Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 62 (Thursday, May 12, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 62 (Thursday, May 12, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5014-S5062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

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

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

Pending:

Inhofe amendment No. 605, to provide a complete substitute.
Dorgan amendment No. 652 (to amendment No. 605), to provide
for the conduct of an investigation to determine whether
market manipulation is contributing to higher gasoline
prices.
Nelson (FL) (for Feingold) amendment No. 610 (to amendment
No. 605) to improve the accuracy and efficacy of identity
authentication systems and ensure privacy and security.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60
minutes for debate equally divided between the Senator from Oklahoma
and the Senator from Vermont or their designees prior to the vote on
the motion to invoke cloture on the pending substitute amendment.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, those of us who are in the managing
positions want to explain what it is about and why the cloture is very
important. However, we do want to accommodate the Senator from Arizona,
who is busy with a markup right now, and if there is no objection, I
would recognize him for up to 8 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the
Senator from Missouri for their courtesy, and I will try to be brief in
my statement.
Nearly 50 years ago, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was enacted
into law. As I mentioned during last year's debate, the 1956 act added
up to a mere 29 pages--a tiny fraction of this year's highway bill. But
what it accomplished truly changed this country. The act created
programs that led to the construction of the Interstate Highway System,
the largest civil works project ever undertaken by the United States.
The 1956 act was the brainchild of President Eisenhower to establish
the highway trust fund, financed by taxes on gasoline to fund this
massive undertaking. The act required the construction of an interstate
highway system using a uniform design that would be safer than most
U.S. highways in existence at that time.
Mr. President, today we are all the beneficiaries of the foresight of
President Eisenhower and of the Congress that helped to shepherd the
legislation through to enactment. The Interstate System today is 47,000
miles long, comprised of 62 superhighways crisscrossing the Nation in a
grid. Twenty-four percent of all travel occurs on the interstates, and
the system has obtained a record of being twice as safe as other
highways.
Unfortunately, when people look back 50 years from now at the highway
legislation that the Senate will consider shortly, I doubt that history
will remember this as having helped improve on President Eisenhower's
``grand plan.'' We are no longer focused on building a unified
transportation system to improve the safety, security, and economy of
our Nation as a whole. Instead, we are faced with legislation that
redistributes funding to the States in an unfair manner.
Approximately every 6 years we reauthorize our Nation's multiyear
highway, transit, and safety programs. We last reauthorized these
programs in 1998 with the enactment of TEA-21 following extensive
debate in the Senate. In the 108th Congress we did not reauthorize
these programs, and, instead, Congress passed a series of short-term
extensions of TEA-21, and this happened for good reason. The bill
brought to the Senate floor in the last Congress would have increased
overall funding to $318 billion, $100 billion over the TEA-21 enacted
level.

[[Page S5015]]

I commend the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee
for reducing the authorized number to match the President's fiscal 2006
budget proposal of $284 billion in the version of the bill reported by
his committee. Reduction in the overall size of the bill was a
significant improvement over the legislation presented to the Senate
last year. Fiscal discipline is a key component of this debate. As Alan
Greenspan warned some days ago, ``Under existing tax rates and
reasonable assumptions about other spending, projections make clear
that the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path in which large
deficits result in rising interest rates and ever growing interest
payments that augment deficits in future years.''

We need to control our spending. We must. And that is why the overall
size of this bill should not be inflated. We are considering a
substitute amendment to the bill that as proposed increases obligations
by $11 billion, and I think that is wrong.
According to the Statement of Administration Policy regarding the
highway bill, ``Should the obligation or net authorization levels that
would result from the final bill exceed (that amount), the President's
senior advisors will recommend that he veto the bill.''
Apparently, we are now going to test whether the President will veto
the bill.
Fiscal prudence is crucial, but even if the conferees act sensibly
and recognize the need for an agreement that would be acceptable to the
President, that alone would not make the legislation adequate.
Equity is also crucial and, unfortunately, the highway bill that is
before us retains unfair features of past bills. In some cases, it is
even more unfair than last year's legislation. This year's highway bill
perpetuates the historical discrepancy between donor States and donee
States.
Remarkably, not only does the bill continue the disparity, it
actually exacerbates it. Whereas the bill that was passed last year by
the Senate would have increased theoretically every State's rate of
return to 95 percent in the final year of the bill, the substitute
amendment before the Senate only promises a rate of 92 percent in 2009
for those States. Until then many States would linger at a rate of
return of 90.5 in the first year and 91 percent thereafter while others
receive more--in some cases much more than what they contribute to the
highway trust fund. As if that were not enough, this year's bill would
actually propose to create further disparities between States. Although
``equity'' is in the title of the legislation, the number of donor
States would increase from 28 under current law to 31. Under the
Environment and Public Works Committee's so-called formula, which is
less a formula than it is a series of calculations consisting of
arbitrary funding caps and floors, some States would actually receive a
greater rate of return than they would have under last year's bill,
despite the fact that this year's overall funding is less. That is
remarkable.
My colleagues may wonder how this is possible, and they may question
my facts. But as hard as this may be to believe, it is true. For
example, the State of Missouri, which currently receives a rate of
return of 91 percent, would have received an increased rate of return
of 95 percent immediately and then throughout the reauthorization.
Under the substitute amendment before us, Missouri will go from a rate
of return of 91 percent to 99 percent immediately.
Despite Missouri's good fortune, five States would continue to linger
at the bottom of the barrel for 4 years. In the fifth year, at least
theoretically, these States would increase their rates of return to 92
percent, a modest increase of 1.5 percent over current law; 1.5 percent
when other States enjoy a rate of return of over 200 percent, in one
case almost 530 percent, in that final year. They say that beggars
can't be choosers, but this legislation shouldn't be passed solely to
prove that point. States like Arizona, California, and Texas should not
be in the position of begging for their fair share of contributions to
the highway trust fund.
I fully recognize that during the years when the Federal Government
was building the interstate system, a redistribution of funding between
the States may have made sense. Clearly, it would have been very
difficult for the State of Montana, for example, with fewer than a
million people, to pay the full cost of building its share of the
intestate system. But that era is over. Congress declared the
construction of the interstate system complete in 1991. Yet here we
are, almost 15 years later, and donor States are still expected to
agree to the redistribution of hundreds of millions, if not billions,
of dollars to other States regardless of the already enormous
transportation needs of donor States.
Let me be clear. Today, the need is in the highest growth States,
which face some of this Nation's toughest transportation challenges.
According to the most recent Census Bureau projections, Florida, Texas,
and Arizona, all super-donor States receiving the minimum rate of
return, will be among the five fastest-growing States over the next 25
years. Yet the donee States, many with shrinking populations, continue
to receive growing subsidies from donor States. Meanwhile, States like
Florida, Texas, and Arizona, and others including Colorado and Indiana,
would be held for no apparent reason at the bottom. Other States,
including Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia also would continue to get
shortchanged. This is not the right approach, it is unfair, and we
should do everything we can to ensure that any bill voted off this
floor is more equitable for all States.
Now, I am sure we will hear about the great transportation needs of
the States that receive more funds than they contribute. And I have no
doubt that those States do, in fact, have significant needs. But how
was it determined that California, for example, should have an average
of $260 million per year of its funding redistributed as the EPW-
reported bill would direct? Why aren't California's transportation
needs as worthy of receiving the same percentage of Federal funds as
provided to meet the transportation needs of a State like New York, for
example, which is scheduled to receive a rate of return of 111 percent,
or an average of over $140 million per year more than it contributes.
This significant rate of return isn't the product of savvy investment.
It is a guaranteed rate of return well above 100 percent that is built
on the backs of donor States.
Why should a State like Alaska receive a rate of return in 2009 of
almost 530 percent when it currently already receives a return of 500
percent? Why should Montana receive a rate of return of almost 228
percent, or Vermont a rate of over 212 percent? These figures defy any
reasonable explanation other than the following: This bill is less
about the integrity of our Nation's transportation system than it is
about maximizing the amount of money going to some States at the
expense of others.
I support a long-term reauthorization of our Nation's surface
transportation programs and I understand the vital nature of this
funding to our States. But before we take action on this bill, I urge
my colleagues to start asking questions and to take seriously the
consequences of increasing the size of this bill beyond the $284
billion level and of perpetuating the inequitable distribution of funds
under this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 636 to Amendment No. 605

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside in order to call up Ensign amendment
No. 636.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Ensign,
proposes an amendment numbered 636.

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 authorize the State of Nevada to continue construction of
the US-95 Project in Las Vegas, Nevada)

On page 410, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. __. US-95 PROJECT, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the project identified

[[Page S5016]]

as the preferred alternative in the document entitled ``US-95
Project in Las Vegas, Nevada'', as approved by the Federal
Highway Administration on November 18, 1999, and selected in
the record of decision dated January 28, 2000, shall be
considered to meet all requirements of section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)) and any related laws with respect to the
determination contained in the record of decision.
(b) Authorization.--The State of Nevada may continue
construction of the project described in subsection (a) to
completion.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a couple of brief comments. I know
how sincere the senior Senator from Arizona is concerning this bill,
and it does demonstrate that it is very difficult when we are trying to
be fair and we are trying to do a formula to make everybody happy.
Probably every Senator is a little bit unhappy with it. That is what
makes it, perhaps, a fair formula.
It is true--the Senator was accurate--as far as the history of the
Interstate System back in the Eisenhower administration and the
redistribution of funds. This is what we have to keep in mind, though:
Yes, the Interstate System is complete, but it still must be
maintained.
He talked about the State of Montana. Yes, it is true the State of
Montana does not have the population to support the highways, and yet
they have to have the highway system. That system, even though it may
be complete, must be maintained.
In defense of the formula, there are two ways of doing this. One way,
we could do what has been customary in the other body, and that is come
out with a group of projects, take care of a certain number of people
in the passed bill, and then walk away from it. That would be very
easy.
I will tell my colleagues, what would be easy is to go ahead and
distribute a bunch of funds to 60 Senators and then sit back and say:
The rest of you guys, that is your problem. But we do not do it that
way. Instead, in looking at the formula and the factors, it is an
incredibly difficult thing we are dealing with. We have factors that
have to do with the donor status of the State, the number of miles in
the State, the age of the State, the passthrough provisions of the
State, and the fatalities per capita of the State. My State of Oklahoma
has a higher per capita fatality rate, and therefore one has to come to
the conclusion that there is a reason for that. So all of these factors
are a part of a very complicated formula.
It may be that people will look at it and say: You do not treat--it
is kind of interesting. I will hear from people from the fast growing
States who say, We do not get as high as we need to get in our donor
status relief, and yet at the same time we hear from some of the
Eastern States that are complaining because the floor is too low. So I
would think that everyone should realize that there is not going to be
a perfect formula that makes everybody happy.
It is a formula that is as fair as we can come up with. We have been
working on this for 3 years. This is not something that just came out.
When the Senator from Arizona says that last year's bill was guaranteed
to raise the donor status floor to 95 percent, that is easy because we
had the money to do it. This year, we do not have the money to do it.
Even with the amendment that was passed, all that does is raise it from
90.5 percent to 92 percent. It is a very difficult thing.
I do not want to use up an inordinate amount of time, but I will talk
about why we have to do this today. The only alternative to passing a
bill is to have another extension. If we have another extension, we do
not really get into the problem. We do not take care of the donor State
rate of return. We do not have any of the new safety core programs. We
have literally spent months putting this together. Of course, those
provisions were in the Commerce Committee. We need to respond to the
deaths on the highways. If we do not pass the bill, we are not going to
have any kind of streamlining of environmental reviews. We are not
going to have any increase in the ability to use the innovative
financing systems which are included.
This bill contains the establishment of a national commission to
explore how to fund transportation in the future. As the Senator from
Arizona said, 50 years ago we started this system, back during the
Eisenhower administration. He recognized there was a problem back when
he was Major Eisenhower and he was trying to move goods and services
around. He recognized there was a problem, but we have not changed the
way we are funding highways for 50 years.
This bill establishes a commission to come up with more innovative
ways and allows the States to participate. People are concerned about
things such as Safe Routes to School. If we go on an extension instead
of a bill, we are not going to have Safe Routes to School. There is
uncertainty that is out there. I know my State of Oklahoma is not any
different from the rest of the States. We are on our sixth extension
now. If we are operating on an extension, it could be a 1-month
extension, it could be a 1-year extension.
There is no certainty by which we can plan the construction and
maintenance of highways and do something about the bridges. The bridges
in Oklahoma are worse than any of the bridges in the Nation. It is a
life-and-death situation. People are dying. We have had two deaths
in Oklahoma just because of the condition of the bridges. So we are
going to have to do something. If we operate on extensions, we are not
going to be able to have any of those improvements.

As far as the border program, the States that are complaining about
this program are actually border States. They are States that have the
benefit of some of the provisions to take care of the borders. NAFTA
has been passed, and there is increased road travel. We will not have a
borders program if we do not pass a bill. It would just be an extension
of the old program.
Lastly, the firewall protection--we need to make sure that people
quit robbing the highway trust fund. I was in disagreement with the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and I said the problem
we have been having is people are taking money out of the trust fund
and using it for purposes to establish and support policies that have
nothing to do with transportation. These are the things that concern
me.
We want to stay within our timeframe. Before turning to Senator Bond,
I guess Senator Jeffords is not in the Chamber, so we will turn to
Senator Baucus. After that, I ask unanimous consent that we stay on
this course and first recognize Senator Baucus, and that after his
completion we recognize Senator Bond for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is quite clear, especially based upon
the vote on the point of order yesterday where 76 Members of this body
voted to waive that point of order indicating their support for this
program, that there is not a lot of controversy remaining on this bill.
There are important amendments, clearly, that will be offered by
Members, but I believe all of us in this body know that this bill must
be passed and must be passed quickly. It should be passed today, and it
probably will be passed today, both because it is important and also to
avoid the May 31 date when current law expires. Hopefully, we will get
a conference that will bring back a conference report so we can pass
this legislation and send it to the President's desk by that time.
There is one point I wish to make, though. There is some concern that
this bill is not fair to every State. We hear this in the committee. We
who are managing this bill hear that statement often from a lot of
Senators. I understand it. Every Senator is doing what he or she should
do, and that is to fight for his or her State. I compliment those
Senators. It is our job as managers of the bill and also our job as a
body to do the very best we can to be as fair as possible to all
concerned and get this legislation passed.
I will say a word or two in defense of the Western States that are
large in area but small in population as to why this national highway
program is fair to us--I represent the State of Montana--and why it is
also fair to some of the more populous States.
We do not have a lot of people in Montana. Our population density is
about six people per square mile. There are not very many States with a
population density lower than ours. We are

[[Page S5017]]

a huge State in area. In fact, the length across our State of Montana
is as great as the distance from Washington, DC, to Chicago. It is that
far to drive across Montana. In addition, if one were to overlay
Montana over the New England States, the State of Montana would include
New York and all the other New England States, and also include
Pennsylvania. I think it would include about half of New Jersey. So it
is a large area but very low in population density. The State of
Arizona, for example, has 45 people per square mile. Montana, as I
mentioned, has about six people per square mile.
This is a national program. We are trying to get all States included.
New Jersey, I might add, has a population density of about 1,100 people
per square mile. New York has about 401 people per square mile. Again,
Montana has six people per square mile. This is a national highway
program. We want Americans to be able to travel freely across all
States, the more populated States and also the less populated
States. We want our commerce to travel nationwide, for truckers to be
able to drive their vehicles across the United States virtually
unimpeded. We do not want a situation where some States have the
resources to build nice new highways and other States, just because
there aren't any people there, do not have the resources to build
highways, so it would be an uneven system.

Clearly, not everybody is unhappy. We have done the best we can to
make this as balanced as it could possibly be. I think the vote
yesterday, while it is not a direct vote, is an indirect indication
that most Senators are pretty satisfied. When 76 Senators vote to waive
the point of order that was made yesterday, that is a vote in favor of
the highway bill. I think that is a pretty good indication this is a
fair and balanced bill.
Different States have different State gasoline taxes to help pay for
the highways in their States, matching along with the Federal
contributions. We in the State of Montana pay a lot also per capita in
our contributions to State and Federal highway trust funds, a lot more
than most other States. In our State of Montana we spend about $360 per
person per year in contributions to the highways. The national average
is about $250 per person per year. We in Montana spend $360 per person
per year. I point out that the folks in Arizona are actually below the
average. The contributions the people in Arizona pay to the highway
trust fund, both to the State and Federal highway trust funds, is about
$235 per Arizonan per year. That is below the national average.
That is fine. That is a decision in large part the people in Arizona
are making because of their State gasoline taxes. But it is also a
consequence of a lot of other factors in the formula for the States.
The long and short of it is Arizonans pay less than the national
average per capita in their contributions to Federal and State highway
funds, whereas folks in other States pay much more. Montanans, as I
mentioned, pay $360. South Dakotans pay a lot more for highways, more
than the national average. People in South Dakota pay about $312 per
person. It is interesting--New Yorkers actually are very low. New
Yorkers pay only about $152 per person in their contributions to the
highways in the State of New York. That is half what it is in some
other States.
Everybody can bring out figures and statistics. But I do think, for
the sake of equity and fairness, it makes sense to get a good bit of
these statistics out in the open, on the record, so we all understand
and realize it is not a perfect bill, but it is a bill that by and
large accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish--that is provide
the resources so we can build and maintain our highways, our mass
transit, and some of the other programs affiliated with the highway
program.
I thank the chairman, who is doing a great job managing this bill. I
also very much thank Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, for excellent leadership. Also
I give special thanks to my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator
Grassley. He and I have worked closely together to provide the revenue
for this bill and it is basically through gasoline taxes and other
excise taxes.
I remind my colleagues this legislation before us does not add to the
Federal deficit, not at all. In fact, it reduces the Federal deficit.
It reduces the Federal deficits; that is, our national debt, by about
$14 billion over 10 years. We reduce the national debt--not by a lot,
but we reduce it. We do not add to the debt. We reduce the debt by
about $14 billion over 10 years.
Those who are concerned that this is a spending bill, that this bill
adds to the national debt and deficit, that is not accurate. As a
reminder, this bill does not add at all to Federal deficit, not one
dime. It is all paid for.
I know a lot of proposals a lot of Senators have, either to lower
taxes or spend money on something, are not paid for. This big highway
program is all paid for. It is jobs for America. It is infrastructure
for America so we Americans can live the life we want to lead, have the
highways we want to have, and compete in the modern world and off in
the future with a good highway system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Missouri is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my thanks to the chairman and also to my
colleague on the Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee, the
Senator from Montana. As I say, it helps to have a cousin in the
business. It helps to have a ranking member who is also ranking on
Finance with Senator Grassley. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have
done a great job. It is a pleasure to work with him, with Senator
Grassley, Senator Jeffords and, of course, our chairman, Senator
Inhofe.
I hope everybody has been having as enjoyable a time as those of us
who have been trying to lead this bill from the various committees--
EPW, Commerce, Finance. I know this is a very pleasurable experience.
But the time has come for it to end. It is time for us to invoke
cloture. That is why we are asking our colleagues to put an end to
this. All good things have to come to a close. If we are to get this
bill done, we need to invoke cloture and give it a timeframe. We have
already limited the number of amendments.
The simple fact is we have to get this bill to conference. We have to
go to work with the House to come up with a very important surface
transportation bill, known as SAFETEA, this year. The extension expires
in May. We are operating on our sixth extension. The original bill, the
last bill, ran out on September 30, 2003. We have had extensions. We
have missed the deadline. We absolutely have to get this bill passed.
If the extension expires and we do not do anything, not only does the
U.S. Department of Transportation shut down but States would not be
able to issue new contracts for summer construction programs on Federal
aid highways. We would have a significant economic blow to our country
as well as a delay in the building of our necessary roads.
Cloture will enable us to get to conference. It is going to be a very
different conference. The House has a measure that is essentially
project oriented. As has been stated by my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle here, we have attempted to achieve equity by a very complex
formula. The Senator from Montana made a very important point. When we
came to the floor, we added $11 billion. Why did we do this? The
administration's own Department of Transportation puts out annually a
conditions and performance report. Even with the $11 billion we added
to the base number of $284 billion, according to the administration's
own report, it still is not enough money even to maintain our current
system. That is why money was added. That is why the Finance Committee
was given the authority under the Talent-Stabenow amendment to add
money. That is why we waived the point of order--because this money is
important.
We heard my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, complaining about
adding money, implying it was adding to the deficit. You have already
heard that is pure nonsense. There is, as a matter of fact, a positive
impact because the Finance Committee has not only added money to the
highway trust

[[Page S5018]]

fund, but to make sure there was no shortfall in the general revenue
sections, they added more general revenue. There is more general
revenue coming in than before as a result of this amendment we adopted,
and there is more money in the highway trust fund.

Regarding the point made by the Senator from Arizona, if the
situation were not so serious, it would be funny. There is nothing like
a good joke like having a Senator complaining he is not getting enough
money and complaining we added money when adding that money brings the
State of Arizona increase from last year's bill to 40.6 percent. They
do fantastically well. They are one of the top three winners in the
whole bill--top four, and he is complaining we added money.
You know the old story about the boy who kills his parents and when
charged with murder he throws himself on the mercy of the court because
he is an orphan. You can either complain about not getting enough money
or you can complain about having more money added to the bill; you
cannot do both at the same time. You have to pick one side of the fence
or the other.
This bill does have very important aspects. First and foremost, the
economic impact--47,500 jobs are created for every $1 billion spent.
That is immediate economic impact. The longer term economic impact of a
good transportation bill, as I have pointed out on the floor before--as
a former Governor of my State, I know if you want to know where
economic growth is going to occur, where jobs are going to grow, you
take a look at the transportation system. You have to have good
transportation to create good jobs and to have a strong economy.
There are also aspects of this bill, of course, that improve our
environment, because we are reducing congestion. We are putting
environmental planning at the start of the planning process so we can
take care of environmental concerns sooner.
But the real name of this bill is the SAFETEA bill, and safety is
probably the most important part of this bill as far as my State is
concerned. I have told this body several times of the number of friends
I have lost on highways in Missouri. You can travel many national
highways, Federal aid highways in Missouri, that are two-lane roads
with traffic that merits having four lanes. Do you know what happens
when you have a slow-moving livestock truck or piece of equipment,
construction equipment or farm equipment, on a narrow two-lane road?
Traffic backs up and backs up and somebody--very often a stranger to
the area--tries to pull out and pass, with tragic results. We see white
crosses marking our highways where people have lost their lives.
Unfortunately, the number of those white crosses grows.
The Senator from Arizona has complained about the criteria used in
the formula for money going to States that have greater than 1 fatality
per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. That is Missouri and it is 17
other States. Actually it is Arizona as well.
If this is a SAFETEA bill, shouldn't you consider safety? I certainly
think so. Some of the border State people say we need more money
because we are on the borders. I will have a chart this afternoon that
shows an interesting point of information. Some of the heaviest
traffic--some of the heaviest tie-ups, the bottlenecks--is in the
middle of America where East and West, North and South, Southwest and
Northeast traffic all come together. When you look at the traffic in
trucks on our highways on a U.S. Department of Transportation map,
there is a great big artery clog right in the heart of America, in
Missouri, in Oklahoma, in Illinois. That is where the traffic is the
heaviest. We need a crossroads factor in the formula.
It is not the border States alone that have needs. We in the middle
of Nation need that formula. Missouri has the fifth worst roads in the
Nation; 65 percent of its roads are in fair to poor condition,
requiring immediate repair. Missouri also ranks fourth from the bottom
in number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges.
I say that humbly, knowing that my colleague's--the chairman of the
committee--home State of Oklahoma ranks below Missouri.
Yet for all the complaining about how well our States do, we grow at
the average rate of 30.40 percent. We grow in that neighborhood. Yet we
are at the bottom of the list of worst roads and worst bridges in
dangerous condition.
That is why this bill is so important. I urge my colleagues to invoke
cloture, and I reserve the remaining time on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from
Minnesota desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I salute the chairman and the ranking
member for this excellent legislation. I will support a cloture motion.
It is very important we pass this legislation as expeditiously as
possible for States such as Minnesota which have a short highway
construction season.
I wish we had been able to put into place the Senate version a year
ago. I salute Chairman Inhofe for his tireless efforts, working with
his associates in the House and also the administration, in an effort
to pass what would have been an excellent Senate bill a year ago.
This bill is as good as it could be, given some of the pressures. It
is a mystery to me, knowing the serious state of disrepair of our
highways in Minnesota and the lack of funding at the State and
particularly the local level--it is hard to imagine how any other State
could be so far advanced beyond Minnesota's highway construction
situation that the money the Senate wanted a year ago, that would be
providing for needs this year if not for certain pressures--and is
beyond the realm of common sense not to have passed this. So be it.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for, as I understand it,
accepting an amendment I offered, along with Senator Lugar, also
cosponsored by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, Senator
Harkin, Senator Grassley, Senator Durbin, Senator Brownback, and
Senator Bingaman. It is a simple amendment that calls for cars produced
starting the model year of 2007 to have a sticker in two different
locations indicating the presence of a flexible fuel engine that allows
a car or other gasoline-consuming vehicle to use regular gasoline or up
to 85-percent ethanol, which in Minnesota is called E-85 which is 85-
percent ethanol, 15-percent regular unleaded and is used as a
substitute for regular unleaded gasoline in vehicles that have these
flexible fuel engines.
I have two cars, factory-produced Ford Explorers--one in Washington,
DC, where unfortunately I cannot find the fuel, and one in Minnesota,
where I can--which are as efficient as my previous vehicles using
regular gasoline, and presently in Minnesota between 30 and 40 cents a
gallon cheaper than regular unleaded.
Consumers will use this fuel as a lower cost alternative if they have
cars or vehicles that can use it, which is why I have another amendment
to offer to the Energy bill that requires vehicles produced starting
model year 2007 or thereafter to all carry a flexible fuel engine so
consumers have this lower cost option. At least those who buy these
vehicles will be aware they have a flexible fuel engine and can take
advantage of this much lower cost fuel.
This amendment is supported by the National Ethanol Vehicle
Association, by the National Corn Growers Association, by the Governors
Ethanol Coalition which Governor Pawlenty from Minnesota chairs, the
Renewable Fuels Association, National Farmers Union. The automakers are
neutral to it.
I thank the Chair and ranking member for accepting it and hope it
will be enacted soon.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Brownback be added as a cosponsor to
the Lugar Dayton amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DAYTON. 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.

[[Page S5019]]

Amendments Nos. 574, 598, 624 as Modified, 628, 634 as Modified, 643,
670 as Modified, 681 as Modified, 621, 622, 666 as Modified, 685, 694,
705 as Modified, 708 as Modified, 713 as Modified, 737, 725, 726 as
Modified, and 755 to Amendment No. 725

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a series of amendments that have
been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendments be set aside provided, further, that the list of amendments
I have sent to the desk, including modifications to some of those
amendments, be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements relating to the amendments be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 574

(Purpose: To allow States to own the entire interest of a real estate
investment trust without tax consequences in order to assist the State
in preserving its railroad infrastructure, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. TAX TREATMENT OF STATE OWNERSHIP OF RAILROAD REAL
ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST.

(a) In General.--If a State owns all of the outstanding
stock of a corporation--
(1) which is a real estate investment trust on the date of
the enactment of this Act,
(2) which is a non-operating class III railroad, and
(3) substantially all of the activities of which consist of
the ownership, leasing, and operation by such corporation of
facilities, equipment, and other property used by the
corporation or other persons for railroad transportation and
for economic development purposes for the benefit of the
State and its citizens,

then, to the extent such activities are of a type which are
an essential governmental function within the meaning of
section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, income
derived from such activities by the corporation shall be
treated as accruing to the State for purposes of section 115
of such Code.
(b) Gain or Loss Not Recognized on Conversion.--
Notwithstanding section 337(d) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986--
(1) no gain or loss shall be recognized under section 336
or 337 of such Code, and
(2) no change in basis of the property of such corporation
shall occur,

because of any change of status of a corporation to a tax-
exempt entity by reason of the application of subsection (a).
(c) Tax-Exempt Financing.--
(1) In general.--Any obligation issued by a corporation
described in subsection (a) at least 95 percent of the net
proceeds (as defined in section 150(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) of which are to be used to provide for
the acquisition, construction, or improvement of railroad
transportation infrastructure (including railroad terminal
facilities)--
(A) shall be treated as a State or local bond (within the
meaning of section 103(c) of such Code), and
(B) shall not be treated as a private activity bond (within
the meaning of section 103(b)(1) of such Code) solely by
reason of the ownership or use of such railroad
transportation infrastructure by the corporation.
(2) No inference.--Except as provided in paragraph (1),
nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect the
treatment of the private use of proceeds or property financed
with obligations issued by the corporation for purposes of
section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and part IV
of subchapter B of such Code.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Real estate investment trust.--The term ``real estate
investment trust'' has the meaning given such term by section
856(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(2) Non-operating class iii railroad.--The term ``non-
operating class III railroad'' has the meaning given such
term by part A of subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code
(49 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), and the regulations thereunder.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' includes--
(A) the District of Columbia and any possession of the
United States, and
(B) any authority, agency, or public corporation of a
State.
(e) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this
section shall apply on and after the date on which a State
becomes the owner of all of the outstanding stock of a
corporation described in subsection (a) through action of
such corporation's board of directors.
(2) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any State
which--
(A) becomes the owner of all of the voting stock of a
corporation described in subsection (a) after December 31,
2003, or
(B) becomes the owner of all of the outstanding stock of a
corporation described in subsection (a) after December 31,
2006.

amendment no. 598

(Purpose: To provide a 90 percent Federal match for bridge projects on
the Interstate Highway System)

In section 120(a)(1) of title 23, United States Code (as
amended by section 1301), insert ``a bridge project or''
before ``a project to add''.
In section 144 of title 23, United States Code (as amended
by section 1807(a)(9)), strike subsection (r) and insert the
following:
``(r) Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
the Federal share of the cost of a project payable from funds
made available to carry out this section shall be the share
applicable under section 120(b), as adjusted under section
120(d).
``(2) Interstate system.--The Federal share of the cost of
a project on the Interstate System payable from funds made
available to carry out this section shall be the share
applicable under section 120(a).''.

amendment no. 624, as modified

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

SEC. 18__. ALASKA WAY VIADUCT STUDY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in 2001, the Alaska Way Viaduct, a critical segment of
the National Highway System in Seattle, Washington, was
seriously damaged by the Nisqually earthquake;
(2) an effort to address the possible repair, retrofit, or
replacement of the Alaska Way Viaduct that conforms with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) is underway; and
(3) as a result of the efforts referred to in paragraph
(1), a locally preferred alternative for the Alaska Way
Viaduct is being developed.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.
(2) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Seattle,
Washington.
(3) Earthquake.--The term ``earthquake'' means the
Nisqually earthquake of 2001.
(4) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the emergency fund
authorized under section 125 of title 23, United States Code.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the Washington State
Department of Transportation.
(6) Viaduct.--The term ``Viaduct'' means the Alaska Way
Viaduct.
(c) Study.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in cooperation with
the State and the City, shall conduct a comprehensive study
to determine the specific damage to the Viaduct from the
earthquake that contribute to the ongoing degradation of the
Viaduct.
(2) Requirements.--The study under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) identify any repair, retrofit, and replacement costs
for the Viaduct that are eligible for additional assistance
from the Fund, consistent with the emergency relief manual
governing eligible expenses from the Fund; and
(B) determine the amount of assistance from the Fund for
which the Viaduct is eligible.
(3) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report that describes the findings of the study.

amendment no. 628

(Purpose: To reestablish the University of Buffalo as an appropriate
research center for research on the impact of seismic activity on the
Federal-aid highway system)

On page 439, line 3, insert ``and the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research at the University of
Buffalo,'' after ``Reno,''.

amendment no. 634, as modified

After Sec. 7260 of title VII:

SEC. 1623. IDENTIFICATION OF CERTAIN ALTERNATIVE FUELED
VEHICLES.

(a) In General.--Section 32908 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsection
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Identification of Certain Alternative Fueled
Vehicles.--A manufacturer shall affix, or have affixed, to
each dual fueled automobile manufactured by the manufacturer
(including each light duty truck) that may be operated on the
alternative fuel described in section 32901(a)(1)(D)--
``(1) a permanent label inside the automobile's fuel door
compartment that--
``(A) meets the requirements of the regulations prescribed
by the Administrator for such label; and
``(B) states that the automobile may be operated on the
alternative fuel described in section 32901(a)(1)(D) and
identifies such alternative fuel; and
``(2) a temporary label to the window or windshield of the
automobile that--
``(A) meets the requirements of the regulations prescribed
by the Administrator for such label; and
``(B) identifies the automobile as capable of operating on
such alternative fuel.''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than March 1, 2006, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
promulgate regulations--
(1) for the label referred to in paragraph (1) of section
32908(e) of title 49, United States Code, as amended by
subsection (a), that describe--
(A) the language that shall be set out on the label,
including a statement that the vehicle is capable of
operating on a mixture of 85 percent ethanol blended with
gasoline; and

[[Page S5020]]

(B) the appropriate size and color of the font of such
language so that it is conspicuous to the individual
introducing fuel into the vehicle; and
(2) for the temporary window or windshield label referred
to in paragraph (2) of such section 32908(e), that--
(A) prohibit the label from being removed by any seller
prior to the final sale of the vehicle to a consumer; and
(B) describe the specifications of the label, including
that the label shall be--
(i) prominently displayed and conspicuous on the vehicle;
and
(ii) separate from any other window or windshield sticker,
decal, or label.
(c) Compliance.--
(1) In general.--A manufacturer shall be required to comply
with the requirements of section 32908(e) of title 49, United
State Code, as amended by subsection (a), for a vehicle that
is manufactured for a model year after model year 2006.
(2) Model year defined.--In this subsection, the term
``model year'' shall have the meaning given such term in
section 32901(a) of such title.
(d) Violations.--
(1) In general.--Section 32908(f) of title 49, United
States Code, as redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by
inserting ``or (e)'' after ``subsection (b)''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 32911(a) of such title
is amended by inserting ``32908(e),'' after ``32908(b),''.

amendment no. 643

(Purpose: To establish the Federal share of the cost of constructing a
bridge in the State of North Dakota)

On page 410, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. __. BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, NORTH DAKOTA.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and regardless
of the source of Federal funds, the Federal share of the
eligible costs of construction of a bridge between Bismarck,
North Dakota, and Mandan, North Dakota, shall be 90 percent.

amendment no. 670, as modified

On page 635, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. 5309. INCENTIVES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALTERNATIVE
FUEL REFUELING STATIONS.

(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to foreign tax credit, etc.) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 30B. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROPERTY
CREDIT.

``(a) Credit Allowed.--There shall be allowed as a credit
against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year
an amount equal to 50 percent of the cost of any qualified
alternative fuel vehicle refueling property placed in service
by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) Limitation.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a)--
``(1) with respect to any retail alternative fuel vehicle
refueling property, shall not exceed $30,000, and
``(2) with respect to any residential alternative fuel
vehicle refueling property, shall not exceed $1,000.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling
property.--The term `qualified alternative fuel vehicle
refueling property' has the same meaning given for clean-fuel
vehicle refueling property by section 179A(d), with respect
to any fuel at least 85 percent of the volume of which
consists of ethanol, natural gas, CNG, LNG, LPG and hydrogen.
``(2) Residential alternative fuel vehicle refueling
property.--The term `residential alternative fuel vehicle
refueling property' means qualified alternative fuel vehicle
refueling property which is installed on property which is
used as the principal residence (within the meaning of
section 121) of the taxpayer.
``(3) Retail alternative fuel vehicle refueling property.--
The term `retail alternative fuel vehicle refueling property'
means qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property
which is of a character subject to an allowance for
depreciation.
``(d) Application With Other Credits.--The credit allowed
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
the excess (if any) of--
``(1) the regular tax for the taxable year reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and sections 27,
29, and 30, over
``(2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
``(e) Carryforward Allowed.--
``(1) In general.--If the credit amount allowable under
subsection (a) for a taxable year exceeds the amount of the
limitation under subsection (d) for such taxable year, such
excess shall be allowed as a credit carryforward for each of
the 20 taxable years following the unused credit year.
``(2) Rules.--Rules similar to the rules of section 39
shall apply with respect to the credit carryforward under
paragraph (1).
``(f) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The basis of any property shall be
reduced by the portion of the cost of such property taken
into account under subsection (a).
``(2) No double benefit.--No deduction shall be allowed
under section 179A with respect to any property with respect
to which a credit is allowed under subsection (a).
``(3) Property used by tax-exempt entity.--In the case of
any qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property the
use of which is described in paragraph (3) or (4) of section
50(b) and which is not subject to a lease, the person who
sold such property to the person or entity using such
property shall be treated as the taxpayer that placed such
property in service, but only if such person clearly
discloses to such person or entity in a document the amount
of any credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to
such property (determined without regard to subsection (d)).
``(4) Property used outside united states, etc., not
qualified.--No credit shall be allowable under subsection (a)
with respect to any property referred to in section 50(b)(1)
or with respect to the portion of the cost of any property
taken into account under section 179.
``(5) Election not to take credit.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any property if the taxpayer
elects not to have this section apply to such property.
``(6) Recapture rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 179A(e)(4) shall apply.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of this
section.
``(h) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
property placed in service after December 31, 2009.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1016(a) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (30), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (31) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(32) to the extent provided in section 30B(f)(1).''.
(2) Section 55(c)(2) is amended by inserting ``30B(d),''
after ``30(b)(3),''.
(3) Section 6501(m) is amended by inserting ``30B(f)(5),''
after ``30(d)(4),''.
(4) The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 30A the following new item:

``Sec. 30B. Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.

SEC. 5310. MODIFICATION OF RECAPTURE RULES FOR AMORTIZABLE
SECTION 197 INTANGIBLES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 1245 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Disposition of amortizable section 197 intangibles.--
``(A) In general.--If a taxpayer disposes of more than 1
amortizable section 197 intangible (as defined in section
197(c)) in a transaction or a series of related transactions,
all such amortizable 197 intangibles shall be treated as 1
section 1245 property for purposes of this section.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any
amortizable section 197 intangible (as so defined) with
respect to which the adjusted basis exceeds the fair market
value.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to dispositions of property after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 681, as modified

Beginning on page 267, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 270, line 15 and insert the following:

SEC. 1612. ADDITION TO CMAQ-ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.

(a) Eligible Projects.--Section 149(b) of title 23, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) if the project or program is for the purchase of
alternative fuel (as defined in section 301 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211)) or biodiesel;
``(7) if the project or program involves the purchase of
integrated, interoperable emergency communications equipment;
or
``(8) if the project or program is for--
``(A) diesel retrofit technologies that are--
``(i) for motor vehicles (as defined in section 216 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550)); or
``(ii) published in the list under subsection (f)(5) for
non-road vehicles and non-road engines (as defined in section
216 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550)) that are used in
construction projects that are--

``(I) located in nonattainment or maintenance areas for
ozone, PM10, or PM2.5 (as defined under
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)); and
``(II) funded, in whole or in part, under this title; or

``(B) outreach activities that are designed to provide
information and technical assistance to the owners and
operators of diesel equipment and vehicles regarding the
emission reduction strategy.''.
(b) States Receiving Minimum Apportionment.--Section 149(c)
of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``for any project
eligible under the surface transportation program under
section 133.'' and inserting the following: ``for any project
in the State that--

[[Page S5021]]

``(A) would otherwise be eligible under this section as if
the project were carried out in a nonattainment or
maintenance area; or
``(B) is eligible under the surface transportation program
under section 133.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``for any project in the
State eligible under section 133.'' and inserting the
following: ``for any project in the State that--
``(A) would otherwise be eligible under this section as if
the project were carried out in a nonattainment or
maintenance area; or
``(B) is eligible under the surface transportation program
under section 133.''.
(c) Responsibility of States.--Section 149 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Cost-Effective Emission Reduction Strategies.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(B) Cmaq resources.--The term `CMAQ resources' means
resources available to a State to carry out the congestion
mitigation and air quality improvement program under this
section.
``(C) Diesel retrofit technology.--The term `diesel
retrofit technology' means a replacement, repowering,
rebuilding, after treatment, or other technology, as
determined by the Administrator.
``(2) Emission reduction strategies.--Each State shall
develop, implement, and periodically revise emission
reduction strategies comprised of any methods determined to
be appropriate by the State that are consistent with section
209 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7542) for engines and
vehicles that are used in construction projects that are--
``(A) located in nonattainment areas for ozone,
PM10, or PM2.5 (as defined under the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)); and
``(B) funded, in whole or in part, under this title.
``(3) State considerations.--In developing emission
reduction strategies, each State--
``(A) may include any means to reduce emissions that are
determined to be appropriate by the State; but
``(B) shall--
``(i) consider guidance issued by the Administrator under
paragraph (5);
``(ii) limit technologies to those identified by the
Administrator under paragraph (5);
``(iii) provide contractors with guidance and technical
assistance regarding the implementation of emission reduction
strategies;
``(iv) give special consideration to small businesses that
participate in projects funded under this title;
``(v) place priority on the use of--

``(I) diesel retrofit technologies and activities;
``(II) cost-effective strategies;
``(III) financial incentives using CMAQ resources and State
resources; and
``(IV) strategies that maximize health benefits; and

``(vi) not include any activities prohibited by paragraph
(4).
``(4) State limitations.--Emission reduction strategies may
not--
``(A) authorize or recommend the use of bans on equipment
or vehicle use during specified periods of a day;
``(B) authorize or recommend the use of contract procedures
that would require retrofit activities, unless funds are made
available by the State under this section or other State
authority to offset the cost of those activities; or
``(C) authorize the use of contract procedures that would
discriminate between bidders on the basis of a bidder's
existing equipment or existing vehicle emission technology.
``(5) Emission reduction strategy guidance.--The
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
publish a nonbinding list of emission reduction strategies
and supporting technical information for--
``(A) diesel emission reduction technologies certified or
verified by the Administrator, the California Air Resources
Board, or any other entity recognized by the Administrator
for the same purpose;
``(B) diesel emission reduction technologies identified by
the Administrator as having an application and approvable
test plan for verification by the Administrator or the
California Air Resources board that is submitted not later
that 18 months of the date of enactment of this Act;
``(C) available information regarding the emission
reduction effectiveness and cost effectiveness of
technologies identified in this paragraph, taking into
consideration health effects;
``(D) options and recommendations for the structure and
content of emission reduction strategies including--
``(i) emission reduction performance criteria;
``(ii) financial incentives that use CMAQ resources and
State resources;
``(iii) procedures to facilitate access by contractors to
financial incentives;
``(iv) contract incentives, allowances, and procedures;
``(v) methods of voluntary emission reductions; and
``(vi) other means that may be employed to reduce emissions
from construction activities; and
``(6) Priority.--States and metropolitan planning
organizations shall give priority in distributing funds
received for congestion management and air quality projects
and programs to finance of diesel retrofit and cost-effective
emission reduction activities identified by States in the
emission reduction strategies developed under this
subsection.
``(7) No effect on authority or restrictions.--Nothing in
this subsection modifies any authority or restriction
established under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.).''.

AMENDMENT NO. 621

(Purpose: To provide for the conduct of a community enhancement study)

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

SEC. 18__. COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on--
(1) the role of well-designed transportation projects in--
(A) promoting economic development;
(B) protecting public health, safety, and the environment;
and
(C) enhancing the architectural design and planning of
communities; and
(2) the positive economic, cultural, aesthetic, scenic,
architectural, and environmental benefits of those projects
for communities.
(b) Contents.--The study shall address--
(1) the degree to which well-designed transportation
projects--
(A) have positive economic, cultural, aesthetic, scenic,
architectural, and environmental benefits for communities;
(B) protect and contribute to improvements in public health
and safety; and
(C) use inclusive public participation processes to achieve
quicker, more certain, and better results;
(2) the degree to which positive results are achieved by
linking transportation, design, and the implementation of
community visions for the future; and
(3) methods of facilitating the use of successful models or
best practices in transportation investment or development to
accomplish--
(A) enhancement of community identity;
(B) protection of public health and safety;
(C) provision of a variety of choices in housing, shopping,
transportation, employment, and recreation;
(D) preservation and enhancement of existing
infrastructure; and
(E) creation of a greater sense of community through public
involvement.
(c) Administration.--
(1) In general.--To carry out this section, the Secretary
shall make a grant to, or enter into a cooperative agreement
or contract with, a national organization with expertise in
the design of a wide range of transportation and
infrastructure projects, including the design of buildings,
public facilities, and surrounding communities.
(2) Federal share.--Notwithstanding section 1221(e)(2) of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C.
101 note), the Federal share of the cost of the study under
this section shall be 100 percent.
(d) Report.--Not later than September 20, 2006, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report on the results of the study under this section.
(e) Authorization.--Of the amounts made available to carry
out section 1221 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (23 U.S.C. 101 note), $1,000,000 shall be
available for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to carry out
this section.

AMENDMENT NO. 622

(Purpose: To provide for the development of a comprehensive coastal
evacuation plan)

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

SEC. __. COMPREHENSIVE COASTAL EVACUATION PLAN.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation and the
Secretary of Homeland Security (referred to in this section
as the ``Secretaries'') shall jointly develop a written
comprehensive plan for evacuation of the coastal areas of the
United States during any natural or man-made disaster that
affects coastal populations.
(b) Consultation.--In developing the comprehensive plan,
the Secretaries shall consult with Federal, State, and local
transportation and emergency management officials that have
been involved with disaster related evacuations.
(c) Contents.--The comprehensive plan shall--
(1) consider, on a region-by-region basis, the extent to
which coastal areas may be affected by a disaster; and
(2) address, at a minimum--
(A) all practical modes of transportation available for
evacuations;
(B) methods of communicating evacuation plans and preparing
citizens in advance of evacuations;
(C) methods of coordinating communication with evacuees
during plan execution;
(D) precise methods for mass evacuations caused by
disasters such as hurricanes, flash flooding, and tsunamis;
and
(E) recommended policies, strategies, programs, and
activities that could improve disaster-related evacuations.
(d) Report and Updates.--The Secretaries shall--
(1) not later than October 1, 2006, submit to Congress the
written comprehensive plan; and

[[Page S5022]]

(2) periodically thereafter, but not less often than every
5 years, update, and submit to Congress any revision to, the
plan.

amendment no. 666, as modified

(Purpose: To improve the high-speed magnetic levitation system
deployment program)

Beginning on page 398, strike line 17 and all that follows
through page 400, line 13, and insert the following:

SEC. 1819. HIGH-SPEED MAGNETIC LEVITATION SYSTEM DEPLOYMENT
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 322 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 322. High-speed magnetic levitation system deployment
program

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible project costs.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible project costs' means
the capital cost of the fixed guideway infrastructure of a
MAGLEV project, including land, piers, guideways, propulsion
equipment and other components attached to guideways, power
distribution facilities (including substations), control and
communications facilities, access roads, and storage, repair,
and maintenance facilities.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `eligible project costs'
includes the costs of preconstruction planning activities.
``(2) Full project costs.--The term `full project costs'
means the total capital costs of a MAGLEV project, including
eligible project costs and the costs of stations, vehicles,
and equipment.
``(3) Maglev.--
``(A) In general.--The term `MAGLEV' means transportation
systems in revenue service employing magnetic levitation that
would be capable of safe use by the public at a speed in
excess of 240 miles per hour.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `MAGLEV' includes power,
control, and communication facilities required for the safe
operation of the vehicles within a system described in
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
``(5) Special purpose entity.--The term `special purpose
entity' means a nonprofit entity that--
``(A) is not a State-designated authority; but
``(B) is eligible, as determined by the Governor of the
State in which the entity is located, to participate in the
program under this section.
``(6) Tea-21 criteria.--The term `TEA-21 criteria' means--
``(A) the criteria set forth in subsection (d) of this
section (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of the Safe, Affordable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act of 2005), including applicable
regulations; and
``(B) with respect to subsection (e)(2), the criteria set
forth in subsection (d)(8) of this section (as so in effect).
``(b) Phase I--Preconstruction Planning.--
``(1) In general.--A State, State-designated authority,
multistate-designated authority, or special purpose entity
may apply to the Secretary for grants to conduct
preconstruction planning for proposed new MAGLEV projects, or
extensions to MAGLEV systems planned, studied, or deployed
under this or any other program.
``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this
subsection shall include a description of the proposed MAGLEV
project, including, at a minimum--
``(A) a description of the purpose and need for the
proposed MAGLEV project;
``(B) a description of the travel market to be served;
``(C) a description of the technology selected for the
MAGLEV project;
``(D) forecasts of ridership and revenues;
``(E) a description of preliminary engineering that is
sufficient to provide a reasonable estimate of the capital
cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining the project;
``(F) a realistic schedule for construction and equipment
for the project;
``(G) an environmental assessment;
``(H) a preliminary identification of the 1 or more
organizations that will construct and operate the project;
and
``(I) a cost-benefit analysis and tentative financial plan
for construction and operation of the project.
``(3) Deadline for applications.--The Secretary shall
establish an annual deadline for receipt of applications
under this subsection.
``(4) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate all
applications received by the annual deadline to determine
whether the applications meet criteria established by the
Secretary.
``(5) Selection.--The Secretary, except as otherwise
provided in this section, shall select for Federal support
for preconstruction planning any project that the Secretary
determines meets the criteria.
``(c) Phase II--Environmental Impact Studies.--
``(1) In general.--A State, State-designated authority, or
multistate-designated authority that has conducted (under
this section or any other provision of law) 1 or more studies
that address each of the requirements of subsection (b)(2)
may apply for Federal funding to assist in--
``(A) preparing an environmental impact statement or
similar analysis required under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
``(B) planning for construction, operation, and maintenance
of a MAGLEV project.
``(2) Deadline for applications.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) establish an annual deadline for receipt of Phase II
applications; and
``(ii) evaluate all applications received by that deadline
in accordance with criteria established under subparagraph
(B).
``(B) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish criteria to
evaluate applications that include whether--
``(i) the technology selected is available for deployment
at the time of the application;
``(ii) operating revenues combined with known and dedicated
sources of other revenues in any year will exceed annual
operation and maintenance costs;
``(iii) over the life of the MAGLEV project, total project
benefits will exceed total project costs; and
``(iv) the proposed capital financing plan is realistic and
does not assume Federal assistance that is greater than the
maximums specified in clause (ii).
``(C) Projects selected.--If the Secretary determines that
a MAGLEV project meets the criteria established under
subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall--
``(i) select that project for Federal Phase II support; and
``(ii) publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent
to prepare an environmental impact statement or similar
analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
``(d) Phase III--Deployment.--The State, State-designated
agency, multistate-designated agency, or special purpose
entity that is part of a public-private partnership (meeting
the TEA-21 criteria) sponsoring a MAGLEV project that has
completed a final environmental impact statement or similar
analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for both the MAGLEV project
and the entire corridor of which the MAGLEV project is the
initial operating segment, and has completed planning studies
for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
MAGLEV project, under this or any other program, may submit
an application to the Secretary for Federal funding of a
portion of the capital costs of planning, financing,
constructing, and equipping the preferred alternative
identified in the final environmental impact statement or
analysis.
``(e) Financial Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available
financial assistance to pay the Federal share of the full
project costs of projects selected under this section.
``(2) Prevailing wage and certain tea-21 criteria.--
Sections 5333(a) and the TEA-21 criteria, shall apply to
financial assistance made available under this section and
projects funded with that assistance.
``(3) Federal share.--
``(A) Phase i and phase ii.--For Phase I--preconstruction
planning and Phase II--environmental impact studies carried
out under subsections (b) and (c), respectively, the Federal
share of the costs of the planning and studies shall be not
more than \2/3\ of the full cost of the planning and studies.
``(B) Phase iii.--For Phase III--deployment projects
carried out under subsection (d), not more than \2/3\ of the
full capital cost of such a project shall be made available
from funds appropriated for this program.
``(4) Funding.--
``(A) Contract authority; authorization of
appropriations.--
``(i) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to carry out this
section--

``(I) $10,000,000 for Phase I--preconstruction planning
studies;
``(II) $20,000,000 for Phase II--environmental impact
studies; and
``(III) $60,000,000 for Phase III--deployment projects.

``(ii) Obligation authority.--Funds authorized by this
subparagraph shall be available for obligation in the same
manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter I,
except that--

``(I) the Federal share of the cost of the project shall be
in accordance with paragraph (2); and
``(II) the availability of the funds shall be in accordance
with subsection (f).

``(B) Noncontract authority authorization of
appropriations.--
``(i) Phase i.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) to carry out Phase I--preconstruction planning
studies under subsection (b)--

``(I) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(II) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2009.

``(ii) Phase ii.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) to carry out Phase II--environmental impact studies
under subsection (c)--

``(I) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(II) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(III) $21,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(IV) $9,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

``(iii) Phase iii.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit
Account) to carry out Phase III--deployment projects under
subsection (d)--

``(I) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(II) $650,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(III) $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(IV) $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
``(V) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.

[[Page S5023]]

``(iv) Program administration.--There are authorized to be
appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) to carry out administration of this
program--

``(I) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(II) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(III) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(IV) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

``(v) Research and development.--There is authorized to be
appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) to carry out research and development
activities to reduce MAGLEV deployment costs $4,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
``(f) Availability of Funds.--Funds made available under
subsection (e) shall remain available until expended.
``(g) Other Federal Funds.--Funds made available to a State
to carry out the surface transportation program under section
133 and the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
programs under section 149 may be used by any State to pay a
portion of the full project costs of an eligible project
selected under this section, without requirement for non-
Federal funds.
``(h) Other Federal Funds.--A project selected for funding
under this section shall be eligible for other forms of
financial assistance provided by this title and title V of
the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976
(45 U.S.C. 821 et seq.), including loans, loan guarantees,
and lines of credit.
``(i) Mandatory Additional Selection.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph 2, in selecting
projects for preconstruction planning, deployment, and
financial assistance, the Secretary may only provide funds to
MAGLEV projects that meet the criteria established under
subsection (b)(4).
``(2) Priority funding.--The Secretary shall give priority
funding to a MAGLEV project that--
``(A) has already met the TEA-21 criteria and has received
funding prior to the date of enactment of the Safe,
Affordable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act
of 2005 as a result of evaluation and contracting procedures
for MAGLEV transportation, to the extent that the project
continues to fulfill the requirements of this section;
``(B) to the maximum extent practicable, has met safety
guidelines established by the Secretary to protect the health
and safety of the public;
``(C) is based on designs that ensure the greatest life
cycle advantages for the project;
``(D) contains domestic content of at least 70 percent; and
``(E) is designed and developed through public/private
partnership entities and continues to meet the TEA-21
criteria relating to public/private partnerships.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item
relating to section 322 and inserting the following:

``322. High-speed magnetic levitation system deployment program.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 685

(Purpose: To increase an amount made available for the Alaska Highway
System)

On page 50, strike lines 16 through 18, and insert the
following:
(c) Alaska Highway.--Section 104(b)(1)(A) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``$18,800,000 for
each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002'' and inserting
``$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009''.

AMENDMENT NO. 694

(Purpose: To provide for an off-system bridges pilot program)

On page 353, strike lines 6 and 7 and insert the following:
Secretary determines that the State has inadequate needs to
justify the expenditure.
``(C) Pilot program.--Not less than 20 percent of the
amount apportioned to the States of Colorado, _________, and
_________, for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 shall
be expended for off-system bridge pilot projects.'';

AMENDMENT NO. 705, as modified

On page 270, after line 15, add the following:
(d) In addition to other eligible uses, the State of Maine
may use funds apportioned under section 104(b)(2) to support,
through September 30, 2009, the operation of passenger rail
service between Boston, Massachusetts, and Portland, Maine.

amendment no. 708, as modified

On page 40, strike lines 16 through 20 and insert the
following:

authority has not lapsed or been used;
(10) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, for
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, only in an amount
equal to $639,000,000 per fiscal year); and
(11) section 1106 of this Act, to the extent that funds
obligated in accordance with that section were not subject to
a limitation on obligations at the time at which the funds
were initially made available for obligation.
On page 60, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 1106. USE OF EXCESS FUNDS AND FUNDS FOR INACTIVE
PROJECTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible funds.--
(A) In general.--The term ``eligible funds'' means excess
funds or inactive funds for a specific transportation project
or activity that were--
(i) allocated before fiscal year 1998; and
(ii) designated in a public law, or a report accompanying a
public law, for allocation for the specific surface
transportation project or activity.
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``eligible funds'' includes funds
described in subparagraph (A) that were allocated and
designated for a demonstration project.
(2) Excess funds.--The term ``excess funds'' means--
(A) funds obligated for a specific transportation project
or activity that remain available for the project or activity
after the project or activity has been completed or canceled;
or
(B) an unobligated balance of funds allocated for a
transportation project or activity that the State in which
the project or activity was to be carried out certifies are
no longer needed for the project or activity.
(3) Inactive funds.--The term ``inactive funds'' means--
(A) an obligated balance of Federal funds for an eligible
transportation project or activity against which no
expenditures have been charged during any 1-year period
beginning after the date of obligation of the funds; and
(B) funds that are available to carry out a transportation
project or activity in a State, but, as certified by the
State, are unlikely to be advanced for the project or
activity during the 1-year period beginning on the date of
certification.
(b) Availability for STP Purposes.--Eligible funds shall
be--
(1) made available in accordance with this section to the
State that originally received the funds; and
(2) available for obligation for any eligible purpose under
section 133 of title 23, United States Code.
(c) Retention for Original Purpose.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may determine that eligible
funds identified as inactive funds shall remain available for
the purpose for which the funds were initially made available
if the applicable State certifies that the funds are
necessary for that initial purpose.
(2) Report.--A certification provided by a State under
paragraph (1) shall include a report on the status of, and an
estimated completion date for, the project that is the
subject of the certification.
(d) Authority to Obligate.--Notwithstanding the original
source or period of availability of eligible funds, the
Secretary may, on the request by a State--
(1) obligate the funds for any eligible purpose under
section 133 of title 23, United States Code; or
(2)(A) deobligate the funds; and
(B) reobligate the funds for any eligible purpose under
that section.
(e) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), this section
applies only to eligible funds.
(2) Discretionary allocations; section 125 projects.--This
section does not apply to funds that are--
(A) allocated at the discretion of the Secretary and for
which the Secretary has the authority to withdraw the
allocation for use on other projects; or
(B) made available to carry out projects under section 125
of title 23, United States Code.
(f) Period of Availability; Title 23 Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the original source or
period of availability of eligible funds obligated, or
deobligated and reobligated, under subsection (d), the
eligible funds--
(A) shall remain available for obligation for a period of 3
fiscal years after the fiscal year in which this Act is
enacted; and
(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be subject
to the requirements of title 23, United States Code, that
apply to section 133 of that title, including provisions
relating to cost-sharing.
(2) Exception.--With respect to eligible funds described in
paragraph (1)--
(A) section 133(d) of title 23, United States Code, shall
not apply; and
(B) the period of availability of the eligible funds shall
be determined in accordance with this section.
(g) Sense of Congress Regarding Use of Eligible Funds.--It
is the sense of Congress that eligible funds made available
under this Act or title 23, United States Code, should be
available for obligation for transportation projects and
activities in the same geographic region for which the
eligible funds were initially made available.

amendment no. 713, as modified

On page 270, following the matter on line 15, insert the
following:
(d) In addition to other eligible uses, the State of
Montana may use funds apportioned under section 104(b)(2) for
the operation of public transit activities that serve a
nonattainment or maintenance area.

amendment no. 737

(Purpose: To improve the bill)

On page 38, line 8, strike ``$9,386,289'' and insert
``$8,386,289''.
On page 327, line 18, strike ``under section 204''.
On page 417, line 24, strike ``209'' and insert ``2009''.
On page 418, line 13, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert
``$3,000,000''.

[[Page S5024]]

On page 558, line 17, insert ``and Boating'' before
``Trust''.
On page 558, line 23, strike ``2004'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 633, line 15, strike ``by all States''.
On page 652, line 23, strike ``Section'' and insert ``(a)
In General.--Section''.
On page 653, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to transactions entered into after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
On page 807, after line 16, insert the following:
(h) Contracted Paratransit Pilot.--
(1) In General.--Notwithstanding section 5302(a)(1)(I) of
title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 2005 through
2009, a recipient of assistance under section 5307 of title
49, United States Code, in an urbanized area with a
population of 558,329 according to the 2000 decennial census
of population may use not more than 20 percent of such
recipient's annual formula apportionment under section 5307
of title 49, United States Code, for the provision of
nonfixed route paratransit services in accordance with
section 223 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.
12143), but only if the grant recipient is in compliance with
applicable requirements of that Act, including both fixed
route and demand responsive service and the service is
acquired by contract.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2009, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate, a report on the implementation of this section and
any recommendations of the Secretary regarding the
application of this section.
On page 846, after line 6, insert the following:
(m) Miami Metrorail.--The Secretary may credit funds
provided by the Florida Department of Transportation for the
extension of the Miami Metrorail System from Earlington
Heights to the Miami Intermodal Center to satisfy the
matching requirements of section 5309(h)(4) of title 49,
United Stated Code, for the Miami North Corridor and Miami
East-West Corridor projects.
On page 872, strike line 24, and insert the following:
tives.
``(e) Study of Methods to Improve Accessibility of Public
Transportation for Persons With Visual Disabilities.--Not
later than October 1, 2006, the Secretary shall transmit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the
effectiveness of alternative methods to improve the
accessibility of public transportation for persons with
visual disabilities. The report shall evaluate a variety of
methods and techniques for improving accessibility, including
installation of Remote Infrared Audible Signs for provision
of wayfinding and information for people who have visual,
cognitive, or learning disabilities.''.
On page 900, line 18, strike ``and''.
On page 900, line 22, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 900, after line 22, insert the following:
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Notification of pending discretionary grants.--Not
less than 3 full business days before announcement of award
by the Secretary of any discretionary grant, letter of
intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000
or more, the Secretary shall notify the Committees on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Appropriations of the
Senate and Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure
and Appropriation of the House of Representatives.''.
On page 944, after line 21, insert the following:

SEC.__. TRANSIT PASS TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS.

(a) Transit Pass Transportation Fringe Benefits Study.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a
study on tax-free transit benefits and ways to promote
improved access to and increased usage of such benefits, at
Federal agencies in the National Capital Region, including
agencies not currently offering the benefit.
(2) Content.--The study under this subsection shall
include--
(A) an examination of how agencies offering the benefit
make its availability known to their employees and the
methods agencies use to deliver the benefit to employees,
including examples of best practices; and
(B) an analysis of the impact of Federal employees' use of
transit on traffic congestion and pollution in the National
Capital Region.
(3) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
Congress on the results of the study under this subsection.
(b) Authority To Use Government Vehicles To Transport
Federal Employees Between Their Place of Employment and Mass
Transit Facilities.--
(1) In general.--Section 1344 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g)(1) A passenger carrier may be used to transport an
officer or employee of a Federal agency between the officer's
or employee's place of employment and a mass transit facility
(whether or not publicly owned) in accordance with succeeding
provisions of this subsection.
``(2) Notwithstanding section 1343, a Federal agency that
provides transportation services under this subsection
(including by passenger carrier) shall absorb the costs of
such services using any funds available to such agency,
whether by appropriation or otherwise.
``(3) In carrying out this subsection, a Federal agency
shall--
``(A) to the maximum extent practicable, use alternative
fuel vehicles to provide transportation services;
``(B) to the extent consistent with the purposes of this
subsection, provide transportation services in a manner that
does not result in additional gross income for Federal income
tax purposes; and
``(C) coordinate with other Federal agencies to share, and
otherwise avoid duplication of, transportation services
provided under this subsection.
``(4) For purposes of any determination under chapter 81 of
title 5, an individual shall not be considered to be in the
`performance of duty' by virtue of the fact that such
individual is receiving transportation services under this
subsection.
``(5)(A) The Administrator of General Services, after
consultation with the National Capital Planning Commission
and other appropriate agencies, shall prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out this subsection.
``(B) Transportation services under this subsection shall
be subject neither to the last sentence of subsection (d)(3)
nor to any regulations under the last sentence of subsection
(e)(1).
``(6) In this subsection, the term `passenger carrier'
means a passenger motor vehicle, aircraft, boat, ship, or
other similar means of transportation that is owned or leased
by the United States Government or the government of the
District of Columbia.''.
(2) Funds for maintenance, repair, etc.--Subsection (a) of
section 1344 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the transportation of
an individual between such individual's place of employment
and a mass transit facility pursuant to subsection (g) is
transportation for an official purpose.''.
(3) Coordination.--The authority to provide transportation
services under section 1344(g) of title 31, United States
Code (as amended by paragraph (1)) shall be in addition to
any authority otherwise available to the agency involved.

SEC. __. FUNDING FOR FERRY BOATS.

Section 5309(i)(5) of title 49, United States Code, as
amended by section 6011(j) of this Act, is amended to read as
follows:
``(5) Funding for ferry boats.--Of the amounts described in
paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A)--
``(A) $10,400,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2005
for capital projects in Alaska and Hawaii for new fixed
guideway systems and extension projects utilizing ferry
boats, ferry boat terminals, or approaches to ferry boat
terminals;
``(B) $15,000,000 shall be available in each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2009 for capital projects in Alaska and
Hawaii for new fixed guideway systems and extension projects
utilizing ferry boats, ferry boat terminals, or approaches to
ferry boat terminals; and
``(C) $5,000,000 shall be available in each of fiscal years
2006 through 2009 for payments to the Denali Commission under
the terms of section 307(e) of the Denali Commission Act of
1998, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3121 note), for docks, waterfront
development projects, and related transportation
infrastructure.''.
On page 1291, strike lines 12 through 16 and insert the
following:
(1) For fiscal year 2005, $7,646,336,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2006, $8,900,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2007, $9,267,464,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2008, $10,050,700,000.
(5) For fiscal year 2009, $10,686,500,000.

amendment no. 725

(Purpose: To provide for the construction of improvements to streets
and roads providing access to State Route 28 in the State of
Pennsylvania)

On page 410, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 1830. PRIORITY PROJECTS.

Section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (112 Stat. 306) is amended in item 1349 of the table
contained in that section by inserting ``, and improvements
to streets and roads providing access to,'' after ``along''.

amendment no. 726, as modified

On page 297, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

SEC. 16__. CLEAN SCHOOL BUS PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Alternative fuel.--The term ``alternative fuel''
means--
(A) liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas,
liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, or propane;
(B) methanol or ethanol at no less than 85 percent by
volume; or
(C) biodiesel conforming with standards published by the
American Society for Testing and Materials as of the date of
enactment of this Act.

[[Page S5025]]

(3) Clean school bus.--The term ``clean school bus'' means
a school bus with a gross vehicle weight of greater than
14,000 pounds that--
(A) is powered by a heavy duty engine; and
(B) is operated solely on an alternative fuel or ultra-low
sulfur diesel fuel.
(4) Eligible recipient.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
``eligible recipient'' means--
(i) 1 or more local or State governmental entities
responsible for--

(I) providing school bus service to 1 or more public school
systems; or
(II) the purchase of school buses;

(ii) 1 or more contracting entities that provide school bus
service to 1 or more public school systems; or
(iii) a nonprofit school transportation association.
(B) Special requirements.--In the case of eligible
recipients identified under clauses (ii) and (iii), the
Administrator shall establish timely and appropriate
requirements for notice and may establish timely and
appropriate requirements for approval by the public school
systems that would be served by buses purchased or retrofit
using grant funds made available under this section.
(5) Retrofit technology.--The term ``retrofit technology''
means a particulate filter or other emissions control
equipment that is verified or certified by the Administrator
or the California Air Resources Board as an effective
emission reduction technology when installed on an existing
school bus.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(7) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.--The term ``ultra-low
sulfur diesel fuel'' means diesel fuel that contains sulfur
at not more than 15 parts per million.
(b) Program for Retrofit or Replacement of Certain Existing
School Buses With Clean School Buses.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary and other appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, shall establish a program for awarding grants on a
competitive basis to eligible recipients for the replacement
retrofit (including repowering, aftertreatment, and
remanufactured engines) of, or purchase of alternative fuels
for, certain existing school buses.
(B) Balancing.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Administrator shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
achieve an appropriate balance between awarding grants--
(i) to replace school buses;
(ii) to install retrofit technologies; and
(iii) to purchase and use alternative fuel.
(2) Priority of grant applications.--
(A) Replacement.--In the case of grant applications to
replace school buses, the Administrator shall give priority
to applicants that propose to replace school buses
manufactured before model year 1977.
(B) Retrofitting.--In the case of grant applications to
retrofit school buses, the Administrator shall give priority
to applicants that propose to retrofit school buses
manufactured in or after model year 1991.
(3) Use of school bus fleet.--
(A) In general.--All school buses acquired or retrofitted
with funds provided under this section shall be operated as
part of the school bus fleet for which the grant was made for
not less than 5 years.
(B) Maintenance, operation, and fueling.--New school buses
and retrofit technology shall be maintained, operated, and
fueled according to manufacturer recommendations or State
requirements.
(4) Retrofit grants.--The Administrator may award grants
for up to 100 percent of the retrofit technologies and
installation costs.
(5) Replacement grants.--
(A) Eligibility for 50% grants.--The Administrator may
award grants for replacement of school buses in the amount of
up to \1/2\ of the acquisition costs (including fueling
infrastructure) for --
(i) clean school buses with engines manufactured in model
year 2005 or 2006 that emit not more than--

(I) 1.8 grams per brake horsepower-hour of non-methane
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen; and
(II) .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour of particulate
matter; or

(ii) clean school buses with engines manufactured in model
year 2007, 2008, or 2009 that satisfy regulatory requirements
established by the Administrator for emissions of oxides of
nitrogen and particulate matter to be applicable for school
buses manufactured in model year 2010.
(B) Eligibility for 25% grants.--The Administrator may
award grants for replacement of school buses in the amount of
up to \1/4\ of the acquisition costs (including fueling
infrastructure) for --
(i) clean school buses with engines manufactured in model
year 2005 or 2006 that emit not more than--

(I) 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour of non-methane
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen; and
(II) .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour of particulate
matter; or

(ii) clean school buses with engines manufactured in model
year 2007 or thereafter that satisfy regulatory requirements
established by the Administrator for emissions of oxides of
nitrogen and particulate matter from school buses
manufactured in that model year.
(6) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a grant recipient receiving
a grant for the acquisition of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel
school buses with engines manufactured in model year 2005 or
2006, the grant recipient shall provide, to the satisfaction
of the Administrator--
(i) documentation that diesel fuel containing sulfur at not
more than 15 parts per million is available for carrying out
the purposes of the grant; and
(ii) a commitment by the applicant to use that fuel in
carrying out the purposes of the grant.
(7) Deployment and distribution.--The Administrator shall,
to the maximum extent practicable--
(A) achieve nationwide deployment of clean school buses
through the program under this section; and
(B) ensure a broad geographic distribution of grant awards,
with no State receiving more than 10 percent of the grant
funding made available under this section during a fiscal
year.
(8) Annual report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than January 31 of each year,
the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that--
(i) evaluates the implementation of this section; and
(ii) describes--

(I) the total number of grant applications received;
(II) the number and types of alternative fuel school buses,
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel school buses, and retrofitted
buses requested in grant applications;
(III) grants awarded and the criteria used to select the
grant recipients;
(IV) certified engine emission levels of all buses
purchased or retrofitted under this section;
(V) an evaluation of the in-use emission level of buses
purchased or retrofitted under this section; and
(VI) any other information the Administrator considers
appropriate.

(c) Education.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop an
education outreach program to promote and explain the grant
program.
(2) Coordination with stakeholders.--The outreach program
shall be designed and conducted in conjunction with national
school bus transportation associations and other
stakeholders.
(3) Components.--The outreach program shall--
(A) inform potential grant recipients on the process of
applying for grants;
(B) describe the available technologies and the benefits of
the technologies;
(C) explain the benefits of participating in the grant
program; and
(D) include, as appropriate, information from the annual
report required under subsection (b)(8).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this
section, to remain available until expended--
(1) $55,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2008, 2009, and 2010.

amendment no. 755 to amendment no. 725

(Purpose: To reprogram funds made available for Interstate Route 75 and
North Down River Road, Michigan)

At the end of the amendment, add the following:

SEC. 1831. TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, GRAYLING, MICHIGAN.

Item number 820 in the table contained in section 1602 of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat.
287) is amended by striking ``Conduct'' and all that follows
through ``interchange'' and inserting ``Conduct a
transportation needs study and make improvements to I-75
interchanges in the Grayling area''.

Amendment no. 670, as modified

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we have all heard from folks back home
about the high price of gasoline. When you pull into a gas station to
fill up your tank, you're now paying some of the highest prices of all
time.
This amendment is designed to do something about that--by promoting a
choice at the pump that will allow consumers to choose a fuel that
today is 50 cents per gallon cheaper than regular gasoline.
That's why I would like to thank the chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member of the Committee,
Senator Baucus, for their advocacy of this amendment. I also want to
thank the manager of the transportation bill, Chairman Inhofe, for
working with us on this proposal. These Senate leaders are all
committed to addressing high gas prices, and their work on this
amendment is an example of that commitment.
I would like to thank my fellow authors of this amendment, Senator
Talent, as well as my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator
Durbin, for their hard work in getting this provision passed. And I
thank the cosponsors of this amendment, also longtime supporters of
ethanol, Senators Lugar,

[[Page S5026]]

Harkin, Bayh, Coleman, Salazar, Dayton, and Nelson of Nebraska.
And of course, I would like to thank the excellent staff work of
Elizabeth Paris, Matt Jones, and Russ Sullivan on behalf of this
provision.
I am sure many of us in this Chamber, and many watching these
proceedings, would jump at the chance to fill our cars and trucks with
fuel that is 50 cents cheaper than current prices. What many consumers
may not know is that that option is available today. It is known as E-
85, a fuel comprised of 85 percent ethanol. And I suspect most
Americans would agree that a fuel made of 85 percent Midwestern corn is
a lot more desirable than one made from 100 percent Middle Eastern oil.
Right now, there are millions of cars and trucks that can run on E-
85. They are known as ``flexible fuel vehicles,'' and the auto industry
is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year. These cars and
trucks aren't more expensive to operate than regular cars--in fact, for
just a one-hundred-dollar adjustment, even regular cars could run on E-
85. And if E-85 is good enough for the Indianapolis 500--which just
announced their cars will run on this fuel--then you can be sure that
E-85 will work great in a flexible fuel vehicle.
The only problem now is our short supply of E-85 fuel stations. While
there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, only about
400 offer E-85.
The amendment adopted by the Senate today addresses this problem by
providing a tax credit to encourage the installation of more E-85 fuel
pumps at your local gas station. Its enactment will not only give
motorists another option at the pump, it will also send a clear message
that the U.S. Senate is serious about reducing our country's dangerous
dependence on imported oil.
Again, I thank my colleagues who have worked to adopt this amendment
to help make America energy independent.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. I ask unanimous consent the two live quorums be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. All time is yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. Under the previous
order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
substitute to Calendar No. 69, H.R. 3, a bill to authorize
funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and
transit programs, and for other purposes.
Bill Frist, J.M. Inhofe, David Vitter, Thad Cochran, Norm
Coleman, Jim DeMint, Richard Shelby, Orrin Hatch, Kit
Bond, Chuck Grassley, Pete Domenici, Jim Talent,
Richard G. Lugar, John Thane, Bob Bennett, George
Allen, Mitch McConnell.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mandatory quorum call has been waived. The
question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
substitute amendment No. 605 shall be brought to a close? The yeas and
nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to respond to the distinguished
Chairman of the Budget Committee. Yesterday afternoon, my colleague
responded to my defense of the merits of the Finance Committee title in
Chairman Inhofe's substitute.
Since Chairman Gregg's response came shortly before the session ended
last night, I am responding this morning.
I respect Chairman Gregg's efforts in his initial year as chairman of
the Budget Committee. I congratulate him now as I have in the past on
his victory in achieving a budget resolution. I was proud to support
him in committee, on the floor, and in conference on the resolution.
As a senior member of the Budget Committee, I take its role
seriously. I respect the Budget Act and the importance of the tools of
fiscal discipline that points of order and other enforcement devices
bring to the legislative process. I also respect the key role of the
Budget Committee chairman and his staff under the Budget Act.
A careful and fair review of my statement will show that it is
consistent with these long-held views. My statement did not claim that
there was no valid Budget Act point of order against the Finance title
of the Inhofe substitute. My statement did not question the authority
of the Budget Committee chairman in raising the point order.
My statement responded to several very specific assertions against
the Finance Committee title. One assertion, made quite passionately by
Chairman Gregg, was that the Finance Committee amendment was a product
of accounting gimmicks. Another assertion was that the amendment was
not offset. I responded to the two main assertions ad relied on the
Congress' official tax policy scorekeepter, the Joint Committee on
Taxation. Chairman Gregg is right that, under the Budget Act, it is the
Chairman Budget Committee chairman that the Senate parliamentarian
looks to determine whether a point of order is well-founded. The Joint
Committee on Taxation, however, determines the scoring of revenue
measures.
I will not go into the other points of disagreement in our statements
because the statements speak for themselves.
In sum and substance, my statement defended the Finance Committee
title on its scoring by the Joint Committee. My statement did not
dispute that the amendment spending level was above those contemplated
by the Budget Resolution or the spending level agreed to by the
administration and congressional Republican leadership. Of course,
Finance Committee jurisdiction extends only to the cash flow of the
Highway Trust Fund. The Finance Committee title added additional cash
inflow, trust fund receipts, and additional cash outflow, trust fund
outlays. The Finance Committee title balances additional trust fund
receipts and outlays. That was the job we were asked to do and we did
it in a fiscally responsible manner.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 92, nays 7, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

YEAS--92

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--7

Cornyn
Gregg
Hutchison
Kyl
Martinez
McCain
Sununu

NOT VOTING--1

Santorum

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 92, the nays are 7.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank those who voted the right way to
come to a conclusion on this bill. This is likely the most important
bill we will deal with this entire year. Right now we have a
distressingly large number of

[[Page S5027]]

amendments out there that are germane that people could come and offer.
We are not going to have enough time to do it. As is usually the case,
there are many out there who are not serious about their amendments. It
is currently being hotlined to try to find out who is serious and who
is not. I am going to be talking to individuals, but I would say, if
you are serious about your amendment, and you want it considered, bring
it to the floor. I am sure I speak on behalf of Senator Jeffords as
well. We want these amendments brought to the floor, and we also want
to know how many are out there that may not be serious amendments.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. Please,
everyone, expedite.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. I yield.
Mr. BYRD. I have an amendment. I would like to offer it at a time
when it would be mutually agreeable to the managers.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest that it is mutually agreeable to send it to the
desk and that it be considered.
Mr. BYRD. Very well. I will get my amendment, if the two managers
will consent that I be recognized to offer it.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will very shortly. In the meantime, might
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. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I will shortly call up an amendment. Before
doing so, I would like to recall a statement by the late Reverend Peter
Marshall, possibly, even probably, the most famous and well known of
the Senate chaplains, who offered this prayer at the opening of the
second session of the 80th Congress:

Let us not be content to wait and see what will happen, but
give us the determination to make the right things happen.

Sometimes we can do that, sometimes we can't, but at least we can
try. For too many months now, the Congress and the administration have
taken a ``wait and see'' approach when it comes to today's life-
altering price of gasoline.
The administration has pinned its rhetoric to an energy plan, waiting
and hoping to tout a reduced dependence on foreign oil, while conceding
that no energy plan will provide immediate relief to high prices at the
pump.
The American people have waited and have waited and have waited for
the United States to get tough on OPEC and other nations responsible
for the recent spike in gasoline prices. Their elected leaders offer
explanations and more explanations and still more explanations and
equivocations about why such action has not reduced prices at the pump.
The American people are out there listening and they are watching;
they see what is going on here on the Senate floor. They watch us
through those electronic lenses behind the Chair, the Presiding
Officer. The American people waited anxiously for the President's
prime-time news conference, hoping to see at last that somebody would
proffer some kind of relief from high gas prices. My, how they do hurt.
How they do pinch, don't they? Yes. Ultimately, the American people
were disappointed as their pleas for relief were again rebuffed. The
people have waited, they have waited, they have waited, and they are
still waiting. They waited while gas prices have gone up and up and up.
The patience of the American people is running out. When will it end?
The American people watched incredulously as the House of
Representatives passed an energy bill last month, including $8 billion
of energy tax cuts. These are tax cuts for many of the corporate
conglomerates who are enjoying record-breaking profits from today's oil
prices. Yet the Congress declines--it declines, it declines, and it
declines again and again--to provide relief to the workers who must
bear the brunt of these price spikes at the pump. I am talking about
the working people of America, people whose hands are soiled with
honest toil, the working people in America. They are in South Carolina,
North Carolina, and West Virginia.
While the big oil companies are making big money, hand over fist,
from high gas prices, the only relief the Congress has seen fit to
provide is to the very oil companies--not the people--making all the
money. They are making all the money.
The irony is incredible, but not only is it incredible, it is
contemptible. It is the little guy who is getting the shaft because we
refuse to stand up for him or her. Well, the time has come to take a
stand. This Congress continues to ignore the working man and the single
mother. There are lots of them out there and they have to go through
this every day when they drive up to the pumps. Think of them. Who is
here to take a stand for them--the little guys? There are lots of them
out there. The little guy is getting the shaft because we refuse to
stand up for him. Again, this Congress continues to ignore the working
man and the single mother. This administration continues to ignore the
working man and the single mother, and it continues to ignore the
outdoorsman who can no longer afford to fill up his pickup truck or SUV
for a weekend of work--yes, they even work on the Sabbath; they have to
sometimes--or for a weekend of hunting and fishing.
If the Congress cannot wave a magic wand to lower prices at the
pump--and it cannot--at least we can provide short-term relief to
compensate workers, and that relief ought not be delayed. We have those
workers in Texas, we have them in Oklahoma, and we have them in West
Virginia. I talk with them every day. The time has come; the clock is
moving. Relief ought not be delayed. The time has come for the Congress
to take action. We must take action. We have heard that television
statement: Do it now, do it here.
I addressed the Senate last month about this issue, highlighting the
impact that high gas prices have had on rural States such as mine,
rural States such as New Hampshire. Yes, there are rural areas all over
this country.
When gas prices soar, the impact on rural families can be devastating
and can be cruel. In my State of West Virginia, the impact has been
brutal. It saps the economic strength of the State. It squeezes anybody
who owns a vehicle, and it chips away at the income of workers who must
commute. They have to commute, there is no way around it. Think of
those mountains, those stately, majestic mountains in New Hampshire,
West Virginia, and Tennessee. It chips away at the income of workers
who have to commute to and from and across and in between those
mountains. Households must curtail essentials, and families must do
without other things. They have to get that gasoline, they have to get
to work, they have to get that bread and butter on the table.
Businesses lose customers. Think about that. I was once in a small
business. I was once a small, small businessman. I know what it is. You
have to meet a one or two or three-person payroll. And business
includes customers. As the pocketbook strings tighten more and more,
profits decrease, operating expenses sore, workers' paychecks suffer
more and more.
Residents of rural States must drive longer distances to and from
work, inflicting burdensome costs on commuters. I am talking about the
States of Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, as well as West Virginia--
not just West Virginia.
Rural States have less access to public transportation. What does
that mean? That means subways and buses and car pooling are not usually
available to rural commuters. I am talking about the States of South
Carolina; Kansas; Iowa, where the tall corn grows; Oklahoma, as well as
West Virginia. Not just West Virginia. Hear me now, it is not just West
Virginia. In Appalachia--13 States are in Appalachia. West Virginia is
the only one wholly in Appalachia.
In Appalachia, rural roads, twisting and winding and bending around
the hills and mountains, exacerbate the financial pain. I am talking
about the States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, yes, as well as
West Virginia. Not just West Virginia; other States as well.
When gas prices spike, rural commuters often have no disposable
income to absorb the price flux. What

[[Page S5028]]

does this do? It forces painful cuts in essential expenditures. I am
talking about the States of Idaho, North Carolina--where I was born--
Ohio, South Dakota, as well as West Virginia. So it is not just West
Virginia.
The people of these States and all across America, all across the
Great Plains and the prairies, the mountains, the Ozarks, the Rocky
Mountains, all throughout the land, people in these States are crying
out for action by Congress. So today I offer an amendment to answer
that call. We hear you, we should say. Yes, we hear you. So I have an
amendment that says we hear you.
My amendment would provide a temporary $500 tax credit for commuters
who travel 250 miles per week to and from work. Isn't that a reasonable
approach, a temporary $500 tax credit for commuters who travel 250
miles per week, and many of them travel more than that? Oh, yes. But we
put a limit on it, for commuters who travel 250 miles. If you travel
240 miles, that is not enough. So we try to be very reasonable.
Why shouldn't a man or woman who travels 240 miles a week be helped,
too? We know how difficult it is to move legislatively. I have only
been in this Chamber 47 years, 47 years looking around these walls.
``Novus ordo seclorum,'' it says on that wall, ``a new order for the
ages.'' And ``in God we trust.'' ``In God we trust.'' I have seen these
walls for 47 years. Yes, I came over from the other body where I used
to say: Thank God for the Senate. I never thought of coming over here
to change the Senate rules to make us another House of Representatives.
No, I said thank God for the Senate.
Here we are. My amendment would provide a temporary $500 tax credit
for commuters who travel 250 miles per week. What does that amount to
per day? Mr. President, $50 for a 5-day week; is that what it is? It is
$50 a day for a 5-day week. The credit would be available in rural,
low-income States where public transportation is not readily available.
Go down to Welch, WV. Travel into the hills and mountains of New
Hampshire. The credit would be available in rural, low-income States
where public transportation is not readily available. The credit would
be limited to the tax year 2005, 1 year, and it fits within the
congressional budget so as not to worsen projected deficits. That is
reasonable, isn't it? This is not a complicated proposal. The arguments
in favor of providing relief to workers is obvious, having been made by
Members of Congress and the administration for many months now. So we
put off action day to day, month to month, year to year, waiting for
supposed long-term solutions to take effect while we are recreant,
while we refuse to provide relief for the immediate hardship.
Let us not delay any longer. Let us not equivocate about economic
theories that clearly are working to the detriment of the American
workers. Now is the time, and it may be the only time, to vote to
provide relief from high gas prices. Now is the time to vote to
recognize the plight of workers at the gas pump.
Oh, they say, well, this amendment may not be germane. Oh, this would
set a precedent. What is wrong with that? How are precedents set? What
is a precedent, if it isn't something new, if it isn't something that
goes against the grain of something that has gone before? That is how
we get precedents. I have seen many precedents set in this Senate, so
do not come here with that argument. I do not know, the Chair may rule
this amendment is not germane. I suppose someone might even ask the
Chair.
Now is the time to provide relief, a vote to forgo a policy of wait
and see. It is time to show determination in making the right things
happen.

Amendment No. 635 to Amendment No. 605

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
allow a credit for rural commuters)

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 635 and ask that
the clerk read the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
laid aside.
Mr. BYRD. I make that consent request, Mr. President. I thank the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 635:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. TAX CREDIT FOR RURAL COMMUTERS.

(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
inserting after section 25B the following new section:

``SEC. 25C. RURAL COMMUTER CREDIT.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible
commuter, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal
to $500.
``(b) Eligible Commuter.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) In general.--The term `eligible commuter' means an
individual who, during the taxable year--
``(A) resides in an eligible State,
``(B) drives an average of more than 250 miles per week for
purposes of commuting to and from any location related to the
employment of such individual, and
``(C) has an adjusted gross income of less than--
``(i) in the case of a joint return, $100,000,
``(ii) in the case of a head of household return, $75,000,
and
``(iii) in any other case, $50,000.
``(2) Eligible state.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible State' means any
State with respect to which--
``(i) the percentage of the population residing in urban
areas is less than the national average,
``(ii) the disposable personal income per capita is less
than 114 percent of the national average, and
``(iii) the use of public transportation by the population
for the purpose of commuting to and from work is less than
the national average.
``(B) Determination of eligible states.--The Secretary
shall determine which States are eligible States under
subparagraph (A) based on the most recent data available from
the Bureau of the Census.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means the 50 States of the
United States.
``(c) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
taxpayer for any taxable year beginning after December 31,
2005.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of section for subpart
A of part IV of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 25B the
following new item:

``Sec. 25C. Rural commuter credit.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from West Virginia
for what he is attempting to do for rural America. That happens to be
me, rural America. I am certainly in sympathy with this issue. The
problem I think is going to be the cost. The cost is somewhere around
$5 billion. Since this affects the finance title of the bill, I am
looking to see if Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley can come by and
visit a little bit. If the Senator would like to continue explaining
his amendment, or we could try to get hold of the two Senators from the
Finance Committee.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. I will yield to the good judgment of the managers of the
bill. If you would like to wait until the arrival of those two
Senators, that is fine for me. May I take this moment to congratulate
him and congratulate his comanager sitting by my side, the very
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. President, you are doing
your duty, I say, speaking in the second person, which I am not
supposed to do in the Senate. I hope they will come to the floor and
make themselves heard.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate that and will wait until we
have an opportunity to speak to those managing the finance title of the
bill. That being the case, let me renew our invitation for people to
bring their amendments to the floor. Right now we have hotlined trying
to determine who is serious about his or her amendment. We have a lot
to get done. The sooner anyone who has an amendment gets down here for
the consideration of that amendment, it will be very helpful.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield for a correction?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. I have done what Senators sometimes do. They make a
mistake. They have done it to me, too, in referring to a Senator's
State as a wrong State. Sometimes they say I am from the State of
Virginia. I count that as a great compliment, but I am from the great
State of West Virginia.

[[Page S5029]]

In this case, I have mistakenly referred to the distinguished Senator
from Vermont as the Senator from New Hampshire, both great States. I am
talking about the Senator from Vermont. I believe I referred to him as
the Senator from New Hampshire. OK, the Senator from Vermont. I correct
the Record.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will just observe that they have covered
bridges in both New Hampshire and Vermont.
Mr. BYRD. And West Virginia.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, can I have the attention of the Senator
from West Virginia, please. The Senator from West Virginia does not
need to respond to this, but I just want to make sure. First, I rise
because about 6 o'clock yesterday afternoon, I promised the Senator
from West Virginia that I would get back with him and hopefully have
Senator Baucus with me to discuss whether we could go along with his
amendment.
I got the amendment over to my staff, as I promised I would, about
that time, but it was 9:30 this morning before I was able to get the
two staffs together. I never did get together with Senator Baucus so I
could come over and visit with the Senator personally about it.
We have found a cost argument, not an argument against the Senator's
point of view on the substance of his amendment, but it is my
responsibility as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to find
offset. Now, I do not say this to denigrate the Senator's efforts--the
Senator does not have to worry about offsets; that is my job--but if I
were going to go along with the amendment of the Senator, I would have
the responsibility to find an offset.
So I apologize, first, for not getting back to the Senator as I
promised I would last night. But based upon some of the arguments that
Mr. Inhofe gave but more importantly related to the work of my
committee--and I cannot speak for Senator Baucus, but I think there is
an agreement among our staff, and I do not want to put a figure on it
without having the Joint Tax Committee actually score something, but
this is a tremendously expensive amendment, not that it is not
justified.
I would have to come up with a fairly large figure that my staff
tells me would be close to what we have already raised to bring more
money into the transportation fund so that we can get more money for
the Senator's State and my State, and more money even for the transit
that is a basis for the Senator's argument because he does not have the
mass transit--and we do not have the mass transit in Iowa as well, so
Iowans would benefit from the Senator's amendment. But I just cannot
find that money, and it would detract from all the money we previously
had raised.
I do not know what the course of action is, but I would have to take
the position of advising people not to vote for the Senator's
amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect the very able Senator for the
position he has taken. I can understand that position, and I appreciate
it. I have discussed this with the Senator. I do not have a suggestion
for an offset. I commend the Senator and Senator Baucus on what they
have jointly done to advance this bill and what they have jointly done
to increase the amounts of money available. I understand completely the
Senator's position. I do not blame him for it. He states it correctly,
but I will say that the amendment does not worsen projected deficits.
The amendment fits within the congressional budget. That is why it is
not subject to any budget points of order. Deficit projections within
the congressional budget will not worsen if this amendment passes.
I do respect the Senator. I know we are both in sympathy with what
the people in the mountains, the prairies, the plains, and valleys of
this great country have to deal with. I am sorry that the amendment is
not germane. I understand that. At least I do not think it is. Perhaps
the Senator would like to have a ruling from the Chair. I would hope
the Chair would say that the amendment would be germane.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am not going to raise any more issues.
I have expressed why I cannot support the amendment, and I will reserve
any other action at the time we vote. I thank the Senator from West
Virginia for being understanding of why I did not get back to him.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Judicial Nominations

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I once again want to persuade my Republican
colleagues that the so-called nuclear option to break the Senate rules
regarding judicial nominations is unnecessary and unwise. Earlier this
week, I came to the floor of the Senate and offered to enter into a
unanimous consent agreement that will allow an up-or-down vote on
controversial nominee Thomas Griffith to the DC Court of Appeals.
We have confirmed 208 of President Bush's nominations to the Federal
court, but this record near 100 percent is enough, and the Republican
leaders have brought us to the brink of a nuclear showdown. There will
be a lot of nuclear fallout if this happens, which would be bad for the
Senate and bad for the country.
As I said on the Senate floor earlier this week, Democrats understand
the meaning of checks and balances and our constitutional role in
ensuring a fair and independent judiciary. We know the difference
between opposing nominees and blocking nominees. We will oppose bad
nominees, but we will only block unacceptable nominees. Unfortunately,
my effort to demonstrate good faith to this point has been rejected.
My statement earlier this week was immediately rejected. The
distinguished majority leader, my friend, has indicated that the Senate
would not be allowed to vote on Griffith unless Senate Democrats agree
to an up-or-down vote on all judicial nominees. What that means is the
majority leader will not compromise unless Democrats agree to give up
the last check in Washington against abuse of power: the right for
extended debate. This is not about seven radical judges. In some
people's minds, it is paving the way to the Supreme Court.

Our position is clear: Let us find common ground and confirm judges.
Their position appears to be: Let us threaten to break the rules until
we get everything we want.
Let us find common ground to confirm judges. That does not mean
everybody. If we cannot find compromise, as I said 2 days ago, then we
have to vote. We will fight to protect the Nation's constitutional
system of checks and balances and depend on Republicans of good will
who serve in the Senate who do not want to break the rules to change
the rules. That is what the people sent us to do, and we will live up
to our responsibility to the American people.
Today, I want to try to do what my Republican colleagues say they
want to do, and that is confirm Federal judges. Today, I am prepared to
enter into an agreement that would be in respect to two and possibly
three nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has had
tremendous problems for going on 13 years. David McKeague, Robert
Griffin, and likely Susan Neilson, Sixth Circuit nominees from
Michigan, have been caught up in a dispute that began when the
Republican Senate failed to vote on either of the two eminently
qualified women President Clinton had nominated to the Michigan seats
on that court: Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis.
Helene White is a distinguished judge on the Michigan Court of
Appeals. Her nomination was pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee
for more than 4 years--I repeat, more than 4 years. Kathleen McCree
Lewis is a highly regarded appellate litigator at a prominent Detroit
law firm. Her nomination was pending for more than a year.
Despite their outstanding qualifications, both of these nominees,
along

[[Page S5030]]

with over 60 other Clinton nominees, were buried in the Republican-
controlled Judiciary Committee. They were never given the courtesy of
consideration by the Judiciary Committee, not even a hearing, much less
the courtesy of an up-or-down vote by the full Senate.
It seems as if each day a Republican Senator comes to the floor and
says that every judicial nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote on
the Senate floor. I challenge these Senators to explain why Helene
White, Kathleen Lewis, and 67 others were denied up-or-down votes on
the Senate floor.
I have said that what was done in the last 12 years let us put behind
us. The 69 Clinton nominees and the 10 Bush nominees, let us put them
behind us and go forward. We have a new Congress. We have new leaders,
at least two new leaders, Senator Durbin and I, and we have a number of
new Senators. Let us move forward on a new note.
The failure of the Senate to confirm these two outstanding Clinton
nominees meant that there were vacancies on the Sixth Circuit when
President Bush took office more than 4 years ago. President Bush
nominated candidates to fill those unjustified vacancies, and as other
judges have left the court, the President has eventually sent four
Sixth Circuit nominees to the Senate. In light of the shameful
treatment of President Clinton's Sixth Circuit nominees, Senators Levin
and Stabenow objected to the Bush nominees to this court, and three of
them were filibustered in the last Congress. They were determined that
the GOP tactic of denying hearings and votes to qualified nominees
should not succeed.
I have talked about these on the Senate floor earlier. These were
procedural objections. It had nothing to do with the qualifications of
two of these Sixth Circuit nominees.
I supported the two Senators from Michigan. They have been fighting a
grave injustice that has been perpetrated on White and Lewis. They have
been fighting for the principle of fair treatment. I and all Democrats
have been proud to stand with them in that fight.
Now with the Senate facing the threat of a nuclear option, we have to
remember why we are here. We are here to govern, not endlessly engage
in political bickering that brings us to the brink of a Republican
shutdown. The American people face great challenges each and every day:
escalating health care costs; record high gas prices; skyrocketing
tuition; as we learned today on the national news, pensions that are
being thrown out the windows of major companies that have tens of
thousands of employees; mounting debts that will be handed down to our
children and our grandchildren. Under President Bush's leadership,
middle-class Americans have gone backward, not forward. Instead of
helping them, we are bickering over seven judges and, in my estimation,
many radical judges.
For the sake of the American people and the dignity of the Senate,
Democrats have been and will be reasonable. We believe too much is at
stake. Our very system of constitutional checks and balances is at
stake in this dispute. In granting an up-or-down vote on two and likely
three of these circuit court judges--and let me say, the nominee I have
talked about, Susan Neilson, from everything we know, is a fine woman.
She was just grievously ill, and therefore she was not able to have the
hearing before the Judiciary Committee. We are confident that will take
place quickly. Once that is done and the two Senators from Michigan
have had a chance to vet her, that will take care of our being able to
move forward on three, not just two.

Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. He is one of those
nominees. All one needs to do is have a Member go upstairs and look at
his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree
that there is a problem there.
The other two nominees, Griffin and McKeague, would not have been
filibustered but for the treatment of the Clinton nominees.
Accordingly, I want the majority leader to be aware that Democrats
are prepared to enter into the following unanimous consent agreement:
If the nominations of Griffin, McKeague, and Neilson are reported from
the Judiciary Committee, we agree to limit floor debate on all three
nominations to a total of 6 hours equally divided. Following the use or
yielding back of that time, there would be a vote on each of these
three nominations. Once again, I say to my Republican colleagues, do
they want to confirm judges or do they just want to provoke a fight?
We have confirmed all but four of the judicial nominees the majority
leader has brought to the Senate floor this year. We are prepared to
vote on the nomination of Griffith to the DC Circuit. We are prepared
to vote on two and likely three of the nominees to the Sixth Circuit.
Why are we being denied the opportunity to confirm these judges? We
have already confirmed 208 of President Bush's judicial nominations. If
the majority leader will accept our offer to vote on Griffith and these
Sixth Circuit nominees, we would have confirmed 212 of President Bush's
nominees and rejected only 5. Is the majority leader prepared to break
the rules and violate 217 years of Senate tradition, all for five
extreme judges? I hope not.
I have great admiration and respect for my Republican counterpart,
and I am hopeful and confident that somehow we can work our way through
this morass.
In a New York Times op-ed 2 days ago, former Senator George Mitchell,
who was the majority leader in this body, quoted from a famous speech
delivered by one of his predecessors, former Senator Margaret Chase
Smith, whom I did not have the opportunity to meet, but I wish I could
have. In her famous ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech against the
terrible McCarthyism then practiced by members of her own party, she
said:

I don't believe the American people will uphold any
political party that puts political exploitation above
national interest. Surely we Republicans aren't that
desperate for victory. While it might be a fleeting victory
for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat
for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be
suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system
that has protected our American liberties from the
dictatorship of a one-party system.

Today, the Senate is not plagued by McCarthyism but by what some
believe is an abuse of power.
Lord Acton, whom we studied in college--I thought it was just
something the teacher had me think about that had no practical
application to my life's work, but it has. Lord Acton: ``Power tends to
corrupt.'' Lord Acton: ``Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.''
We have now a legislative body that is controlled by the Republicans
in the Senate by a significant majority, by a significant majority in
the House of Representatives, seven of the Supreme Court Justices
across the street are Republican appointees, the White House is
Republican. Let's not have Lord Acton's theory come to be.
Today, the Senate is not plagued by McCarthyism but by what some
believe is abuse of power. Still, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, this
great Republican Senator, her words ring true. I hope there are enough
modern-day Senator Margaret Chase Smiths who will be guided by the
interests of the Nation, not partisan politics.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be brief. I was just talking to my
staff and to the Democratic leader to see exactly what offer was made.
I did not know exactly what offer had been made, but he reviewed it
with me.
Let me make a statement because it is important for people to know
the Democratic leader and I are in constant conversation about what is
a very important issue to this institution, to the culture of this
institution, to the past and traditions which are important, but
ultimately it is what we do in the future because that is what we can
control today. It is our responsibility to do so.
As we walk the Halls, people come up all the time and say there are
outside groups putting pressure on people to behave in certain ways, or
to vote in certain ways in terms of this important issue. I have told
them, all day and each and every day, ultimately how we handle judges
in these judicial nominees is determined, as set out in the
Constitution, by the 100 Senators who are here today. That is what we
are working with and discussions are ongoing.
Having not heard the specifics of the proposal, the Democratic leader
and I

[[Page S5031]]

will continue conversations on the proposal that he has put forth. But
I do want to draw back and say that the more and more I listen to all
the recent discussions about the President's judicial nominees, the
more disturbed I become and the more upset I have become. Indeed, as I
think about it now, it angers me to think about it, much of it, because
quite frankly a real injustice, a real injustice is being done to our
Nation's system of justice.
The reputation and the records of some of America's finest jurists,
seven of them we talked about in the last Congress and over the last
several weeks--in fact, for months now in morning business we have
talked about how outstanding many of these jurists are--those
reputations are being sullied and they are being smeared and we have
talked among ourselves, not necessarily on the Senate floor but in
private as we do on both sides of the aisle.
This has an impact on individuals, on their lives. Yes, their
careers, but their lives, their personal lives, their lives with family
members. And it is inexcusable, I believe.
It is time, in fact, I think it is long past time, for the majority
of this Senate to come to their defense and to be able to express that
on the floor of the Senate. I believe it betrays the great heritage of
this country to drag a person's good name through the mud using the
media and the coverage of that, and then deny them the right to be
defended on the floor of the Senate and voted on on the floor of the
Senate.
We look at the individuals. I use the word ``smeared'' because I
believe that is the level that much of the discussion has risen to in
this body. It disturbs me. It is time for us to address this, and that
is why, once we finish the highway bill, we have to work together and
address this much larger issue, larger than much of the legislation
that is brought to this floor in the course of our daily operations.
This betrayal of the country's heritage is not the way we are supposed
to do things in this body, in the Senate. It is not the way we are
supposed to do things in America. It is not the idea of fairness--I am
going to use that word, ``fairness''--that I was accustomed to before
coming to this body in the Senate.
It is not the level of fairness that you expect in a doctor-patient
relationship, and thus America doesn't understand it, why we cannot
bring somebody to the floor and vote on them--fair vote, up or down. It
is our responsibility.
We hear again and again about minority rights. The Constitution was
written to ensure the rights of the minority. We respect that. Both
sides of the aisle respect that. It is much of the tradition of this
body. But the Constitution was written--I guess it was neither written,
nor has it operated in 214 years, in a manner that denies the majority
of people in this body the right to hold a vote, yes or no, confirm or
reject--confirm or deny--up or down--on a President's most important
nominations. These are the most important nominations of a President of
the United States. These are the nominations to our Nation's highest
judicial offices.

Yes, justice must be independent. Yes, justice must be blind. But I
cannot and I do not think we as a body can turn a blind eye to the
continued attacks on innocent people who are willing to dedicate their
lives. Let's have that debate on the floor of the Senate, bring them up
in a regular order, have as much time as it justifies, listen to both
sides, see if the smears and the accusations are real, and then have a
vote. And however the vote falls, we are willing to accept that.
Confirm them or reject them, we will accept the vote. That is the way
this body expresses itself.
The Democratic leader and I will continue our discussions. Again, it
is one of the great pleasures to be able to talk back and forth. But I,
based on whether it is individual proposals or the larger discussion of
what to do with the seven judicial nominees, or as we look ahead--what
I propose we do is roughly the following: If Members of the minority
want to make their case--I will tell you a lot of times we hear the
case of extremist, out of the mainstream--if they want to make their
case that the American Bar Association is wrong in the recommendations
they have given, or in one instance in California 76 percent of the
California voters are wrong, let them do so and we will do them nominee
by nominee and have the courage to do so on the floor of the Senate,
with plenty of time for debate--we can agree on how much time for
debate on each one--and then have a vote.
America understands having a vote, having heard the case made by both
sides. America does not understand how we cannot, how we can deny them
that vote.
For our part, you will hear us defend the President's nominees. We
will rebut and refute the attacks. Sometimes we believe, and I think
America believes when they hear them, they are scurrilous attacks. We
will do it point by point. Then, after we do that, we will have that
vote. All 100 people in here will be able to vote yes or no, and then
we will move to the next nominee in an orderly, systematic way, the
ones who are on this Executive Calendar who have been considered by the
Judiciary Committee, and then we will start bringing them out. I am
confident, if we do that--I am very confident we will be able to judge
those nominees on their merits--not because they are the President's
nominees; not because people voted a certain way, even in the last
Congress when things were very partisan, when a lot of it was in the
heat of those elections, but in an environment of renewed civility, of
being able to work together the way the Democratic leader and I are in
our conversations every day--every day we sit down and discuss how to
address this problem. I think that is the same civility colleagues on
both sides of the aisle feel deep inside.
They do not want things to come to a head. We all know the
partisanship, as the other distinguished Senator from Nevada said, Mr.
Enzi described it--well, the partisanship started and other people 3
years ago didn't even think about filibusters. I don't think they
thought about filibustering Supreme Court nominees or circuit court
nominees. It didn't enter their head. Things have gotten so difficult
and so challenging and so partisan and so locked down that it has been
elevated up to where, on a routine basis--a routine basis, one out of
three to one out of four of the circuit court nominees that came from
the President were filibustered, were blocked, were denied an up-or-
down vote.
I think everybody agrees that was excessive. I will not go into the
past because I think we need to project to the future, but now is the
time to get through that and to get over that. I think anything less
than that at this point of allowing people to come to the floor, debate
them fully, and have them voted on--and I think the American people
will recognize--is a sham. I am not saying we should not come to an
agreement of exactly how we should do it, but the American people
understand at this juncture--they may not understand the filibuster, or
rules of the Senate, and many have not gone back and read the
Constitution, but what they do understand is full debate and a vote for
people who have been nominated by the President of the United States to
the highest courts in this country is fair and it is the right thing to
do. Anything less than that is a sham. It involves hypocrisy. Hypocrisy
must, in this Senate, come to an end.

If it comes to an end--on both sides in terms of the hypocrisy--if it
comes to an end, we have a great year and a half to address
immigration, to address energy, to address the health care issues that
mean so much to me with 40 million people uninsured out there; we have
been able to do class action, bankruptcy and the fifth fastest budget
on time and the supplemental supporting our troops overseas and we are
working on asbestos in committee and we are making great progress. It
is time to move beyond this.
The hypocrisy must and will end. Each nominee is entitled to and must
receive a full and just consideration of his or her candidacy and then
a fair up-or-down vote.
Again, I was not in the Senate, and I did not realize the Democrat
leader would make the specific offer. We have talked about much of what
he said. I came over as soon as he began to talk, and I appreciate his
offer for Senate debate and votes on some of the President's judicial
nominees, but say once again that it is that principle of an up-or-down
vote that is going to govern this side of the aisle. I believe it is
what the American people expect.

[[Page S5032]]

With that, I am happy to turn back to the Democratic leader. Again, I
look forward to our further discussions on addressing the issue that
both he and I understand have to be addressed right now so we can move
forward and address the many other issues. Doing that in a mutually
acceptable way earns the respect of the American people and this great
institution we serve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. I, frankly, wish I could spend more time on the most
important highway bill. I was chairman of the full committee on two
separate occasions, and I am interested in the jurisdiction of the
highway bill. I am sorry my attention is diverted from all we are doing
on judges.
Let me say this to my distinguished counterpart, the Republican
leader, the senior Senator from the State of Tennessee, I have said in
the Senate on a number of occasions, I cannot justify what went on
during the 8 years Clinton was President. I am not here to go into a
dissertation of what happened the last 4 years during the Bush years.
But I say this: We never got into any problem with filibusters during
the Clinton years because these people never got any kind of attention.
They were buried in the committee. I hope the American public
understand that 69 people were nominated by a President of the United
States, nominations came to the Hill and were lost. Some of them waited
years and years, almost 5 years. We are not here to debate every 1 of
the 10. We have narrowed it down to a fairly small number.
We have to go forward. I don't know if the distinguished Republican
leader and I can come up with a formula that satisfies our two
caucuses. We realize the time is of the essence. Not only has the
country had enough of the judicial problem we call the nuclear option,
but the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Nevada have had
enough. We have to move on. We have work we have to do in this Senate.
The Republican leader has mentioned the things we have been able to
accomplish so far. It hasn't been easy what we have been able to do but
we put the record of our accomplishments this quarter about as far as
one could go in saying we have done a pretty good job.
We have a lot of other things to do. He has mentioned a few things.
But whether or not we can get things done in this Senate means we have
to move beyond this problem.
Some have said that the Senate will stop. The Senate is not going to
stop. It is a body that has lots and lots of rules and procedures and
things are going to slow down. It will make it very hard to get things
done.
We are now approaching June. After we finish 2 more weeks of work, we
have 7 weeks remaining until the August recess--7 weeks to do all the
things we need to do. Then we come back, and it is time to finish our
appropriations bills. We have so, so much to do.
This is not to make me look good or the Senator from Tennessee look
good. We have the people's business to do. We are chosen, as indicated
by the vision of our Founding Fathers, to represent States. The State
of Nevada has about 2.5 million people. The State of New York has 19
million. The State of California has 35 million. In the little State of
Nevada, I have as much power as Senators from heavily populated states.
I hope that Senator Frist and Senator Reid can work a way out of
this. I don't know if we can. We have met on this. Our conversations, I
am sorry to say, are completely filled with discussion of this. We have
talked about every possible avenue we think is a way to get my caucus
and his caucus out of this.
I have come to one conclusion: If we work out a deal, there are not
going to be many happy people around here. We will have to work
something out that is a good compromise. As I have said in the Senate
before, what does that mean? Both sides are unhappy.
I hope we do not have to come here and I have to look to six
Republicans to stop a change of the Senate as we have known it. I hope
we do not get to that point.
I have said, with the majority leader off the floor and I say it when
he is in the Senate right here, I have the greatest respect and
admiration for this man.
I have said it in my private conversations with others, I have said
it in the Senate again today. He chose public service for the right
reason. Senator Frist is an accomplished surgeon, in a specialty,
transplant surgeon. He is a man of means. He does not have to come
here. He did it because he wanted public service. I have admiration for
him. I wish we could move past this and move on with the business at
hand.
I, again, say I cannot justify what went on during the Clinton years.
It was bad. As the distinguished Senator mentioned, people's lives were
disrupted and changed. They quit jobs and then they had no job. They
waited in limbo for years. It affected people's lives. He and I have
discussed how it affected individual human beings to their detriment.

I know for the people we are talking about, the Republicans--I am
sorry, the people nominated--I don't know if they are Republicans; I
assume they are--by President Bush, this has had an adverse effect on
some of their lives, not all of them but some of them. So we have to
move on. When we move on, we have to have the Senate we have always
known.
We need the partisanship to continue. There is nothing wrong with
partisanship. We are the envy of the rest of the world because of our
two-party system. We are not like the parliamentary system in Great
Britain where they have three parties, and Blair, with his party,
barely got a majority. We are not like India or Great Britain.
Mr. President, what a wonderful country this is. President Bush was
elected with fewer votes than the person he beat. His case was decided
in the Supreme Court of the United States. I did not like the decision
they made, but I felt like the rest of Americans--it was all over with.
There was not a car burned, no fire started. There were no
demonstrations. He became our President the minute that decision was
made.
But the fact that we are partisans in protecting this great two-party
system we have does not mean we should not work together on issues for
this country. We need to do that. I hope we can do that. As the
distinguished majority leader said, we are coming down to where the
rubber hits the road. I would think next week there will be a decision
made on this one way or the other. I hope it is something that is good
for the American people. I am going to do my level best to work with my
44 Senators to see that is the case. I know he will work with his 54
Senators to see that is the case. And history will determine how the
Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Tennessee fared on this issue,
whether we were able to come through on an issue of tremendous
importance, because the microscope is on the Senate of the United
States as we speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I know we are on the highway bill. Senator
Byrd is about to speak. So I think at least from my standpoint we will
continue our discussions. As you can see, we both feel passionately
about this issue, understanding it is our responsibility as leaders to
lead on an issue that affects this country in a very dramatic way. It
affects the future of this institution in a dramatic way.
Just to clarify, I believe we both agreed that we are going to all
keep working together to address this, but we do need to bring some
sort of closure to this. Therefore, after the highway bill, at the
appropriate time, we will spend--it is going to probably take a week,
or I don't know exactly what it is going to take, but next week--and I
would hope we would engage in regular order and that we have people on
the Executive Calendar and we can do what we have always done, bring
them up. And as to which one, and how we go about it, would be in
discussion.
But you can tell from my remarks, I believe what the American people
expect is we will have full debate and expect an up-or-down vote on
those, go through the normal course of business. People will be able to
judge. And I hope and pray people will be able to express themselves
through a vote on the floor here in the Senate.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
permitted

[[Page S5033]]

to address a question to the distinguished minority leader without
losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask my minority leader, what was his
proposition that he recommended?
Mr. REID. This was only a minor issue. What we have done, I say to my
distinguished friend through the Chair, and my former leader, is that
we have three judges, one for the DC Court of Appeals and two for
Michigan, probably three for Michigan, who we said we have no
objection--they are all circuit court judges--to move forward on. What
Senator Frist has said in reply is that he wants to have all the judge
issues resolved before we move to any of these circuit court judges.
That is what he said and that is what I said.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I address a question to the
distinguished Republican leader without losing my right to the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. Leader, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with the
proposition that the minority leader has suggested?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, we will continue the discussion. I would
prefer to, as leader, take the Executive Calendar and take the people
on the Executive Calendar, who have gone through the Judiciary
Committee, who have been debated--it is the way we have always done
business or should do business--go through committee and have them
voted on. If they are voted on, they come to the calendar. At that
point in time, you would look at that list, and you would bring them to
the floor, and you would have the debate, and you would vote. That is
what I would much prefer.
The specifics, just like you asked, I have heard, and we will
consider that. But why not take Priscilla Owen for the Fifth Circuit,
who is on this calendar, who has waited 4 years, rather than other
judges, if we are going to be addressing judges? Or Janice Rogers
Brown, who is a sharecropper's daughter, who is at the Supreme Court of
California, with 76 percent approval, who is on the Executive Calendar?
All she is waiting for--all she is waiting for--is a vote. Why can't we
address Janice Rogers Brown?
William Pryor--we had a recess appointment; he has done an
outstanding job; I was just talking to our distinguished Senators from
Alabama--was marked out of the Judiciary Committee today.
So what I would like to do--again, I am not going to rule out
anything. And I understand the Michigan judges in this Congress may be
viewed a little differently than last Congress, and I appreciate that.
I think once we can discuss how we are going to deal with those on the
Executive Calendar--bring them to the floor--that we will be able to
move very quickly on all of these, I am hopeful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened to this discussion with
considerable dismay. I hope that both leaders will not leave the floor.
I cannot understand why we can't proceed a little at a time. If we
are seeking to--
Mr. REID. Mr. President, may I respond to my distinguished friend?
Mr. BYRD. Yes. May I retain my right to the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader and I have had, as I
have indicated, many conversations. I think we should proceed one by
one. The distinguished majority leader wants to resolve this issue once
and for all. So I accept him at what he wants to do. I am going to work
with him over the next several days--hopefully, it doesn't take that
long--to see if we can resolve this in some manner. If not, we both
agreed that this matter is going to end sometime next week anyway. We
would hope that in the meantime we can resolve this. We are on the
highway bill. We have a lot of work to do on that. In the interim, I
would hope that we can work something out. If we can't, next week we
will have a showdown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to avert a showdown, if we can
do it. Why do we have to have a showdown?
Mr. REID. Senator Byrd, if I could be rude and interrupt, through the
Chair, without the Senator losing his right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Senator Byrd, I feel this very way, very strongly. I say,
respectfully, to a man who is the dean of the Senate today, has been in
the Senate almost 50 years, who I have the widest respect for, we are
not going to resolve this issue right now. We are trying to do that. We
are going to have some private conversations. What I am saying to my
distinguished leader, give us a little bit of time.
Mr. BYRD. Well, Mr. President, I have no quarrel with giving the
Senators time. But I hope we will attempt, in every way possible, to
avoid that showdown the distinguished minority leader has referred to.
This matter--
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me just interrupt. The majority leader
did not say anything about a showdown.
Mr. BYRD. Well, Mr. President, I know of nothing in my 47 years in
this body, in my 53 years in this Congress, that has pained me more
than this issue. I am pained, pained by the political partisanship.
What this country needs is not partisanship but statesmanship. I have
great faith in the Senate. I have great faith in the two leaders. The
minority leader has made a suggestion. Why don't we proceed with it?
I am sorrowful we have come to the point where we seemingly forget
the American people. We talk about the feelings of those nominees who
have not been given an up-or-down vote. I am sorry about their
feelings. But Senators have a right to speak, have a right to object.
And the distinguished Republican leader talks about the need for an
up-or-down vote, an up-or-down vote, an up-or-down vote. I have heard
the President say something about that.
Mr. President, here is my guide, the Constitution of the United
States. What does it say? Does it say that each nominee shall have an
up-or-down vote? Does it say that? I ask the Senator from Tennessee, I
ask any Senator to respond to that question. Does this Constitution
accord to each nominee an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond to the question
that has been directed to me.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield without losing my
right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. To the question, does the Constitution say that every
nominee of the President deserves an up-or-down vote, the answer is,
no, the language is not there. Up-or-down vote, that is the language we
use to signify that when the President of the United States sends a
nominee to the highest court in the land, which is his or her
responsibility, which is in the Constitution, they send it to this body
for advice and consent. It is common sense to me, it is fairness to me
that when they come over to give advice and consent, we go through the
Judiciary Committee. If they make it out of the Judiciary Committee,
the way we give advice and consent on this floor is a vote. That is
what we are elected to do. Or vote no. I don't mean you have to vote
yes on them, but advice and consent.
To the American people who are listening now, when they elect us
here, what is fair, what is our responsibility, what is our duty is to
vote. That is how we give voice. You can't cut these nominees in half;
you can't reshape them; you can't amend them; you can't send them
to conference--all of those things. That is why I am a tremendous
advocate for the filibuster for legislative matters. But when you have
a nominee that comes over, all you can do is shine the light. You
examine them. You debate it, unlimited debate--unlimited debate--and
then to give advice and consent, which is in that Constitution, the
advice and consent is right there. How do you do it? Vote yes, vote no.
Confirm, reject. We

[[Page S5034]]

accept it. One hundred people have spoken, and then we move on to the
next nominee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this says that he, the President, shall have
the power to nominate and, by and with the consent of the United States
Senate, shall appoint. To give consent, we may vote. But to deny
consent doesn't require a vote. It does not require a vote and the
record shows that. The record shows that Republicans and Democrats
have, from time to time, the leadership has denied a vote to a nominee
simply by bottling up that nominee in the committee. That denies the
nominee a vote. The Senate speaks, as it were, and refuses to give its
consent by just saying nothing; thus, keeping those nominees in the
committee. That has been done from time immemorial and more recently in
increasing measure.
Many nominees under the Clinton administration were not given an up-
or-down vote. They were sent up here by the President of the United
States. They were not given an up-or-down vote. They were kept in
committee.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD. Let me finish. I will be happy to yield. They were not
given an up-or-down vote. So the Senate did not give its consent. That
is all right. That is within the Constitution. The Senate did not give
its consent. So what is the difference, if the Senate, through its
committee system, decides not to give a presidential nominee an up-or-
down vote in the committee, then? The Senate may decide not to indicate
its confirmation by an up-or-down vote, just simply be silent. It has
not confirmed, has it? It has not given its consent, has it? So what is
the difference?
If a nominee is not given confirmation by a committee, what is the
difference? You are not giving consent there. If you are not given an
up-or-down vote on the committee, what is the difference? I am unable
to understand the difference.
Let's do what the Constitution says. Let's do what the Constitution
says. When we talk about what these nominees deserve, what do the
American people deserve? That should matter. What do the American
people deserve? They deserve to move on. Look at the problems that
confront this country.
Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator wishes me to yield, I would
be glad to. I have the floor.
Mr. FRIST. Yes, sir.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the
distinguished majority leader for a statement without losing my right
to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, why does Priscilla Owen--through advice and
consent, who has gone through Judiciary Committee--not deserve the
fairness--yes, the fairness--of an up-or-down vote, where every Senator
can speak for or against on the floor of the Senate? Why does Priscilla
Owen not deserve--she has waited 4 years--an up-or-down vote? How can
you explain to the American people at this juncture, after what I would
call an unprecedented number of filibusters in the last Congress, that
Priscilla Owen does not deserve a vote? It is our responsibility to
give advice and consent. How does she not deserve a vote in the Senate
next week or the following week?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what does the Constitution say? By and with
the consent, the President shall have the power, and by and with the
consent of the United States Senate, shall appoint. Now, we can wrangle
until the crack of doom about why so and so and so and so were not
given an up-or-down vote in the Senate. One could ask that question ad
infinitum about those many nominees that were sent to the Senate by
President Clinton. They never got up-or-down votes. I didn't take the
floor and urge that they deserved this or that.
The Senate should be guided by this Constitution. If it elects not to
confirm by simply withholding its voice, it can do so. I commend both
leaders for their efforts. But I am telling you, the American people
deserve something. That is what we should think about. The American
people deserve action by the Senate to get on with the business of the
people. Look at these high gas prices. We can talk about immigration
policy. We can talk about access to health facilities. The American
people deserve action on the part of the Senate, and here we are
wrangling over a half-dozen nominations for judgeships. That is just a
shirttail full of nominations, and they have been sent to the Senate
already. In the first administration, if the Senate saw fit not to give
its confirmation to them, why should the President send the same
nominations back up to the Senate? There are plenty of people in this
country who are able--many lawyers and judges who are able. There are
plenty of people the President could nominate that would not have a
problem getting confirmation in the Senate. Why do we have to send the
same ones back here? That is up to the President. If he wants to send
the same ones, he can.
I am saddened by this threat to use the so-called nuclear option. The
distinguished majority leader prefers to call it the ``constitutional
option.''
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a point of order?
Mr. BYRD. Not yet. I have not said much on this question, but I want
to say a few things today. The Republican leader refers to it as the
``constitutional option.'' I refer to it as ``constitutional folly.''
We talk about freedom of speech in the Senate. Roots run deep with
respect to freedom of speech. When the distinguished Republican leader
first became leader, and even before he became leader, he visited my
office and we had a good conversation. I believe he asked my thoughts
on whether he might be a good leader of the Senate. I said give the
Senate the opportunity to debate and to amend. That is what we are
talking about here--the right to amend, the right to debate. Yet they
are talking about the nuclear option.
Don't kill freedom of speech in the Senate. That great compromise
that was entered into on July 16, 1787, is why we are here today. If it
hadn't been for that compromise, the Senator who sits in the chair
would not be sitting there. The distinguished Democratic leader would
not be the leader in this body. There would be no Senate, and there
probably would not be a Republic. The great compromise said there shall
be two Houses, and the membership number of one shall be determined on
the basis of population; the other will be a forum of the States in
which each State is equal to every other State and each Senator is
equal to every other Senator.
We talk a lot about tradition. I say to my good friend--and he is my
friend--the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, I have heard a good
many Senators on the floor talking about tradition. Well, tradition in
the Senate means freedom of debate going back to the beginning of this
Republic; and the Articles of Confederation, the first Constitution of
the United States--going back to the Articles of Confederation, back to
the House of Commons, the people of England who were in this country,
especially those who decided on this Constitution, were British
subjects.
So the roots of freedom of speech are deep. They go back to 1689, to
the time when the English offered to William III, of Orange, and Mary
the opportunity to be joint sovereigns. The proposition was that there
must be freedom of speech in the Senate. Those two sovereigns--that was
one of the items that was to be agreed to, freedom of speech in the
House of Commons. That was on, I believe, February 13, 1689. On
December 16 of that year, a statute was passed incorporating those
rights into a statute. That was the Bill of Rights of our English
forebears. As I say, that common thread of freedom of speech runs deep,
deep in the House of Commons, and we ought to honor it here.

We are talking about cutting off the rights of Senators and about
what the nominees deserve. What do the American people deserve? Well,
let's adhere to tradition. There wasn't any limitation on speech until
1917 in the Senate. First, they had the previous question. Aaron Burr
said in 1805, when he made his departing speech from the Senate--I am
just hoping I might have the attention of Senators. I have not had much
to say on this question, although it has kept me awake many nights. I

[[Page S5035]]

have spent sleepless hours worrying about this thing of killing debate,
freedom of speech in the Senate. Who wishes, Mr. Leader, to have that
kind of a legacy to confront him--to help to kill freedom of speech in
the Senate? You don't want that legacy. I don't want to see you have
that legacy--freedom of speech in the Senate killed.
Aaron Burr urged the Senate to do away with the previous question.
They still have the previous question in the House of Representatives
and in the House of Commons in England. The previous question had been
on the books for a few years, but it hadn't been used, so Aaron Burr,
in 1805, urged the Senate to do away with the previous question by
which they could shut off debate. In 1806, in that first revision of
the Senate rules, it was left out. No more could a Senator move the
previous question in this body.
That was the end of it until 1917. Then, when President Wilson sought
to arm merchant ships, there was a filibuster by a few Senators. Thank
God. I came over here from the House like a lot of Senators have. Some
want to make the Senate another House of Representatives.
The Founding Fathers did not want to do that. But when I came to the
House, I did not come over here chewing at the bit to change the Senate
rules and make this a second House of Representatives, only smaller. I
said thank God for the U.S. Senate many times when I was in that other
body. Thank God for the U.S. Senate.
Why did I do that? Because over here, a man or woman may stand on his
or her feet so long as their lungs, their brass lungs, will carry their
voice, and they can object.
And may I say to the distinguished majority leader, he made mention
of the late Senator Smith from Maine. I was here when she was here.
What a grand woman that one, a great Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. I
wish she were here today, Margaret Chase Smith. I wish those Senators
of that day were here. They would not stand still for a minute to
throttling freedom of speech in the U.S. Senate.
May I say to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, please think
about this. Think about this. Don't leave this as your legacy. No, try
to find a way around this freedom of speech in the United States
Senate. Let's don't throttle it. We have come to a time, we say we are
going to try to work this out. This ought not be all that difficult to
work out. As I said to the President of the United States in the
presence of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee: Mr. President,
tell your leadership up there not to push this, not to push this on the
American people. It is their freedom. The day may come when--and it has
been in the past--the day may come when the Senator from Tennessee
wishes to stand and use that filibuster.
The filibuster is not a very popular thing out there in the country
maybe.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Not yet, if I may respectfully decline. I will shortly. The
Senator from Tennessee may wish to stand on his feet and defend the
beliefs, the opinions, the rights of the people of Tennessee from a
majority. Over there is the majoritarian body, the House of
Representatives. There is where majority rules. This is the forum of
the States. It is a forum for minorities, where we can have dissent on
the part of a minority. The majority is not always right. The majority
has been wrong before. And so I say, let's protect the rights of the
minority to filibuster, if I may use that word.
Yes, we have engaged in filibusters on judicial matters before. I was
here when the President of the United States wanted to make Abe Fortas
the Chief Justice. I voted on that. That was a filibuster.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just for a quick
question?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yes, I yield. I ask unanimous consent that I
can yield under the rules for a question, without losing my right to
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have a very brief question. The Senator
from West Virginia mentioned what he said in my presence and the
presence of other Senators yesterday. We were at the White House
talking about important issues--foreign affairs--but he, I think very
appropriately, brought up this issue. The Senator from West Virginia
did make the point that he just made about the importance of not
leaving a legacy, as you described it. My legacy would be very
different because of the principle of a fair, up-or-down vote, after
freedom of speech, extended debate for as long as is reasonable in
terms of getting all the issues out there. That is what the American
people want. They want a nominee to come over, be fully debated,
everything about them, counter, debate, back and forth, freedom of
speech.
The Constitution, the wonderful history you just gave us----
Mr. BYRD. Praise God. Here it is, freedom of speech.
Mr. FRIST. Freedom of speech. Let's see it next week. Take someone
who is on the Executive Calendar now. Take them to the floor, and let's
have freedom of speech--somebody who has waited 4 years for the
appropriate freedom of speech coming to the floor--and then do--this is
my question. I do not want to go into a long speech because I know we
all have other engagements we need to get to. Let me ask the question.
Didn't you also say, as the other part of that statement to the
President of the United States, being critical of the potential legacy
I might leave in order to stand up for fairness and principle, didn't
you also say you would give all of these nominees an up-or-down vote on
the floor of the U.S. Senate?
Mr. BYRD. I am willing to give nominees, if there is a handful of
them--
Mr. FRIST. An up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Isn't
that what you said yesterday to the President of the United States?
Mr. BYRD. I said I am willing to give them an up-or-down vote, just a
handful.
Mr. FRIST. Thank you.
Mr. BYRD. I don't mean six of them, five of them, or four of them or
three of them. I have never attacked the Senator's desire to be looked
upon as a leader who was fair. I have never attacked him.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, another quick question, reserving the
Senator's right to the floor. Yesterday, in the Senator's statement to
the President of United States, it was to the seven nominees he
delivered to us about whom the distinguished Senator from West Virginia
said: I want them, or I am willing to have--I don't know if the Senator
wants or is willing to have an up-or-down vote on the seven nominees--
didn't the distinguished Senator from West Virginia tell the President
of the United States and other Senators that at the same time he
addressed my legacy?
Mr. BYRD. Just as the Senator has had a little difficulty in
recalling whether I said this or that, I didn't have a written text
before me when I spoke to the President. I don't remember if I said a
few or all or three or four. I don't remember. I am willing to have
some votes up or down.
Let's get around this Damocles sword that hangs over the Senate of
the United States and act as reasonable men and women and vote some of
them up or down. Whatever the leader decides is fine. Let's don't talk
about this nuclear option. Let's don't bring that down at this time. I
am not referring to the legacy of the distinguished Senator in a
disparaging way. I am not doing that at all. The leader----
Mr. FRIST. One more brief question.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, but let me finish my sentence.
Mr. FRIST. Yes, through the Chair.
Mr. BYRD. The leader has it within his power to go forward on all
seven or six or five or four, whatever it is, or he has the power to do
it on less than that number. It seems to me that a reasonable
compromise could be reached among Senators. I am interested in helping
to effectuate such a compromise. If it means an up-or-down vote on one
or two or three or four, whatever, it seems to me to be reasonable if
we can give and take--that is what we are expected to do, give a little
here, give a little there--and let's get out of this morass, this
terrible threat to the freedom of speech in the Senate of Senators.
That means freedom of speech on the part of my people back home who
expect me to speak for them.
I hope the leader will think about that. My goodness, they have a
shirt

[[Page S5036]]

tail full of nominees, and we are going to wreck traditions? Talking
about traditions, the tradition of the Senate is freedom of speech,
freedom of debate, freedom to dissent.
Mr. President, this reminds me very much of a book in the Bible, a
book that is titled Esther, the Book of Esther. I think it would be
especially good for the distinguished majority leader to be reminded of
the Book of Esther in the Bible.
I won't go into it all here, but Esther was a Jew. She had a cousin
who sat at the king's gate every day. He was a Jew. His name was
Mordecai. The word went out that a man who had been favored by the
king, a man named Haman--H-A-M-A-N, I believe it is. Here is my Bible.
This is the King James version of the Bible. I don't read any other
version of the Bible except the King James version. I speak as a born-
again Christian. We hear that thrown around a lot around here. I am a
born-again Christian and have been since 1946.
My wife and I will soon be married, the Lord willing, in about 16 or
17 more days, 68 years. We were both put under the water in that old
churchyard pool under the apple orchard in West Virginia, the old
Missionary Baptist Church there. Both Erma and I went under the water.
So I speak as a born-again Christian. You hear that term thrown around.
I have never made a big whoop-de-do about being a born-again Christian,
but I speak as a born-again Christian. Hear me all you evangelicals out
there, hear me.
So here we were, we were baptized. But getting back to Esther, her
cousin, Mordecai, sat at the king's gate day after day, and he refused
to do homage to the king. The king was Ahasuerus, and his wife's name
was Vashti. The king asked Vashti to come in before all the big shots
in the kingdom, and she refused to come. So his advisers advised him to
put her away and get a new queen. So they brought in all the beautiful
virgins--perhaps not all of them, but they brought enough to dazzle the
king's eyes--and they chose Hadassah, that is Esther, after whom the
book is titled.
She was the king's new queen and she got word from Mordecai that word
was going out from the king's top man named Haman that all the Jews
were to be killed on a certain day. So Mordecai told her that, and she
told the king and the king said: Who did this? Who said that?
So the finger was put upon Haman. Haman was the chief leader there of
King Ahasuerus. Well, time went on and old Haman was advised by his
people to build a gallows and hang on those gallows Mordecai, and on
that same day to kill all the Jews throughout the 127 provinces of
Persia.
I will go to the point of the story quickly. It ended with Haman, the
man who built the gallows on which to hang Mordecai, himself being
hanged on those gallows. It did not stop there. The ten sons of Haman
were executed on those gallows, also.
I say this to the distinguished Senator, hear me, hear me. I am
willing to give some up-and-down votes on some judges. That is a little
thing. But it is a big thing if it is carried too far. Judges do not
have to go before the people to be voted on like the Senator from
Tennessee, the Senator from Nevada, and I have to do. They are
appointed for life, and this is the only place where they can be
scrutinized.
Well, in the case of Haman, he was executed on his own gallows. I say
to the leader of the Republican Party in this Senate, the worm turns
and there will come a day when the majority leader of the Senate will
be on this side of the aisle. I have seen it happen back and forth time
and again. It can happen again. That worm will turn.
I say to the leader, please do not ``Hamanize,'' if I may coin a
word, the Senate. Remember Haman. The leader and his party may someday
be on the same gallows that we in the minority find ourselves on today,
``Hamanized.'' Do not travel that path because the leader and his party
may someday be executed on the same gallows. Think about it. Do not
``Hamanize'' the Senate of the United States.
I thank the distinguished leaders for listening. I hope my words will
not have been in vain. I plead with them, please do not ``Hamanize''
the Senate of the United States. Take us out of that straitjacket. I
know both leaders have been working but work some more. If I can help,
let me in, count me in. I want to help.

Talking about the American people, they are the ones who are
suffering from this delay. We could be doing something about matters
that confront most people every day. I appeal to both leaders to let
reason reign for a while. Let us reach a judgment to get on with the
business of the Senate, but for Heavens' sake do not kill freedom of
speech in the Senate.
Do I still have the floor, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. I say, finally, my apologies to the Republican leader and
to the minority leader, and thank them for listening. But how much land
does a man need? How much land does a man need? Tolstoy wrote a great
story. How much land does a man need?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators should be advised that the Senator's
hour of postcloture time has expired.
Mr. REID. I yield the Senator another hour.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished leader. I have the floor. Thank
God for the Senate, I said, when I was in that body over there.
Finally, I say to my good leader, I will pose a rhetorical question.
How much land does a man need? Leo Tolstoy wrote a story about a man
named Pahom, I believe it was, but regardless of the man's name, this
man had orchards and fields of grain and lands, but he had land hunger.
He wanted more land. He kept getting more land, but he always wanted
more land. The upshot of it was there appeared before him one day a
stranger who offered him all the land that he could cover in a day,
like that Tennessee land.
Mr. FRIST. Good land.
Mr. BYRD. He offered him all the land he could cover in a day for a
thousand rubles.
He thought, this is my chance. So he took off on an early morning and
he had never seen land so rich as this was. So he decided he would walk
3 miles. He left his servant there with the stranger. The 64-dollar
catchword was, he had to be back at the starting point before the sun
went down or he would lose his thousand rubles.
So he started out and he decided he would walk 3 miles. After he
walked the 3 miles, it looked so good he thought he would walk 3 more
miles, and he walked 3 more miles until he had covered 27 miles before
he turned up on the second side. He covered the second side, and he sat
down and he ate from the humble bag of provisions that his good wife
had prepared for him, a little cheese and bread, and then he launched
out on the third side of the square and he covered the third side. But
as the long afternoon wore on, the land became less hilly, more rocky.
So he struggled to reach the end, to reach the starting point before
the sun went down because otherwise he would lose all. He would lose
his thousand rubles, and he would lose the land that he covered.
Mr. President, I see the leader has left. He left me all alone here.
What about this? Hey, where is my adversary? Where is my worthy
adversary? Come on now. Where is the leader? Am I to be left here alone
to be gored by the horns of those--where is my adversary? He is not to
be found.
Anyhow, let me bring this long story to an end. In the end, the man
was crawling on his hands and knees. The sun was going down. He looked
ahead of him and he saw the starting point. He saw the dim face of the
stranger waiting on him at the starting point, the stranger who had
offered him all the land that he could cover in a day for a thousand
rubles. He saw a grim smile on the face of that stranger. So,
painfully, he inched himself forward little by little. His arms were
bleeding from the rocks and the briers and the sticks that had gone
through his skin. He reached the starting point just as the Sun went
down, but he fell dead on the spot.

The stranger said: I promised him all the land he could cover. You
see how much it is: 6 feet long and 2 feet wide. The stranger, called
Death, said: I have kept my pledge.
So, Tolstoy asked, How much more do you want? How many nominees have
we confirmed in this Senate? How many? May I ask the question without
losing my right to the floor.

[[Page S5037]]

Mr. REID. It is 208.
Mr. BYRD. And how many have not been confirmed?
Mr. REID. Ten.
Mr. BYRD. And 7 of those are back before the Senate, out of 218? My,
how much land does a man need? How many nominees do they want? Mr.
President, just send up some new nominees; it is that simple.
Mr. President, I thank all Senators. I am ready to proceed on the
amendment, if the Senator would like.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
I inquire of the Chair, are we still on the Byrd amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me just make one answer on the question you had, How
much more land? I refer to Jabez, you are familiar, in the First
Chronicles. They say: ``Expand my territory.'' So we want more.
I make a point of order the pending Byrd amendment is not germane.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I made my case. I think it is a good case. I
do recognize that some amendments that are offered are not germane. It
was my hope that, by presenting the amendment, the Chair will rule it
is germane. I will accept the ruling of the Chair. I will not attempt
to override the Chair's ruling if he rules against my point, but I have
made my case. I thank the distinguished Senator, and also I thank
Senator Baucus, the manager on this side, for the consideration they
have given. I will abide by the decision of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is
not germane. The point of order is well taken, and the amendment falls.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't know if we have people on the
floor with amendments. I am hoping that we do. While all these subjects
we are addressing are important, we are operating under some real time
constraints. We have been on this bill now almost 2 weeks. We have
worked on the bill for 3 years. This is probably the most significant
piece of legislation we will be handling, and I encourage my colleagues
to confine their interests to this bill and encourage as many of them
as have amendments that they seriously want to be considered that they
bring those amendments to the floor. We have the list now down to about
140 amendments. I know from past experience just a fraction of those
will want to have serious consideration.
I make that request and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend from
Oklahoma, several days ago Senator Hatch and I were told that we could
speak on the floor at 2:15. So I ask unanimous consent that I can speak
as in morning business, that I will be followed by Senator Hatch, and
in deference to our friend from Oklahoma, who makes a very good point,
that this time be charged postcloture.
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I inquire of my friend
from Oregon how much time he is requesting as in morning business.
Mr. WYDEN. As I said or touched on in my earlier comment, Senator
Hatch and I had talked several days ago with the cloakrooms on both
sides. We do want to be sensitive to our colleague. His point is valid.
I think both of us could finish our remarks in about 10 minutes each,
or thereabouts.
Mr. INHOFE. That is 10 minutes for each of you?
Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will not object. Let me propound a
unanimous consent request; that is, the combined remarks of the Senator
from Oregon and the Senator from Utah not extend beyond 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Citizens' Health Care Working Group

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Hatch and I are taking this time to
prepare our colleagues in the Senate and the public for a health care
revolution that is long overdue. Right now, just over the river in
Arlington, a group of dedicated citizens from every corner of the
country is preparing to do something that has never been done before,
and that is to tell the American people the hard truths about where
nearly $2 trillion in health care goes each year and then to walk the
public through the tough choices that must be made to create a health
care system that works for all Americans.
The Citizens' Health Care Working Group was created by a law that I
wrote with Senator Hatch. That law is just now beginning to be
implemented. Beginning this week, the American people will have a place
to go to find out more about the working group. I encourage them to
take the opportunity to go to this Web site and learn about a very
fresh approach to delivering health care for all of our citizens.
For 60 years, our country has tried the same thing. Literally from
Harry Truman in 1945, in the 81st Congress, through 1993 and 1994 in
the Clinton administration, the effort was to write legislation in
Washington, DC. Then the American people would find it hard to
understand, various interest groups would attack the legislation and
each other, and everything would die.
Under the law I have written with Senator Hatch, this approach is
turned on its head. Instead of starting in Washington, DC, the Health
Care That Works for All Americans law begins outside the beltway. I
would say to the Senate, I think health care reform has been like
getting dressed in the dark for both the public and for policymakers.
The American people have never been told where the money is going, so
how can they, in a thoughtful way, offer suggestions on what needs to
be done to improve the system? Without this essential information from
the American public, how then can policymakers write legislation that
thoughtfully addresses the public's concerns and garners the public's
support?
This time, beginning in the fall, that is going to change. In senior
centers and libraries, at business organizations, online and offline, a
Health Care Report to the American People will lay out the facts for
the first time. The public is going to be told in understandable
language the facts as to where the $1.8 trillion spent each year on
health care goes. Then the American people will have the opportunity--
again offline and online--to give their ideas about how to create a
health care system that works for everyone. For the first time, public
involvement will be followed by political accountability.

Under the law, once Americans learn where the health care dollar is
going and they have the chance to talk about how they would rather
spend those dollars, Congress must follow up. All the committees of
jurisdiction have to hold hearings within 60 days of the
recommendations coming from the citizens of our country.
Once there is a clear citizens' roadmap to health care that works for
all Americans, it will be hard for Congress to reject the citizens'
health care needs. Congress can continue to ignore what the citizens
are calling for, but with genuine public momentum behind this effort,
Congress will ignore the citizens at its peril.
For the first time, with this approach, there is the potential to
create a true juggernaut to get a bill a President of either political
party can sign. It is about time.
If Americans do not have their health, we all understand nothing else
matters. Before I had the honor of coming to the Congress, I served as
director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. I saw then how important it was
that a fresh, innovative approach be taken in this area.
Two weeks ago, the chairman of Starbucks sat in my office. This is a
company that gets it when it comes to health care. They are doing
something that is hard for any company to do, providing health
insurance not only to their full-time employees but to their part-time
workers. They have done this because their founder, Howard Schultz,
remembers what it was like to grow up in a family at risk because they
did not have health care. He believes a secure, covered workforce
contributes to his company's great business success. But Howard Schultz
will tell us, just as other concerned business leaders will tell us,
they may not be able to keep that commitment if costs continue to grow
exponentially.
What I appreciate about what Starbucks is saying is they are not

[[Page S5038]]

waiting for the bottom to fall out. Mr. Schultz has come to Washington
to ask that the Congress and the executive branch partner with
businesses that want to do the right thing and to cover their
employees. He does not have all the answers, but he told me and Senator
Hatch as part of this bipartisan law that makes a break with 60 years
of failure in this area, he wants to try fresh approaches. Since
millions of Americans come in contact with Starbucks each week, that is
a pretty darned big contribution and an indication of what the business
community is willing to do as we take a fresh look at coming up with
health care that works for all Americans.
Frankly, what we have heard from Starbucks and others is exactly the
kind of teamwork we wanted when we wrote the law. We are talking about
a unique approach where the public has the facts, where the public gets
a chance to weigh in, where Congress then has to act. This kind of
approach, where you rewrite the book with respect to health care
reform, is long overdue. There are going to be tough choices. Senator
Hatch and I have acknowledged that at the very beginning. Certainly
end-of-life issues present us with some very difficult, gut-wrenching
concerns but establishing this kind of process is, in the view of
myself and Senator Hatch, absolutely critical if our country is to move
and to move quickly to deal with the health care challenge in the days
ahead.
This health care wrecking ball is not going to hit in 2040 or 2050,
colleagues. We are going to get clobbered on New Year's Day 2007 when
70 million baby boomers start retiring.
I see my friend Senator Hatch is here and Senator Inhofe has been so
kind to give this time so I will wrap up. I encourage each Senator to
urge their citizens at home to get involved with the Citizens' Health
Care Working Group. They are going to be getting out into the
communities across the country, making their information available
online. This is their Web site. I encourage Senators to have folks at
home ready to pitch in.
I thank my partner in this effort, Senator Hatch. If we look at the
important health care legislation in the last few years, Senator
Hatch's name is virtually always on it, whether it is programs for kids
or how to address issues relating to pharmaceuticals. I could not have
a better partner in the Senate as we try to break new ground in health
care.
I yield now so Senator Hatch can have the time. I do it with my
thanks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has just over 10 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I will not take all that. I apologize to the managers of
the bill for taking this time.
For over 60 years, Washington has tried to come up with a way to
provide access to health insurance for all Americans. The premise of
this bill is that instead of relying on Washington for answers, we rely
on the people.
I compliment my colleague from Oregon for coming up with this idea. I
am very happy to sign on and help him with it, the Health Care That
Works For All Americans: Citizens' Health Care Working Group
legislation. It was created in order to hear what people like and do
not like about the current health care system.
It is our hope this working group of citizens will have at least one
townhall meeting in every State in the Union, pick the brains of all
Americans, and see if we can come up with answers to our health care
problems. We provide a mechanism once they do for the Congress to at
least consider it and see what we can do to go from there.
This is one of the biggest issues we all have to face.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, everywhere I go in Utah, people tell me how
concerned they are about health care. They are worried about the lack
of health insurance, skyrocketing premiums, and unaffordable
prescription drugs. They are worried that if they are diagnosed with a
serious disease like cancer, they will be wiped out financially, even
if they have health insurance. They are worried about losing their
family doctor because he or she can no longer afford medical liability
premiums.
There is no question there are problems with America's health care
delivery system. And we have even more problems when the Government
tries to impose a one-size-fits-all program on country. That's why
Senator Wyden and I reached across the aisle to start a meaningful
national discussion with every day people.
A few years ago, Senator Wyden came to my office and told me he had a
``terrific idea'' and that he wanted me to be a part of it. I am glad
he did. I came to learn that we both have a strong desire to get past
the partisan bickering and forge a consensus that would address the
problems plaguing our health care system. We both decided to take this
problem right to the American people. We want those who deal with these
issues day in and day out to have their say. And, hopefully, when the
process is finished, we will have a national consensus on how best to
improve our health care system.
The Health Care That Works For All Americans: Citizens Health Care
Working Group legislation was created in order to hear what people like
and don't like about the current health care system. It is our hope
that there will be at least one town hall meeting in each State. The
working group members will hear from the full range of people within
our health care system--including health care consumers, health care
providers, and others who are impacted by health care.
For nearly 60 years, Washington has tried to come up with a way to
provide access to health insurance for all Americans. The premise of
the Wyden-Hatch bill is that instead of relying on Washington for
answers, the working group should hear from people outside of
Washington regarding our health care system. The voices of all
Americans, insured and uninsured, must be heard and that this issue
needs to be addressed.
Today, 45 million Americans are uninsured and 8 million of the
uninsured are children. We cannot allow these individuals to go without
health care coverage. That is why I sponsored the CHIP legislation in
1997 to address this serious matter for children.
To me, the most appealing aspect of this Citizens Working Group is
that it is unique from other previous commissions that were run by
Washington insiders. This working group is composed of individuals from
all over the country who have had experience with the current health
care system. These are people who have had dealings with different
facets of our health care system, and they want to make it better. They
will talk to people from all over the country about what is working and
what isn't working. And then they will put together recommendations,
based on what they heard from their fellow citizens, for Congress and
the administration to consider. Again, let me emphasize that the
recommendations will come from the bottom-up, rather than being imposed
from Washington. This is crucial because one of the first tasks of the
working group is not only to get the views from the public but also to
help them better understand our health care system. And once these
recommendations are issued, Congress will hold hearings to address
them.
This week, the Citizens' Health Care Working Group members are being
briefed on various issues related to our health care system including
an overview of the health care system, public health insurance programs
such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program, the private health insurance market, the uninsured, and
drivers of health care costs. In addition, the working group will be
discussing the future field hearings, the required report to the
American people, and begin consideration of approaches for conducting
the community meeting.
Again, I am very hopeful about the innovative health care proposals
that will be produced by the citizens' working group and want to
encourage my colleagues to familiarize themselves with this important
effort.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon and the
Senator from Utah. They have a great deal of passion on their subject
and they have worked long hours. I appreciate the fact they recognize
we are considering what many people consider to be the most significant
bill this year.
Again, we will renew our request for Members to come down with their
amendments. We have hotlined it

[[Page S5039]]

twice. I want to make sure I say that enough times for Members. Senator
Jeffords joins me in this. They have hotlined it on their side. If
Members want their amendments considered, if Members want floor time,
if Members want a vote, come down, bring it down. I am waiting for that
to happen. We are open for business. We encourage Members to come.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree with the Senator's statement and call upon
Senators to be here so we can get this work done.
Mr. INHOFE. It is urgent. Let me state why it is urgent. We have a
deadline. We are on not our fourth, fifth, but our sixth extension
right now. When you operate on extensions, as we have said over and
over again, you cannot get anything done, you cannot have any of the
reforms, you cannot take care of donor States, you cannot have
innovative methods of financing. That is all in the bill. Core safety
provisions are in the bill. None of that will be a reality if we do not
get this bill.
Why is it such a rush? This extension expires on the 31st of May.
That is 19 days from now. We have to get this done. If we get this bill
finished tonight, we will have time to have it over into conference and
start working on it in conference in time to get the conference report
back to the House and back to the Senate and to the President's desk
prior to the expiration of this extension on May 31.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I emphasize we are running out of time.
We cannot keep going this way without getting anything done. We have a
responsibility to do so. I urge Members who have issues they want to
raise, please come now.
Close to 50 years ago, Congress passed and President Dwight D.
Eisenhower signed into law the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.
As Chairman Inhofe has pointed out a number of times during the
debate on this bill, that legislation is one of the greatest public
works projects in history and is credited with the creation of one of
the biggest transportation systems in the world.
President Eisenhower was a thoughtful man, but his first realization
of the value of good highways was noted in 1919, when he participated
in the U.S. Army's first transcontinental motor convoy from Washington,
DC, to San Francisco.
When Eisenhower and a friend heard about the convoy, they volunteered
to go along as observers ``partly for a lark and partly to learn,''
Eisenhower later recalled. On the way West, the convoy experienced all
the woes known to motorists, and then some: an endless series of
mechanical difficulties; vehicles stuck in the mud or sand; trucks and
other equipment crashing through wooden bridges; roads as slippery as
ice or dusty or the consistency of ``gumbo''; extremes of weather, from
desert heat to Rocky Mountain freezing; and, for the soldiers, worst of
all, speeches and speeches and more speeches in every town along the
way. On September 15, 1919, after 62 days on the road, the convoy
reached San Francisco, where it was greeted with medals, a parade, and
more speeches.
During World War II, General Eisenhower saw the advantages Germany
enjoyed because of the autobahn network. He also noted the enhanced
mobility of the Allies when they fought their way into Germany.
These experiences shaped Eisenhower's views on highways. ``The old
convoy,'' he said, ``had started me thinking about good, two-lane
highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons
across the land.''
Thankfully, these experiences helped guide President Eisenhower as he
developed and pushed for the creation of the Federal-Aid Highway Act.
In 1955, President Eisenhower said:

Together, the united forces of our communication and
transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name
we bear--United States.
Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate
parts.

We stand here now on this Senate floor, 50 years later, trying to
improve and maintain the roads and highways created by the legislation
inspired by President Eisenhower.
The bill before us makes great strides in State efforts to reduce
traffic congestion and make our roads and bridges safer. It will help
maintain and expand our mass transit systems, and it creates jobs and
helps our economy. This bill will improve transportation in every State
and have an impact on every American in one way or another.
Once again, I thank Chairman Inhofe and Senators Bond and Baucus for
their efforts in moving this bill forward. We have made good progress
this week, and I know the momentum will continue today, and hopefully
it will start soon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for an
excellent statement. That historic perspective is important for a
number of reasons. The whole highway system under Eisenhower came as a
result of a quest for national security. That was almost 50 years ago,
and we have been funding highways the same way we did 50 years ago. We
have not changed at all.
We have this excise tax. In the bill we are to pass--and hopefully it
will get passed today and sent on to conference--we have new and
innovative ways of financing. We allow the States to use their ways. We
give them more latitude toward their methods of financing highways. We
also appoint a national commission to study how we could do this in the
future so we will not be standing up here 6 years from now talking
about the same problems we have today.
If we operate on an extension, that is not going to happen. I made a
list of all these things that are not going to happen if we have just
another extension. We are on the sixth extension right now.
Let me, first of all, encourage anyone who is going to offer an
amendment to come down and do so.

Judicial Nominations

But while we are waiting, Mr. President, let me respond to one of the
statements that was made about an hour ago--or was it 2 hours ago--when
they were talking about a floor vote.
Regardless of how you interpret the Constitution on advice and
consent, sometimes I say I am a very fortunate person in this body
because I am one of the few Members of the Senate who is not a lawyer.
So when I read the Constitution, I know what it says. It says we are
supposed to advise and consent. It means a majority of us are going to
have to determine whether a nominee who is presented by the President
of the United States is one who is, in fact, acceptable.

What we have been asking for, as our leader articulated many times--
and apparently the senior Senator from West Virginia agreed with the
President yesterday--is just an up-or-down vote. That is all we want,
an up-or-down vote.
Now, is this so outrageous? I will go back and quote some of my good
friends on the Democrat side who are opposed to an up-or-down vote.
Senator Biden, on March 19, 1997, said:

But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is
nominated ought to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have
a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.
. . .

Senator Boxer said, on May 14, 1997:

It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process
and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even
being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

Senator Durbin, who has been very outspoken, said, on September 28,
1998:

Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are
not.

Mrs. Feinstein, one of our fine colleagues, the senior Senator from
California, on September 16, 1999, said:

A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them
down. . . .

Now, apparently, their interpretation of the Constitution is what
mine is.
Senator Kennedy, on January 28, 1998, said:

But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on
these nominees--yes or no.

I agree with Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kohl, on August 21, 1999, said:

These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting
for us to act, deserve an ``up or down'' vote.

Senator Leahy, on October 22, 1997, said:

I hope we might reach a point where we as a Senate will
accept our responsibility--

[[Page S5040]]

That is us.

and vote people up or vote them down.

Senator Schumer, on March 7, 2000, said:

I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with
alacrity--vote them up or down.

So I am saying that I agree with all of my good Democrat colleagues
that we should give them an up-or-down vote, and I have no question but
that the American people feel the same way. You see different polling
data, but when they are asked the question, Should these people be
entitled to a vote up or down? they overwhelmingly believe they should.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I actually came over to have a little
discussion with the distinguished chairman of the full committee who
has brought this legislation forth, Senator Inhofe. I thank him for the
work he has been doing. We had an issue we have been discussing, and I
think we have something identified to be helpful.
I came to talk about the highway bill, and I will do it to this
extent: We need a bill. It is an overdue bill. It is important to our
country. It is important to have infrastructure. It is important for
job creation. It is important for economic development. And it is
important for safety.
We ought to do this bill. I just cannot understand why the Senate
still heaves away from getting this extremely popular, overdue, and
highly necessary piece of legislation passed.
I urge my colleagues, if they have good amendments, let's do them. If
we can't get it completed this afternoon, let's do it as soon as
possible. It is critical for our country.
We are speaking on time on the highway bill, but actually other
subjects have been introduced. I would like to comment on that.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have been pleading with our colleagues
to bring amendments down. Will the Senator, in the event an amendment
comes to the floor, then yield for consideration of that amendment?

Judicial Nominations

Mr. LOTT. I want this legislation so bad, I would even stop talking
myself. That would be a major sacrifice, but yes, I would be glad to
yield. But since the opportunity presents itself and I missed the
opportunity to engage in the discussion an hour or so ago--not that it
was needed--I have had very little to say on the floor of the Senate
about the discussion about judges. There are a lot of different
viewpoints. I am not going to refer to what others have said and I am
not going to suggest I am a great constitutional scholar or that I am
so steeped in all of the rules and traditions of the Senate. But I have
studied this issue.
I have been in the Congress for now going on 33 years. I have read
the Constitution over and over again, particularly on this subject,
article II, section 2. I am somewhat familiar with the traditions and
rules of the Senate. I am chairman of the Rules Committee. I have been
in leadership roles. I must say that while we have had our
disagreements and while I have seen us make mistakes and while I have
seen injustices heaped on each other, on the people who are affected by
issues we deal with, I don't believe I have ever seen anything as
unfair and wrong as what I have seen happening to these circuit court
nominees over the past 4 years. This has been going on for 4 years.
I was stunned when it started happening with Judge Charles Pickering
of Mississippi and Justice Priscilla Owen of Texas. I thought maybe
that was something aimed at me or maybe it was aimed at the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, or maybe it was a fit of anger about some of
the nominees from President Clinton who didn't get out of the Judiciary
Committee, but it would be a passing break from tradition. But no, this
has continued right on through the 108th. We need to find a resolution
that is fair to all concerned.
I wanted to correct a couple misimpressions, perpetuated primarily by
the media. The proposal to put the tradition back in place that we
don't filibuster Federal judicial nominees is not an end of the
filibuster. Some of the media--accidentally, I am sure--suggested this
is a debate over whether to have the filibuster. No, it is limited to
the Federal judiciary. It won't affect our ability to continue to
filibuster legislation or other executive branch nominations, although
I have to confess, I think there should be some reasonable limits on
that also. I am not a guy who gets so caught up in the institutional
rights that I forget considering the rights of people and right and
wrong. Does that have a place here in the Senate?
These good men and women and minorities have been maligned,
mistreated, have had their lives disrupted, some of them for 4 years.
Some of the best possible nominees such as Miguel Estrada said: Well, I
have to go on with my life. And he withdrew.
There has been a misimpression given about how this would limit the
filibuster. It would only apply to these judicial nominees.
The other thing is, Senator Frist and the Republicans are considering
changing the rules. Actually what we are considering doing is putting
tradition back in place. The tradition has not been to filibuster
Federal nominees. The tradition has not been to filibuster appellate
court nominees. Not one time during the 6 years or so I served as
leader did we have a filibuster. We are trying to go back to where we
were. You can argue over this example or that example or we should
retain that right. No, that has not been the right. That has not been
the tradition. What has happened is wrong.

I saw somebody last night on one of the talk shows saying everything
that happens in Washington is about something else. This lady suggested
this whole debate is about the next Supreme Court nomination. Maybe
that is true. Maybe there are a couple other things it is about, but in
the meantime, innocent and qualified, good people are having their
lives disrupted and smeared by this process.
I acknowledge this sort of thing has been going on ever since I have
been in the Senate. Every time we have a filibuster or kill somebody or
embarrass somebody in our process, whether it is Senator John Tower to
be Secretary of Defense or Clarence Thomas to be on the Supreme Court,
Judge Bork as a nominee, every time we seem to drop down another level.
Sure, a lot of the Clinton nominees were held up in the Judiciary
Committee. Maybe this is retaliation for that. What is going to be the
next retaliation? How low can we go before we stop this tit for tat?
Now is the time to end it and go back toward greater comity between
the parties and the people involved in these discussions. I haven't
been sitting on the sideline saying: Let's impose this rule. Let's
comply with the Constitution, which I think we should do. I want to
make that perfectly clear. I have one goal and only one goal,
ultimately, in this area, and that is to stop filibusters of these
Federal judges. I don't particularly care how we get there, but that is
the right thing to do. I am determined to get there.
As chairman of the Rules Committee, we had hearings on and moved
legislation 2 years ago, sponsored by Senator Frist and Senator Zell
Miller, to try to come to a fair conclusion about how these judges
would be handled. It was a process that said the first vote on cloture
would require 60 votes, then 57, then 55, but ultimately get to an up-
or-down vote, a majority, but an elongated process to make sure
everything that needed to be said could be said. It could be fully
scrubbed, and at some point you get to conclusion. A filibuster, the
way it is being used, is guaranteeing we never get to conclusion. It
goes on and on from one Congress to the next.
We reported out a bill. That apparently wasn't acceptable to the
minority, the Democrats. So I started looking for other solutions. I
did talk to Senator Ben Nelson and others: Is there some way we can
address some of these concerns; is there some way we can guarantee that
these nominees are not unfairly held permanently in the Judiciary
Committee?
We came up with a process that said after 90 days, if the appropriate
blue slips have been returned by the Senators from the State of the
nominee affected, then they would come to the floor. They could not be
held in committee indefinitely, but if there was a problem that came up
and they needed

[[Page S5041]]

an additional 90 days, agreed to by the chairman and ranking member,
then it could be extended. Ultimately, they would have to come out of
committee and be considered by the full Senate. That would address one
of the concerns that has been pointed out by Senator Reid and Senator
Leahy and other Democrats. There is some merit to what they are saying.
Let's fix that.
The second problem was freedom of speech, the great tradition in the
Senate of endless debate. Give me a break. At any rate, to say the
majority leader could not even file cloture for at least 24 hours after
a nomination was called up--it could be longer--and then he could file
cloture, and after 2 days we would eventually get to an up-or-down
vote, but have a week for debate. By the way, Senator Frist
subsequently suggested that be moved even further. Every Senator would
get an hour if he wanted it, full debate. I hate the thought of that,
too, having to listen to 99 other speakers on a judge. Think about the
sacrifice the majority leader has to make. When the majority leader has
to give 100 hours to anything, how many judges could do you that on? It
would be another impediment. But we would have full debate and then a
vote. That was the key. Fairness on the committee, full debate on the
floor, but ultimately a vote. That was rejected.
A lot of different ideas have been explored. A lot of Senators would
like to find a way to stop the way we have been doing business but
doing it where everybody could have some degree of comfort. I think
time is running out. I think we have to make a decision on this and
move on. Some people would say: Oh, my goodness, the Senate will be
stopped, slowed down, with different agendas offered. How will we get
anything done? The last time I checked, we have done four bills this
year. We are not exactly burning up the woods. How do you slow down
from almost a dead stop? So there is a little bit of a temerity--I will
not use names to describe what the Senate is doing.

I think we need to work together. We have done it many times across
the aisle. We have worked with Senator Baucus of Montana on issue after
issue. Senator Grassley won't have it any other way, to his credit. We
ought to find more ways to do it. We ought to find a way to do it on
Social Security. We have done it before. It took courage. We have done
it on trade and we are going to do it again. It will take courage,
sacrifice, and we are going to have to work to find a solution. We can
do that here.
But I guess the thing that really gets me the most is when we put our
description of tradition and the great institution ahead of human
beings. When we have this debate, I see faces, people; I see Janice
Rogers Brown, from California, who has an incredible story to tell. She
is being maligned. Is she a conservative African-American woman? Yes.
Is that disqualifying? It should not be. You may not agree with her
opinion of Franklin Roosevelt, but isn't she entitled to an opinion?
All the while, perhaps, she is ruling very fairly or even ruling
against her personal beliefs, if that is what the court precedent calls
for.
Mr. President, I don't necessarily mean this as critical of the
institution or any one individual, but I think there is an awful lot of
pontificating that has gone on too long here. Priscilla Owen, a supreme
court justice in Texas, deserves a vote. She deserves to be confirmed.
Somebody said she is too pro-business, she has a conservative
viewpoint. Is that now disqualifying? I don't think so.
I have voted for judges I didn't agree with, perhaps on labor law. I
point out over and over again that I voted to confirm Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg. Certainly, she would not have been my pick, but she was
qualified, experienced, and had proper decorum, and she was ethical.
President Clinton won the election and so, based on that, I voted for
her.
Surely, we can find a way to work this out. I think it has gone on
long enough. I have tried not once, twice, but three times to find a
way that we can get the right result, which is an up-or-down vote on
these judges, and I have not been able to be successful yet. A lot of
people have tried, and I think they deserve recognition. Those of us
who have worked to try to find compromise have not been working against
the interests of our leadership. We told them what we were trying to
do. That is in one of the finer traditions of the Senate. But I cannot
find a solution that I think is fair, other than to make it clear that
these nominees deserve an up-or-down vote.
The Senate should vote. Some of them won't be confirmed, I predict.
One or two of the seven--the magnificent seven--that have been
renominated may not be confirmed. I would not be surprised to see that.
I have voted for judges and against judges, but all of a sudden we
don't want to do that.
Let the Senate do what it is supposed to do. Let's ante up and kick
in. Let's vote and solve this issue, get it done, and let's move on and
legislate for the best interests of our children and grandchildren.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his remarks. This
bill is urgent. We have been, as I said, hotlining it. We have done it
twice on our side. I am waiting for responses to see what kind of
progress they are having on the other side of the aisle.
I want to get on record here so that Members can all be aware it
appears we are down to about 10 amendments right now on this side of
the aisle. I think it would be very wise to continue to talk about this
because we will be getting to a point where we are going to have to
draw this to a conclusion, and now it seems like it may be some
workable number.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Filibuster

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on January 31, 1963, I gave my maiden
speech in the Senate. That is over 40 years ago--42 years ago. At that
moment, the Senate was embroiled in a very heated debate on civil
rights. The question before the Senate was the filibuster because many
of my colleagues, especially those who were designated as liberals,
looked upon the filibuster as the major obstacle to the granting of
civil rights to the oppressed minority of this Nation. On that day, I
was given the right to the floor and I gave a short speech. I think it
is quite relevant at this moment. If I may, these are the words of 31
January 1963:

Mr. President, I fully understand the respected custom of
this body which advises a new member to sit in his chair, to
listen quietly and learn before he rises to speak to the
Senate himself.
There is wisdom in that custom, as there is in most customs
which last through years of trial and experience. I would not
willingly break that honored silence, but because this debate
calls to question the place of the minority in a democratic
political system, I feel I must say these few words in deep
but passionate humility, for I am a member of a minority in a
sense few other Senators have ever been.
I understand the hopelessness that a man of unusual color
or feature experiences in the face of constant human
injustice.
I understand the despair of a human heart crying for
comfort to a world it cannot become a part of and to a family
of man that has disinherited him.
For this reason, I have done and will continue to do all
that one man can do to secure for these people the
opportunity and the justice that they do not now have. But if
any lesson of history is clear, it is that minorities
change, new minorities take their place, and old
minorities grow into the majority.
One can discern this course in our own history by observing
the decisions of the Supreme Court, where the growth of the
Nation's law so often takes the form of adopting as the
opinion of the Court the dissenting view of the earlier
decision.
From this fact, we discern the simple example of a vital
democratic principle. I have heard so often in the past few
weeks eloquent and good men plead for the chance to let the
majority rule. That is, they say, the essence of democracy. I
disagree, for to me it is equally clear that democracy does
not necessarily result from majority rule but rather from the
forged compromise of the majority with the minority.
The philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
is not simply to grant the majority the power to rule, but is
also to set out limitation after limitation upon that power.
Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
religion: What are these but the

[[Page S5042]]

recognition that at times when the majority of men would
willingly destroy him, a dissenting man may have no friend
but the law.
This power given to the minority is the most sophisticated
and the most vital power bestowed by our Constitution.
In this day of the mass mind and the lonely crowd, the
right to exercise this power and the courage to express it
has become less and less apparent. One of the few places
where this power remains a living force is in the United
States Senate.
Let us face the decision before us directly. It is not free
speech, for that has never been recognized as a legally
unlimited right. It is not the Senate's inability to act at
all, for I cannot believe that a majority truly determined in
their course could fail eventually to approach their ends. It
is instead the power of the minority to reflect a
proportional share of their view upon the legislative result
that is at stake in this debate.
To those who wish to alter radically the balance of power
between a majority in the Senate and a minority, I say, you
sow the wind, for minorities change and the time will surely
come when you will feel the hot breath of a righteous
majority at the back of your own neck. Only then perhaps you
will realize what you have destroyed.
As Alexis de Tocqueville said about America in 1835: ``A
democracy can obtain truth only as the result of experience;
and many nations may perish while they are awaiting the
consequences of their errors.''
The fight to destroy the power of the minority is made
here, strangely enough, in the name of another minority. I
share the desire of those Senators who wish to help the
repressed people of our Nation, and in time, God willing, we
shall effectively accomplish this task. But I say to these
Senators, we cannot achieve these ends by destroying the very
principle of minority protection that remains here in the
Senate.
For as de Tocqueville also commented: ``If ever the free
institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be
attributed to the omnipotence of the majority.''

I thank the Chair.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. INOUYE. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. That speech was given 41 or 42 years ago?
Mr. INOUYE. Forty-two years ago.
Mr. REID. I say to my distinguished friend, we have heard a lot of
speeches in the last several months on this subject, but I have to say
candidly that this is the best speech we have heard. This is
outstanding, especially coming on the footsteps of the great Senator
Robert Byrd who made a statement about the right to free speech.
As I look back at a very young Senator from a very small State taking
on people who had been here a long time, going against a majority of
his party, in a sense, certainly a lot, as a young Senator, shows why
20 years prior to giving this speech he was a hero on the battlefield
for America and why he has been a hero on the battlefields of the
Senate for all these many years.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I echo the comments of my good friend. The Senator from
Hawaii has given us an opportunity to listen to the goodness he has
given us in many speeches. I thank the Senator for what he has done
today.
Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Vermont is very kind. I should point
out, I was very proud of my speech, but the consequences are rather sad
because my so-called liberal friends avoided me for a few weeks after
that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before I suggest the absence of a quorum,
let me also echo my good friend. One of the real thrills I have had
since I came from the other body was when Bob Dole was here with the
Senator from Hawaii, and the two of them made such a spectacular image
of everything that is good about this country and how good we feel.
Every time I look at the Senator from Hawaii, I see a true American
hero.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma very
much.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
(The remarks of Mr. Jeffords pertaining to the introduction of S.
1011 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I renew our plea for Members to bring
their amendments down. We are making progress in terms of shortening
the list. I would like to announce on our side we have hotlined it
twice and we are down to 11 amendments by 9 different authors,
different Senators. I encourage those nine to come to the floor while
we have ample time. It is my understanding that after a couple of
hotlines on the other side of the aisle, they only have about six
amendments. That being the case, we could actually move the bill, if we
can get these people down and get them to offer their amendments.
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct. We have only six we know of.
Mr. INHOFE. We have made progress, anyway, looking at who is serious
about their amendments. I hope any staff or Members watching now would
be encouraged to bring their amendments down.
I yield the floor to the senior Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, America has come a long way since the first
State safety belt laws were passed two decades ago. I am speaking today
not just as a proponent of reauthorizing the highway bill, but also to
express my strong support for provisions in this bill designed to
promote primary safety belt laws in the States. These laws help prevent
fatalities and crippling, disabling injuries when auto accidents occur.
As many of you know, primary safety belt laws allow police officers
to stop and issue citations to motorists they observe who are not
buckled up. Secondary safety belt laws, on the other hand, require a
motorist be pulled over for another offense before he or she can be
issued a ticket for failing to wear a safety belt.
Today, 21 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have
primary belt laws and we know these laws are working. I am proud that
in my home State of North Carolina--our home State, Mr. President--
which enacted a seatbelt law in 1985, belt use rose to 86 percent in
2004.
Let me review a little history. It was in July 1984, during my first
full year as Secretary of Transportation under President Reagan, that
we issued rule 208, resulting in the installation of airbags in
passenger vehicles and the enactment of safety belt laws across the
country. Rule 208 was designed to save as many lives as possible as
quickly as possible. It successfully resolved a 17-year dispute that
spanned four administrations.
The rule recognized the role of the States in automotive safety. Not
a single State at the time had passed a safety belt law. Usage was at
only 13 percent, and airbags were virtually nonexistent. In fact, I
remember having to search high and low to find an airbag-equipped car
so I could put it on the White House lawn for President Reagan and the
Cabinet to go out and examine.

There was very little consumer acceptance at the time. Many folks
feared when they crossed the railroad tracks that the airbag would go
off. Today, motorists regard automotive safety quite differently. Most
of us get in a car and we barely notice that the vehicle has an airbag.
And most of us innately fasten our safety belts.
Statistics prove we have made great progress increasing safety belt
usage and saving lives on our Nation's roads since those first State
safety belt laws were enacted.
Now, over 20 years later, we need to urge more States to take their
laws to the next level by enacting primary safety belt laws. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates if all States
enacted primary safety belt laws, more than 1,200 deaths and 17,000
injuries would be prevented annually.
I take this opportunity to thank the folks at NHTSA, and especially
Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge, for their continued hard work and
leadership to increase safety belt usage throughout our country.
According to NHTSA estimates, in this year alone, 15,000 lives will be
saved--15,000--by wearing safety belts. The economic costs associated
with belt usage are significant as well. NHTSA estimates safety belt
usage

[[Page S5043]]

saves America $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity, and other
injury-related costs. By contrast, fatalities and injuries resulting
from not wearing a safety belt generate $26 billion in economic costs
annually. These costs include higher taxes and higher health care and
insurance costs.
The fact is safety belts reduce the risk of death in a severe crash
by 50 percent. We must urge folks to use their safety belts. Increased
usage rates and primary belt laws have a proven track record of doing
just that.
With this legislation, States that chose to adopt primary safety belt
laws would receive a one-time grant equal to 500 percent of the highway
safety money they received in 2003. States that already have primary
safety belt laws would receive 250 percent of the 2003 level in highway
safety money. At the end of the bill's reauthorization in 2009, any
leftover safety funds will be distributed to States that have enacted
primary belt laws.
With this increased funding, States can spend more on highway safety
improvements and make our roads even safer. NHTSA Administrator Runge
best described the importance of safety belt usage in April of this
year, when he told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee:

Unlike a number of complex issues facing the Nation today,
we have at least one highly effective and simple remedy to
combat highway deaths and fatalities. Wearing safety belts is
the single most effective step individuals can take to save
their lives. Buckling up is not a complex vaccine, doesn't
have unwanted side effects, and doesn't cost any money. It is
simple, it works, and it is lifesaving.

I could not agree more. After two successful decades of State-
implemented belt laws, it is now time for this Nation to further
improve safety on our Nation's roads. We have accomplished many things
to advance automobile and road safety over the last 20 years, and now
we must act on this opportunity to do even more.
I ask unanimous consent that NHTSA Administrator Runge's letter to me
on this matter be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2005.
Hon. Elizabeth Dole,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dole: I am writing to bring to your attention
my strong support for the safety belt State incentive grants
contained in S. 732, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA).
The Bush Administration, along with the National SAFE KIDS
Campaign, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Automotive
Coalition for Traffic Safety, the National Safety Council,
the American Insurance Association, Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council, the
American College of Emergency Physicians, the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, and the National Automobile Dealers
Association all support this provision. They support it
because it will save more lives, and do it faster and cheaper
than any other proposal the Senate will consider this
Congress, and perhaps this decade. If all States adopted a
primary enforcement safety belt law, 1,275 deaths and 17,000
serious injuries would be prevented every year. No other
proposal in SAFETEA will do more to improve safety than this
bipartisan proposal.
While deaths per vehicle mile traveled are at an all-time
low, the carnage on our highways is still too high. In 2003,
42,463 people died and 2.9 million were injured due to motor
vehicle crashes. The cost to our economy was over $230
billion.
With the number of vehicle miles traveled increasing each
year, if we as a Nation are going to reduce the fatalities on
our streets and highways, safety belt use must also increase.
No vehicle mandate, no complex rulemaking, no public
education campaign will save as many lives as a meaningful
incentive to pass primary safety belt laws. Congress has the
power to grant the incentives and that power will save lives.
I urge you to support the safety belt incentive grants in
S. 732 and reject any amendments. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. 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. DeWINE. Mr. President, the SAFETEA bill in the Senate today is a
good bill. I strongly support its passage.
I thank Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, and Senator
Baucus for their good leadership and their good work, particularly on
the Environment and Public Works title of this bill. The roadway safety
and funding provisions they have crafted are vitally important.
Let me also thank Senators Stevens, Lott, Inouye, and McCain for
their hard work on the Commerce Committee vehicle and behavioral safety
title.
Finally, let me thank Senator Rockefeller for his support as the lead
cosponsor of the safety provisions I have authored that are part of
this bill.
Staff on both the Commerce Committee and the EPW Committee also
deserve praise and thanks for their hard work on this bill. In
particular, I thank Ruth Van Mark, Chris Bertram, David Strickland, and
James O'Keeffe and JC Sandberg for their willingness to work with my
office on portions of the bill I wanted included. These are portions of
the bill I will describe in a minute that have to do with highway
safety, provisions that I believe truly will save lives. I thank them
for their very good and diligent work.
I also thank Kevin King of my staff for his hard work on these safety
provisions in the bill.
While certainly we would like to include more funding for highway and
transit projects, I commend my colleagues for doing an excellent job in
stretching the funding that is available as far as it can go.
The language Senators Grassley and Baucus have drafted adding
additional funding helps. I am a strong supporter of their efforts. We
need the funding that the managers' package provides to improve the
rate of return for donor States, such as my home State of Ohio, to get
those levels up as high as possible.
Additionally, the managers' package contains the Commerce Committee
title of the bill relating to safety programs. This title is
comprehensive and deserves the full support of the Senate.
I will take a few minutes now to talk about the safety provisions I
have asked to be included in the bill. First, I will say something
about Senator Lott's provisions on the Primary Safety Belt Incentive
Grant Program.
I thank Senator Lott. I congratulate him for including this
provision, a provision that will clearly save lives. Senator Lott came
to the Senate floor earlier and spoke about the importance of this
provision. I must say what Senator Lott said is absolutely correct.
This provision must be kept in the Senate bill. It must be kept through
conference. Efforts to modify or remove primary safety belt incentive
grants will undermine the national goal of reaching 90 percent safety
belt usage. Encouraging States to aim low when it comes to saving lives
makes no sense. Such efforts to change this language in the bill must
be opposed.
Some States already have primary enforcement laws. Those laws are the
single cheapest and most effective means for saving lives on our
Nation's roads. Those States that have already enacted primary seatbelt
laws have seen lives saved. Other States, such as my home State of
Ohio, do not have primary seatbelt laws. These States would benefit
tremendously in terms of lives saved and financial bonuses under
Senator Lott's program. The incentive program may be the only way to
get some States to adopt primary laws.
In Ohio alone, it is estimated we could save nearly 100 lives per
year if we added primary belt laws. If we maintain this provision,
countless lives will, in fact, be saved. The highway experts, the
people who study this issue, who understand it, tell us this is the
simplest, cheapest, easiest way to save lives. It is the one thing we
could do to save lives in this country the easiest way.
So I thank Senator Lott and commend his efforts and urge my
colleagues, if there is an amendment offered to take this provision
out, that they oppose that amendment.
Let me say a few things about the provisions in the bill that I have
been working on and I have asked to have included and that have, in
fact, been included. First, Senator Rockefeller

[[Page S5044]]

is the lead cosponsor on our provision that we call Stars on Cars.
While the name is kind of cute, its focus is quite serious.
Today, when you go to buy a new car, we all know there is a large
label on that car, a large label on the window telling the price, the
features, and other information about the vehicle. Most of the content
on the sticker is actually mandated by the Federal Government. The
sticker has to tell you whether the vehicle has a stereo, the car's
mileage, how many miles per gallon, and so on. But one piece of vital
information, amazingly, is not there, and that is the safety ratings.
How safe is that car? That piece of information is not on the sticker.
Citizens have a right to know this information, and our provision
would provide, for the first time, that information would be available
right on that car, right in the showroom when you walk in to buy the
car. Taxpayers have already paid to have the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, NHTSA, test cars for this information. We have
already paid for the information. In fact, NHTSA has put this
information up on the Internet. It is available on the Internet now.
But, nonetheless, this information is not available to the American
consumer in the one place where it would be most helpful, the one place
where it would truly make a difference: where you buy the car, on the
face of the car when you buy it at the dealership.
Our provision would add a new section to the label that would clearly
lay out information from each of the crash tests. You would have the
information about frontal crash impact, side impact, and rollover
resistance. It would show the test results as star ratings on the
label, just like many automakers already do in their commercials. This
is a commonsense provision, and it is one that will allow consumers the
opportunity to make more informed decisions for themselves and their
families.
We have found over the last few years that consumers are much more
conscious about the safety of the cars they buy, wanting to put their
families in safe cars. This is a proconsumer, prosafety provision that
makes good common sense. I congratulate the committee for including it
in this bill.
Another provision in this package that Senator Rockefeller has
cosponsored with me is what we call the Safe Kids and Cars Act. Now,
according to NHTSA, automobile crashes are the leading cause of death
for those ages 4 to 34. More than cancer, more than fire, more than
anything else, auto accidents are the source of child fatalities. We
all know that.
The focus of the child safety initiative we have incorporated in this
bill is on an emerging danger for small children that is often
overlooked. It is referred to as ``nontraffic, noncrash'' accidents.
What are those? Well, these are incidents in which there is an
interaction between an automobile and a child which leads to injury or
death when the vehicle is not on the road or there is no actual crash
which has occurred. Instead, these are accidents that happen inside
parked cars, in driveways, or other common, potentially deadly
situations.
We provide two different things in this title. The title includes two
very different sections relating to the Safe Kids and Cars initiative.
The first one directs NHTSA, for the very first time, to perform
regular collection of data on nontraffic, noncrash injuries and deaths.
We need that information. We need that as a matter of public policy. If
we are going to prevent them, we have to understand them. We are not
collecting the data today. We do not fully understand it.
Further, we have another section that deals with the so-called back-
over deaths and requires NHTSA to investigate this issue and the
technologies that might help prevent such accidents in the future.
These back-over deaths occur in driveways, people's homes. Quite often,
every year, a child is backed over and killed. They are becoming more
frequent, as people have vans where you cannot see out of the back of
the van very well.
We need to better understand the cause of these accidents. We need to
have better information. NHTSA needs to investigate this issue and
needs to look at the technologies that might help prevent such
accidents.
Another provision we have included in this bill we call dangerous
roads and intersections. Senator Rockefeller and I have worked on this
provision. Every State in the Union, of course, has dangerous roads,
dangerous intersections. Most States, fortunately, rank these. Most
States come up with a list of what are the dangerous roads, the most
dangerous places in the State. They keep a list of them. But,
amazingly, there are many States that keep this information secret and
never tell the public.
Citizens have a right to know this information. What would you do
with the information? Well, if you are a parent, you might tell your
child to avoid a certain road: Don't go that way to the movie. Don't go
that way to the restaurant. Don't go that way on a date. Go a different
way. You have a right to know that information. Or if the public knew
about a road that was statistically very dangerous or the State knew
that it was dangerous, maybe the public would demand that road be
fixed. That is the type of vital information the public has every right
to know.
Our provision requires that safety information be disclosed to the
public as an eligibility requirement for a new Federal safety funding
program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program. States seeking
additional Federal dollars for safety construction projects will have
to identify their danger spots, rank them according to severity, and
then disclose them to the public. It is pretty simple. Most States are
already doing it; they just have to disclose it. This is another
commonsense provision that truly is going to save lives. I am pleased
it has been incorporated into this highway bill.
The fourth issue covered by language in the bill that I included,
along with Senator Rockefeller, has to do with driver education and
licensing. Teen driving is an area where the fatality rates are very
high. Unfortunately, current programs are many times not getting the
job done. Higher crash and fatality rates for teenage drivers can be
reduced if we work at it. The Federal Government can't run driver
education. It is a State responsibility to set standards. But the
Federal Government can play a small yet significant role and a
productive role. Revitalized driver education needs to be data driven.
We can help teenage drivers avoid high-risk situations, particularly in
the first 6 months behind the wheel. Integration of driver education
with graduated licensing must also be addressed.
The language we have included in the bill creates a driver education
and licensing research program within NHTSA. This program will go out
and test what works and what doesn't and come up with a ``best
practices'' model that States can implement. The time has come to take
serious action on driver education and licensing. This program is a
solid first step. We need to have scientific data, and the Federal
Government is in a good position to come up with this data to assist
States as they develop good criteria.
Finally, I have worked with Senator Lautenberg to include a provision
in the highway bill to reduce the number of drinking and driving deaths
and injuries each year. Statistics are staggering. In 2003, 17,013
Americans died in what we believe were alcohol-related incidents. NHTSA
projects this number dropped to 16,654 in 2004, a 2.1-percent
reduction. While this is good news, it certainly is still too high. We
do want to see the trend continue. To help accomplish that, the
language we have supported requires NHTSA to work with the States to
conduct combined media-law enforcement campaigns aimed at reducing
drunk driving fatalities.
Specifically, the law enforcement portion of this bill consists of
sobriety checkpoints in the 39 States that allow them. In the States
that don't allow them, it provides for saturation patrols. The Centers
for Disease Control estimates the sobriety checkpoints may reduce
alcohol-related crashes by as much as 20 percent. That is a significant
amount. We should do all we can to help States reduce drinking and
driving. This provision will do that.
In conclusion, the fact is that auto fatalities represent the No. 1
killer in this country of those between the ages of 4 and 34. In 2004,
NHTSA projects that almost 43,000 people were killed on our Nation's
roads. In 2003, the number

[[Page S5045]]

was 42,643. In fact, in the next 12 minutes, at least one person will
be killed in an automobile accident, while nearly 6 people will be
injured in the next 60 seconds. This is a tragedy we as a society are
much too willing to tolerate. It is so common we kind of shrug it off
and put up with it. These auto fatalities occur every day, every hour.
And yet somehow we all have become immune to it. This year's highway
bill takes some positive steps toward reducing those deaths.
I thank the sponsors for working with me on these safety measures
that truly will save lives. I commend them for their efforts and for
including these provisions in the bill. I urge my colleagues, once this
bill goes to conference, to continue to include these provisions in
conference.
I yield the floor and 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 the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was able to listen to the Senator from
Ohio, Mr. DeWine. He has always led this body in the concern for
safety. He points out the critical need to finish this bill. Hopefully,
today we will finish this bill because we have the longest, most
comprehensive safety core section, title, in this bill that has ever
been offered in any reauthorization since Eisenhower. That is why we
say, as I think Senator DeWine was pointing out, lives can be saved or
lives can be lost, depending on whether we pass this bill.
We will not have the safety core programs if we merely have an
extension. Right now we are on our sixth extension. An extension is
nothing but a defeat, an admission that we are not able to get a bill
through so let's have what we had before. That's actually an extension
of what we passed 7 years ago. It doesn't have any of these things in
it. If we have an extension, none of the safety core programs Senator
DeWine was talking about would be included.
I can tell you--and I think everyone knows--statistically, it is an
absolute that people will die; not just adults driving, but one of the
things in this bill is the Safe Routes to School provision which would
save young lives--kids going to school. So it is a life-or-death matter
that we pass this bill and pass it very soon.
When I say ``very soon,'' we ought to pass it today because the
extension, this sixth extension I refer to, is going to expire on May
31. If that happens, that means we will be forced to do another
extension. What happens when you do extensions? Back in the States,
they do not have any certainty in planning. It is not as if you can
say: We know now that we have an extension for 6 months, we can spend X
dollars for 6 months. You can't do it that way, and everyone knows
that. You have to plan way in advance because you have to get the labor
pool together, get the contractors together, you have to get the bids
out. In this bill, we do have a provision that would have some projects
that are ready to go, so the second this is signed into law we are
going to start construction.
People will use this and say this is, in fact, a jobs bill--and it
is. It is probably the biggest jobs bill we have had at one time since
the WPA. For every $1 billion of road construction, that translates
into 47,500 jobs, new jobs, good-paying jobs. Without this bill, of
course, that is not going to happen.
We have a lot of people who are concerned, as I am, about donor State
status. I can remember when we only had written into the law that each
State would get back 75 percent of what they actually collected in
their State. Slowly, over the years, I have watched it get increased.
It has gotten up to the point where it is today, and this was passed 7
years ago. This was 90.5 percent; that is to say, every donor State
will get back at least 90.5 percent of what they pay in.
The bill we had last year was enhanced up to $318 billion. That would
provide every State got back a minimum of 95 percent. As it is now,
with the smaller number, even with the enhanced number from yesterday's
amendment, that brought it up by $11 billion to $295 billion. That
still only brings the donor status to 92 percent. But that is better
than 90.5 percent, where we are today.
If we have an extension, it will be 90.5 percent. There will not be
any change.
The streamlining provisions of this bill will allow us to actually
pave, construct a fairly decent percentage more highways and bridges
than we would otherwise be able to do. Without this, and if we have an
extension, we will not have this, and none of the environmental
streamlining provisions will be there.
There are two different sections of the bill that relate to the
financing. We have not changed our method of financing roads in 50
years. Since the Eisenhower administration it has been the same. We
know there are better ways of doing it where you can have partnership
types of arrangements, something that would be very good for our
system. Without a new bill, that is not going to happen.
A lot of the States are on the border. We have a border program, a
recognition that since NAFTA we have a lot of traffic through no fault
of the States. You have to improve the NAFTA corridors we are talking
about in this bill. Without this bill, we will not have that.
The chokepoints are not currently corrected. That is why we call this
an intermodal bill. It is not a highway bill, not just a transportation
bill, it is an intermodal bill because it is all types of
transportation and the chokepoints in between. A lot of our problems
are because of the chokepoints.
Last, we have firewall protection in this bill. The firewall
protection provides if you pay money into the trust fund when you are
getting 1 gallon of gas, that money is ensured to go toward building
new roads. There are many in this body who do not think that is
necessary. Many think we can go ahead and fund any kind of programs not
relating to transportation out of the trust fund, and they have been
doing it.
In fact, one of the Senators the other day was saying how offended he
was that we are taking some of the fix that is there that is not in
use; in other words, there is about a 5-cent credit that goes in and
comes out of the highway trust fund. That has nothing to do with
transportation. If you are going to establish a policy, pay for the
policy but do not pay for it out of the highway trust fund.
I have often said this is a moral issue. There may be loopholes that
allow politics to steal money out of the trust fund, but it is still a
moral issue.
This bill has the firewall protection to make sure, for the first
time, people cannot raid the highway trust fund. All these things are
in the bill. If we do not pass the bill, we will have an extension, and
none of these things are in the bill.
This is necessary to get this done, to pass this legislation, and not
just go for another extension.

Amendments Nos. 569, as modified, and 602, as Modified, En Bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Chambliss amendment
numbered 569 and the Cornyn amendment numbered 662 be modified with
changes at the desk and agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments as modified en bloc are as follows:

amendment no. 569, as modified

On page 217 after the matter preceding line 1, insert the
following:

SEC. . 14TH AMENDMENT HIGHWAY AND 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION
HIGHWAY.

Not later than December 31, 2005, any funds made available
to commission studies and reports regarding construction of a
route linking Augusta, Georgia, Macon, Georgia, Columbus,
Georgia, Montgomery, Alabama, and Natchez, Mississippi and a
route linking Savannah, Georgia, Augusta, Georgia, and
Knoxville, Tennessee, shall be provided to the Secretary to--
(1) carry out a study and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report that describes the steps and
estimated funding necessary to construct a route for the 14th
Amendment Highway, from Augusta, Georgia, to Natchez,
Mississippi (formerly designated the Fall Line Freeway in the
State of Georgia); and
(2) carry out a study and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report that describes the steps and
estimated funding necessary to designate and construct a

[[Page S5046]]

route for the 3rd Infantry Division Highway, extending from
Savannah, Georgia, to Knoxville, Tennessee (Formerly the
Savannah River Parkway in the State of Georgia), following a
route generally defined through Sylvania, Waynesville,
Augusta, Lincolnton, Elberton, Hartwell, Toccoa, and Young
Harris, Georgia, and Maryville, Tennessee.

amendment no. 662, as modified

Strike section 1802(c).
Mr. INHOFE. I have left instructions if Senators arrive, interrupt
us. We want to consider amendments. I am hoping I did not chase away
anyone who is offering an amendment. We have about 10 amendments on the
Republican side and about 10 amendments on the Democrat side. That is
much better than yesterday with 173 amendments out there. We have made
progress.
We agreed to two of these. If we can get the Members who are serious
about their amendments to bring them down, this is the time to do it. I
anticipate, as is normally the case, at the last minute Members will
come down and say: I have to have time to present my amendment, and it
will be too late. Now it is not too late. There is time to consider any
amendment that is a germane amendment that is on the list.
What we have done is very difficult. We have worked on this bill for
3 years. We had this bill passed out of this Chamber and to conference
a year ago this month. In conference, they dropped the ball, and we
were unable to get it through.
This time, the conferees have learned we will be able to get it back
to the House and back to the Senate, get it passed in both Houses, and
have it signed by the President in time for the current extension that
expires May 31. That is ambitious, but it can be done. We try to figure
this out day by day and what can be done each day. I believe that will
happen.
The reason this bill is better than most bills is historically we
have not gone with formulas; we have gone with political projects. Some
people call them pork. I don't call building a road pork.
What we could have done--we need to have 60 Senators to agree to
this--we could have gone to 60 Senators and said, all right, we have a
pot of money, and we will take care of your problem in Louisiana, your
problem in Oklahoma, your problem in Arkansas, and get up to 60
Members, 30 States, and we will pass the bill and forget about the
other Members. That is not fair. Historically, that has been done.
We tried to take every conceivable thing into consideration. The
Presiding Officer represents a small northern State. We have provisions
for the colder States, provisions for States out West, many of which,
like my State of Oklahoma, are donor States. These are factors in the
bill, in the formulas.
The formula for allocation also has such things in it as per capita
fatality. My State of Oklahoma has a high fatality rate. What does that
tell you? It tells you we have a problem with bridges and roads. That
is a factor in how much money is distributed to the States.
The number of interstate lane miles is a consideration. The weighted
nonattainment and maintenance area population is considered. The
nonhighway recreation is a consideration. Regarding low-income States,
mine is below the average in the State of Oklahoma. Low-population
States--Senator Baucus has been very helpful in this bill. He is from
Montana. Montana has less than a million people, but they have to have
roads to connect all the interstate roads. Consequently, they will be
in a position where it has to be a consideration that a low-population
or low-density population State is going to be able to be treated
fairly.
There are about 20 different considerations, but the bottom line is,
you are never going to come up with a formula where everyone says this
is perfect, this is just what we want, my State is being treated
fairly. There are many things in the formula I do not like as chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, this Senator from
Oklahoma. Nonetheless, I know everyone cannot be satisfied.
We have a good bill before the Senate. Members should realize how
significant it is that we pass this bill and not just go to another
extension.
Let me renew my request, as we will be doing every 15 minutes, for
Members to bring their amendments. I know Members are out there and
hiding. We will find you. We are open for business. We want you to come
down and offer your amendment. We will have plenty of time to do it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I cannot commend the chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee enough. He has worked extremely
hard on this legislation. He is exactly right, if we are going to
finish this bill, it is incumbent upon Senators to bring their
amendments to the floor. It is the only way we are going to finish this
bill.
As Mr. Inhofe, the Senator from Oklahoma, is imploring Senators to
come down, I very much hope they heed his words. I thank him for those
words because it is so important to get this legislation done now. It
is Thursday afternoon, and it seems to me there is a lot of time to get
most of this bill done today.

Rules Of The Road On Judicial Nominations

Mr. President, this Nation's fast transportation system works. Why
does it work? Because every day millions of individuals choose to abide
by the rules of the road. On our Nation's highways, millions of people
safely move great distances, at great speeds, in no small part because
drivers respect other drivers and abide by the rules that oblige them
to stay within the white and yellow lines painted on concrete and
asphalt.
When you stop to think about it, it is incredible. Here are thousands
of pounds in one car and another car hurtling toward each other, at
high speeds, yet they do not hit each other. They miss because the
drivers know they must stay, in America, on the right side of the road,
in their lane, which prevents a catastrophe. It is amazing when you
stop to think about it.
When drivers come to an intersection with a red and white stop sign,
what happens? Drivers stop. Those of us on a cross street depend on
drivers stopping. The other cars at a stop sign on other streets of the
intersection also depend on that.
When folks come to a red light, they stop. They wait for a green
light. They let the cars come through from the other direction. Few
things create more danger in traffic than running a red light.
Mr. President, the Senate works much the same way. The Senate gets
things done because day in and day out Senators choose to abide by the
Senate's rules. The Senate has rules. We abide by them, and that
enables us to get things done.
Every year, the Senate confirms hundreds of nominations, addresses
hundreds of amendments, and enacts hundreds of laws because Senators
respect other Senators and abide by the rules of the road.
In the 108th Congress alone, the Senate confirmed nearly 1,800
nominations, agreed or disagreed to nearly 1,800 amendments, and
enacted nearly 500 laws. Yet in the 108th Congress, the Senate
conducted just 675 rollcall votes.
So what does that mean? That means in the 108th Congress alone, the
Senate made more than 4,000 decisions with fewer than 700 rollcall
votes. In the 108th Congress, the Senate made more than 3,300 decisions
by voice vote or by unanimous consent.
These numbers demonstrate what most Senators know in their bones:
Five times out of six the Senate gets things done not by confrontation
but by Senators abiding by the rules of the road and cooperating with
other Senators.
That is why it is so troubling that some in this Senate now threaten
to try to change the Senate rules by breaking the rules. They plan to
disregard the rules and disregard the precedents. They want to run the
red light.
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to set its own rules.
Article I, section 5, of the Constitution says:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . .
.

The Senate has determined its rules through adopting the standing
rules of

[[Page S5047]]

the Senate. The Senate has readopted or made general revisions of its
rules only seven times since 1789. The most recent general revision was
in 1979.
The standing rules of the Senate continue from Congress to Congress.
As Senate rule V says:

The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to
the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in
these rules.

Rule V: ``The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to
the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.''
Now, Senators have the right to debate changes to the rules. Standing
rule VIII spells out that, even under circumstances where Senators may
not normally debate:

motions to proceed to the consideration of any motion,
resolution, or proposal to change any of the Standing Rules
of the Senate shall be debatable.

Standing rule XXII provides the procedure for bringing debate to a
close on:

any measure, motion, [or] other matter pending before the
Senate.

Senate rule XXII provides that ``any . . . matter'' includes
nominations. That is how it is that Senators can debate at length any
nomination that comes before the Senate, unless 60 Senators vote to
bring that debate to a close.
And ``any measure . . . [or] matter'' within the meaning of rule XXII
on debate also includes a proposal to change the standing rules of the
Senate because rule XXII of the Senate's standing rules spells out the
procedure for changing the standing rules. When it addresses bringing
debate to a close through cloture, rule XXII says:

[O]n a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules . . .
the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the
Senators present and voting.

That is rule XXII. That is in the Senate rules, which continue over
from Senate to Senate.
The Senate's rules, thus, provide a procedure for changing the rules.
That procedure involves the regular legislative process. That procedure
involves fair and potentially extended debate. And that procedure
requires, if it comes to extended debate, ``the . . . affirmative vote
. . . [of] two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.''
That is the way Senators can change the rules, if they choose to
respect other Senators, if they choose to abide by the rules of the
road, if they choose not to run that red light.
But what some are talking about is very different. What some are
talking about is using brute force to change the rules. What some are
talking about is running the red light.
Here is what they would do. They would use the raw power of the Vice
President to sit in the chair of the Presiding Officer. They would have
the Vice President make a ruling that bypassed the Senate's rules for
amending the Senate's rules. They would have the Vice President make a
ruling that bypassed the Senate rules for how long Senators could
debate. They would have the Vice President make a ruling that broke the
Senate's rules.
Now, article I, section 3, of the Constitution provides:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President
of the Senate. . . .

But that does not mean that the Vice President can make up the
Senate's rules anew every day. The Vice President, just like any
Senator, must abide by article I, section 5, of the Constitution, when
it says:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . .
.

And when the Vice President acts as President of the Senate, the Vice
President, just like any Senator, must abide by the standing rules of
the Senate. To do otherwise, would be an abuse of power.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to resist those who would break
the rules to change the rules.
Sir Thomas More, the British statesman and Lord Chancellor, resisted
King Henry VIII when More felt that Henry had broken the law. In Robert
Bolt's great play about More called ``A Man for All Seasons,'' More
speaks about the importance of abiding by the law.
The character William Roper asks More:
So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law?
More counters:
Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after
the Devil?
Roper replies:
I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More responds:
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you
where would you hide . . . , the laws all being flat? This country's
planted thick with laws from coast to coast . . . and if you cut them
down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you really think you could
stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the
Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
The Senate's rules protect us all. They protect the ability of the
Senate to get things done through working together, not through
majorities that cut down all the opposition.
For two centuries, the Senate's rules have protected the rights of
the minority party, for Democrats and Republicans alike. After two
centuries, it would be a mistake to cut down those rules.
At the center of that forest of Senate rules are two mighty oaks. But
don't take my word for it. Let me quote the Senate majority leader.
In a forward that the senior Senator from Tennessee, the majority
leader, wrote to a book published last year entitled ``Senate Procedure
and Practice,'' the majority leader wrote:

[A]bove all, together the Senate's rules and practices form
a whole. It is a whole that faithfully reflects the Framer's
design and ambition for the body. It is a whole that remains
true to the Senate's two paramount values: unlimited debate
and minority rights.

``[U]nlimited debate and minority rights.''
``[U]nlimited debate'' allows Senators to protect ``minority
rights.'' The Senate's rules thus help to protect personal rights and
liberties. The Senate's rules help to ensure that no one party has
absolute power. The Senate's rules help to give effect to the Framers'
conception of checks and balances.
Even law school dean and former judge and special prosecutor Kenneth
Starr told CBS News that changing unlimited debate might damage the
Senate. He said:

It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang
effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that
thoughtful Senators may come to regret.

The Senate's right of unlimited debate is particularly important in
the context of nominations for the lifetime jobs of Federal judges. The
Senate's involvement in the confirmation of judges has helped to ensure
that nominees have had the support of a broad political consensus. The
Senate's involvement has helped to ensure that the President could not
appoint extreme nominees. The Senate's involvement has helped to ensure
that judges have been freer of partisanship and more independent.
The Framers wanted the courts to be an independent branch of
government, helping to create the Constitution's intricate forest of
checks and balances. The Senate's involvement in the confirmation of
judges has helped to ensure that the judiciary can be that more
independent branch. And that independence of the judiciary, in turn,
has helped to ensure the protection of personal rights and liberties
from the winds of temporary majorities.
It is easy to push down the accelerator and cross that white line of
paint, running across the concrete or asphalt. It is easy to push down
the accelerator to run through that stop sign. It is easy to push down
the accelerator and run through that red light.
But once one has been hit by a car running a red light, can one ever
look at an intersection the same way?
The Senate works because, day in and day out, Senators choose to
respect other Senators and abide by the Senate's rules of the road. If
and when the Vice President and Senators start breaking those rules to
change the rules, the Senate will never be the same. Once they run that
red light, the rule of the road can never be the same.
I urge my colleagues to slow down, take their foot off the
accelerator, and stop, before it's too late.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S5048]]

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ISRAELI INDEPENDENCE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, one of the most gratifying aspects of
serving in the U.S. Senate is the opportunity to come to this Chamber
and talk about and celebrate the great events in American and world
history. One such event occurred 57 years ago today, and that is the
creation of the nation of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East
and the eternal homeland for all Jews around the world. Israel, our
enduring friend and everlasting ally, was reborn from its biblical
birthright on this day in 1948.
Two years ago on the 58th anniversary of the end of World War II in
Europe and again this week on its 60th anniversary, I spoke about how
American soldiers successfully fought both the fascism in Europe that
spread like a cancer across that continent and Adolf Hitler's efforts
to eradicate the Jewish race.
Last week, we honored the souls of those murdered in the holocaust on
Yom Ha-shoa--the Day of Remembrance. And today we celebrate the result
of all of this history which is Israel's independence.
My father, Richard DeWine, when he was serving in World War II in K
Company, which was part of the Army's 103rd Infantry Division, went
into one of the Nazi concentration camps--Dachau--after it had been
liberated. Although K company did not participate in the liberation of
Dachau, the 411th Regiment of their 103rd Division did liberate the
camp at Landsburg, Germany.
When my father was at Dachau, a camp where over 28,000 Jews had
perished, the prisoners had already left the camp. He has a vivid
recollection, though, of seeing the ovens that the Nazis used to burn
the bodies of so many of the prisoners.
He can still picture in his mind the devices they used to slide the
bodies into the ovens and the many urns that contained the prisoners'
ashes. He remembers going into a room next to the ovens and seeing
fixtures on the walls that looked like showerheads. Those at the camp
told him the prisoners were taken into these rooms and the prisoners
were told they were going to take showers, but instead of water coming
out of the nozzles, poisonous gas was emitted, killing them.
My dad remembers walking down the road near the camp and encountering
a very weak, emaciated man who had, a short time before that, been a
prisoner. My dad and his buddies talked to the man and gave him food
and cigarettes. They asked the man, who a short time before had been a
prisoner, if they could take his picture. He said, yes, as long as it
is with an American soldier. So they did. My dad still has that picture
today.
Carl Greene, who was also a member of K Company, remembers their
visit to Dachau. He says some of the former prisoners in the camp still
wearing those unforgettable striped uniforms actually served as their
guides to show them around the camp, showing them the gas chambers and
the crematorium and the area in the camp where the Nazis would shoot
prisoners in the back of their heads.
K Company member Al Eucare, Sr., who was 18 years old at the time,
remembers what he describes as one-man pillboxes that stood outside the
gates of Dachau. These were cylindrical pipes that stood upright, just
big enough for a man to fit inside. They were something of a sentry
post. Each of these concrete tubes contained an open slat at the top
and the bottom, where guns were placed to shoot at prisoners if there
was a disorder as the prisoners went in and out of the gates.
Like my dad, Al also remembers the ovens at Dachau. He said when he
was there, even though it was after the camp was liberated and the war
had ended, there were still ashes and skeletal remains inside those
horrible ovens.
Al also remembers seeing hooks--something akin to meat hooks--that
the Nazis would hook dead bodies on like cattle, to move them more
easily. He said they would put the bodies on by hooking them right
underneath the jaw. He had heard stories that sometimes live Jews were
placed on the hooks and left until they died.
General Dwight Eisenhower visited some of the death camps and
reported back what he saw. In one of his reports, this is what the
general described:

On April 12, 1945, I saw my first horror camp. It was near
the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my
emotional reactions when I first came face to face with
indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless
disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time, I had
known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I
am certain, however, that I have never at any other time
experienced an equal sense of shock.

I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt
it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at
firsthand about these things in case there ever grew up at
home the belief or assumption that ``the stories of Nazi
brutality were just propaganda.'' Some members of the
visiting party were unable to go through the ordeal.
I not only did so, but as soon as I returned to Patton's
headquarters that evening, I sent communications to both
Washington and London, urging the two governments to send
instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and
representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt
that the evidence should be immediately placed before the
American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no
room for cynical doubt.

That was Dwight David Eisenhower.
To think about it now, it defies credulity to consider that these
atrocities were occurring and there were those who questioned their
reality or those who today even question their reality. My father said
that was one of the things that struck him when he visited Dachau 60
years ago--the idea that there were townspeople right there who would
never admit the death camp was out there. He talked to people and they
would not admit it. They said they didn't know anything about it. They
didn't know what was going on so close. They acted as though it didn't
exist.
Fortunately, the world came to reveal what was happening. The world
knew, and although the rebirth of Israel came upon the heels of the
modern tragedy of the Nazi death camps, it is important to remember
that the Jewish people have struggled to regain their homeland ever
since biblical times. The year 1948 marked the culmination of those
efforts. After 6 million Jews were murdered in World War II, surviving
Jews from across Europe and Asia made the trek to the holy land. They
sought their homeland and peace. They obtained the former but not the
latter.
One such man seeking a homeland and peace was Mark Steinbuch, the
late father of one of my Judiciary staffers, Robert Steinbuch. Born in
Poland, Mark and his family lived under Nazi occupation, relocated to
Siberia shortly after the start of World War II, and then traveled for
2 weeks by cattle car to live in Soviet Kazakhstan.

Mark's extended family faced some horrific challenges. Many were
killed by the Nazis. His cousins, the Hershenfis family, were forced
into labor in the Pionki ghetto in Poland. In 1941, the family was
shipped off to Auschwitz. Hanna and her brother Harry were separated
from each other and from their parents Fay and Harvey. Fay and Harvey
never made it out of the death camp. Hanna, tattooed with the number
A14699, was shipped to an intermediate camp and then Bergen-Belsen.
Harry--B416 to the Nazis--worked hard labor in Auschwitz for 4 years,
and then, in 1944, was sent to another camp called Mauthausen.
On May 3, 1945, the Nazis fled the camp. That night, the skies opened
and sent down a rainfall as if the world were being cleansed from the
horrors it had seen. The next morning, the Americans arrived and the
11th Armored Division liberated the camp. Three days later, Harry
turned 26.
After 5 weeks in an American hospital, Harry spent the next 3 years
in a displaced persons camp in Austria. In 1949, Harry's wishes were
answered, and he set off for America. Four years later, when Hanna also
came to the United States, the siblings were reunited for the first
time since they were shipped off to Auschwitz 13 years prior. Harry is
86 now and Hanna is a few years younger. Both are alive and well.
Harry's sense of humor is strong, and he plays down the difficulties he
faced. But we all know better.
Upon the defeat of the Nazis, Mark Steinbuch's immediate family went
to Germany because, as Mark described it, ``that is where the Americans
were

[[Page S5049]]

and, if you wanted to live, you went to the Americans.'' From there,
Mark joined the Zionist youth movement and set off for Israel.

That, however, was no easy task. Traveling across Europe, often on
foot to a southern port, he, his brother, and many others like them
boarded an overloaded freighter renamed the ``Theodore Hertzl,'' after
the founder of the Zionist movement. Upon the ship's arrival in Israel,
the British quickly arrested its passengers and sent them to a holding
camp in Cypress. Months later, Mark and the others were allowed to
enter Israel.
Upon the joyous declaration of independence, seven Arab nations
invaded Israel, and Mark quickly joined the army. Underage and
flatfooted, he fought for the independence of this new democracy.
Mark's story is by no means unique. It not only represented the goals
and desires of the Jews of postwar Europe but the dreams of a nation of
people dispersed from their homeland for millennia.
Mark's dreams were realized a year later when armistice was struck.
Israel survived its first challenge. It, like the Jewish people after
the Holocaust, was still alive.
Since then, Israel's existence has been continuously challenged.
Israel defended itself from foreign aggression during the Suez Canal
crisis, the Six Day War, the War of Attrition, the Yom Kippur War, the
war in Lebanon, and periods of extreme terrorism. Israel survived it
all. OPEC blackmailed the world by withholding oil from the West
because of their support for Israel. Israel's Olympic athletes were
murdered by terrorists. And the United Nations equated Zionism with
fascism. Israel survived it all and much more.
Israel is a survivor, but it is also so much more. The people of
Israel have forested the desert, revived their language, built cities,
and established a vigorous and ever-growing community.
We support Israel because it is a democracy, because it shares our
values and ideals, because it has been willing to suffer attacks at our
request, and because simply it is our friend. We welcome other nations
to choose to be the same, and for the many that have, we share the same
relationship.
America is a nation of justice, fairness, and principles. So is
Israel. And on this day, we wish our friend a happy and joyous
anniversary.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Retirement Security

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak to the
Senate and those following this debate about a dramatic change that is
taking place in America, even as we meet and discuss so many other
important issues. One of the pillars of family security in America is
crumbling. Retirement security in this country is in a crisis. The
defined benefit plan, the kind of pension plan that guarantees a
retirement amount to a worker who gives a lifetime of loyalty to his
company or his employer, is becoming an endangered species.
The number of employees covered by employer-paid defined benefit
plans has fallen from 30 million to 22 million in the last 20 years. By
contrast, the number of people in defined contribution plans, into
which both worker and employer pay with no guaranteed payout, has grown
to about 55 million from 19 million.
This trend, along with the steep losses that people with defined
contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, have experienced in the last few
years, and President Bush's plan to shift part of the Social Security
guarantee into private accounts, frankly, means that we are going to
put at risk retirement security in America, more than we have seen in
modern times.
Tuesday night, a bankruptcy court decided to allow United Airlines to
shift responsibility for its defined benefit pension plan to the
Federal pension insurance system. United Airlines moved all four of its
pension plans into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation with the
promise that United Airlines would pay that corporation $1.5 billion.
The willingness of PBGC to accept this arrangement, unfortunately,
rings the death knell for defined benefit pension plans in America.
United is the latest and the largest example of the fact that
corporations are no longer keeping their promises to employees, and the
Government insurance system that was designed to protect employees in
the case of such catastrophe has become overused and underfunded to a
critical State. And this, coupled with the lack of personal savings,
with the dramatic increase in consumer debt of families across America,
with the growing vulnerability of families to medical bills, and with
the assault on guaranteeing benefits of Social Security by this
administration, is leading this Nation to a point that could not even
have been imagined just a few years ago.

There used to be a three-legged stool that you could count on for
your future. Everybody knew it. You went to work; every payroll you
paid into Social Security, which would be there when it came time to
retire; you took some of your paycheck and you paid into your pension
system, if the company provided one, and then, if you could, put some
money into savings. The idea is that all three would come together to
give you a sense of security and comfort in your old age.
The Chicago bankruptcy court that decided Tuesday night that United
Airlines could walk away from its pension commitments unfortunately
foreshadows many changes to come, and none of them positive, for
working people and working families across America.
United Airlines, the second largest airline in America, is in
bankruptcy. It took the pension liability which it had into the
bankruptcy court and said: We have to walk away from it. The bankruptcy
court agreed. And when United Airlines turned over all of its pension
plans to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, it basically said it
would save $645 million a year that it would not have to put into the
promised payments to pension plans for its employees.
Judge Eugene Wedoff presided over that decision. To an overflow
courtroom on Tuesday, he said this was unavoidable. To quote him
exactly:

The least bad of the available choices here has got to be
the one that keeps an airline functioning, that keeps
employees being paid.

And that was the choice. From his point of view, to ask United to pay
what it promised to pay to its employees and to its retirees would mean
that the airline may cease to exist. But to walk away from those
responsibilities for the employees and to say instead that the airline
would survive certainly raises many troublesome questions.
The way that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is structured,
it only guarantees that a part of pension plans it took over from
United and other companies based on a pretty complicated formula would
actually be paid to the employees. So many employees, whether United
Airlines employees or others whose plans are taken over by this
corporation, lose part of their pensions. In this case, it is estimated
that United employees will lose an average of 25 percent of their
pensions under this arrangement.
Keep in mind what these employees have been through. They have been
battered by record layoffs. They have made voluntary pay and benefit
reductions for years. They have increased their hours. They have made a
lot of personal sacrifices to reach this point. And now, as it appears
their airline was nearing the end of bankruptcy, comes this decision to
walk away from the pension obligation.
United is the second largest airline. It operates more than 3,400
flights a day to more than 200 destinations. It is based in my home
State of Illinois. It has 60,000 employees and thousands of retirees,
all of whom will be affected by this decision.
Let us take a look at each of the groups of employees at United and
how they will be impacted. The United flight attendants pension plan
covers 28,600 participants. Under this Government takeover of the
pension plan, the most senior flight attendants will receive about $500
less a month than the $2,500 they were promised in pension payments,
about a 20-percent cut. This is significant because most of them have
never earned more than $40,000 a year. Flight attendants who are less
senior and have less flying hours with the company could lose up to
half of what they would receive with their promised pension plan. They
have said

[[Page S5050]]

they may strike on this. I hope it does not come to that, not just
because of the fact that it is a corporation in my State but because I
am a loyal customer of United.
Sixteen Senators recently joined me in a letter to the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation asking for that agency to explain why it
agreed with United to turn over all four pension plans since as
recently as 2 weeks ago officials of the same agency told negotiators
they thought each plan should be considered separately. The flight
attendants were told at the time their pension plan might have been
saved, but now, sadly, it has been lumped in with all the pension plans
at United and faces dramatic cuts.
Take a look at the ground employees, the mechanics, the people who
fix the airplanes and maintain them and handle the bags. There are
36,100 of them at United, both active and retired. They were promised
benefits of $4 billion. Their plan has only $1.3 billion in assets. So
based on this agreement with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
on average, they will lose about 25 to 27 percent of their pension
benefits. Retired members were promised an average benefit of $1,400 a
month, and they could lose on average 19 percent of that promise.
While United was back in court on Wednesday asking for further
concessions from the unions on their contracts, the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers announced that 94
percent of its United members had authorized a strike if their contract
to work was cancelled. The machinists may feel they have no choice.
This, of course, would throw United's financial future into more
uncertainty and jeopardy.
The United pilots have a pension plan that covers 14,100 people. The
pilots reached a deal with United last year to save much of their
benefit, but it is unclear how that will be affected by this new
agreement with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Pilots have
generous pensions. They fly some of the most demanding routes. They
have to be well trained and well skilled, and they, of course, are
examined constantly to make certain they have the skills to be pilots.
They would normally expect to see anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 of
pension benefits after a lifetime of service to the airline, but if
this Government agency takes over, the maximum guarantee the Government
offers is no more than $45,613 per person for those who retire at age
65 in the year 2005. Keep in mind, pilots are forced to retire at age
60 under rules governing pilots in America, so they would receive less
than $45,613. A Government takeover would cut most of their anticipated
pension benefits by as much as half.
Under the management plan, there are 42,700 participants encompassing
administrative and public contact employees. This is more difficult to
quantify in terms of their pension loss. However, the machinists union,
which represents some of these workers, says the ramp employees could
lose up to 59 percent of their promised pensions, and public contact
representatives could lose up to 55 percent. These estimates take into
account the likelihood that United will offer a 401(k)-type plan once
it emerges from bankruptcy. As we know, there are no guarantees with a
401(k) any more than there is a guarantee that if one buys a mutual
fund or a stock today that it will be worth more tomorrow. It is a
gamble. It is a risk. It can play an important part in savings toward
retirement, but it certainly does not provide any guaranteed benefits
such as those that existed for employees who worked at United for
decades. It is a gamble that the President is contemplating to bring to
Social Security by privatizing Social Security: Let us move from
guaranteed benefits in Social Security to the possibility that one will
do well in the stock market.
Well, if a person's pension is in trouble now, and it may not survive
the bankruptcy court, and the future of Social Security under the
President's plan puts one at that same risk when it comes to
investment, how can a person be certain they will ever be able to
retire? How did we reach this point?
Pension promises that in hindsight may have been unrealistic were
made. The terrorism of 9/11 changed the market for airlines across
America. High fuel costs, increased competition from startup carriers
all contributed to the losses that brought United into bankruptcy.
Last year, I supported a measure known as the Pension Funding Equity
Act. We passed it hoping that we could temporarily use an alternative
calculation to lower pension liability payments and to make our way
through this stormy situation. It did not work. Now United Airlines is
not alone in this predicament. Delta Airlines' pension plans are
underfunded by $5 billion, and it has threatened to file Chapter 11.
Northwest Airlines may be in trouble, too, according to equity
researchers at Bear Stearns. And we should believe that a lot of other
airlines are looking with great interest at United Airlines and its
current situation.
Some people at American Airlines have said they want to keep their
pension plans, but they are concerned about the competitive advantage
United will now have because it does not have to fund its own pensions.

After the airlines, retirement experts say the auto industry may be
the next to default on its defined benefit plans, leaving virtually no
companies left that offer guaranteed retirement benefits. Let me give
some illustration of this.
Today's Wall Street Journal says:

By far, the industry accounting for the biggest portion of
underfunding is auto makers and automotive-parts companies.
The plans of those companies are $45 billion to $50 billion
shy of promises made to workers.
Delphi Corp., the No. 1 U.S. auto supplier, is struggling
with declining sales at its top customer and former parent,
General Motors Corp., plus big pension obligations and higher
raw-materials cost. Delphi has an unfunded pension liabili-ty
of $4.3 billion and $9.6 billion in retiree health-care
liabili-
ties. . . .

We are in the midst of debating the asbestos bill. It is interesting
on this asbestos bill the lineup of groups supporting it. That is
another outstanding liability for companies like General Motors. Many
of us believe the trust fund in the asbestos bill is underfunded. We
believe many major corporations with asbestos liability are anxious to
sign up for the trust fund because they will be the benefactors more
than smaller and medium-sized corporations. So both General Motors and
the United Auto Workers have endorsed the asbestos bill.
Certainly, they have to look forward and say asbestos liability will
threaten the payment of health care benefits and retirement benefits to
the workers. So here there is a situation where victims of asbestos
exposure may receive limited compensation under the trust fund plan
that has been endorsed by companies that expose them to asbestos
because those companies want to limit their liability in the future
because of such things as pension liabilities.
As we can see, this is a free-for-all and the losers ultimately are
going to be either victims of asbestos exposure, in this instance that
I used, or the workers themselves and we'll see retiree benefits
disappearing.
The United Airlines deal is the largest pension default in the
history of the United States. Before it, Bethlehem Steel's $3.6 billion
pension default in 2002 set the record. There is a pattern, and the
pattern is that the workers get hurt the most.
I am offering legislation with Senator Kennedy and Congressman George
Miller of California that would attempt to make it more difficult for
corporations to offer superior pension deals to their high-ranking
directors and officers while the company is shifting its unfunded
pension liabilities to the Government or treating older workers
unfairly during a conversion from a traditional defined benefit plan to
a cash balance plan.
Why in the name of fairness and justice should the officers of a
bankrupt corporation be receiving superior pension deals and bonuses
while the people who faithfully worked for that company for decades are
being cut loose, their jobs eliminated, or the promised retirement
benefits are not paid? If there is any justice in this done, we should
demand of these corporate officers that they at least sacrifice to the
same level as the employees who are the victims of their mismanagement.
Rank-and-file workers should not be sent to the back of the line in
bankruptcy court while executives get a free pass. Time and again,
workers have faced the back of the line in this country.

[[Page S5051]]

Mr. President, you may remember an amendment I offered to the
bankruptcy bill a few weeks ago. It was rejected overwhelmingly by the
Senate. Let me tell you how radical this amendment was. It would have
allowed bankruptcy courts to reach back and take the sweetheart deals
that were given to these officers and CEOs and put the money back into
the corporation to benefit the employees and the retirees.
I gave the example of several CEOs, including Ken Lay of Enron, who
abuse their companies. You remember reading about Dennis Koslowski of
Tyco. This man had a unique lifestyle at the expense of his
corporation. He had the corporation buy his family a shower curtain.
Well, what is wrong with that? Mr. Koslowski did some pretty shrewd
shopping. He found a $30,000 shower curtain. That takes some doing. He
took the money out of the corporation, while it was facing financial
trouble, and then turned and said to the employees: Sorry, we are going
to cut you loose. Retirees, we can't pay what we promised you, and
shareholders, you lose, too. So for his shower curtain deal and a lot
of other things, I think Mr. Koslowski should have been held
accountable. He was in criminal court, but he certainly should be held
accountable.
Bernie Ebbers, CEO of WorldCom, didn't piddle around with a shower
curtain; he took $408 million out of a company right before it went
into bankruptcy court. How can we sit around and say: That is OK, that
is management; those guys are in the boardroom; don't worry about them;
but say to the worker out in the plant or to the retiree who is
counting on a retirement benefit plan or the shareholder: You are going
to have to lose because Mr. Ebbers needed $408 million out of the
company before he dumped it in bankruptcy? We should have recaptured
the assets he took out of the corporation before it went into
bankruptcy. Maybe it would not have made the corporation solvent, but
at least it would have been a fair allocation of the resources of that
corporation to the people who deserve the benefits from them in
bankruptcy.
My amendment lost on a vote of 40 to 54. It was entirely too radical
for the Senate, to think that these CEOs would be held accountable for
their conduct, that they would accept personal responsibility for what
they did. No way. Yet their workers and their retirees had to pay the
price. They were held responsible for this terrible mismanagement.
We also tried to raise the minimum wage during that bankruptcy
debate. I guess we are just wasting our time in this place. It has been
over 8 years since we raised the minimum wage in this country. We were
told the head of a family who works 40 hours a week at a minimum wage
and has two or three kids should not be able to lift his family above
poverty. At a time when we have record productivity in our corporations
and record corporate profits, why in the world can't we bring ourselves
to make certain that workers in America get fair compensation? I don't
understand it. If we value work and value families and value children,
why aren't we paying a decent wage to many people who get up and go to
work every single day, sometimes two jobs a day? But, no, we can't pass
that here. That is too radical.
Now the President wants to privatize Social Security. He wants to
make sure that two of the sources of retirement security--Social
Security and pensions--will no longer have guaranteed benefits. The
third source, of course--private savings--has never been guaranteed.
President Bush says that is part of the ownership society. But,
unfortunately, we are headed for a society for the owners, by the
owners, and of the owners, where the workers are more vulnerable than
they have ever been in generations in America.
We ought to step back for a second. We ought to try to decide what is
important in this society in which we live. Is it important for us to
protect the CEOs from their mismanagement of these companies? Is it
important for us to say to Mr. Bernie Ebbers, You won't be held
accountable for taking $408 million out of the corporation you dumped
in bankruptcy? Is it important for us to make sure that people who make
more than $1 million a year get handsome tax cuts while we are deep in
debt as a nation, trying to come up with the money to fight a war, or
is it more important for us to give fair compensation to people who go
to work? Is it more important for us to step up and talk about
guaranteeing and securing the pensions of hard-working people, who
stayed with a job year after weary year because a husband says to his
wife: Honey, I am going to hang in there for 2 years because I get my
retirement. And look what happens. Months before you retire, or even
months after you retire, they pull the rug out from under you.
This is a looming retirement security crisis. Baby boomers are set to
retire in large numbers in just a few years. This country is not saving
for retirement. Our 401(k)s have taken a huge hit in the last 5 years.
Defined benefit pension plans are almost extinct. Medicare is running a
huge deficit. And Social Security has been targeted for benefit cuts.
The three-legged stool of retirement security is looking a bit wobbly
today.
Listen to what people around the country are saying about retirement
insecurity. An editorial in the Denver Post said this:

The retirement benefits offered by Social Security were
originally designed as one leg of the three-legged stool that
also included a worker's pension and a family's private
savings. But American families don't save like they used to,
and the national saving rate has been declining for the last
35 years. At the same time, American companies as a whole
have been cutting back--or in some cases defaulting--on
the pension coverage they once offered employees.

Listen to this letter to the Contra Costa Times in Walnut Creek, CA:

I am a retired 74-year-old woman and get Social Security
benefits, a private pension, payments from 401(k)s. Prior to
the dot-com disaster a few years ago, my 401(k) was worth
almost $300,000. It quickly dropped to half, [that value] and
is slowly recovering. If it were not for my pension and
Social Security, I would be very, very nervous about how I
would survive what remains of my life.

Another letter to the editor dated March 16 from a Shreveport, LA,
paper:

In this time of corporate scandals, lost pensions, and
stagnant wages, working people need something that is
guaranteed and risk-free; that was always the genius of
Social Security. . . . Social Security does need improvement,
but that should mean ensuring benefits, not putting them on a
Wall Street roller coaster. There are plenty of opportunities
to invest in the stock market. Congress and the president
should strengthen Social Security to make sure working people
get the benefits we've paid for. We deserve it.

We owe it to our workers and their families to take an honest look at
these issues and come up with some real solutions. We need to take a
look at the Pension Fairness and Full Disclosure Act. We need to
strengthen Social Security, not weaken it by privatizing it. We should
encourage people to save for retirement, create incentives, tax
incentives and other payroll incentives, for people to save. And we
should encourage companies to pay what they promised workers and not
allow them to get away with underfunding their pension plans.
As part of the reform of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
premiums are necessarily going up, and the companies that underfund
their pension plan will have to pay more into it so the guarantee of
this Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is worth something. We need
to make sure that this agency meets its obligation to all American
workers.
Today, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is $23 billion in
debt. Who is going to bail it out? At a time when we are going to give
$32 billion in tax cuts next year to people making over $1 million a
year--$32 billion to people making over $1 million a year--at a time
when we are facing record deficits, at a time when we are concerned
about the survival of Medicare and Medicaid, it is clearly time for
some thoughtful leadership in this country.
What happened with United Airlines, sadly, is a symptom of a real
problem that is undermining the retirement security of every American
family. We have been diverted from looking at the broader retirement
security issues by the administration's Social Security privatization
proposal. It is time to look at how to address the entire retirement
income equation and provide more security, not less.
There was a time in America when we valued work, we valued workers,
we valued the worker's family, and we said: We are going to provide you
with basic dignity. You get up and go to work every single day, you set
a good

[[Page S5052]]

example for your family, you contribute to your company and your
community, and America will be a better place and we will stand behind
you. We will make certain that when the day comes for retirement, no
matter what happens, Social Security will be there to provide some
basic safety net for you and your family. We will watch the workplace
for you, too. We will do our best to make sure it is safe so you are
not injured while you are working on the job. If you are injured, we
will see you are compensated fairly.

When it comes to the wage you earn, we hope you will do better than
the minimum wage, but we will guarantee there will be a minimum wage in
America so there will be some basic dignity in work and the hardest
working people in America, trying to raise a family, can get by.
It was part of a social contract. It was America as a family, coming
together. We were protecting our own. We were committed to our own. But
there is a new attitude in Washington. You can feel it. That attitude
of the so-called ``ownership'' society says, remember this, we are all
in this alone. We do not come together to help one another, to protect
one another, to care about one another. That is abandoning a
fundamental principle in America.
We believe in the goodness of the people who live in this country. We
believe in the fairness of our economic system. We believe the
Government should stand for justice in a system where unjust things are
occurring. But if you look at what happens in the Senate and the House
day in and day out, time and time again, one wonders if we walked away
from that commitment. We wonder if we are not dealing with some
situation of noble savages being turned loose in a wilderness with the
hope they survive. I hope it does not come to that.
Sadly, for tens of thousands of United Airline employees who just a
few years ago were glorying in the fact that they work for one of the
best airlines in the world, the bottom is falling out. The pension they
worked for, for a life, is disappearing. They have taken wage cuts. The
future is totally uncertain.
There are no guarantees in a free market system. There are winners
and losers. But when you have made a promise to an employee, shouldn't
you be held to that promise? Shouldn't you have a social contract, a
binding contract, that the promise won't be broken?
I am afraid it has been broken here. This pillar of family security
in America is crumbling. What will your Congress do to deal with it?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments about the
SAFETEA legislation. I thank the managers of the bill for working with
us in trying to address some of the concerns I had about the prior
legislation from last session.
As I stood here over a year ago when we debated this bill, I spoke
very critically of that legislation and the damage that legislation did
to Pennsylvania. Thanks to the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator
from Missouri, in particular, we have been able to address some of what
I consider to be inequities in this legislation.
The point I made a year ago was that one of the major reasons for a
Federal tax on gasoline in a Federal highway bill was the idea of
promoting interstate commerce. Originally, the interstate system was
certainly put in place for military purposes--at least ostensibly for
military purposes--to move things around the country in a national
emergency.
Obviously, the more pedestrian reason, if you will--probably that is
a bad word to use when we talk about highways, but nevertheless, the
reason that is most often used is because it is for interstate
commerce, to move goods around the country, to move people around the
country, for travel and tourism, a whole host of other reasons.
When you look at why the Federal Government does that, you have to
step back and say transportation is a State function. Every State in
the country has a transportation department. Why do we need a Federal
transportation department? We need it because we have to make sure the
goods that are produced in New Jersey can get to Ohio to Texas, or the
goods produced in California can get to Georgia.
The fact is it is important for us to be connected. If there are
situations where States are in financial difficulty and they let their
roads degrade, particularly the major interstates--for example, my
State is occupied increasingly with traffic that does not stop in
Pennsylvania--there would be much more of an impetus if you were a
local legislator to invest money on roads which Pennsylvanians used and
invest a lot less money on roads that are used by folks out of State.

So we put together a Federal tax system, a gas tax, as well as
Federal transportation legislation, to promote on the highway side--the
transit is another piece, but we will talk about highways for a
moment--to promote interstate commerce.
So we have a situation where we have States that shoulder a large
burden when it comes to that interstate commerce and we have other
States that are the great beneficiaries as to the burden those States
shoulder in getting a lot of what is referred to as passthrough
traffic. That is traffic that does not stop in your State, does not
benefit your State economically, to speak of, but, in the case
certainly of trucks, beats the heck out of your roads. So you are in a
sense carrying the load for States that are the economic beneficiaries,
whether they are the originator of the freight or the destination of
the freight, whether you are a State that is a passthrough State for
travel and tourism. Those are the States you want to pay particular
attention to. Again, the nature of the program is to make sure we have
a seamless highway system, that we have good interstate commerce.
The reason I came to the floor last year was to point out that
Pennsylvania is a State that certainly shoulders the lion's share or
certainly major share of this passthrough traffic. We have in
Pennsylvania about as many interstates as any State in the country. I
think there are three States that have more interstate miles. Texas,
California and Illinois are the only three that have more interstate
miles than Pennsylvania. We have 22 interstates in Pennsylvania.
Actually, another one is under construction.
There are only four States that have a higher number of ton-miles
than Pennsylvania. Again, they are much bigger States than little old
Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Ohio and Illinois.
I will show a chart that shows the importance of interstate commerce
and what Pennsylvania has to deal with. First, the statistic I throw at
you, 47 percent of the trucks that go through Pennsylvania do not stop
in Pennsylvania. They do not originate there and are not destined for
there. We get a lot of traffic from the New England States--New Jersey,
New England--that goes through Pennsylvania to get out West or comes
down through Pennsylvania to get down to the South. These lines are the
traffic that goes through Pennsylvania that does not stop, coming from
way out here in Seattle, and they go way up to Maine and lots of points
in between.
We see the resulting effect on the load of traffic in Pennsylvania.
This is the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the big thick black line. That is
more than 80 million tons of traffic passing through Pennsylvania on
this one road. We see several others that have between 60 and 80
million tons of truck traffic, heavy truck traffic. We have heard in
the Senate the vehicles that do the most damage to the highways are
your heavy trucks.
Yes, we are in an industrial area. We have a lot of heavy steel,
coal, and lots of other products that travel through our State. They do
an enormous amount of damage. You throw on top of that the mountainous
terrain we have in Pennsylvania, the numerous bridges. We have several
thousand bridges that are in disrepair. We have lots of bridges, we
have lots of mountains, we have a lot of freezing and thawing in
Pennsylvania which wreaks havoc on the roads. So we have a lot of
problems we have to deal with compounded by this heavy through traffic.
When I came to the Senate last year and said I was going to oppose
the bill in the Senate--because here is a State, I argue, that is one
of the poster children for a Federal Highway System

[[Page S5053]]

that focuses money on States such as Pennsylvania because it carries
such a heavy burden for the rest of the country without any direct
economic benefit. This was a State, logically, given the topography,
the climate, and the congestion and traffic we bear, it would be a
State that should do well under a Federal formula. Certainly as Members
have said to me in the past, we have.
However, under the bill last year, we actually became a donor State.
We became a State that was going to subsidize the rest of the country.
Here we are in Pennsylvania with this heavy burden of truck traffic. We
rank fifth in the country in ton miles in Pennsylvania. Here is little
Pennsylvania.
(Mr. ISAKSON assumed the Chair.)
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, you have States such as Texas and States
out West and many other States that are bigger geographically, such as
Georgia. Yet Pennsylvania is fifth in the country in the ton miles our
roads have to sustain. So what we are asking for is a little bit of
equity.
I see the chairman is in the Chamber. We have gotten equity, at least
some degree of equity. Everybody always thinks they should always get
more equity, but we have gotten some degree of equity in this bill. We
are not, under this bill, a donor State. Being one I think was
underserved. But we still, thanks to the chairman's amendment, get only
a 15-percent increase in the amount of funding from the last bill to
this bill. That is lower than any other State in the country. Actually,
we tie with two other States as getting the lowest rate of increase. So
we are a donee State, but we are declining as far as the amount of
money.
I would argue that is inappropriate given what I have laid out here
and the purpose of a Federal highway bill. But we have done better. And
we have done well enough that I, as you saw from the votes I have cast
on this bill, have supported this legislation and will certainly
support passage of this legislation.
We have a serious problem in Pennsylvania. We have a lot of bad
roads. Twenty-seven percent of our roads in Pennsylvania are rated by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics as mediocre to poor. I see the
Presiding Officer from Georgia. We have 27.1 percent of our roads rated
mediocre to poor. Georgia has .2 percent rated mediocre to poor.
Georgia, under this bill, receives a 30-percent increase. We receive a
15-percent increase. The Senator from Georgia just happens to be in the
Chair, and I just wanted to point that out because it is a pretty big
contrast.
The Senator from Georgia has fought hard for his State, and he is a
donor State, so I know he believes he deserves more. He has fought very
hard and, obviously, very effectively to make sure his State has been
treated, in his mind, and I am sure in the minds of the people of
Georgia, more equitably.
But I would make the argument that States around the perimeter of
America really do benefit from States such as Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Indiana, and the States through the middle part of the country that
have to carry all this traffic to and from the border regions. That is
why, if you look at the formula, most of the States that do not do well
under these formulas are border States. Again, the reason is they do
not have to carry the passthrough traffic, particularly the heavy
traffic that we in Pennsylvania have to carry. In addition, they do not
have the weather problems and the topography problems and a whole host
of other problems that we have to deal with. Forty-two percent of our
bridges in Pennsylvania are structurally deficient or obsolete. We have
serious problems.
So when I came here last year and opposed the bill last year, I did
so because of the concern I had about the way my State was being
treated. I am grateful, again, to the chairman for his effort to bring
Pennsylvania into some semblance of equity. I thank him for that. I
thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for the
work he has done with me on the Banking Committee on the transit piece.
Transit is a very important piece of the transportation infrastructure
of Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, for example, 70 percent of the cost
of our transit system is provided for by the State. There are seven
States that do not contribute anything to their transit systems.
Twenty-eight States contribute less than what the Federal Government
contributes to their transit systems.
So we made a major contribution in Pennsylvania to transit. I thank
the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for making sure
Pennsylvania is treated fairly under this legislation.
One final point I would like to make. I see my colleague from Ohio is
here. He probably can make a similar argument about the passthrough
traffic that goes through Ohio.
I thank the chairman for his effort on the Job Access and Reverse
Commute Program. There is a 73-percent increase over TEA-21. This is a
piece of legislation that we were able to get into TEA-21. It has been
a very important program for a lot of our innercities to be able to get
to jobs out in the suburban ring where job development is certainly
faster than it is in the core innercities. This transportation program
has proven, at least in my State--in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in
particular, and Harrisburg and other places--to be a very important
project, to be able to increase the number of employed in the core
urban areas with better quality jobs, and the availability of a better
life. So I thank the chairman for his increase, and I certainly hope he
will hold that increase in conference.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just respond to some of the things
the Senator is talking about. First of all, Senator Santorum has done a
great job leaning on us and talking to us and is largely responsible
for the fact that we made a major change in this bill. This change
increased the amount that will be going to Pennsylvania by $208
million.
But I would like to say this: When you talk about the miles of
substandard roads and highways, Oklahoma has a larger percentage that
are substandard than Pennsylvania. I am not saying it because I am
proud of it, because I have not been doing my job, I suppose, but in
terms of the percentage of substandard bridges, Oklahoma is
considerably higher than Pennsylvania.
Now, what it does point out, though, is the necessity for this bill
because we are going to try to correct all these things. We will not be
able to do it in 1 year, but by the end of this authorization period,
we are going to look a lot better than we are now--but not if we have
to continue to operate on extensions.
So I appreciate the comments. And I do not disagree with anything
that the Senator says. I believe when you sit down with people and talk
about a formula--it is interesting, the previous Presiding Officer is
from Texas. I am not sure he agreed with everything that the Senator
from Pennsylvania said. But it is a very difficult thing to do.
So I appreciate the cooperation the Senator has given and the
influence he has put on this legislation which has helped us make this
a better bill. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Ohio, I know you
are attempting to get the floor for something other than the bill, but
we do have someone coming down with an amendment. Would it be
permissible, if you were to use the floor, that when someone comes with
an amendment, you would yield to them, or is that something you would
be uncomfortable with?
Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator will yield?
Mr. INHOFE. I will.
Mr. DeWINE. I have a tribute to a soldier who was killed, and it will
take no more than 10 minutes. So once I start, I would not want to
stop. But I will not start until you want me to start.
Mr. INHOFE. I understand. But you would attempt to do it in 10
minutes?
Mr. DeWINE. Yes. I will certainly do it in 10 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. The Senator could wait until you are finished.
Mr. DeWINE. I could wait to start until later if you want.
Mr. INHOFE. No, I suggest you go ahead. I say to the Senator, after
the Senator gave his eloquent talk about

[[Page S5054]]

the safety problems that are out there throughout America right now, I
came to the floor and talked about the safety core provisions that are
in this bill, that if we are on an extension, as opposed to passing a
bill, people are going to die. This is a life-or-death issue. I think
you brought that out very forcefully, and I know it comes from the
heart.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I appreciate what my colleague has done.
The Senator from Oklahoma is absolutely correct that if this bill is
passed, these provisions will be in there, as well as a lot of new
construction that will save lives as well.
Mr. INHOFE. Very good. I yield the floor.
(The remarks of Mr. DeWine are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding the junior Senator
from Virginia has an amendment he wishes to offer. It affects the
commerce title of the bill. I ask if Senator Stevens would like to come
down, since this is the commerce title of the bill, while he offers an
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Amendment No. 611

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 611.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Allen], for himself, and Mr.
Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 611.

Mr. ALLEN. 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 modify the eligibility requirements for States to receive
a grant under section 405 of title 49, United States Code)

Strike section 7216(a) of the bill and insert the
following:
(a) In General.--Section 405 is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 405. Safety belt performance grants

``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
award grants to States in accordance with the provisions of
this section to encourage the use of safety belts in
passenger motor vehicles.
``(b) Grants for Safety Belt Use.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make a single grant
to each State that has a State safety belt use rate for the
immediately preceding calendar year of 85 percent or more, as
measured by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
``(2) Amount.--The amount of a grant available to a State
in fiscal year 2006 or in a subsequent fiscal year under
paragraph (1) of this subsection is equal to 500 percent of
the amount apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2003
under section 402(c).
``(3) Shortfall.--If the total amount of grants provided
for by this subsection for a fiscal year exceeds the amount
of funds available for such grants for that fiscal year, then
the Secretary shall make grants under this subsection to
States in the order in which the State's safety belt use rate
was 85 percent or more for 2 consecutive calendar years, as
measured by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
``(4) Catch-up grants.--The Secretary shall award a grant
to any State eligible for a grant under this subsection that
did not receive a grant for a fiscal year because its safety
belt use rate is 85 percent or more for the calendar year
preceding such next fiscal year.
``(c) Allocation of Unused Grant Funds.--The Secretary
shall award additional grants under this section from any
amounts available for grants under this section that, as of
July 1, 2009, are neither obligated nor expended. The
additional grants awarded under this subsection shall be
allocated among all States that, as of July 1, 2009, have a
seatbelt usage rate of 85 percent for the previous calendar
year. The allocations shall be made in accordance with the
formula for apportioning funds among the States under section
402(c).
``(d) Use of Grant Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State may
use a grant awarded under this section for any safety purpose
under this title or for any project that corrects or improves
a hazardous roadway location or feature or proactively
addresses highway safety problems, including--
``(A) intersection improvements;
``(B) pavement and shoulder widening;
``(C) installation of rumble strips and other warning
devices;
``(D) improving skid resistance;
``(E) improvements for pedestrian or bicyclist safety;
``(F) railway-highway crossing safety;
``(G) traffic calming;
``(H) the elimination of roadside obstacles;
``(I) improving highway signage and pavement marking;
``(J) installing priority control systems for emergency
vehicles at signalized intersections;
``(K) installing traffic control or warning devices at
locations with high accident potential;
``(L) safety-conscious planning;
``(M) improving crash data collection and analysis; and
``(N) increasing road or lane capacity.
``(2) Safety activity requirement.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that at least
$1,000,000,000 of amounts received by States under this
section are obligated or expended for safety activities under
this chapter.
``(e) Carry-forward of Excess Funds.--If the amount
available for grants under this section for any fiscal year
exceeds the sum of the grants awarded under this section for
that fiscal year, the excess amount and obligational
authority shall be carried forward and made available for
grants under this section in the succeeding fiscal year.
``(f) Federal Share.--The Federal share payable for grants
awarded under this section is 100 percent.
``(g) Definition.--In this section, the term `passenger
motor vehicle' means--
``(1) a passenger car;
``(2) a pickup truck; or
``(3) a van, minivan, or sport utility vehicle, with a
gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds.''.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment I have
offered, along with Senator Ensign of Nevada, is to make sure safety
belt incentive grants are awarded based on a State's seatbelt use rate,
not based on a prescriptive mandate from the Federal Government that a
State must enact a primary seatbelt law to receive Federal funds.
I have long opposed Federal dictates, whether direct or indirect, on
States to enact a primary seatbelt law. This brand of nanny government
precludes American adults from making basic decisions for themselves
and could hamper law enforcement's ability to effectively patrol the
streets and highways for more serious and egregious offenses. It is
generally a waste of scarce time and resources for local police
officers to pull over an adult and write a ticket to fine someone who
was, theoretically, potentially harming himself or herself by not
wearing a seatbelt. Our citizens would be better served if a law
enforcement officer, rather than writing that ticket, because someone
was otherwise driving safely down the road, was actually finding
someone who is weaving down that same stretch of road as a drunk
driver, clearly a danger to themselves but more importantly to others.
Law enforcement resources are not unlimited. I believe police officers
have more pressing needs than craning their necks to make sure every
licensed driver on the road has a buckled seatbelt.
This is not an issue of interstate commerce. This is not a civil
rights issue. This is not in the U.S. Constitution. This is an issue of
enforcement of seatbelt laws, and what laws a State might want to have
is and has long been under the jurisdiction of the people of the
States. I don't believe that nanny mandates such as this initiative
should come from government. But if it is going to come from a
government, it ought to be coming from a State government, certainly
not the U.S. Congress. State legislators provide a much closer
representation of the views and beliefs of their respective
constituencies in this country. I am a firm believer that the laws of a
particular State in matters such as this reflect the principles and
philosophies under which the citizens in that State wish to be
governed.
One can see from this chart a minority of States have enacted primary
seatbelt laws. The ones in red are the 21 States that have primary
enforcement of seatbelt laws. Simple math tells you that 29 States do
not have a primary enforcement of seatbelt laws. In fact, New Hampshire
doesn't even have secondary enforcement of seatbelt laws. I surmise
that this issue has been considered by all of the States' legislatures
in the past.
In our general assembly in Virginia--the world's oldest legislative
body in the Western World, started in 1619--they have debated the
benefits of a primary seatbelt statute numerous times and have
consistently rejected such a law in our Commonwealth of Virginia. In
fact, during the debate in the Virginia House of Delegates, it was
strongly argued that primary seatbelt laws can contribute to racial
profiling.

[[Page S5055]]

In early 2003, Delegate Kenneth Melvin of Portsmouth, VA, voiced his
opposition to a primary seatbelt law, stating:

I know what happens when you are stopped by police as a
black man in this country, and in Virginia in particular.

He then explained how his oldest son had been pulled over by police
numerous times for no apparent reason.
Incidents like this might not happen in every State and may be
specific to certain jurisdictions in Virginia, but it is the
fundamental reason for us to leave such decisions to the people in the
States. The repercussions of such Federal mandates or pressure can have
different effects in each State.
Given that the majority of the States have declined primary safety
belt laws, it seems inappropriate for the Federal Government to devise
a grant program that essentially compels the States to enact them or
lose Federal gas tax dollars that they paid into the Federal highway
trust fund.
The underlying bill's Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program, I
suppose, is well-meaning officiousness, but instead of providing grants
based on obtaining a goal to increase use rates, the safety title
requires the States to enact a primary seatbelt law to receive these
Federal funds which, of course, have come from the people in the States
who paid Federal gas taxes.

The proponents of this provision will no doubt argue that the program
is not discriminatory, not an effort to coerce States without primary
seatbelt laws to enact such laws. However, the 90-percent use rate
required in this bill would make it extremely difficult for a vast
majority of the States to qualify for grant funding. According to the
National Center of Statistics and Analysis, only seven States had a
safety belt use rate of 90 percent or higher in 2004.
I understand there are studies that indicate that primary seatbelt
laws are most likely to yield increased use rates. However, if States
without primary seatbelt laws are able to attain a comparable or higher
use rate to those with such laws, it is fundamentally unfair for the
Federal Government to withhold grant funding that has been provided by
all road-using taxpayers.
My amendment would revise the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant
Program to base grant awards on an 85-percent safety belt use rate.
Instead of compelling States to enact primary seatbelt laws, grants
would be awarded based solely on seatbelt use attainment. There are a
variety of ways that States may encourage people to use seatbelts.
It is difficult for me to understand the logic of an incentive
program that would provide Virginia, with its high safety belt use
rate, far less funding than a State with a far lower seatbelt use rate
and a primary seatbelt law. Yet that is entirely possible under this
bill if a State with a lower use rate has enacted a primary seatbelt
law. They could have a lower rate than the State that doesn't have such
a law and receive funding, while the State with higher usage does not.
If the goal is to attain higher safety belt use rates, incentive
grants should be awarded based on a specific goal. In our amendment, it
is an 85-percent safety belt use rate. This proposal is similar to the
one already included in the House version of this legislation.
My proposal is a much more equitable way to provide incentives and
reward States for increasing safety belt use rates. It makes the
proposed program fair by making requirements the same for all States
but does not compel States to enact primary seatbelt laws. Again, the
goal of our amendment is simple and clear: attain higher seatbelt use
rates based on achievement, not on an artificial mandate from the
Federal Government.
States are looking for the greatest flexibility on how to use Federal
transportation dollars that we send back to them. Some may decide that
increasing capacity can best serve their citizens by helping alleviate
traffic congestion and improving the safety of a particular roadway. My
amendment would allow these funds to be used for everything from
intersection improvements, pavement and shoulder widening, installation
of rumble strips or warning devices, improving skid resistance,
improvements to pedestrian or bicyclist safety, railway, highway
crossing safety, traffic calming, the elimination of roadside
obstacles, improving highway signage, and pavement marking. They can
use it for installing priority control systems for emergency vehicles
that signal intersections. They could use it for installing traffic
control or warning devices at locations with high accident potential,
or increasing road or lane capacity.
It has been noted multiple times throughout this debate that our
highways are not being maintained and actually require greater funding
than the underlying bill provides or authorizes. This amendment would
provide the States some additional flexibility to address road and lane
capacity needs if they so choose.
We all agree that wearing a seatbelt increases safety for drivers,
and the policy should be to try to promote increased safety belt use
rates.
My amendment does not change that purpose. However, I do not believe
it is the role of the Federal Government to force States to enact such
laws that are traditionally considered in the State legislatures. The
States may have many ways, such as advertising, to encourage greater
seatbelt usage.
My amendment rewards States equally for reaching an 85-percent safety
belt use rate, but does not seek to force them into only one solution
prescribed by the officious nannies in Washington, which would be a
primary enforcement seatbelt law.
I urge my colleagues to consider the laws in their home State.
Twenty-one States have such a law, 29 do not. Determine whether you
believe this Federal Government incentive plan should reward States
that have high usage or whether it should be used to promote a certain
meddling nanny philosophy of this body that tells State legislatures
and the people in the States what to do.
My amendment would ensure that the occupant protection incentive
grant funding is awarded fairly and is done so based on attainment of
goals. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, very briefly, the Democratic leader and I
have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments I
send to the desk be the only remaining first-degree amendments in
order, other than a managers' amendment to be cleared by both managers
and both leaders; provided further, that they be subject to second-
degree amendments that have been filed in accordance with rule XXII; I
further ask consent that any amendment from the list must be offered by
4 p.m. on Monday, May 16; provided further, that when the Senate
resumes consideration of the bill on Tuesday, May 17, all time be
expired under rule XXII and the Senate proceed to votes in relation to
the pending amendments in the order offered, and that following
disposition of the above listed amendments, the Senate proceed to a
vote on the Inhofe substitute amendment, as amended, that the cloture
vote on the underlying bill be vitiated, and the Senate then proceed to
a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. To the leader through the Chair, it is my understanding we
will have a vote Monday night, and it will be one of the amendments on
the list; is that right?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is correct. We will have one
amendment, possibly two, Monday night, and the remainder of these votes
will be stacked, on Tuesday, in the order that was just spelled out.
Mr. REID. Further, Mr. President, we have been on this bill 2 weeks,
but that is somewhat misleading because we have had so many other
issues that have interrupted the discussion of this bill. The work on
this bill is good. I compliment the managers and the others. Not only
do we have these managers on the bill, but there are many committees
that have jurisdiction on this bill. It is a very complicated bill
jurisdictionwise. It is a big bill moneywise. The managers have to be
complimented for doing this.
I believe this is what we can accomplish in the Senate. We have only
spent

[[Page S5056]]

a few days on this bill. I repeat, this is a remarkable piece of work
we have done. I hope we can continue doing the work for the people of
America as needs to be done. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I second what the Democratic leader said in
terms of both sides working together on a bill that has taken a
tremendous amount of work. We spent several days on the bill and had
plenty of opportunity over the last 2 weeks for everybody to come
forward.
To clarify for the benefit of our colleagues, with this agreement in
place, we can announce there will be no further votes this evening.
Tomorrow we will resume the bill, and Senators will be able to offer
amendments from the list. No rollcall votes will occur on those
amendments during Friday's session.
As we just stated, on Monday, Senators will have an opportunity until
4 p.m. to offer amendments. As we discussed, there will be at least
one, but possibly two votes. We will be voting Monday evening on at
least one of the highway amendments. Therefore, Senators can expect the
next vote to be at 5:30 p.m. Monday. We will then complete our work on
the bill Tuesday morning. The managers will work over the course of
Friday and Monday to further limit the number of amendments that will
require votes.
I thank our colleagues, and I thank the chairman and ranking member
for their tremendous work, their patience in bringing this bill
forward.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The list of amendments is as follows:

Germane amendments intended to be offered:
Carper: #638, #723.
Dodd: #732 Teen Drivers.
Durbin: #734 Fuel savings reporting; #669 Bicycling.
Feingold: #695 Buy American; #676 Volunteer mileage.
Feinstein: #591 Alameda Corridor East; #633 Toll Roads.
Lautenberg: #619 Drunk driving; #639 Big Trucks.
Schumer: #674 Transit Benefits.
Wyden: #690 Hours of use exemption.
Landrieu: #620 Corridor.
Kerry: #680 Ferry boats.
Post Cloture Amendments
Sessions #646.
McCain #719.
McCain #720.
Craig #616.
Domenici #659.
Bond #631.
Bond #658.
Warner #686
Ensign #636
Chambliss #603.
Alexander #733.
Snowe #706.
Lott #583.
Lott #667.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 611

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to oppose the
amendment my colleague from Virginia offered. With all due respect to
my good friend from Virginia, I do so because I believe the bill, as
currently written, is a good one, as I said earlier today. I believe
the language in the bill on primary seatbelt usage that has been
written by Senator Lott will, in fact, save lives.
In this country every year, we lose over 40,000 Americans in highway
deaths, 40,000 Americans who are killed in auto fatalities. This bill
is aimed at, in many different respects, trying to reduce the number of
Americans who die by building better roads, by dealing with dangerous
intersections, and some of the safety provisions we have already talked
about in this bill.
If you talk to anyone who is a highway safety expert or if you talk
to the real experts who are the men and women who patrol our highways
every day--in Ohio it is the Ohio State Highway Patrol or it might be
the local sheriff's department, State troopers, whatever they are
called in your local jurisdiction--I believe the experts who have
looked at and studied this issue will tell you that the use of primary
seatbelt laws clearly saves lives.
Why is that? It is pretty simple and pretty basic. The reason is
this: Of all the things we can do to save lives, the easiest and
simplest is to increase the number of people in this country who buckle
up, who put on a seatbelt. Every car that is manufactured in this
country today has a seatbelt. It is not adding any new equipment. It is
getting people to put on their seatbelts. It is a question of getting
people to use equipment that is already in the car.
If people use seatbelts, they are safer and the auto fatalities go
down. The highway safety experts, the people who have studied this
issue, will tell you when the usage of seatbelts goes up, the auto
fatalities go down. It is that simple.
The other thing we know is States that have passed primary seatbelt
laws have seen the use of seatbelts dramatically go up. In Ohio, for
example, we do not have that law, unfortunately, and we are hovering at
about 75-percent use. We are probably never going to get beyond 75-
percent. We are not going to get to 80 or 85 or 90 percent unless we
have a primary seatbelt law.
If a State gets a primary seatbelt law, that usage will go up. It
will go up 5, 10, 15 percent, and when you see that happen, the number
of lives will be saved.
In Ohio--I am using my home State as an example, but you can
extrapolate these figures from Ohio to any other State in the Union--in
Ohio, we estimate if we had a primary seatbelt law and our usage went
from 75 percent up to, say, 90 percent, we would save 100 lives per
year. That is a lot of people. We would save lives every year. Whatever
the figure, we are going to save lives.
So this is a very simple provision Senator Lott and the managers have
included in this bill. What the amendment of my good friend from
Virginia would do is basically take that out.
Now, for my colleagues who worry about the Federal Government being
oppressive and using the stick, this is not a stick approach. This is a
carrot approach. This is extra incentive to the State to do it. It will
save lives. There are very few times when one can come to this floor
and know that their vote will save lives.
When we get to the point where we vote on this, a vote to retain this
language in this bill will, in fact, save lives because States will
enact it; the usage of seatbelts will go up, and when the usage of
seatbelts goes up, lives will be saved. It is pretty simple.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Allen amendment and to keep
this language in the bill.
One last comment. My colleague has talked in his speech about the
highway patrol and the police have other things to do. Yes, they have
other things to do. The point of a primary seatbelt law is akin to most
other laws. It is a deterrent. That is why we have speed laws. That is
why we have every other kind of laws. It is a deterrent, and the
deterrent changes behavior. Because that law is on the books, because
people know they have to have it, because they know they can be pulled
over for not having it, they will put it on and usage will simply go
up. It works. It has worked in State after State, and lives will be
saved.
So I urge my colleagues to keep this in and to defeat the amendment
of my colleague from Virginia.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the
safety belt provisions in the Inhofe substitute, and to urge my
colleagues to reject the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator
Allen.
The Commerce Committee's provisions to provide incentives to States
which increase the use of seatbelts is essential to improving the
safety of the driving public.
Increasing seatbelt usage is the hallmark of the administration's
proposals to the Congress, and it is the cornerstone of the Commerce
Committee's title to this bill.
The administration does not support the amendment before us and
Secretary Mineta has written that, ``President Bush and I believe that
increasing safety belt usage rates is the single most effective means
to decrease highway fatalities and injuries.''
The facts are undeniable as the Secretary of Transportation states:
``Empirical evidence shows that the surest way for a State to increase
safety belt usage is through the passage of a primary safety belt
law.''
The administration's bill sets as our national goal a seatbelt use
rate of 90 percent. That should be our minimum standard, but under the
Allen amendment it would be weakened.
In a letter I received yesterday from Dr. Jeff Runge, administrator
of the

[[Page S5057]]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, he writes in reference
to the seatbelt grants program that ``no other proposal in SAFETEA will
do more to improve safety than this bipartisan proposal.''
I commend Chairman Stevens, Senator Lott, and Ranking Member Inouye
for their strong leadership in continuing a critically needed safety
belt incentive grant program. It was my privilege to be directly
involved in the drafting of TEA-21 in 1998. For the first time, TEA-21
included a significant, new incentive based program to increase the
seatbelt use rate in this Nation.
At that time, the national average for seatbelt usage was
approximately 67 percent. Some states, particularly those with primary
seatbelt laws, were achieving belt use rates far above the national
average, and they saw the immediate benefits of fewer highway deaths
and injuries.
Before the TEA-21 program, other States, without primary seatbelt
laws, had belt use rates much lower than the national average.
The Safety Belt Incentive Grant Program in TEA-21 provided
approximately $600 million to States which improved their belt use
rates. We have seen improvements in the number of people wearing
seatbelts as a result of this program. I commend the Commerce Committee
for their leadership in advancing a program that will take us even
further in helping States to get people to buckle up.
Today, the average seatbelt use rate has improved significantly.
There remains, however, great disparities between the States in their
seatbelt usage. It is clear that States with primary seatbelt laws
achieve far higher seatbelt use rates than States without primary
seatbelt laws. For this reason, the Commerce Committee provides
significant funding to States that enact primary seatbelt laws.
The Commerce Committee program, like the administration's proposal
and the amendment I offered last year, sets as our national policy a
goal that States reach a 90-percent seatbelt use rate. This important
provision recognizes that the most effective tool to improve seatbelt
usage is by enacting a primary seatbelt law.
Wearing seatbelts is a critical public health and safety issue. As
many have said, wearing a seatbelt is the most single most important
act we can take to prevent deaths and injuries on our highways.
For the first time in a decade, highway deaths are on the rise. In
2004, nearly 43,000 children and adults died as a result of automobile
crashes. Over half of these deaths involved people who were not wearing
their seatbelt.
I find that astonishing. There is no other fact that is more
compelling that should convince us to take action.
If for no other reason to support this amendment, we must protect our
Nation's youth. Today, automobile crashes are the leading cause of
death for Americans age 2 to 34.
These tragic statistics are reversible, and the provisions approved
by the Commerce Committee are critical to reducing traffic deaths.
I urge my colleagues to support the provisions in the bill to provide
financial incentives to States to increase seatbelt usage to 90 percent
or to enact a primary seatbelt law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Allen amendment,
and I will repeat what Senator Warner had to say:

I rise today to strongly support the safety belt provisions
in the Inhofe substitute and to urge my colleagues to reject
the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Allen.

I thought that would be a pretty interesting statement to put into
the Record at this point.
I remember, though, Senator Warner did a lot of work on this subject
a couple of years ago. He has been involved in Transportation bills,
highway bills, but I remember he had an amendment that would actually,
in effect, provide sanctions if one did not have seatbelts. I voted
against that because I do not think that is the way to get States such
as mine to do something that could be very important in terms of
safety.
Before he leaves the floor, I want to also commend Senator DeWine for
his work on these safety issues. In the bill last year, he had a lot of
provisions that he worked with Senator McCain and others on to get them
to include in the Commerce portion of the highway bill. This is an area
where he has worked, he feels passionately about it and he came back
this year and said we want to work together.
I think if my colleagues will look at what we put in the safety
provisions from the Commerce Committee, from the Surface Transportation
and Merchant Marine Subcommittee that I chair, now a part of the
substitute, they will be pleased with the safety provisions.
This is a key part of the highways and transportation in our country.
If we just look at the pavement, if we just look at the jobs, if we
just look at economic development, we will be missing a big part of the
equation, and that is safety and lives that can be saved or lost
depending on what we do.
Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, and I met with people on all sides
of this equation: highway people, safety advocates, State
representatives, labor, the entire mix, and we developed these
provisions very carefully. So I want to thank Senator DeWine for his
effort.
Because I have done that, and because I have worked on this issue, I
feel very strongly in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator
Allen. Usually, Senator Allen and I would be together on something like
this, but my opposition this time is very simple and that is we need
people to use seatbelts; they save lives.
I come from a State that is one of the lowest users of seatbelts in
the Nation--63 percent. I am one of those who has been slow to come to
the usage of seatbelts, but I guarantee you my kids know how important
they are. They will not let me crank the car up until everybody is
buckled in, including especially my grandchildren.
Then, as I have gotten into it more and more, the statistics are
clear that these seatbelts will make a difference. In 2003, about
17,000 people killed in motor vehicle crashes were not buckled up, and
nearly 500 of those deaths were children. Would it absolutely have
saved them if they had been buckled up? Maybe not. But even if it had
been just a few hundred, and it probably was more like thousands, that
makes a huge difference. Many of those 17,000 deaths were preventable.
A passenger wearing a seatbelt is 45 percent less likely to be killed
when involved in an accident. For light trucks such as SUVs, the figure
is higher. The risk of fatal injury is reduced by 60 percent. Traffic
safety experts nationwide agree that the most effective short-term way
of reducing traffic fatalities is to increase the seatbelt use.
Getting people to change their driving habits is a major challenge
that requires more than just airing public service announcements or
distributing safety materials. Over the years, States have tried many
different ways to increase seatbelt usage. Experience has shown the
most effective means to increase seatbelt use is to enact the primary
seatbelt law.
In fact, each percentage point increase in seatbelt use saves about
270 additional lives. If every State in the country enacted the primary
seatbelt law, more than 1,200 lives would be saved every single year.
Today, in the 22 jurisdictions--21 States and the District of
Columbia--that have primary enforcement laws, the average seatbelt use
rate is 11 points higher than in States without this primary seatbelt
law. I want to emphasize my State does not have it. I have talked to
State officials. I want to encourage the State to do that, and this
provision will do that. I will explain that a little bit more in a
moment.
To give an example of how powerful an effect this will have, consider
the recent experience in the State of Illinois which passed a primary
seatbelt law in just 2003. In just one year after Illinois passed a
primary seatbelt enforcement law, the seatbelt use rate jumped from 74
percent to 80 percent. Increases in seatbelt use produced real results.
In Washington State, traffic fatalities declined by 9 percent in the
first year after passing a primary seatbelt law. Yet there are still 29
States that have not passed it. This grant program will provide
incentives for those States to take the steps needed to save lives.

[[Page S5058]]

It also rewards States that are able to achieve a 90-percent seatbelt
use rate without a primary seatbelt enforcement law. States that have
already done it but show movement and get to 90 percent, there is a
reward, an incentive, for them to do that. What we are really worried
about is those 29 States that have not done it that are down in the
60--or even less--percent use of seatbelts. This program rewards the
States that are able to achieve that 90 percent.
Senator Allen's amendment says that unless a State gets 85 percent,
they do not get any of the incentives. In my State, it is 63 percent,
and we are not going to get to 85 percent for many years to come. We
will not ever reach the percentage or get the incentives that would
encourage us to do it.
The seatbelt performance grants offer States the flexibility to use
much of the funds on highway safety infrastructure projects. That is
the most important safety provision we could possibly pass: Better
roads, wider roads, more lanes, more bridges, safer bridges. That is
the ultimate safety provision. Seatbelts and other things that can be
done, the construction of vehicles, make a difference too.
The flexibility funding allows States to identify and address the
greatest highway safety hazard. They can improve dangerous
intersections, enhance railroad signage or redesign dangerous stretches
of road. Combining a primary seatbelt enforcement law with addressing
highway safety hazards is a win-win situation.
More States would reap the benefit under the Senate Commerce
provision than under the Allen amendment. Today, only 14 States have an
85-percent seatbelt use rate required to qualify for the Allen
amendment.
The Allen amendment is also a budget buster. If all States were to
enact primary seatbelt laws, the cost of the Commerce Committee bill
would be $597 million. If all States were to meet 85-percent belt use
under the Allen amendment, it would cost $778 million. The additional
$181 million needed to fund the amendment would have to come out of the
highway trust fund.
We thought about this carefully. We listened to administration
officials. It is very clear it is the view of the administration, the
position of the administration, that we need to encourage greater use
of seatbelts. We need States to pass this primary seatbelt law. It will
save lives, and I believe the Allen amendment will undermine a very
strong part of this legislation.
I urge my colleagues, when we do take this back up, to look at this
very carefully. We will vote on it next week and you will have a chance
to think it through. It is not about, Do I get a little more this way
than that way as a State; we are talking about lives here. We are
talking about lives, and a life in Georgia is as important as a life in
Mississippi or Virginia or any State in the Nation.
I feel strongly about this. By the way, one of the reasons why I feel
strongly, I believe, is I am among the converted. I didn't just get
here years ago; I moved gradually toward this. Finally, the statistics,
the evidence, and the deaths are too much weight for me to reject, or
not accept. This is a way to get a significant increase in my State,
and States all across the country, in seatbelt usage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I, too, rise and join my colleague from
Mississippi in his very eloquent remarks, and my colleague from Ohio.
I know the Senator from Illinois is waiting to speak in a few
moments.
I rise in opposition to the Allen amendment. I understand the
intentions, but I think the statistics and the numbers and the reality
make it clear that the American people are better off under the
provisions as they currently exist in the bill. More States benefit
from the Senate Commerce primary belt law provision. There are 19
States currently that have primary seatbelt laws on their books and
they will qualify for funding immediately. Only 14 States have an 85-
percent seatbelt use rate, according to the 2004 numbers. That is what
you need to qualify under the terms of this amendment. So more people
would benefit and be rewarded for having the primary seatbelt law.
I think the provisions of the Commerce Committee's bill guarantee
funding if the State does one thing, and that is either have or pass a
primary belt law. Under the amendment we are talking about right now, a
State has no certainty that any action it takes will increase belt use
that will result in 85-percent or higher rate use.
This amendment would, if enacted, abandon a very important goal, and
that is, for several years the Department of Transportation has set a
goal of 90-percent seatbelt usage. The amendment in question would set
a goal basically at 85 percent. I have a concern. Knowing human nature
and the way things work sometimes, I think folks might give up at 85
percent and never try to reach that 90 percent. So I think the DOT
policy is a good one. I think it is designed to save lives. It is a
commonsense approach. As Senator Lott said a few moments ago, States
that have a primary seatbelt law on average show the increase in
seatbelt usage by 11 percentage points. He tried to drive that home a
few moments ago. I think that is a very powerful statistic.

Primary seatbelt laws are also the fastest and the cheapest way to
save lives. The NHTSA administrator, Jeff Runge, M.D., said of the
provisions in the current bill that they would save more lives, do it
faster and cheaper than any other highway safety proposal Congress is
likely to consider this decade.
So the experts agree, the numbers agree, and last, let me say, the
safety groups agree. These are the people out there every single day
fighting for better laws and more safe vehicles, safer roads, et
cetera. They agree. The proposal in the current bill, not in the
amendment but in the bill, is supported by the National Safe Kids
Campaign, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Automotive Coalition for
Insurance Association, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Mazda,
the Automotive Occupants Restraint Council, the Traffic Safety, the
National Safety Council, the American Insurance Association. It
incentivizes States to pass these primary seatbelt laws. The experts
agree the way to save lives on America's highways is to try to pass
these seatbelt laws.
I, like Senator Lott, do not have a primary seatbelt law in my State.
Typically I think States should have the rights to make these
decisions, and certainly every State does. But what we do is give a
bonus, an extra incentive for States to consider, State legislators,
Governors, et cetera, to consider passing these type of laws because it
will benefit their citizens and benefits the Nation.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment when it comes up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, like my distinguished colleagues from
Arkansas and from Mississippi, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my distinguished colleague from Virginia. I strongly urge my
colleagues to preserve the seatbelt program as it is written in the
Transportation reauthorization bill.
This provision in the underlying bill gives States that pass
primarily seatbelt laws a one-time incentive grant from that State's
annual traffic safety grant apportionment. The purpose of this
incentive is to encourage States to take specific action, passage of a
primary seatbelt law that will save more lives.
As it so happens, my State of Illinois passed a primary seatbelt law
in response to this incentive. I know we did it in response to these
incentives because I was the chief sponsor of passage of the primary
seatbelt law.
The same thing happened in Delaware. The same thing happened in
Tennessee. You know what. It works, and it works faster and cheaper
than any other method, in terms of ensuring that people wear safety
belts and save lives.
It is amazing we have to keep saying this, but seatbelts save lives
and primary seatbelt laws save more lives. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration predicts if every State enacted primary seatbelt
laws, more than 1,000 lives could be saved each year and 17,000
injuries could be prevented. Seatbelt use is 11 percentage points
higher in States with primary enforcement laws than in those States
where laws provide for secondary enforcement. And States changing from

[[Page S5059]]

secondary to primary enforcement have seen 10 to 15 percentage point
increases in usage.
Beyond the facts and statistics, this is an issue that makes sense.
We should not have to just hope people wear seatbelts, just as we
should not have to hope they obey speed limits or hope they stop at red
lights. We should do what we can to make sure people will wear
seatbelts that will keep them alive. We teach our children to wear
seatbelts when they get into a car and we all hope they listen to mom
and dad and do it when we are not there, but wouldn't we feel better if
we knew our laws in our communities were helping to make that happen?
Doesn't it makes sense for the Federal Government to maintain a
consistent message on seatbelt use, not through a mandate but through a
simple incentive?
The National Safe Kids Campaign thinks so. Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers thinks so. They endorse and prefer the Federal incentive as
written in the underlying bill.
Finally, a Federal incentive is also a Federal commitment. When the
Federal Government makes a commitment and States respond accordingly,
then the Federal Government needs to keep its word. One of the points
that was raised by Senator Allen in sponsoring this amendment was that,
in Virginia at least, there seems to be some concern that primary
seatbelt enforcement would result potentially in an increase in racial
profiling in Virginia.
As somebody whose community on the south side of Chicago is fairly
familiar with racial profiling, and who hears anecdotes each day from
African-American drivers who believe they may have been profiled, I am
certainly sensitive to Senator Allen's point. As it turns out, though,
part of the way we were able to solve this in Illinois was to couple a
primary seatbelt enforcement law with a racial profiling law that would
ensure we were keeping track as to how traffic enforcement was taking
place and to make certain it was being done in a nondiscriminatory
fashion.
This was the bargain that was struck at the local level: the notion
that we would have a primary seatbelt law enforced; we would also have
a data collection bill that would allow us to track and make sure our
traffic laws are being applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
That deal that was struck in Illinois was premised on the notion that
we would be getting these Federal incentives. It is not appropriate for
the Federal Government to now pull the rug out from under States such
as Illinois that have done the right thing. It is appropriate, instead,
for us to keep our word, maintain our commitments, and make sure we
continue to incentivize a law that everybody knows, in fact, saves the
lives of our citizens.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 674 to Amendment No. 605

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 674, which I
believe is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes
an amendment numbered 674.

Mr. SCHUMER. 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 increase the transit pass and van pooling benefit to $200)

On page 628, line 23, strike ``$155'' and insert ``$155
($170 for 2007, $185 for 2008 and $200 for 2009 and
thereafter)''.
On page 629, line 5, strike ``2008'' and insert ``2009''.
On page 629, line 7, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2008''.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief. This amendment raises
the tax-free mass transit benefit from $155 to $200 per month by the
end of the life of the Transportation bill. I, first, thank my
colleagues on the Finance Committee, Mr. Grassley and Mr. Baucus, for
raising the amount to $155. That is already in the bill. What this
amendment does is raise the remainder over the course of the bill to
$200. What it will do is equalize the benefit offered by employers for
transit expenses with the current benefit offered for parking expenses.
I understand that Senators Baucus and Grassley are working with the
Budget Committee to get this amendment approved. So I hope we will not
have to vote on it or debate it much longer than this. I greatly
appreciate their efforts.
Basically, we give people a $200 deduction when they drive to work.
It is obviously a business expense if they have to pay for parking, but
mass transit has always been discriminated against. We do not give
people that deduction for mass transit. This makes it equal. It does
not favor one, does not favor the other. It does not take from highways
to give to mass transit. It is a win-win-win.
Now, mass transit ridership is at an all-time high nationwide. It
continues to rise in New York and across the country. For millions of
transit riders, this increase will save them hundreds of dollars every
year. Raising the transit benefit will simultaneously reduce traffic,
congestion, and smog while saving commuters in New York and across the
country hundreds of dollars every year.
The existing disparity between the two benefit levels has also
created a financial incentive for employees to drive to and from work
alone rather than utilize transit or a vanpool. The amendment
eliminates this disparity. The transit benefit provides a low-cost way
to get more cars off the road. In the New York metropolitan area alone,
commuters save over $150 million, thanks to the transit benefit.
Employers have saved significantly as well, over $35 million. And that
amount can be multiplied for benefits throughout the country.
By taking cars off the road, increasing the transit benefit is sound
environmentally as well. It reduces emissions, which leads to cleaner
air, and cuts gasoline use across the board.
I hope we can support this good tax cut unanimously.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Amendment No. 646 to Amendment No. 605

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside and call up amendment No. 646.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes amendment
numbered 646.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To keep the bill within the budget levels)

At the appropriate place, add the following

SEC. 1. REDUCTIONS

The total spending in this bill shall be reduced by
$11,100,000,000, by reducing the totals by the following
amounts--
(a) STP Enhancements (Sec. 1104(4): reduce by
$2,800,000,000;
(b) Maglev (Sec. 1819): reduce by $2,000,000,000;
(c) Ferry Boats (Sec. 1101(114)) and Sec. 1204): reduce by
$235,000,000;
(d) Truck Parking (Sec. 1814(a)): reduce by $47,010,000;
(e) Puerto Rican Highways (Sec. 1101(15)): reduce by
$500,000,000;
(f) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (Sec. 1101(5)):
reduce by $4,479,000,000;
(g) Administrative Expenses (Sec. 1103(a)(1)): reduce by
$348,000,000;
(h) Historic Covered Bridge (Sec. 1812): reduce by
$56,000,000;
(i) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (Sec. 1303): reduce by $500,000,000;
(j) Transportation and Community and System Preservation
Program (Sec. 1813): reduce by $135,000,000;

Amendment No. 646, as Modified, to Amendment No. 605

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
modified with the changes that are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce funding for certain programs)

On page 410, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. ___. REDUCTION OF FUNDING FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or any
amendment made by this

[[Page S5060]]

title, amounts made available under this Act, and titles 23
and 49, United States Code, shall be reduced by a total of
$10,700,000,000, as follows:
(1) The amount made available under section 1101(4) for
surface transportation enhancement activities under section
133 of title 23, United States Code, shall be reduced by a
total of $1,100,000,000, divided in equal amounts for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(2) The amount made available under section 1101(5) for the
congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program
under section 149 of that title shall be reduced by a total
of $4,000,000,000, divided in equal amounts for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(3) The amount made available under section 104(a)(1) of
that title (as amended by section 1103(a)(1)) for
administrative expenses of the Federal Highway Administration
shall be reduced by a total of $400,000,000, divided in equal
amounts for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(4) The amount made available under section 188(a)(1) of
that title (as amended by section 1303(f)) for Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act amendments shall be
reduced by a total of $100,000,000, divided in equal amounts
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(5) The amount made available under section 175(d)(1) of
that title (as amended by section 1813(a)) for the
transportation and community and system preservation program
shall be reduced by a total of $100,000,000, divided in equal
amounts for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(6) The amount made available under section 5338(b)(1) of
title 49, United States Code (as amended by section 6036) for
transit formula grants and research shall be reduced by a
total of $5,000,000,000, divided in equal amounts for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have a very real difficulty with this
bill. I think there is a strong desire by most Members of this body to
increase the amount of money that is set aside for our road
infrastructure. The bill, in fact, does increase that. We had a number
at which the President said he wanted us to stay. We increased that
number nearly $11 billion. We started at $284 billion. Now the number
is $295 billion.
The best numbers that I can get from the Budget Committee have
convinced me that the sad truth is we have $11 billion in this bill
over the budget spending cap that we agreed to. It is the first real
bill that has come up since we passed the budget agreement. So we are
already in violation of it. They say there are offsets, but some of
those offsets are not realistic. I think most everybody knows it.
They are projecting things are going to happen in conference, and
that it is not going to be a pleasant conference because the President
has made clear he will veto a bill that is not within his budget. We
are facing a real problem.
So I have thought what we ought to do in this Senate, in this
Congress, is what real people do when they have to face serious
financial decisions. They have to accept the fact they cannot do
everything. I know Senator Inhofe has worked so incredibly hard on this
bill. My admiration for him is unlimited. I know how strongly he wants
to see the road portion of this bill be as strong as it possibly can.
And I agree. People travel on highways every day. An improved
infrastructure can be a positive difference for our communities and
Nation. That is why I try to support everything I can and to be as
generous as possible in the road construction account.
I will not go into the details tonight, but my amendment will look at
less critical parts of this bill, including the mass transit title, and
other portions of the bill, and it will ask how many increases we can
sustain in those accounts. By reducing the increases a little bit, by
an amount that would allow an increase to occur--not cutting those
accounts but not having an increase as big as has been proposed--we can
produce a bill that increases our funding for our basic infrastructure,
is faithful to the budget numbers this Congress adopted, and will be
signed into law--not vetoed by the President.
If we get to conference without something like this, what we are
going to see is that the amount of money set aside for our basic
highway infrastructure is going to be cut in conference because the
offsets are not going to all be accepted.
So let me say again, we are heading to conference with an increase
over the budget that is supposed to be offset. Some of those offsets
are not going to be approved. And I suspect our basic road
infrastructure amount that we now have in the bill will not be
sustained and will be reduced.
My amendment will allow us to sustain those increases that have been
proposed and that we desire. It will allow us to stay within the
budget. It will fund this by reducing the increases in other
noncritical programs, but still allowing them to increase--not cutting
them.
I think that is what responsible people ought to do. That is what the
amendment I have offered does. We will talk about it in more detail. I
thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership on this issue and on so many
others. I know he has worked hard. They probably have agreements on how
this thing has to go, but I believe the amendment I have offered will
be helpful to achieving the goal most of us share.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, let me just
clarify something. It is a very rare occasion that the good Senator
from Alabama and I disagree on anything. It just doesn't happen. In
this particular case, this is the exception. Let me kind of outline how
I think the system works. I don't chair the Finance Committee. I don't
chair the Budget Committee. I do not serve on either one of them. I do
chair the Environment and Public Works Committee.
When we put together the bill--and this particular bill has been 3
years in the making--it is very similar to what we had last year except
it is a lower funding level which should satisfy, to a greater degree,
the Senator from Alabama. But when we come up with a bill, the
procedure is to go to the Finance Committee. We did that, and we have
several Finance provisions in there. Senators Grassley and Baucus spent
a long time. While people keep saying the offsets are not realistic,
they could be right, but the ones who can properly evaluate the offsets
are the ones who proposed the offsets, and that is the job of the
Finance Committee.
I want to say this because the Senator from Alabama and I are ranked
as two of the most conservative Members of the Senate. I have said
often there are two areas where conservatives spend money; one is
national defense and the other is infrastructure. That is what we are
supposed to be doing here. I wish to clarify that I will be opposing
the amendment because I believe the Finance Committee has done their
job. I have heard both the ranking member and the chairman talk about
this, and they have convinced me that they have done their work. We
will have to wait and see.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He is
a great leader in the Senate. I admire his work on this committee and
his leadership as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee on
which I serve with him. I don't dispute that the Joint Tax Committee
has said the offsets the Finance Committee has proposed, if adopted,
might meet the needs of this increase.
I understand some of those proposed offsets probably will not have
support in the House. I would like to see the Senator's goal of
spending more money on our road infrastructure and transportation
system that serves the commercial transportation needs of all the
products that we eat, buy, and utilize daily--that are shipped from
trucks on highways all over America--I would like to see that
guaranteed. I am afraid if we go the way we are now, we will not be
able to hold the full increase that has been proposed when we get to
conference. But if we would face up to the question and set some
priorities and choose between some of the things that are in this bill
that are less fundamental and some of the things that are desirable--
things we would like to do but we really don't have to do as much as
others--and reduce some of the increases proposed for those programs
and move that into the fundamental infrastructure for highways, I would
feel better about it.
I think the Senator is not really in disagreement too much with that.
But when you move a piece of legislation as he has, it requires a lot
of cooperation and partnership.

[[Page S5061]]

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I agree. We hear all the time in this body and all
representative bodies about what is desirable. It reminds me of the guy
who went to the department store, and this beautiful, young, voluptuous
saleslady came up to him and she said: Sir, what is your desire? And he
said: Well, my ``desire'' is to pick you up after work, go out to
dinner and drink some champagne and make mad, passionate love to you,
but I ``need'' a pair of socks.
We have to distinguish between desire and need, and I think it is a
difficult thing to do.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is all I am suggesting. Let's go on and make that
upfront, and maybe we will be able to hold this full increase for our
highway funding.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendments Nos. 583, 631, and 733 en bloc. I ask unanimous consent that
amendments Nos. 631 and 733 be modified with the changes at the desk
and agreed to en bloc. The amendments have been cleared by the managers
on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LOTT. Let me withhold on the agreement until we get final
clearance.
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. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, for the record, I withdraw my unanimous
consent request. There was a misunderstanding that was involved. We are
working on that, and we hope we can get the package agreed to later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
Mr. LOTT. 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, before I yield to the Senator from Alaska,
I first wish to say how helpful she has been. I know the needs they
have in Alaska are unique. She has been very helpful and a great member
of our committee. I thank her publicly very much for that.
I think we are making progress now. We have gotten the amendments
under control so we can stay on the schedule that has been outlined by
the unanimous consent agreement that has been accepted on both sides.
I express my appreciation for everyone cooperating.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for the kind words
he said and for the substantial work he has done in the committee to
move us forward in a manner I think is fair, good, sound, and it is
going to work. I am so pleased we are at this point where we will
shortly be moving a transportation bill through this body.
I think I speak for all my constituents when I urge this body to move
forward on the highway bill. Every State needs it, but truly I believe
none need it more than my State of Alaska, and the chairman has
referenced our somewhat unique needs.
For most of us traveling from one place to another, it means asking
yourself whether you walk, drive, take a bus, take a train, or an
airplane. That is life in the 21st century. But in much of Alaska,
Americans are still facing issues that are similar to what we faced in
the 19th century. In much of Alaska, whether you drive is not a
question without meaning. Instead, the question is, What time of year
is it? Is it the time of year I will be using a snowmobile or going by
boat?
I suppose there are probably some of my colleagues who may be tired
of hearing that Alaska is unique with unique problems that require
different solutions, but that does not make it any less true, nor does
it make Americans living in Alaska any less deserving than Americans
living somewhere else.
Yes, Alaska, in fact, does have the highest rate of return from the
highway trust fund. We are the donee State that benefits the most, but
it is because we are so far behind the other States in transportation
needs. I can tell my colleagues, it is a safe bet we would gladly see
our position on the donee State listing change if it meant we had the
roads to generate more gas tax revenues for the highway trust fund.
To any Alaskan, it is a remarkable and frustrating experience to hear
the donor States complain that a dime or so of their Federal gas tax
dollar actually goes to serve a Federal purpose--a highway system that
unites and strengthens our Nation--and that tax does not come right
back home.
It is also remarkable and again somewhat frustrating to hear that
roads in many States are in disrepair and more money is needed to
repair them. Yes, they are, and, yes, it is, but at least those States
have roads. With roads, they gain the ability to move goods and share
services. With that ability, they gain the ability to support private
sector businesses. With private sector businesses, they provide jobs,
and with jobs, they attract new residents, are able to build more
schools, offer opportunities, create more wealth. You get the picture.
The wealth is shared with the entire country. We have seen that process
work.
The funding received by the Appalachian Commission for Road Building
has proven this works, and history has proven over and over that
reliable, inexpensive transportation is not the result of prosperity,
but it is the cause for prosperity.
The highway bill and the highway trust fund which supports it exist
for one reason: because Congress recognized that reliable
transportation is critical to our national well-being and to the well-
being of our individual citizens. This is no less true in the farthest,
most remote parts of Alaska than it is in the center of Manhattan. That
is why this bill contains provisions to allow the Denali Commission to
construct roads between remote communities in Alaska.
This provision is based on a bill I had proposed in 2003 which would
streamline the process of bringing Alaska's transportation system into
the modern age. The same provision, as amended by the Senate action
last year, will also help improve roads within Alaska's many Native
villages, some of which still have only the roughest of trails from one
part of town to another.
Frankly, the authorization in the bill for this purpose is simply not
enough because Alaska has so many years of neglect to catch up on. I am
sensitive, however, to the fiscal realities, and I am deeply grateful
for the support of those who have helped us get this far. We must
recognize this is not just an investment in Alaska today, but it is an
investment in Alaska's tomorrow.
For the record, I would also prefer to have a separate system and
significantly more money dedicated to our Native village transportation
needs. They have been badly neglected. In fact, they have been
shamefully neglected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs reservation roads
system which is supposed to provide funding for Native American needs.
Alaska Native villages have been ignored, their road miles have been
uncounted, and money has been funneled into other areas that already
have sophisticated road systems.
The bill also contains money to continue the reconstruction of the
Alaska highway. I want to comment on this in the hope of dispelling
some of the perennial confusion about it. Despite the name, the
multiyear project to pave and improve the Alaska highway, also known as
the Alaska-Canada, or the Alcan highway, is not an Alaska

[[Page S5062]]

project. It is not an earmark for Alaska. It is not even in Alaska. It
is a national project, one that was triggered by national defense needs
and mandated by treaty between the United States and Canada.
As a treaty obligation, it is not to be discarded lightly. It is
unfortunate that some apparently have trouble reading beyond the name
and that it has fallen to Alaskans to stand up for the word of honor of
the United States to fund this project, but that is just the way it has
been. Here again, I am grateful for the support of Senator Inhofe,
Senator Bond, and others who have recognized that this is not just a
parochial project but one of significance to the entire Nation and one
for which the Nation has given its word.
As I mentioned, we have unique needs, unique challenges, and I renew
an invitation to all of my colleagues: Come up and visit. Come up and
see the State, see for yourself the conditions we have.
I had an opportunity just yesterday to demonstrate that when we talk
about Alaska's road system, we use that term lightly. It is not a
system; it is a road up and there is a road down and a little connecter
in between the two, and that is what we have. When we talk about where
our roads stretch from, if we were to superimpose Alaska over the rest
of the lower 48 States, we would be going from Minnesota down to
Florida and across over into California. The area we cover is huge.
So, again, come up and see the conditions that we have. I would be
happy to arrange a trip for any Member of the body, no matter where
they stand on the issue, and I am not just talking about transportation
issues. We will take the Members up and show them ANWR. We will show
them the whole State. I am proud of the State, and I am proud of what
we have done to preserve and protect our resources while we still build
a vital economy. I would be happy to show my colleagues how we are
dealing with some of our unique situations and problems.
One such unique situation has been the fact that it is literally
impossible to build roads between some communities, even in long-
settled areas like in southeastern Alaska where I was born, where a
combination of rugged terrain and the separation of the islands have
made other solutions necessary. One solution for the area in the
southeast was the establishment of the Alaska Marine Highway System,
which builds on a core fleet of large oceangoing vessels in service as
ferries. It is the only highway possible between communities such as
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, Sitka, Juneau, our State capital, and
many other smaller communities. It is part of the National Highway
System.
If the definition of a highway is a facility used by trucks and cars
moving from one community to another, this is, indeed, a highway. In
fact, it is one that is considerably less expensive than other options
such as tunneling, like we have up in Boston, the ``Big Dig,'' or the
combination of bridges and tunnels we see around here.
The last highway bill, TEA-21, contained provisions to fund ferries
and ferry terminals in addition to funding received through the
National Highway System. I am pleased to say that this bill does as
well. In fact, ferry system assistance in this bill is even broader and
will help even more States operating ferry systems to do a better job
for their citizens.
Now, I have been informed that the finance portion of the bill
includes provisions based on two bills which I have previously offered.
One of these provisions corrects an inequity imposed on air passengers
who live in rural areas where, again, they are unconnected by road and
they are forced when they are traveling to fly to a larger airport
where they can catch a plane to get somewhere, to reach their final
destination. All passengers currently pay a segment fee for air travel,
but these rural residents I am talking about are basically forced to
pay twice, while passengers who live within driving distance of a
larger airport only pay once.
The second measure which I just referenced affects seaplane operators
who are not using FAA facilities but currently must pay excise taxes
and fees intended solely to support such facilities. This is also an
inequity, and my measure will ensure that only those receiving benefits
are asked to pay for them.
In addition, it is my understanding that the committee has also
included a measure intended to ensure that taxes and fees intended for
aircraft carrying passengers from point to point is not incorrectly
applied to flight-seeing operations. Senator Inouye has taken the lead
on this matter, but it is worth noting that it has significant support
among my constituents in Alaska, and I am pleased to see it included.
Finally, let me note that I understand that the Commerce Committee
title includes my proposal to establish State grants for motorcycle
rider education. As my colleagues may be aware, motorcycle ridership is
increasing all the time, and with it the number of motorcycle accidents
has also been rising, particularly among the new riders. It is not
necessarily the young riders but riders of any age. It is the latter
that my proposal addresses. I believe firmly that the best way to
prevent injuries is to prevent accidents, and training is the only way
to accomplish that goal.
I have worked closely with the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and State
motorcycle education administrators to develop this proposal. All too
often, we will see new riders, both young and old, simply climb on and
hope that they are going to learn by experience. Better training has
been shown to drastically reduce the number of accidents suffered by
new riders during the critical period in which their learning curve is
the steepest and they are most at risk.
From the national perspective, this highway bill is a good bill. It
is not perfect, but few things are. I would prefer to see more
streamlining and permitting processes for highway projects. I would
like to see more flexibility for States. I would like to see a bill
with the funding level that we approved last year. The leaders of each
one of our key committees have done yeoman's work--and again, I want to
commend the chairman--on phenomenally difficult issues. I believe at
the end of the day we have before us a good bill, the best bill
possible. I pledge my support for it and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska named a list of
things she would have preferred to see in the bill. As I thought of
each one of them, I agree with each one. Of course, the Presiding
Officer is also a member of the committee, and we know there are a lot
of diverse needs in States. It is not a perfect bill. There are a lot
of things I would rather have in it, but it is a consensus. It was
give-and-take, and that is the way the system is supposed to work.

____________________