a victimless indiscretion. Motorcycle crashes burden our health 
care system and the taxpayers unnecessarily. The Transportation 
Department estimates that unhelmeted riders involved in crashes cost 
taxpayers $853 million in the year 2002 alone.
  Riders without helmets are much more likely to suffer brain injuries, 
which obviously are often slow healing, with long-time hospitalization. 
It costs twice as much to treat a patient who does have brain injuries.
  I don't think taxpayers ought to be saddled with the costs of 
motorcyclists who sustain serious injuries because they want to feel 
the wind in their hair. I urge my colleagues to vote to help save the 
lives of so many of their constituents who are motorcycle enthusiasts. 
I once rode a motorcycle. In my earliest moments, I slipped and fell 
and picked gravel out of my legs for about 2 weeks thereafter. But we 
don't want to stop the sport. We want to spare the families of the 
motorcycle riders and their friends from needless loss and to spare 
taxpayers from bearing the costs of risky behavior.
  I want to read a comment that we received. It is by Joe A--to protect 
his testimony. This is his testimonial to his NXT helmet.

       On May 13th, 2004, I was riding my Harley through the small 
     college town of Newark, Delaware, when a distracted student 
     in the oncoming lane decided to make a left turn about 15 
     feet in front of me. I was going about 25 miles per hour and 
     she appeared to be doing the same. In an instant, I collided 
     head on, flew off my bike and into her windshield.
       I did a `head plant' which took out the windshield, rolled 
     me over the car and onto the roadway beside the car. This 
     left about a 4-inch gouge in my helmet but no serious head 
     injuries. The paramedics were amazed . . . that I was able to 
     carry on a lucid conversation with them. Thanks to your 
     superior product, I was able to walk out of the hospital 
     about an hour and a half later with no serious injuries.
       My doctor told me that without my helmet I would have been 
     dead or had severe brain injury and it's an impressive fact 
     that I'm able to write this e-mail and send pictures three 
     days after the accident. I have no doubt that without your 
     helmet the outcome would have been very different for me.

  Mr. President, it makes sense to do what we can to protect the 
public. Again, this is not telling anybody that they should ride or 
should not ride. We say, when you ride, don't spend my money, please. 
Don't burden the Medicare or health care insurance programs with your 
lingering injury or your death or other family problems. Don't burden 
us. You have no right to do that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. It promotes the 
minimum safety standard for motorcycles, significant funding which can 
be used for other health care essential studies on childhood diabetes, 
asthma, autism, and many other afflictions that wreak havoc on 
families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey for bringing his amendment to the Senate. We have been urging 
Members to bring their amendments to the Senate. I thank him also for 
the very thoughtful, sincere, and articulate way he expressed and 
explained his amendment. I disagree, but I know he has strong feelings, 
and we are anxious to get a vote on his amendment.
  It is my hope--and I know the ranking minority member, Senator 
Jeffords, agrees--to get as many of these votes lined up for, perhaps, 
stacked votes. We do not have a time yet, but I assume that would be 
acceptable with the author of this amendment to stack these votes with 
perhaps some other amendments.
  Currently, 21 States and the District of Columbia have helmet laws; 
26 States have limited helmet laws, including my State of Oklahoma. 
Ours are for 17 and under. Only four States, as I understand, have no 
helmet requirement.
  As recently as last year when we were discussing the highway bill, 
the U.S. Department of Transportation released a statement in which 
they said:

       The administration opposes sanctions and withholding State 
     funds, both of which would jeopardize important State level 
     safety programs in infrastructure maintenance programs 
     already in place.

  Let me share a personal experience. Many years ago, back in the 
middle 1960s, I believe 1967, my first year in the State legislature, 
my first act in January of 1967, I came to Washington, DC, to testify 
before the Environment and Public Works Committee chaired at that time 
by Jennings Randolph of West Virginia. I was impressed with myself 
coming up to testify before this lofty committee that I now chair.

  I was protesting Lady Bird's Highway Beautification Act of 1965. The 
reason was it was withholding funds, our funds, in order to accomplish 
a policy which we could agree or disagree on.
  I have to admit to the Senator from New Jersey that I come from a 
little bit of a prejudiced perspective because I would be concerned 
about mandates for quite some time.
  The highway bill is important for addressing real transportation 
infrastructure needs, but I question it is a place to spend a lot of 
time for other policies.
  I will share with the Senator from New Jersey a study done last year 
of the California Motorcycle Safety Program, designed by Dr. John 
Billheimer, completed in 1996, that found that rider training 
dramatically reduces accidents and thus eliminates injuries and 
fatalities. Specifically, the study stated:

       An analysis of statewide accident trends shows that total 
     motorcycle accidents have dropped by 67 percent since the 
     introduction of the California Motorcycle Safety Program with 
     a drop of 88 percent among those under 18-year-old drivers.

  There is much that can be done to dramatically reduce fatalities. I 
can recall we were debating a motorcycle helmet law in the State senate 
many years ago in the 1970s when testimony came forth that a helmet 
will impair one's vision to some degree, that there are sometimes 
accidents that have occurred because of the restriction. I know there 
have probably been studies on that, but it is something to be 
considered.
  I fundamentally oppose this type of approach. I know consistency is 
not always something we have in this Senate, but it is consistent with 
my feelings over the last 30 years in addressing this type of 
situation.
  I believe the Senator from New Jersey has every right to get a vote 
to measure the Senate, so at the appropriate time it would be my 
intention to table the amendment, call for the yeas and nays, and stack 
this with perhaps some of the other amendments, maybe the amendment of 
Senator Harkin,

[[Page S4917]]

who is prepared to offer his amendment now.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I was heartened at the beginning of 
the remarks by my colleague from Oklahoma and couldn't wait to hear the 
rest of it. Then I realized I could have waited.
  My colleague is an adventurous fellow who sometimes flies airplanes 
without fuel. He is quite a daredevil. I support some of the enthusiasm 
he has for a chance-taking. It is amazing I got as far as I did in 
life, but here I am with a few broken things here and there.
  In all seriousness, there is no transfer of funds; there is no loss 
of funds. Any money that is not used to promote helmet wearing is used 
for motorcycle safety within that same State. I was pleased to hear 
there is a way to protect lives besides using helmets. But when we saw 
what happened when the helmets came off, they were not blinded by any 
helmet problems for the most part, they were just killed.
  The United States DOT has a helmet design that will not impair vision 
but will promote safety. That is the critical issue.
  I hope between now and the time a vote occurs that the intelligent 
leader of the committee, who cares about people, will see a difference 
in view than that which was initially expressed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, again, I am hoping that Senator Harkin is 
on his way and is prepared to offer his amendment. I look forward to 
considering that.
  In the meantime, let's keep in mind we now have a limited period of 
time in which to work. The time is here. We are open for business. We 
want to have the amendments sent to the Senate. We invite our Members 
to do so.
  In the meantime, I will reconfirm and restate one of the reasons for 
the urgency of this bill. Not only is this one of the largest bills of 
the year, it is thought by many to be the most important bill we will 
consider in that it is a matter of life and death.
  We have core safety programs. If we were operating on an extension we 
do not have in this bill, we will not have the core safety programs and 
people will die. It is as simple as that, if we do not get this done.
  Consequently, it is always worth repeating how important it is to get 
the bill completed and what would happen if we do not. We are in our 
sixth extension. This extension expires May 31. On May 31, if we do not 
have something in place, we have another extension. If we have an 
extension as opposed to a bill, there is not a chance to improve the 
donor status. There are many States that are donor States, like my 
State of Oklahoma. Under this bill as it is now, the minimum donor 
State of 90.5 percent would be increased to 92 percent, which does not 
sound like a big increase, and is not as large as I would like, but it 
means hundreds of thousands of dollars to each State.
  Without the bill, we will not have that. We will just have an 
extension of what we have today at 90.5 percent. We would have no new 
safety core programs if we are not able to pass this bill.
  Again, we have talked about the difficult job in putting together a 
fair formula. The fair formula is one that no one thinks is fair. 
Perhaps we have a fair formula as a result of that type of analysis. 
One of the factors in the 20-some factors of a formula is the 
fatalities of the States. My State happens to be a high-fatality, per 
capita State, so there is a consideration in the formula for that. If 
we do not pass the bill, we will not have any of the safety programs.
  Right now, we have some streamlining provisions that took us--and I 
am sure the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords, 
would agree with this--we spent 3 years coming up with what we can do 
to protect the environment and at the same time streamline the process 
of building roads so we do not come into delays that are costly delays 
and use up our mile dollars. We have done that. We have come to a lot 
of compromises.
  It is kind of interesting, I think those of us on the committee, who 
all supported these streamlining provisions, did not really like the 
way they turned out. I thought they were not strict enough. Some 
thought they were too strict. Nonetheless, they are there. But if we do 
not pass a bill, we do not have them, so they are still going to be 
stumbling along trying to build roads with all kinds of obstacles out 
there that are obsolete.
  If we do not pass a bill, we will not have the ability to use the 
innovative financing that is given to the States. This bill, for 
example, has recognized something that I believe is very important; 
that is, we should expand the opportunity of the States to have more 
chances to get involved, more opportunities to use innovative financing 
methods that may work. My State of Oklahoma is different from the State 
of Vermont, for example. What works in Vermont may not work in 
Oklahoma. But we recognize that. This bill will allow the States to be 
able to start being creative in expanding their ability to pay for more 
roads in a way that is a custom that would be workable within their 
States. That is a very important aspect of this legislation.
  If we are operating on an extension and do not have a bill, we are 
not going to have this program called the Safe Routes to School. The 
Safe Routes to School Program is one that is certainly supported 
strongly by the Senator from Vermont, as well as many of the Members of 
the other body. This is something that many people feel very strongly 
about, that some people think is one of the most important parts of 
this bill: the Safe Routes to Schools. This will save young lives in 
America. If we do not pass this bill--and we are not going to pass it 
if we are working on an extension--young lives could very well be lost.
  One of the biggest problems we are having right now--I know my State 
of Oklahoma is not a lot different from other States--is we are sitting 
back there with the department of transportation, we are sitting back 
there with highway contractors who have the labor set up, all ready to 
go to work, all ready to repair roads, to build roads, to build 
bridges, and there is no certainty. They do not know for sure we are 
going to pass a bill. If we do not pass a bill, we may be on a 1-month 
extension, we may be on a 2-week extension, we may be on a 1-year 
extension. There is no way we can plan ahead and get the most from our 
dollars if we do not have a bill. There would be 5 years remaining on 
this bill for people to be able to plan for the future. So that 
certainty is very important.
  A lot of the States are border States. My State of Oklahoma is not a 
border State, but a lot of them are. They have to deal with the NAFTA 
traffic. This bill has a borders program as well as a corridors program 
built into it to take into consideration some of the unique problems 
that come with the expanded traffic from trade. If we do not pass a 
bill, we will not have any help for these people. If we do pass a bill, 
we have provisions to be helpful to them.
  The bill calls for a national commission to explore how to fund 
transportation in the future. There are some ways, if you look way down 
the road, maybe 5 years from now or 10 years from now, where maybe--
just maybe--we can do something different for a change.
  We have said several times here, and others have mentioned it, that 
this interstate highway program initially came into being many years 
ago, back in the 1950s, when Dwight Eisenhower was President of the 
United States. He observed during World War II, when he was General 
Eisenhower, that he was not able to get the troops and supplies moved 
around the country, to get them in place, to be shipped over to fight 
our battles.
  When he became President, what is the one thing everybody remembers 
about Dwight Eisenhower? They remember the roads program, the highway 
program. It was funded in a way with taxes the same way we are funding 
it today. So we are talking about a half century, nearly, that we have 
been funding this program the same way. With this bill, we have 
established a commission that will look at new ways of partnering, new, 
creative ways of funding roads.
  I can tell you, many people have come to our committee--we have had 
hearings on this--and they have talked about how much better we can do 
it if we just have a chance to get away from this mold we have been 
living in, the methods we are using and have been using for the last 
half century. If we just operate on an extension, we do not have a 
chance to do any of that.

[[Page S4918]]

  This bill is more than just a highway bill. We have talked about 
bridges and highways a lot. But this is an intermodal transportation 
bill. A lot of people do not realize it, but my State of Oklahoma is 
actually a navigable State in terms of barge traffic coming in and out 
of the State. We have chokepoints with regard to train travel, channel 
travel, air travel. This bill addresses those chokepoints. At the 
present time, without this bill, that is not going to happen.
  Lastly, and this is probably the most important thing, the bill has 
firewall protections to make sure people--I have always thought of this 
as a moral issue. If somebody is driving up to the pump and he or she 
pays that tax, I never hear anyone complaining about the high taxes on 
motor fuel because they recognize and believe all that money is going 
to go to road improvement, to new roads and new bridges. But, in fact, 
that is not the case because, like any trust fund, the propensity of 
people in elected positions--whether it is State or Federal--to spend 
the taxpayers' money is insatiable. They will go and rob these trust 
funds, whether it is the Social Security trust fund, the highway trust 
fund, or any of the other trust funds we have, and put it in other 
programs. It is when nobody is looking. Well, we have firewalls in this 
bill that would preclude that from happening.
  One of the things I liked about the bill we had last year was that we 
changed all those provisions where they had been using trust fund money 
to support policies that have nothing to do with transportation. We 
are, to a great extent, going to be doing that with this bill, too.
  So the urgency of passing this bill is upon us. We have to do it this 
week. It would be Monday at the latest, but this week, I would say, in 
order to get it to conference, come back from conference, have the 
conference report adopted in both the House and the Senate, and then 
signed by the President. We can do that if we move expeditiously now, 
but if we do not, it is not going to happen. We have a May 31 deadline. 
What is today? May 11. Today is May 11. So we have 20 more days to get 
this all the way out of the Senate, into conference--of course, the 
House has already passed the bill, so they are waiting for us now--have 
it considered in conference, and then have it sent back here. That is 
not much time.

  Things do not happen very quickly around here. But I know Senator 
Jeffords and I will do everything that is necessary in that conference 
to make sure we come out with a good bill, get that bill back here, 
passed the House, passed the Senate, and to the President's desk, to 
have a highway bill. If we do not do it, none of these 10 things I 
mentioned are going to happen--none of them.
  There may be parts of the bill you don't like. There are parts of the 
bill I do not like. But I hope people realize that just operating on an 
extension, after we are on our sixth extension now, is no way to do 
business. We are here to do a better job for the American people.
  Hopefully, some people will be coming down to the Chamber.
  I yield the floor to Senator Jeffords.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank again Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Bond for their leadership on this bill. I am glad to be here on the 
Senate floor continuing to debate this important legislation.
  This managers' package we have before us today will increase the 
funding in our legislation $11.2 billion and ensures that all States 
will have the resources necessary to improve their highways, roads, and 
bridges.
  This package will be the catalyst that helps get this bill completed 
the way it I should be--fully funded. I sincerely thank Senators 
Grassley and Baucus for their tremendous efforts in crafting the 
finance title of this proposal.
  This package will create jobs. It will save lives. It will reduce 
travel time. And it will improve the quality and structure of our 
Nation's surface transportation system.
  Just this week, the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M 
University released its annual Urban Mobility Report. This highly 
respected report once again tells us we need to do better when it comes 
to transportation in this country. The report tells us that traffic 
congestion delayed travelers 79 million more hours--79 million more 
hours--and wasted 69 million more gallons of fuel in 2003 than in 2002.
  The report tells us that overall in 2003, there were 3.7 billion 
hours of travel delay and 2.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel, for a 
total cost of more than $63 billion. But this bill is about more than 
reducing traffic congestion. The U.S. Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics says there are approximately 45,500 transportation-related 
fatalities per year, 94 percent of which occur on highways. That is 
because over a quarter of our interstates remain in poor or mediocre 
condition. Fourteen percent of our bridges are structurally obsolete. 
This is unacceptable. Something must be done.
  That is what we are trying to do here today. We have worked very 
diligently to reach a compromise that will move us forward in safety, 
commerce, environmental protection, and congestion reduction.
  I encourage all Senators to come to the floor and offer their 
amendments sooner rather than later. Let's get this bill done so our 
States can get started with their critical work. Let's get this bill 
done this week so we can move it to conference with the House as soon 
as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his 
excellent statement. I agree with all of it.
  I see the Senator from New Jersey is not in the Chamber, but let me 
make one comment. When I was talking about the withholding of funds and 
the Federal mandates, he is accurate in the fact that funds would not 
be withheld. It would mandate that 3 percent of the money of the 
portion of funds that would go to his State would be taken from the 
surface transportation program, the National Highway System, and the 
interstate maintenance programs. That is the problem I have. In a way 
that is withholding money. That is a mandate that is backed up by 
withholding funds.
  It is my understanding we have two Members who are due to bring their 
amendments. We encourage them to come.
  I yield the floor and 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 652 to Amendment No. 605

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to have 
considered. My amendment is No. 652, which I have filed and is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is temporarily laid 
aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 652.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for the conduct of an investigation to determine 
 whether market manipulation is contributing to higher gasoline prices)

       At the end of chapter 3 of subtitle E of title I, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 15__. INVESTIGATION OF GASOLINE PRICES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine if the price of 
     gasoline is being artificially manipulated by reducing 
     refinery capacity or by any other form of market 
     manipulation.
       (b) Report.--On completion of the investigation under 
     subsection (a), the Federal Trade Commission shall submit to 
     Congress a report that describes--
       (1) the results of the investigation; and
       (2) any recommendations of the Federal Trade Commission.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first, we are deliberating in the Senate 
about

[[Page S4919]]

a highway bill. I appreciate the work the chairman of the committee and 
ranking member have done on this piece of legislation. It has been a 
long and tortured process to get this piece of legislation to the floor 
of the Senate. While I may not agree with every single line in the 
bill, I admire their work. I think their work is commendable, and it 
will advance this country's interests. For that reason, I intend to 
support the legislation.
  I think with respect to this country's future, its economy, future 
opportunities in expanding our economy, there is nothing that more 
quickly expands the country's economy or more quickly provides 
opportunity all across this country than the investment Congress makes 
in a program that provides for highway and bridge construction and road 
maintenance and repair. It is a sure way to put people to work 
immediately all across this country.
  This highway bill has been long delayed, but now while it is on the 
floor, I also want to not only commend the committee for its work, I 
want to offer an amendment that deals with something that relates to 
it.
  Let me discuss briefly the amendment and then describe why I want 
this amendment considered on this bill. My amendment simply deals with 
the price of gasoline and asks the FTC to, within 90 days of the 
legislation being enacted, conduct an investigation of gasoline prices 
in this country. Let me describe a bit of the background for this. I 
don't allege there is corruption, price fixing, or collusion. What I do 
know is this: When big companies get bigger and more companies become 
fewer companies, there is a capability to influence the marketplace in 
a significant way. I chaired the hearings in the Senate that 
investigated the Enron situation. Now, having sat in the chair 
investigating what Enron did with respect, not to gasoline, but with 
respect to electricity sales on the west coast, the creation of 
strategies called Death Star, Fat Boy, Get Shorty--all of which were 
strategies to literally steal from the pockets of people living on the 
west coast. They bilked people out of billions of dollars by 
manipulating and overpricing with respect to the electricity market. We 
know that now and we also know that some executives from that company 
are on trial, about to go on trial, or have finished their trials, and 
some have been sentenced to 10 years of hard tennis at a minimum 
security prison. Others will get a stiffer penalty. It was wholesale 
stealing from the American people. Why? One, because they could; and, 
two, because there are people who are corrupt in their hearts engaging 
in these practices.
  I don't allege the same exists with oil. I don't have any idea with 
respect to oil and the price of gasoline. I understand that the 
circumstances with oil are complicated. Sixty percent of the oil we use 
in this country--incidentally, the increased usage substantially is for 
transportation--comes from off our shore. The pricing for oil coming 
from the spot market relates to supply and demand, I am sure, but the 
supply largely comes from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, and 
others. Now, we are really fooling ourselves if we think it is not 
holding America hostage and our economic future hostage with 60 percent 
of our oil coming from off our shores and most of it coming from 
troubled parts of the world.
  If, God forbid, terrorists should interrupt the flow of oil into this 
country tomorrow night, our economy would be belly up very quickly. So 
that calls for and begs for a new energy policy, instead of simply 
saying that our exclusive energy policy is digging and drilling, which 
we must do; but if that is our exclusive policy, that is a ``yesterday 
forever'' policy. We need a new energy policy on the floor of the 
Senate.
  I also think even as all of these events are occurring--the price of 
oil increasing, the spot market showing the price of oil is $50 or $52 
or $55 a barrel, and the price of gasoline is increasing at the pumps, 
and you drive up to a gas pump someplace and somebody is driving a 
6,500- or 7,000-pound car, perhaps a humvee, and you wonder a little 
bit about how all this works. When I drive up next to a humvee and 
everybody has a right to drive a humvee I think of the Latin term, 
``totus porcus.'' I am not sure why I think of that. When somebody sits 
there with a 7,000-pound vehicle, with one person in the vehicle going 
to work, you wonder about that. The marketplace probably takes care of 
some of that, although somebody who is going to buy a humvee probably 
doesn't care much about the price of gasoline.

  The price of gasoline is an interesting phenomenon in our country. As 
the price of oil goes up, and we hear about it on the news, all of a 
sudden, that day or the next day the price of gasoline goes up with a 
blink of an eye, following the price of oil. Then the price of oil 
comes down a bit, and the price of gasoline doesn't move down with 
quite the same rapidity. Something interesting is going on. I would 
like to discuss a bit of it.
  Since 1990, the number of major oil and gas companies has gone from 
34 to 13. The number of refining companies has gone from 13 to 7. The 
other day, I noticed that while we have very high prices for oil and 
gasoline, Exxon Oil had the highest profit ever for a corporation--
record profits. So I am asking myself the question: Why should an oil 
company have record profits just because the price of oil is high and 
the price of gasoline is higher? Has the margin between those two 
prices changed with respect to those that are delivering it? The answer 
comes in the evaluation of what has happened to total revenues and to 
net income for the major oil companies. As we have gone from more to 
fewer oil companies, what we see is now, with the price of oil and 
gasoline in many cases at near record levels, so, too, are the profits 
of the oil companies. There have been profit increases year to year of 
108 percent, 79 percent, 101 percent, 152 percent, 1,000 percent, 400 
percent--these are the major oil companies and the increase in their 
profits from 2003 to 2004.
  Question: Given what we know about what has happened in some areas 
and in some industries with respect to manipulation of supply and 
demand and manipulation of prices, should we not have aggressive 
oversight and investigation to make sure the consumer is protected? I 
don't have the information to come to the floor to say there is 
something fundamentally wrong in the pricing strategy, but there are 
some indications, it seems to me, that some enterprises that have now 
merged successfully and become larger and stronger and have better 
capability to be involved in affecting the market in a more deliberate 
way are increasing their profits because they can, not because there is 
aggressive and robust competition, but because they have the economic 
clout to do it.
  I am wondering if on behalf of the American consumers we ought not 
have aggressive oversight and aggressive investigation.
  Now, we have seen activities from very large oil companies in the 
Congress. The House of Representatives, by the way, just passed an 
energy bill saying we need more incentives for these energy companies 
to be exploring for more oil and natural gas, at a time when the oil 
prices are at a record high. Even the President says that doesn't make 
any sense at all. It is interesting while they are wanting more tax 
incentives to explore for more oil, they are busy buying up stock with 
extra profits. That is what they are doing: they are not putting those 
profits in the ground. I find that interesting as well.
  I think the FTC is the appropriate agency to investigate gas prices. 
I think, on behalf of American consumers, we ought to take a hard look 
at it, and the FTC is the place to do it. I pulled up at a four-way 
stop sign near Mohall, ND, one day, and there was an old car in front 
of me, and it was well used and well worn, with the back bumper kind of 
askew and not much of a paint job left. It had four or five people in 
it, and it was belching smoke out of the back end. They had a plain, 
simple little bumper sticker. The bumper sticker from this old wreck of 
a car that is now stopped at a four-way stop said: We fought the gas 
war and gas won.

  Well, the message from that old car, ``gas won,'' is a message I 
think everybody understands. We are talking about a big industry that 
has consolidated and merged so that there are far fewer companies, with 
much greater market clout, and I think we need substantial oversight. 
The basic consumer protection statute enforced by the Federal Trade 
Commission is in section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission

[[Page S4920]]

Act. It provides that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or 
affecting commerce are declared unlawful. Unfair practices are defined 
to mean those that:

     cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers 
     which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and 
     not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to 
     competition.

  In the State of North Dakota, a State I represent in the Senate, we 
actually drive a lot because we are a State that is 10 times the size 
of the State of Massachusetts. We have 642,000 citizens and we drive a 
lot. In fact, it is interesting; we drive almost twice as much per 
person as they do in New York. The average North Dakotan drives twice 
as much per person per year as a New Yorker, which means of course the 
burden of the gas tax itself is twice as high, but that is all right. 
We understand that. We like where we live. North Dakota is a wonderful 
State. But because gasoline is a significant issue for us and the price 
of gasoline is important for people who drive as much as we do, it is 
very important to us that we see that these prices are fair.
  It is hard for me to understand how at a time when the oil prices 
have spiked and gasoline prices have risen substantially, how the 
profit margin has increased so dramatically for the oil companies 
themselves if in fact this is a competitive market. If it is not a 
competitive market, then I think there needs to be substantial 
investigation to see whether the consumers are being gouged.
  Let me say again when I chaired the hearings about the manipulation 
of the market and the grand theft that occurred with the Enron 
Corporation bilking billions of dollars from consumers on the west 
coast, California, Oregon, Washington, and so on, it was unbelievable 
to see what those companies did because they could. They had larceny in 
their heart and they decided to profit to the tune of billions of 
dollars by literally stealing from consumers. As I have said before, I 
am not alleging that is happening here. I do not have the foggiest idea 
what the mechanics are for the pricing strategies or what has led to 
record profits for the oil companies.
  All I know is the oil companies are bigger. They have more muscle. 
They have more capability to affect the marketplace, and I believe when 
there are fewer competitors and less competition, there is a 
responsibility on behalf of consumers to ask for a referee to look over 
their shoulder and see that everything is all right.
  I only wish we had done that earlier in the Congress when it was 
quite clear that the wholesale prices for electricity charged by Enron 
and others in the west coast marketplace--I only wish we had been more 
aggressive and we had demanded the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
and others to be in there up to their neck in investigating what was 
going on, but the Congress was late. The Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission was asleep from the neck up. As a result, there was grand 
theft on the west coast from those markets, particularly by the Enron 
Corporation. Let us not let that happen with other industries.
  Again, I do not allege that is the case here. I do not have the 
foggiest idea what the ingredients are of these pricing strategies, but 
I would like the Federal Trade Commission, on behalf of the American 
people, to take a good hard look. So my amendment would provide that be 
the case 90 days following the enactment of this legislation, and we 
would then have the benefit of a formal Federal Trade Commission study 
of gasoline pricing.
  I think on behalf of the American people, given this time, given 
these circumstances, we ought to expect that and demand that and that 
is what I do in this amendment.
  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. GREGG. 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. We are encouraging Members to come to the floor. The 
Senator from Iowa is prepared to offer an amendment, and another behind 
him. I am hoping we will be able to get these amendments so we can 
perhaps have some stacked votes tonight--maybe 6 o'clock or so--
whenever the leadership on both sides agrees that is the appropriate 
time.
  I will state again how significant it is we pass this bill. It will 
be very costly in terms of dollars if we do not get it completed. There 
are a lot of programs incorporated in this lengthy bill that I do not 
agree with and we debated them for 3 years. I had to lose some and I 
won some.
  This is one I don't think there is one member of the committee I 
chair of 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats who will say they got 
everything they wanted. Maybe that is a sign that we did a pretty fair 
job. We need to have the bill passed.
  We need to do what we can to avoid another extension. An extension 
causes all of the 10 problems I outlined a few minutes ago. There is a 
clear right and wrong in this case. 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, we do have at least one amendment, the 
Lautenberg amendment, that is ready for a vote. It might be that the 
Harkin amendment will be ready for a vote also, if the Senator can get 
ready in the next 30 minutes. I announce it is our intention to have a 
vote at 5:30, and there will be either one or two or even three votes, 
depending on what comes down between now and 5:30.
  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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 618 to Amendment No. 605

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 618 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 618.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 as follows:

    (Purpose: To improve the safety of nonmotorized transportation, 
                including bicycle and pedestrian safety)

       At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SAFETY.

       Section 120(c) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Federal'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Statement of policy by state transportation 
     departments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each State transportation department 
     shall adopt a statement of policy ensuring that the needs and 
     safety of all road users (including the need for pedestrian 
     and bicycle safety) are fully integrated into the planning, 
     design, operation and maintenance of the transportation 
     system of the State transportation department.
       ``(B) Basis.--In the case of bicycle and pedestrian safety, 
     the statement of policy shall be based on the design guidance 
     on accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians of the Federal 
     Highway Administration adopted in February 2000.
       ``(C) Reports.--Not later 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, and each year thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the statements 
     of policy adopted under this paragraph.
       ``(3) Nonmotorized transportation goal.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall take such actions as 
     are necessary to, to the maximum extent practicable, increase 
     the percentage of trips made by foot or bicycle while 
     simultaneously reducing crashes involving bicyclists and 
     pedestrians by 10 percent, in a manner consistent with the 
     goals of the national bicycling and walking study conducted 
     during 1994.

[[Page S4921]]

       ``(B) Administration.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall establish 
     such baseline and completion dates as are necessary to carry 
     out subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Research for nonmotorized users.--
       ``(A) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(i) it is in the national interest to meet the goals of 
     the national bicycling and walking study by the completion 
     date established under paragraph (3)(B);
       ``(ii) research into the safety and operation of the 
     transportation system for nonmotorized users is inadequate, 
     given that almost 1 in 10 trips are made by foot or bicycle 
     and 1 in 8 traffic fatalities involves a bicyclist or 
     pedestrian; and
       ``(iii) inadequate data collection, especially on exposure 
     rates and infrastructure needs, are hampering efforts to 
     improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and use to meet local 
     transportation needs.
       ``(B) Allocation of research funds for nonmotorized 
     users.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     an annual report on the percentage of research funds that are 
     allocated (for the most recent fiscal year for which data are 
     available) to research that directly benefits the planning, 
     design, operation, and maintenance of the transportation 
     system for nonmotorized users--

       ``(I) by the Department of Transportation; and
       ``(II) by State transportation departments.

       ``(ii) National cooperative highway research program.--The 
     Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of 
     Sciences shall submit to Congress an annual report on the 
     percentage of research funds under the National Cooperative 
     Highway Research Program that are allocated (for the most 
     recent fiscal year for which data are available) to research 
     that directly benefits the planning, design, operation, and 
     maintenance of the transportation system for nonmotorized 
     users.
       ``(iii) Department of transportation allocation.--Effective 
     beginning with the third full fiscal year that begins after 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     allocate at least 10 percent of the research funds that are 
     allocated by the Department of Transportation for each fiscal 
     year to research that directly benefits the planning, design, 
     operation, and maintenance of the transportation system for 
     nonmotorized users.
       ``(5) Metropolitan planning organizations.--
       ``(A) Bicycle/pedestrian coordinators.--A metropolitan 
     planning organization that serves a population of 200,000 or 
     more shall designate a bicycle/pedestrian coordinator to 
     coordinate bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities 
     carried out in the area served by the organization.
       ``(B) Certification.--A metropolitan planning organization 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall certify to the Secretary, 
     as part of the certification review, that--
       ``(i) the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians (including 
     people of all ages, people who use wheelchairs, and people 
     with vision impairment) have been adequately addressed by the 
     long-range transportation plan of the organization; and
       ``(ii) the bicycle and pedestrian projects to implement the 
     plan in a timely manner are included in the transportation 
     improvement program of the organization.
       ``(C) Long-range transportation plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), a 
     metropolitan planning organization described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall develop and adopt a long-range transportation plan 
     that--

       ``(I) includes the most recent data available on the 
     percentage of trips made by foot and by bicycle in each 
     jurisdiction;
       ``(II) includes an improved target level for bicycle and 
     pedestrian trips; and
       ``(III) identify the contribution made by each project 
     under the transportation improvement program of the 
     organization toward meeting the improved target level for 
     trips made by foot and bicycle.

       ``(ii) Application.--Clause (i) does not apply to a 
     metropolitan planning organization that adopts the design 
     guidance described in paragraph (3)(B) for all transportation 
     projects carried out by the organization.
       ``(D) Local jurisdictions.--A metropolitan planning 
     organization described in subparagraph (A) shall work with 
     local jurisdictions that are served by the organization to 
     maximize the efforts of the local jurisdictions to include 
     sidewalks, bikepaths, and road intersections that maximize 
     bicycle and pedestrian safety in the local transportation 
     systems of the local jurisdictions.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering, on behalf of 
Senators Kennedy, Obama, Carper, and myself, calls for several simple 
adjustments to current practices at the Federal, State, and local 
level. The costs are minor, but the impact on safety for those who walk 
and ride bikes would be large. With the safety improvements that could 
result from this amendment, I believe we could increase pedestrian and 
bike traffic, and we could increase exercise to the benefit of 
American's health. We can reduce traffic congestion, and we can provide 
for safer travel for those who want to walk or ride a bike.
  At the outset, I want to acknowledge that there are funds in the bill 
for increased bike paths and trails. We have kept the enhancement 
money. That is all well and good. I don't know the exact amount of 
money, but there is a quite a bit involved. The problem is there is 
nothing in current practice that requires State departments of 
transportation or metropolitan planning organizations to integrate in 
their planning upfront for bike paths and sidewalks when they are 
planning highways. Again, I think a lot of the good money for bike 
paths and trails will be used to redo and retrofit what they should 
have done in the first place. That is what we always seem to be doing--
we'll fix it up and add something later on. That always costs more 
money.
  What this amendment does is it says: Let's have them at the initial 
planning stage integrate into their planning sidewalks and bike paths.
  The fact is, our current transportation system has been engineered in 
a way that is, in many cases, unfriendly and often very dangerous to 
nonmotorized travel. Again, my amendment promotes Federal, State, and 
local actions to make walking and biking safer and to increase the 
total number of walking and bicycling trips.
  Specifically, the amendment requires each State to adopt a ``complete 
streets'' policy to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians by ensuring 
that all users are considered when communities are built or modernized. 
While studies show that Americans would like to bike and walk more, 
many roads do not have sidewalks or bike paths, making them dangerous 
for pedestrians and bike riders. In many cases, traffic lights do not 
allow enough time for the elderly or people with disabilities or 
children to safely cross busy intersections. Meanwhile, we are 
constructing new housing developments without sidewalks. Go out and 
take a look at some of the new housing developments being added in any 
State. A lot of times there is not even a sidewalk. How can you ask 
kids to walk to school if they don't have a sidewalk?
  My wife and I get up every morning. We have a mile route that we 
walk. We have sidewalks for part of the way, and there aren't any 
sidewalks for the rest of the way. Again, it is about getting this 
integrated in the initial planning.
  While studies show that Americans would like to bike and walk more, 
many roads don't have sidewalks or bike paths. It is dangerous for 
pedestrians. We are building roads without bike lanes. Quite frankly, 
we are heading in the wrong direction. Quite frankly, to promote more 
healthy living, we must promote people walking or biking more. I will 
have more to say about that in a minute.
  Experts I talk to tell me that even a modest increase in pedestrian 
and bike traffic will get some cars off the road. That can have a 
significant positive impact on traffic congestion and gridlock. 
Research shows that often a surprisingly small increase in the number 
of cars can make the difference between a smooth flow of vehicles and a 
time-wasting traffic jam.
  According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the number of 
trips that are taken that are 1 mile or less is about one out of four. 
In other words, about 25 percent of all trips taken are 1 mile or less. 
Nearly half of all the trips taken in this country are under 5 miles. 
So it wouldn't take a huge shift to have an effect on traffic 
congestion. The path to safer travel on foot or by bike is also the 
path to a smarter, healthier, more efficient vehicle transportation 
system.
  Each of the provisions in my amendment is intended to help us move 
forward toward safer travel for people in vehicles, pedestrians, for 
people who use bikes or people who use wheelchairs, or for people 
simply trying to cross a road safely in a neighborhood.
  When we debate the highway bill, we typically talk about the Nation's 
infrastructure deficit, about jobs and economic competitiveness, the 
movement of goods, and other broader transportation goals. But we 
neglect other matters that are of real concern to people all across 
America in terms of transportation. For example, what are we doing to 
improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists?
  In the Washington, DC, area we have recently experienced a rash of 
pedestrian fatalities. All across the country

[[Page S4922]]

bicyclists put their lives at risk on roads that make no accommodation 
for nonmotorized traffic. No one denies that over the years we have 
built a transportation system that neglects and endangers nonmotorized 
travel. Again, this costs us dearly in terms of needless loss of life 
or permanent disabilities caused by accidents.
  It also has other consequences. When we give people no alternative to 
using their cars, they use their cars. So we add more and more vehicles 
to our roads and highways, 25 percent of which are used for trips of 
less than a mile. This translates into traffic delays, congestion, 
often gridlock. We simply must give more attention to the safety of 
pedestrians and those who use bicycles or who walk or who use 
wheelchairs.
  It is pretty shocking when we look at the statistics. Our Federal 
system for tracking fatalities, known as FARS, tells us that during the 
decade from 1994 to 2003, nearly 52,000 pedestrians were killed in 
traffic accidents in the United States. During the same 10-year period, 
more than 7,400 bicyclists were killed. Though the data is less 
reliable with regard to injuries, we know the number of nonfatal 
injuries ran into the hundreds of thousands during that same 10-year 
period.
  In 2003, the most recent year for which we have data, nearly 5,000 
pedestrians and more than 600 bicyclists were killed in the U.S., 
again, with many more thousands injured. Fully 13 percent of all 
transportation fatalities are pedestrians and bicyclists--13 percent. 
That is a rate far in excess of the share of trips taken by pedestrians 
and bicyclists. The bottom line is it is disproportionately dangerous 
to be a pedestrian or bicyclist in the U.S. This is one big reason why 
people are opting not to walk or ride a bicycle. Instead, they are 
getting in their cars and they are contributing to traffic jams. Again, 
about 25 percent are going less than a mile, and over half of the time 
they are going less than 5 miles.
  The journey to work data in the 2000 census tells a dismal story. 
Compared to 1990, despite a big increase in population, the number of 
people who walked to work fell by almost three-quarters of a million--
727,000, to be exact. In 1990, 3.9 percent of Americans walked to work. 
Ten years later, in 2000, that had fallen to 2.9 percent--a 25-percent 
decline in the number of Americans who walk to work, in a 10-year 
period of time.
  These various statistics tell us that many fatalities and injuries to 
pedestrians and bicyclists are preventable if we make the safety of 
nonmotorized travel a higher priority, and that is exactly what my 
amendment is intended to do, to put it into the planning stage and make 
it a higher priority. This amendment, I guess you could say, is also 
designed to significantly reduce the number of car trips taken.
  As I said, consider that trips of a mile or less represent the 
highest share of all car trips we make every day--a quarter of all of 
those trips. This means there is a huge, untapped potential to shift a 
significant portion of these short-distance trips to foot or bicycle, 
if we make some modest adjustments and if we step up our focus on 
safety.
  A 2003 transportation research board study showed that residents of 
neighborhoods with sidewalks were 65 percent more likely to walk than 
residents of neighborhoods without sidewalks. That kind of makes sense. 
As I said, my wife and I take a mile walk in the morning, and we have 
sidewalks part of the way, and part of the way we are out in the 
street. Fortunately, there is not a lot of traffic at that time. More 
than once, we have been walking down the street where there are no 
sidewalks and you don't hear a car coming and they slip by you. I have 
often thought what if I happen to step one way or the other while 
walking and do not hear that car coming. That is why people don't walk 
more.
  A study in Toronto documented a 23-percent increase in bicycle 
traffic after the installation of a bicycle lane. Think about that. 
They put in a bicycle lane and there was a 23-percent increase in 
bicycle traffic because people are more safe. They can travel on a 
bicycle and know they are not going to get hit. As a Senator who is a 
chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which we passed 
15 years ago, I can testify that stepped-up attention to pedestrian 
improvement and access will be enormously beneficial to people with 
disabilities and also to our growing population of seniors.
  Right now, about 85 percent of bus and rail users get to the bus 
stops and subway stations on foot. Many are people with disabilities. 
And seniors have no choice but to rely on costly paratransit services; 
they cost a lot of money. A lot of times we pay for it out of taxpayer 
dollars. We can reduce those costs by building new walkways and 
improving the existing walkways.
  I have something here that was put out by the National Association of 
County and City Health Officials called Public Health and Land Use 
Planning and Community Design.
  It says here that a Texas study--that is the State I referred to 
earlier--found that for three out of five disabled and elderly people, 
there are no sidewalks between their homes and the closest bus stop. I 
will repeat that. A Texas study found that for three out of five 
disabled and elderly people, there are no sidewalks between their homes 
and the closest bus stop.
  One of the reasons we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act was 
so more people with disabilities would get into the workforce. More 
often than not, they rely on a bus to get there. How are they going to 
get to the bus stop if they don't have a sidewalk on which to even get 
to the bus stop?
  Over 55 percent of all pedestrian deaths occur in neighborhoods that 
are often designed with no sidewalks or otherwise inadequate pedestrian 
accommodations. So, again, in terms of helping people with disabilities 
make sure they can get to a job, or get to shopping, or whatever they 
need to do, they rely upon transit services, buses. But if they cannot 
even get to the bus stop, what good is it?
  Over the last two generations, we have seen dramatic changes in how 
children go to school. As recently as 30 years ago, up to 70 percent of 
children were walking or riding bikes to school. Outside of every 
school you would see bicycle racks loaded with dozens of bikes. Not 
anymore. Today, nearly 90 percent of our kids are traveling to school 
in vehicles, mostly buses. But if you checked the high school parking 
lots, you know it is cars, too. In addition, a growing number of 
parents are driving their kids to school, putting further stress on the 
roadways during the morning rush hour. Again, the logical alternative 
is to provide safe, convenient options to encourage children to walk or 
bike to school.
  I was saying earlier to Senators on the floor, I remember my own two 
daughters, when they went to public school out in Virginia. We live 
about a mile from school. Well, there was a sidewalk about a third of 
the way, and about two-thirds of the way there was no sidewalk. It was 
a busy thoroughfare. How are you going to let them bike? You are not 
going to let them walk. So they got a car to drive a mile. I would not 
let our kids walk on that street and neither would our neighbors. 
Again, they will come along later and retrofit a sidewalk and that will 
cost more money, or they will put in a bike path later. Why don't we do 
it up front, get the planning done up front?
  That is what this amendment is all about. Our focus in a 
transportation bill, I believe, should not strictly be on moving 
vehicles. We should be more broadly focused on moving people and making 
it possible for more people to move themselves by foot or by bicycle. 
For every American who opts to get to work, school, or the grocery 
store by foot or bicycle, that is less costs for road building and 
maintenance, zero contribution to traffic congestion, zero costs in 
terms of pollution and environmental degradation. Every walking and 
bicycle trip that substitutes for a car trip, especially during rush 
hour, makes a big difference.
  In local situations, where we can encourage hundreds or thousands of 
people to shift to walking and bicycling, this can have a dramatically 
positive impact on the transportation system.
  So improving and expanding sidewalks and bike paths is not only about 
safety, it is about maximizing the performance of our transportation 
systems. Again, the good news is, to make a positive difference, large 
numbers of vehicles do not need to be moved off a congested roadway. 
Just some of them need to be moved. It is the incremental user that 
spells the difference between

[[Page S4923]]

free-flowing traffic and time-wasting congestion, and that is why any 
thoughtful, effective transportation policy for this Nation must aim 
for at least modest gains in walking and bicycling.
  So again I have talked about how, by investing in sidewalks and bike 
paths, we can reduce the stresses on our transportation system. I have 
also talked about how this can improve safety for pedestrians and 
bikers. There is one other huge benefit that, by itself, would justify 
passing this amendment. Simply put, by encouraging more Americans to 
spend more time walking and biking, we can have a major positive impact 
on their health and their wellness. We can reduce the incidence of 
obesity and chronic diseases. This, in turn, will lead to savings in 
health care costs, including Medicare and Medicaid.
  Ninety million people in the United States are living with chronic 
diseases, and many of these can be prevented through changes in 
lifestyle--for example, by eating nutritious foods and getting plenty 
of physical exercise. I wish to stress, physical exercise. When all is 
said and done, aside from tobacco use and genetic predisposition, there 
are essentially two things that lead to chronic disease: Poor nutrition 
and lack of physical activity. They also contribute to being overweight 
and obese.
  So we need to be doing everything possible to encourage Americans to 
engage in more walking and bicycling. We can begin by making it 
possible for more young people to walk or to bike to school.
  Currently, only 8 percent of elementary schools and 6 percent of high 
schools provide daily physical education year round for all students. 
More than one-third of youngsters in grades 9 to 12 do not engage 
regularly in vigorous physical activity. No wonder we have an epidemic 
of childhood obesity. No wonder that American adolescents rank as the 
most overweight in the industrialized world.
  And the picture is just as bleak for adults. Almost 40 percent of 
American adults are sedentary. In the United States, only six percent 
of trips are by walking or biking, compared to 49 percent of trips in 
Sweden and 54 percent of trips in Italy.
  Research shows that the amount of time people spend in their cars 
correlates more strongly with overweight and obesity than income, 
education, gender, or ethnicity.
  One remarkable study compared the health of people living in walking-
and-biking-friendly cities with the health of people living in 
sprawling, car-dependent suburbs. The study, published in 2003 in the 
American Journal of Health Promotion, found that people living in 
counties marked by sprawling development are likely to walk less and 
weigh more than people who live in less sprawling counties. In 
addition, people living in more sprawling counties are more likely to 
suffer from high blood pressure. These results hold true after 
controlling for factors such as age, education, gender, and race and 
ethnicity.
  One does not need a Harvard study to establish another correlation: 
The correlation between the decline in physical activity and 
skyrocketing health-care, Medicaid, and Medicare costs. We build 
subdivisions without sidewalks, schools without playgrounds, and cities 
without bike lanes, and then we wring our hands about rising rates of 
overweight, obesity, and chronic disease. We systematically neglect 
wellness, fitness, and common-sense disease prevention and we are 
shocked, shocked that health care costs are ravaging Federal, State, 
and corporate budgets.
  Someone once defined insanity as doing the same old thing over and 
over again and expecting a different result. Well, our current health 
care approach is, by definition, insane. In fact, in America, today, we 
don't have a true health care system, we have a sick care system. If 
you are sick, you get care. We continue to spend hundreds of billions 
on pills, surgery, treatments, and disability. But we are under-
funding, cutting or eliminating programs designed to keep people fit 
and well and out of the hospital.
  We cannot go on like this. We are choking our economy. We are 
exploding the Federal budget. And we are, literally, killing ourselves.
  Consider the obesity epidemic. Some 65 percent of our population is 
now overweight or obese. The incidence of childhood obesity is now at 
epidemic levels. Alarm bells are going off all over the place. But our 
Government has done virtually nothing.
  And the Federal budget is being eaten alive by health care costs. It 
is also State budgets. It is family budgets. And it is corporate 
budgets.
  Look at the numbers. Last year, nationally, we spent more than $100 
billion on obesity alone. Medicare and Medicaid picked up almost half 
of that tab.
  This is unwise. It is uneconomic. And, as we now know, it is totally 
unsustainable. If we are going to control Medicare and Medicaid costs, 
and private-sector health care costs, as well, we need a radical change 
of course. We need a fundamental paradigm shift toward preventing 
disease, promoting good nutrition, and encouraging fitness and 
wellness. This will be good for the physical health of the American 
people. And it will be good for the fiscal health of Government, 
corporate, and family budgets.

  That is exactly what this amendment is about. Yes, this amendment is 
a step towards reducing the burdens and stresses on our transportation 
system. It will improve safety for pedestrians and bikers. By 
encouraging walking and bicycling, it will also have significant health 
benefits. And, as a consequence, it will help to hold down health care 
costs and reduce the burden on Medicare and Medicaid.
  Now let me explain the specific ways that my amendment will help us 
to capitalize on these opportunities.
  My amendment asks the Secretary of Transportation to report to 
Congress each year as to how the Federal research dollars provided in 
this legislation are advancing progress on safety and other issues 
related to walking and bicycling.
  It also asks the Secretary to establish goals for increasing walking 
and bicycling, and to set milestones toward achieving these goals.
  Looking into the future, it asks each State department of 
transportation to have a policy statement on ``complete streets,'' so 
that when they undertake projects funded under this highway bill, some 
consideration must be given to the needs of non-motorized users.
  Larger metropolitan planning organizations--that is, regional 
transportation agencies serving 200,000 or more people--can choose to 
adopt a ``complete streets'' policy or satisfy certain criteria in 
their planning process. And these agencies must show how their long-
range plans and transportation improvement programs will increase 
walking and bicycling. It does not require that sidewalks or bikeways 
be built along side rural roads or intercity roads.
  Finally, under my amendment, these large metropolitan planning 
organizations, or MPOs, are encouraged to work with their local 
governments on improvements designed to increase biking and walking. In 
addition, the MPOs would be directed to designate a bicycle and 
pedestrian coordinator, a move that would be in line with a requirement 
placed on state transportation departments dating back to the 1991 
ISTEA law.
  Each of these provisions is designed to better align our current law 
practices with key features of the bill before us.
  In the SAFETEA bill, the committee has provided for important 
financial commitments to bikes and trails. But we need to fully 
integrate the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists into the complete 
transportation process.
  There are also provisions in my amendment regarding how we conduct 
Federal research activities. This is designed to expand our knowledge 
of effective pedestrian and bicycle safety practices, and to help our 
State and local partners understand the best methods and practices for 
addressing these safety needs.
  Provisions in this ``Complete Streets'' amendment will help us to 
ensure that we are designing transportation projects, up front, with 
pedestrian and bicycle safety in mind, so we don't have to keep going 
back and retrofitting. So many of the programs in the SAFETEA bill 
involve re-doing and retrofitting what we didn't do right in the first 
place. In the future, as each State adopts a ``Complete Streets'' 
policy, this can be avoided.
  Finally, this amendment attempts to set modest goals for increasing 
the

[[Page S4924]]

number of walking and bicycling trips, while reducing pedestrian and 
bicycle fatalities.
  I believe that this modest package of policy improvements can and 
will make a significant difference. I am very pleased by the broad 
range of organizations that enthusiastically endorse this amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. We are trying to lock in votes for tonight, and I was 
preparing for a unanimous consent request, but to do that we would have 
to give--I think the Senator needs to give the other side at least a 
couple of minutes to respond. The request would be to have two votes 
take place beginning at 5:30 on the Lautenberg amendment and the Harkin 
amendment. Could I interrupt the Senator to make that unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that--
  Mr. HARKIN. Wait just a second, Mr. President. The Senator said he 
wants to do what at 5:30?
  Mr. INHOFE. We want to ask unanimous consent to proceed to a vote on 
the two amendments beginning at 5:30.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I had a request from Senator Carper who wanted to 
speak. I assume Senator Bond may want to speak. I do not know. That is 
only 7 more minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have been informed, if we are not able to get it at 
this time, we will not be able to have the votes tonight. I would 
rather have them tonight.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today, the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 625 to be followed by 
a vote in relation to the Harkin amendment No. 618, with no second 
degrees in order to the amendments prior to the votes and with the time 
until then equally divided; provided further that there be 2 minutes 
equally divided for debate between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                     Amendment No. 618, as Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if 
the Chairman would permit me to modify my amendment by striking lines 6 
through line 16 on page 5 dealing with research.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. There is no objection to that. That will be included 
by UC.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 618), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SAFETY.

       Section 120(c) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Federal'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Statement of policy by state transportation 
     departments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each State transportation department 
     shall adopt a statement of policy ensuring that the needs and 
     safety of all road users (including the need for pedestrian 
     and bicycle safety) are fully integrated into the planning, 
     design, operation and maintenance of the transportation 
     system of the State transportation department.
       ``(B) Basis.--In the case of bicycle and pedestrian safety, 
     the statement of policy shall be based on the design guidance 
     on accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians of the Federal 
     Highway Administration adopted in February 2000.
       ``(C) Reports.--Not later 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, and each year thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the statements 
     of policy adopted under this paragraph.
       ``(3) Nonmotorized transportation goal.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall take such actions as 
     are necessary to, to the maximum extent practicable, increase 
     the percentage of trips made by foot or bicycle while 
     simultaneously reducing crashes involving bicyclists and 
     pedestrians by 10 percent, in a manner consistent with the 
     goals of the national bicycling and walking study conducted 
     during 1994.
       ``(B) Administration.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall establish 
     such baseline and completion dates as are necessary to carry 
     out subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Research for nonmotorized users.--
       ``(A) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(i) it is in the national interest to meet the goals of 
     the national bicycling and walking study by the completion 
     date established under paragraph (3)(B);
       ``(ii) research into the safety and operation of the 
     transportation system for nonmotorized users is inadequate, 
     given that almost 1 in 10 trips are made by foot or bicycle 
     and 1 in 8 traffic fatalities involves a bicyclist or 
     pedestrian; and
       ``(iii) inadequate data collection, especially on exposure 
     rates and infrastructure needs, are hampering efforts to 
     improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and use to meet local 
     transportation needs.
       ``(B) Allocation of research funds for nonmotorized 
     users.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     an annual report on the percentage of research funds that are 
     allocated (for the most recent fiscal year for which data are 
     available) to research that directly benefits the planning, 
     design, operation, and maintenance of the transportation 
     system for nonmotorized users--

       ``(I) by the Department of Transportation; and
       ``(II) by State transportation departments.

       ``(ii) National cooperative highway research program.--The 
     Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of 
     Sciences shall submit to Congress an annual report on the 
     percentage of research funds under the National Cooperative 
     Highway Research Program that are allocated (for the most 
     recent fiscal year for which data are available) to research 
     that directly benefits the planning, design, operation, and 
     maintenance of the transportation system for nonmotorized 
     users.
       ``(5) Metropolitan planning organizations.--
       ``(A) Bicycle/pedestrian coordinators.--A metropolitan 
     planning organization that serves a population of 200,000 or 
     more shall designate a bicycle/pedestrian coordinator to 
     coordinate bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities 
     carried out in the area served by the organization.
       ``(B) Certification.--A metropolitan planning organization 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall certify to the Secretary, 
     as part of the certification review, that--
       ``(i) the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians (including 
     people of all ages, people who use wheelchairs, and people 
     with vision impairment) have been adequately addressed by the 
     long-range transportation plan of the organization; and
       ``(ii) the bicycle and pedestrian projects to implement the 
     plan in a timely manner are included in the transportation 
     improvement program of the organization.
       ``(C) Long-range transportation plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), a 
     metropolitan planning organization described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall develop and adopt a long-range transportation plan 
     that--

       ``(I) includes the most recent data available on the 
     percentage of trips made by foot and by bicycle in each 
     jurisdiction;
       ``(II) includes an improved target level for bicycle and 
     pedestrian trips; and
       ``(III) identify the contribution made by each project 
     under the transportation improvement program of the 
     organization toward meeting the improved target level for 
     trips made by foot and bicycle.

       ``(ii) Application.--Clause (i) does not apply to a 
     metropolitan planning organization that adopts the design 
     guidance described in paragraph (3)(B) for all transportation 
     projects carried out by the organization.
       ``(D) Local jurisdictions.--A metropolitan planning 
     organization described in subparagraph (A) shall work with 
     local jurisdictions that are served by the organization to 
     maximize the efforts of the local jurisdictions to include 
     sidewalks, bikepaths, and road intersections that maximize 
     bicycle and pedestrian safety in the local transportation 
     systems of the local jurisdictions.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request from the 
Senator from Oklahoma?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There will be 2\1/2\ minutes per side remaining on this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wanted to make sure the Senator from 
Missouri had adequate time to speak. I think I have made my case. I 
wanted to point out who is in support of this amendment. I have a nice 
chart that says it all. The American Association of Retired People, the 
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the MPOs, are in 
favor of this, as well as America Bikes, Natural Resources Defense 
Council; Paralyzed Veterans of America, again, because of the 
disability issue; America Walks; the American Heart Association 
strongly supports this; the American Public Health Association; the 
American Society of Landscape Architects; the American Planning 
Association, among a lot of others, are in favor of this amendment.
  I hope we can adopt this amendment for a number of reasons, not the 
least of which is for the health and welfare of the American people and 
to get more people walking and biking but to get it done upfront, so 
when they are planning, it is integrated upfront, and that

[[Page S4925]]

is really what this amendment does, in essence.
  This amendment asks for upfront planning, that they have a policy 
statement, that metropolitan planning organizations have a complete 
streets policy, that all of this is done upfront. Let us quit coming in 
and backfilling and putting in bike paths and sidewalks after the fact. 
Let us get it done upfront. That is really what this is all about.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from the following national 
organizations be printed in the Record: the Surface Transportation 
Policy Project, AARP, America Walks, the National Center for Bicycling 
and Walking, the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the League of 
American Bicyclists, The American Society of Landscape Architects and 
the National Resources Defense Council, and a fact sheet from the 
National Association of County & City Health Officials.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Surface Transportation


                                               Policy Project,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the Surface 
     Transportation Policy Project, I am writing to indicate our 
     strong support for the ``Complete Streets Amendment'' you 
     will offer during Senate debate on the SAFETEA legislation.
       Your amendment proposes important, albeit modest, 
     improvements to prompt the federal, state, regional and local 
     partnership to embrace policy actions that will help expand 
     travel options in the U.S., focusing specifically on 
     improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
       The simple policy adjustments you are proposing are 
     complementary to the other important provisions in the bill, 
     notably the renewal of the Surface Transportation Program and 
     its Transportation Enhancements Program as well as the 
     inclusion of new initiatives to promote ``fair share'' 
     expenditures under the Safety program and the Safe Routes to 
     School program. These programs bolster state and local 
     efforts to retrofit transportation facilities now in place 
     and help ``complete our streets'' in communities throughout 
     the nation.
       Importantly, your amendment, with its emphasis on the 
     adoption of ``Complete Streets'' policies by state 
     transportation departments and the largest metropolitan 
     planning organizations, will help ensure that, going forward, 
     all users--transit users and other pedestrians of all ages, 
     including those with disabilities, as well as bicyclists--are 
     given full consideration in how we design new and modernize 
     existing facilities with the federal dollars SAFETEA makes 
     available. It also calls upon the U.S. Transportation 
     Department to report on how research funds are deployed to 
     facilitate walking and bicycling and prompts the Secretary to 
     exert more leadership to make these trips safer and more 
     frequent. Finally, it rightly focuses on the planning process 
     in our largest metropolitan areas where a substantial 
     majority of Americans live and work, insisting that more 
     attention be given to plans and investments that promote 
     broader travel options in these areas.
       We strongly support this amendment and urge your colleagues 
     to incorporate these provisions during full Senate action on 
     SAFETEA.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Anne P. Canby,
     President.
                                  ____

                                           American Association of


                                              Retired Persons,

                                     Washington, DC. May 11, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: AARP commends you for your leadership 
     in offering the ``Complete Streets Amendment'' during Senate 
     debate on the SAFETEA legislation. Safe mobility options are 
     essential to the independence and well-being of older 
     Americans.
       Over one-fifth of persons age 65 and over do not drive. A 
     growing number of older Americans are looking for other 
     mobility choices, either because they have stopped driving, 
     want to reduce their driving, or because they want to be more 
     physically active. Walking is an important travel option for 
     older persons and, under the proper conditions, can provide a 
     safe, healthy transportation alternative for carrying out 
     daily activities. In fact, walking is the most common mode of 
     travel for older persons after the private vehicle
       A recent AARP survey, however, found that one-fifth of 
     persons age 75 and above perceived poor sidewalks, dangerous 
     intersections, and lack of places to rest as barriers to 
     walking. Older persons also have the highest rate of 
     pedestrian fatalities of any age group. We believe it is 
     important that communities provide infrastructure that allows 
     people of all ages to have safe mobility choices, including 
     walking and bicycling.
       The Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2005 would help 
     accomplish this goal by:
       Requiring that state transportation departments adopt 
     ``Complete Streets'' policies when constructing new 
     transportation facilities with federal funds, using the 
     Federal Highway Administration's policy statement on 
     accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists as its basis;
       Directing the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to promote a 
     goal of increasing the number of pedestrian and bicycle 
     trips, while seeking to reduce accidents involving 
     pedestrians and bicyclists;
       Focusing research on the safety of nonmotorized travel; and
       Requiring metropolitan planning organizations serving a 
     population of 200,000 or more to designate bicycle/pedestrian 
     coordinators and include the safety needs of pedestrians and 
     bicyclists in their long-range transportation plans.
       AARP appreciates your commitment and dedication to 
     providing mobility options for all Americans and we look 
     forward to working with you towards accomplishment of this 
     important goal. If you have any further questions, please 
     feel free to contact me, or have your staff contact Debra 
     Alvarez in Federal Affairs Department at (202) 434-3814.
           Sincerely,

                                                David Certner,

     Director, Federal Affairs.
                                  ____



                                                America Walks,

                                         Boston, MA, May 10, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I'm writing on behalf of America 
     Walks, a national coalition of more than 60 pedestrian 
     advocacy organizations located throughout the nation, to 
     express our support for your Complete Streets amendment to 
     the federal transportation bill.
       Andy Hamilton, President of America Walks, is out of town 
     and asked me to let you know of our organization's support 
     for your efforts.
       Communities with sidewalks will encourage people to walk 
     more, which will improve public health while at the same time 
     reducing traffic congestion, particularly around schools.
       Complete streets will improve safety. For decades, our 
     roads have been designed with a single-minded focus on moving 
     as many cars as possible as fast as possible. Your amendment 
     will encourage communities to provide resources that enable 
     the roads to also become safe for pedestrians, cyclists, 
     seniors, transit users, and people with disabilities.
       Completing the streets is the right thing to do. And 
     especially as our population ages and increases in girth and 
     Safe Routes to School programs increase in popularity, this 
     is the right time to do it!
       America Walks appreciates your focus on this very important 
     issue. Your amendment, if passed, will increase 
     transportation choices and safety for all users.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Sally Flocks,
     Vice-President.
                                  ____

                                               National Center for


                                          Bicycling & Walking,

                                       Bethesda, MD, May 10, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing on behalf of the National 
     Center for Bicycling & Walking to express our appreciation 
     and support for your proposed Complete Streets amendment to 
     the transportation bill.
       The actions called for in your amendment are the next 
     logical step in a process going back more than 30 years, 
     whereby the Congress has recognized progressive trends 
     related to bicycling and walking emerging at the state, 
     regional, and local levels and incorporated them into our 
     national transportation policy. The policy actions detailed 
     in your amendment will help improve the efficiency and 
     effectiveness of transportation plans, programs, and projects 
     at all levels of government, and provide the American 
     people--people of all ages--with better roads and safer 
     communities.
       Our country needs this kind of leadership and support. We 
     are beset by a host of public health challenges such as 
     obesity, physical inactivity, and motor vehicle-related 
     injuries and fatalities. We know we need to be more active 
     and the public health experts have identified walking and 
     bicycling as two of the best opportunities available to 
     improve and maintain our health.
       Sadly, the streets in many of our communities are not yet 
     inviting places to take a walk or ride a bike. However, we 
     know how to make them better. Your proposed amendment will 
     ensure that we do what needs to be done, for our health and 
     for the health and well-being of our children and 
     grandchildren.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,

                                               Bill Wilkinson,

     AICP, Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                       Association of Metropolitan


                                       Planning Organizations,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the Association of 
     Metropolitan Planning Organizations, we write in support of 
     your amendment to improve the safety of nonmotorized 
     transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian safety. 
     Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are charged with 
     planning for the nation's transportation needs and they work 
     to protect and improve regions throughout the United States. 
     MPOs

[[Page S4926]]

     provide a locational nexus for representatives from various 
     modes of transportation to come together in support of a more 
     complete regional transportation system. We believe that your 
     amendment will further the goal of ``Complete Streets'' and 
     will provide much needed safety improvements for bicyclists 
     and pedestrians, while alleviating congestion on our nation's 
     roads.
       We are pleased to see that this amendment targets MPOs in 
     urban areas with populations greater than 200,000. While we 
     recognize the importance of this amendment, we believe that 
     requiring all MPOs to designate a bicycle/pedestrian 
     coordinator would place an undue burden on our smallest 
     members. Those MPOs that represent populations of greater 
     than 200,000 are capable of these additional requirements, 
     assuming that the PL increase to 1.5% that is currently in 
     the Senate bill is realized. We are concerned, however, that 
     if these requirements are imposed without a corresponding 
     funding increase, we may not be able to meet these added 
     expectations. The 2000 census designated 46 new MPOs but no 
     additional funding was provided for these MPOs. As a result, 
     over 350 MPOs are now sharing a pot of money that was 
     established for approximately 300 MPOs.
       We believe that ``Complete Streets'' is an important goal 
     of a regional transportation system. We are pleased to see 
     that you are offering this amendment as part of the 
     transportation reauthorization bill. Please feel free to 
     contact Debbie Singer at 202-296-7051 or [email protected] if 
     you have any further questions.
           Sincerely,
                                              Mayor Rae Rupp Srch,
     AMPO President.
                                  ____



                                League of American Bicyclists,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the 300,000 affiliated 
     members of the League of American Bicyclists and the nation's 
     57 million adult bicyclists, I am writing to support the 
     inclusion of the ``Complete Streets Amendment'' as part of 
     SAFETEA.
       In ISTEA and TEA-21, Congress established the principle 
     that new road projects and reconstructions should provide 
     safe accommodation of bicycling and walking. While some 
     states are beginning to make progress in this area, federal 
     guidance on this issue has been overlooked by many state and 
     local transportation agencies.
       The Complete Streets Amendment seeks to address this issue 
     by simply directing all states to adopt a ``Complete Streets 
     Policy'' to ensure that states build streets and highways 
     that adequately accommodate all transportation users--
     including bicyclists, pedestrians, and people with 
     disabilities. In addition, the amendment encourages local 
     action on bike/ped safety, sets goals for nonmotorized 
     transportation, and focuses research on nonmotorized travel 
     safety.
       These are all important issues to the bicycling community 
     and beyond. Other important issues that we are pleased that 
     the bill managers have already recognized include:
       Strengthening our core programs (Enhancements, Recreational 
     Trails, CMAQ, etc.);
       Establishing a Fair Share for Safety Provision, which ties 
     safety spending to fatality crash rates by transportation 
     mode; and
       Providing a National Safe Routes to Schools Program, which 
     provides funding to improve infrastructure and education to 
     make it safer for our nation's children to bike and walk to 
     school.
       We applaud you for your leadership on this issue. Likewise, 
     we applaud the bill managers for their commitment to 
     completing action on a reauthorization bill that includes 
     good investments that will give all Americans safer places to 
     bike and walk.
       The adoption of the ``Complete Streets Amendment'' does not 
     add to the cost of the overall bill and is, in fact, 
     complementary to the bicycling provisions already included. 
     As such, we support its inclusion in SAFETEA.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mele Williams,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____



                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin, On behalf of NRDC and our 600,000 
     members, I am writing to express support for your Complete 
     Streets Amendment. This set of commonsense policies would 
     spur new construction and retrofitting of highways and roads 
     that aren't currently accessible to bikers and pedestrians--
     i.e., ``completing the streets'' so that all users are 
     welcome, not just drivers.
       The amendment is particularly timely, as public health 
     experts encourage Americans to walk and bike as a response to 
     the obesity epidemic. Completing our streets can help to meet 
     this goal. In fact, one study found that 43 percent of people 
     with safe places to walk within 10 minutes of home met 
     recommended activity levels, while just 27% of those without 
     safe places to walk were active enough. And another recent 
     study found that residents are 65% more likely to walk in a 
     neighborhood with sidewalks.
       Benefits include more than increased physical activity. Air 
     quality in our urban areas is poor and linked to increases in 
     asthma and other illnesses. Replacing car trips with biking 
     or walking means less air pollution. And if each resident of 
     an American community of 100,000 replaced just one car trip 
     with one bike trip just once a month, it would cut carbon 
     dioxide (CO2) emissions by 3,764 tons per year in 
     the community.
       In short, I commend you for offering this amendment, which 
     would provide Americans with more transportation choices, 
     improve public health and reduce pollution.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deron Lovaas,
     Vehicles Campaign Director.
                                  ____

                                               American Society of


                                         Landscape Architects,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2005.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the American Society of 
     Landscape Architects, I write to convey our strong support 
     for your proposed ``Complete Streets'' amendment to the 
     SAFTEA legislation in the 109th Congress. In order to provide 
     for safer and more active communities, we must complete our 
     streets and roadways by ensuring that they are designed and 
     operated to enable access for all users, including 
     pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders of all ages and 
     abilities. In the past, the concerns of non-motorized 
     transportation users have been bypassed all too often, and 
     your amendment takes a critical, common sense step toward a 
     more comprehensive, integrated and effective transportation 
     system.
       Because of our nation's inherent strengths, continued 
     growth, and boundless potential, we sometimes overlook the 
     obvious as we forge ahead. We have arrived at the point where 
     we have to take measures to better accommodate life outside 
     of our automobiles. This is not a simple task, but, with 
     proper planning, the benefits of a visionary approach will 
     far outpace our initial efforts. Your amendment provides an 
     appropriate and timely framework for those efforts by 
     encouraging planning, prioritizing and research by states and 
     municipalities.
       If the Complete Streets Amendment is passed by the Senate, 
     protected in conference, and signed into law along with the 
     rest of SAFTEA, we can forecast the results with a great 
     degree of confidence. Complete Streets will lead to improved 
     safety, and promote a more active American lifestyle, with 
     more walking and bicycling for health. Complete Streets will 
     also help ease the transportation woes with which so many of 
     us are increasingly familiar. Roadways that provide varying 
     travel choices will give people the option to avoid traffic 
     jams, reducing congestion and increasing the overall capacity 
     of our transportation network.
       This amendment also has an important place in the 
     transportation bill because Complete Streets make fiscal 
     sense. Integrating sidewalks, bike lanes, transit amenities, 
     and safe crossings into the initial design of a project 
     spares the costly expenses of retrofits later on ``down the 
     road.''
       As practitioners of urban design and revitalization, site 
     planning, land use policy and master planning, landscape 
     architects are continually engaged with public officials, 
     developers and homeowners to design the places in which we 
     live, work, and seek recreational opportunities. The American 
     Society of Landscape Architects heartily encourages creating 
     and improving access to places for physical activity within 
     our communities.
       It is not asking too much to make Complete Streets a 
     national transportation priority. The Congress has worked 
     long and hard to craft an effective transportation package, 
     and the Complete Streets Amendment will put the country on 
     the same ``planning page,'' providing us with sound footing 
     as we move towards a stronger, safer, and healthier future. 
     It is our hope that the United States Senate will recognize 
     and endorse the wisdom of the Harkin Complete Streets 
     Amendment. We thank you for your exemplary leadership on this 
     critical component to the overall health, wellbeing, and 
     functionality of our communities.
           Sincerely,
                                                Patrick A. Miller,
     President.
                                  ____


  Factsheet--National Association of County and City Health Officials


                        understanding the issues

       Land use, community design, and transportation planning 
     have an impact on the health of communities in relation to 
     diseases and injuries, as well as quality of life and well 
     being. Environmental conditions such as air quality, ground 
     and surface water contamination, and the re-use of 
     brownfields (used lands where expansion or redevelopment is 
     complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination) 
     affect disadvantaged populations more severely, particularly 
     given the current separation between land use planning and 
     public health. Local public health agencies (LPHAs) can 
     ensure that community health is emphasized throughout the 
     planning process by becoming involved during the early stages 
     of land use planning. In order to ensure a better quality of 
     life and the sustainability of our communities, it is 
     important for planners and public health officials to 
     collaborate on healthy solutions to the environmental health 
     problems that exist where we live, work, and play. Planning 
     and design decisions have a tremendous impact on a wide range 
     of public health issues, including:


                              air quality

       Asthma and other respiratory diseases are caused, in part, 
     by poor air quality. Poor air

[[Page S4927]]

     quality is tied to pollution emitted from automobiles and 
     other motor vehicles. In the United States, automobiles 
     account for over 49 percent of all nitrogen oxide 
     (NOx) emissions, which contribute to smog and lead 
     to serious health matters. Between 1980 and 1994, asthma 
     rates rose by 75 percent. People in sprawling communities 
     drive three to four times more than those who live in 
     efficient, well-planned areas, thus increasing vehicle 
     emissions that contribute to poor air quality.


                             water quality

       The National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to 
     Congress identified runoff from development as one of the 
     leading sources of water quality impairment, accounting for 
     46 percent of assessed estuary impairment. In the United 
     States, wetlands are being destroyed at a rate of 
     approximately 300,000 acres per year, much of it for new 
     development. Wastewater also poses a serious threat to water 
     quality. In Florida, it is estimated that onsite sewage 
     treatment and disposal systems discharge 450 million gallons 
     per day of partially treated, non-disinfected wastewater, 
     which can lead to contamination of ground water supplies.


                             traffic safety

       According to the National Personal Transportation Survey, 
     walking accounts for only five percent of trips taken and 
     less than one percent of miles traveled, due in part to a 
     lack of appropriate and safe options for pedestrians. 
     Approximately 4,882 pedestrians were killed by vehicles and 
     78,000 injured in 2001. A Texas study found that for three 
     out of five disabled and elderly people, there are no 
     sidewalks between their homes and the closest bus stop. Over 
     55 percent of all pedestrian deaths occur in neighborhoods, 
     which are often designed with a bias toward cars, with no 
     sidewalks or otherwise inadequate pedestrian accommodations.


                           physical activity

       Community design often presents barriers to physical 
     activity, contributing to increased risk for obesity, heart 
     disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases. Barriers 
     include, but are not limited to, the absence of sidewalks, 
     heavy traffic, and high levels of crime. Today, nearly one in 
     four Americans is obese, and at least 50 percent are 
     overweight. As access to recreational infrastructure may be 
     limited, people with disabilities often have less opportunity 
     to engage in physical activity. People are more likely to be 
     physically active if they can incorporate activity into their 
     daily routine. A 1996 report from the U.S. Surgeon General 
     determined that each year, as many as 200,000 deaths are 
     attributable to a sedentary lifestyle.


                             mental health

       According to the Human Environment-Research Lab, studies 
     have shown that exposure to greenspace helps to foster an 
     increased sense of community, and also lessens the effects of 
     chronic mental fatigue, which reduces violence and aggressive 
     behavior. A Cornell University study found that children 
     whose families relocated to areas with more greenspace 
     experienced an increase in cognitive functioning. Lack of 
     accessibility, such as absence of ramps and narrow doorways, 
     can contribute to an increase in isolation for the elderly 
     and people with disabilities. Increased commuting time has 
     been linked with physical and stress-related health problems. 
     It is estimated that for each additional 10 minutes of 
     driving time, there is a 10 percent decline in civic 
     involvement.


                          Hazardous Materials

       Hazardous materials are transported, stored, manufactured, 
     or disposed of in many communities. Often, zoning and 
     environmental regulations do not provide for the separation 
     of incompatible land uses, like placing housing near areas 
     zoned for use or storage of hazardous materials. In addition, 
     hazardous waste sites continue to be a significant concern. 
     The Environmental Protection Agency determined that one in 
     every four children in the United States lives within one 
     mile of a National Priorities List hazardous waste site. The 
     United Nations Environment Programme links exposure to heavy 
     metals with certain cancers, kidney damage, and developmental 
     retardation.


                             Social Justice

       Evidence demonstrates that environmental hazards, air 
     pollution, heat-related morbidity and mortality, traffic 
     fatalities, and substandard housing disproportionately affect 
     low-income and minority populations. Environmental Protection 
     Agency data shows that Hispanics are more likely than Whites 
     to live in air pollution non-attainment areas. Asthma 
     mortality is approximately three times higher among Blacks 
     than it is among Whites. As neighborhoods undergo 
     gentrification, people of a lower socioeconomic status are 
     pushed to the fringes, limiting their access to social 
     services. A lack of public transportation options often 
     exacerbates the problem and leaves minority populations 
     disproportionately affected by less access to quality 
     housing, healthy air, good quality water, and adequate 
     transportation.


                             Role of LPHAs

       Because most land use planning occurs at the local level, 
     it is essential that LPHAs become more integrated in the 
     planning process in order to address and prevent unfavoravble 
     outcomes for public health. LPHAs must assume a diverse and 
     proactive approach in order to be successful in this role, 
     including:
       Forging partnerships between LPHAs and local planning and 
     transportation officials in order to bring health to the 
     planning table.
       Using data to arm and inform stakeholders and decision 
     makers, substituting national data if local data is 
     unavailable.
       Expanding the role of LPHAs in commenting on development 
     plans.
       Electing health officials to planning boards and other 
     community positions.
       Attending planning meetings regularly.
       Serving as information conduits, keeping abreast of current 
     processes and policies, and disseminating information to 
     community members.
       Adopting local resolutions on health and land use/
     transportation planning.


                             naccho's role

       NACCHO's goal is to integrate public health practice more 
     effectively into the land use planning process by enhancing 
     the capacity of LPHAs to be involved in land use decision 
     making. Through the development of tools and resources, 
     NACCHO strives to promote the involvement of LPHAs with 
     elected officials, planners, and community representatives in 
     regard to health issues and land use planning. Focus groups 
     conducted by NACCHO during the past year explored strategies 
     for integrating public health and land use planning. To learn 
     more, visit www.naccho.org/project84.cfm, or call (202) 783-
     5550 and ask to speak with a member of NACCHO's environmental 
     health staff.

  Mr. HARKIN. This amendment will improve our transportation system. It 
will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.
  And it will be good for the health and wellness of the American 
people. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong, bipartisan vote in 
favor of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as noted by the Senator from Iowa, this bill 
incorporates more for bicycles and pedestrians than most highway users 
can support. We have been very generous. The activities are eligible 
under the core programs for the National Highway System, STP, CMAQ, 
highway bridge funding. They are eligible under scenic byways, Federal 
lands, rails and trails.
  Do not get me wrong. I like bikes. I used to be a big bike rider. I 
am a big walker. But this is a highway bill. This is not a bill for 
bicycles and pedestrians. I would urge everyone to get exercise. The 
proposal we have before us would require my State department of 
transportation to plan for bicycles, completing Highway 63 from Macon 
to the Iowa line. Most of my good friends along there are not going to 
ride a bicycle from Macon to the Iowa line, to the wonderful farm 
fields in north Missouri or along the hilly mountain paths of Highway 
60 in southern Missouri in the Ozark Mountains or Highway 13 or Highway 
71.
  We have plenty of programs. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian 
walkways are under here. It provides grants of $2 million. They want a 
bicycle clearinghouse like a Publishers Clearinghouse.
  The proponent of this amendment says he needs it for the metropolitan 
planning organizations. Well, if my colleagues will look at section 
134(a)(3) contents, the plans and programs for each metropolitan area 
shall provide for development and operation facilities, including 
pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation. Metropolitan planning 
organizations already are mandated to do that.
  Section 1823 has enhancement projects approved. They are eligible for 
facilities for pedestrians and bicycle activities, preservation for 
abandoned railway corridors. Similar to the administration's proposed 
SAFETEA, we elevated SAFETEA to a core program. This part, known as 
HSIP, there is a mandatory set-aside specifically for bicycle and 
pedestrian activities. We set it up as $717 million, and since the 
overall level of the bill has been raised by $8 billion, this level has 
gone up.
  There is also the Safe Routes to School Program. If you want people 
to be safe going to school, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration said 24 people die a year on average from school bus 
transportation, but it is far and away the safest way for children to 
go to and from school. That is by schoolbus.
  A number of my colleagues have amendments regarding bicycle and 
pedestrian activities. It seems that they have some different 
priorities than the mayors and the community leaders and the State 
departments of transportation I see in my State. They want to make sure 
we have roads. If the department of transportation in Iowa and

[[Page S4928]]

Missouri want it, they can plan for it, as can the metropolitan 
planning organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Under the 
previous order, the hour of 5:30 having arrived, the question is on 
agreeing to the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent to make a unanimous consent request 
on an amendment passed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the Talent amendment at the 
desk, which is identical to the amendment agreed to previously, be 
conformed to the pending amendment--the amendment which is identical to 
the amendment agreed to, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Oklahoma, I 
reserve the right to object--I will object.
  Objection is heard.
  The question is on agreeing to the Lautenberg amendment. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), and the Senator from New Mexico 
(Mr. Domenici).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Corzine
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--69

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coleman
     Dayton
     Domenici
  The amendment (No. 625) was rejected.


                     Amendment No. 618, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Harkin amendment.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is about doing what is 
logical regarding sidewalks and bike paths in the planning stages. You 
will hear there is money in this bill for sidewalks and bike trails. 
That is true. But more often than not, we are always doing things after 
the fact. We are redoing it.
  All this amendment says is in the planning upfront, you plan for 
sidewalks where they are logical. You plan for bike paths where they 
are logical. You plan it in the beginning, not doing it later on. These 
are some of the organizations who support the amendment: the American 
Association of Retired People, the Association of Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations--they are the ones who have to do the planning; they are 
in favor of this amendment--American Bikes, Paralyzed Veterans of 
America--people with disabilities need more sidewalks--the American 
Heart Association, and the American Public Health Association.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. This provides tremendous resources for bicycles and 
pedestrians, more than $717 million in a mandatory set-aside for bike 
and pedestrian activities. Metropolitan planning organizations are 
already required under existing law to plan for bike and pedestrian 
facilities. What this amendment says is: If you are planning a highway 
from Leftover Shoes to Podunk Junction in the middle of a State with 
nobody around, you would have to plan for a bike path. We have a lot of 
roads through our Ozark hills and farmland where the danger is 
inadequate two-lane highways. People are not going to ride bicycles 
along those highways. They need the lanes to drive their cars. Putting 
an additional planning burden on agencies that don't want or need bike 
paths is another unwarranted mandate. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 618, as modified.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), and the Senator from New Mexico 
(Mr. Domenici).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coleman
     Dayton
     Domenici
  The amendment (No. 618), as modified, was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 610 to Amendment No. 605

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, 
I ask unanimous consent to call up his amendment 610 and ask that it be 
set aside after reporting by the clerk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for Mr. Feingold and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 610.

  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To improve the accuracy and efficacy of identity 
        authentication systems and ensure privacy and security)

       In section 179(a) of title 23, United States Code (as added 
     by section 7139(a)), insert ``previously verified as 
     accurate'' after ``other information''.
       In section 179(a) of title 23, United States Code (as added 
     by section 7139(a)), strike ``with a system using scoring 
     models and algorithms''.
       In section 179(d)(1) of title 23, United States Code (as 
     added by section 7139(a)), strike ``use multiple sources'' 
     and insert ``ensure accurate sources''.
       In section 179(d)(3) of title 23, United States Code (as 
     added by section 7139(a)), strike ``and'' at the end.
       In section 179(d) of title 23, United States Code (as added 
     by section 7139(a)), strike paragraph (4) and insert the 
     following:

[[Page S4929]]

       ``(4) incorporate a comprehensive program ensuring 
     administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect 
     the privacy and security of means of identification (as 
     defined in section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code), 
     against unauthorized and fraudulent access or uses;
       ``(5) impose limitations to ensure that any information 
     containing means of identification transferred or shared with 
     third-party vendors for the purposes of the information-based 
     identity authentication described in this section is only 
     used by the third-party vendors for the specific purposes 
     authorized under this section;
       ``(6) include procedures to ensure accuracy and enable 
     applicants for commercial driver's licenses who are denied 
     licenses as a result of the information-based identity 
     authentication described in this section, to appeal the 
     determination and correct information upon which the 
     comparison described in subsection (a) is based;
       ``(7) ensure that the information-based identity 
     authentication described in this section--
       ``(A) can accurately assess and authenticate identities; 
     and
       ``(B) will not produce a large number of false positives or 
     unjustified adverse consequences;
       ``(8) create penalties for knowing use of inaccurate 
     information as a basis for comparison in authenticating 
     identity; and
       ``(9) adopt policies and procedures establishing effective 
     oversight of the information-based identity authentication 
     systems of State departments of motor vehicles.''.

                          ____________________