[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.''.
____________________