[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 58 (Monday, April 14, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2961-S2972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HIGHWAY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume the motion to proceed to H.R. 1195, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 608, a
bill (H.R. 1195) to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to
make technical corrections, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30
p.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees.
Who yields time? The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. That means I would have how much time now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am glad you are in the chair. As a
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, you have been
very involved in everything we have done so far and we will do in the
future, in terms of rebuilding the infrastructure of this Nation,
building a transit infrastructure, and some of the other things that we
do.
I am very pleased the majority leader has called for a motion to
proceed to H.R. 1195, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008.
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed into law the SAFETEA-LU Act,
which authorized our Nation's highways, transit, and highway safety
programs through the end of 2009.
We all know a country cannot be great if it does not have the
physical infrastructure to move people and to move goods and to be
efficient. The funding provided in SAFETEA-LU is currently being used
on highway and transit projects that clearly increase our economic
productivity, create thousands and thousands of new jobs, and improve
America's quality of life.
It has been several years since SAFETEA-LU was signed into law, and
we on the committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and on
the Banking Committee and on the Commerce Committee, have worked across
party lines to identify the technical corrections that need to be made.
These include updating of project descriptions, adjustments to some of
the legislative language, and in some cases where projects could not
move forward Members have said we have other projects that are ready to
move forward. That is why this bill is so important.
If we do not do this bill, we are simply going to languish until the
next highway bill in a couple of years, and we are going to waste time.
We do not have time to waste. The issues need to be addressed to ensure
that various programs authorized in SAFETEA-LU are being carried out
according to congressional intent and are not bogged down in unintended
consequences.
In an effort to address the issues identified since the passage of
SAFETEA-LU, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 1195 in March of
2007 by a voice vote. The legislation was subsequently amended and
approved by voice vote in the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works in June of 2007. That is the committee I chair, and my
ranking member, Senator Inhofe, and I have worked very closely on this
and other infrastructure matters.
My remarks today are on the Technical Corrections Act of 2008, which
has been filed as an amendment in the nature of a complete substitute
to H.R. 1195. This amendment mirrors the earlier technical corrections
legislation approved by the Senate and House committees but has been
updated for the fiscal year, and it addresses additional issues which
have been discovered since H.R. 1195 was first approved by the House
and considered by our committee.
[[Page S2962]]
I truly believe this is a straightforward, noncontroversial bill that
corrects technical issues, confirms congressional intent, and moves us
forward. It is foolish for us to ignore this bill or to try to stop
this bill because it doesn't cost an additional penny. The funding
comes through the highway trust fund, and that funding is there. If we
do not make these technical corrections, a lot of projects simply will
be stalled. At a time when our economy is in trouble, we should be
moving ahead.
Senator Inhofe and I have worked very closely with the bipartisan
leadership of the House Committee on Transportation Infrastructure to
craft this legislation that we bring to the floor as a substitute. We
have also worked closely with Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby
of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and Chairman
Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens of the Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation because we wanted to ensure that corrections to
SAFETEA-LU that fell within their jurisdiction were all included in
this legislation.
I say to my friends who may be listening to this debate, this is
truly a bipartisan bill. It is more than a bipartisan bill, it involves
three different committees and all of us want to see this move ahead.
Again, the legislation does not increase overall spending by the
Federal Government. It works within the confines of the existing
SAFETEA-LU authorization. Changes which restore funding left out of
SAFETEA-LU are paid for through the use of existing funds. If anybody
says to colleagues we are spending more, we are not. We are simply
making it possible for us to fulfill our promises we made to the
American people several years ago when we told them we were funding a
highway and transit bill.
Project changes are usually made because of State and local
authorities who have told us that changes are necessary. This
legislation emanates in many ways from the people back home. Let me
give an idea of one of the issues that is very important in this
legislation. It will fix an oversight in SAFETEA-LU that resulted in
the Surface Transportation Research, Development and Deployment
Account being oversubscribed. This means funding is not available for
the Federal Highway Administration to conduct its legacy research
programs and research activities. This legislation corrects the issue
by removing the Future Strategic Highway Research Program from the
Surface Transportation Research Development and Deployment Account and,
instead, funds it through funds already allocated for core highway
programs. This will free up about $50 million per year, enough funding
to finance the remaining programs and projects in the Surface
Transportation Research Development and Deployment Account and will
allow DOT, the Department of Transportation, to continue its important
legacy research programs and activities, including the biennial
Conditions and Performance Report.
What is the Conditions and Performance Report? It is a report that
provides an appraisal of highway, bridge, and transit finance, the
physical condition of roads and bridges and their operational
performance, and estimates of future investment requirements. That will
provide crucial information on the current conditions and future needs
of our national transportation system as we develop the next transit
and highway safety bill. We will need this information. It will be
crucial to setting priorities in the next highway bill.
Remember, we have seen bridges in our Nation collapsing. We have seen
bad problems in our infrastructure. We need to make sure we have a very
fair appraisal of the condition of our roads, the condition of our
bridges, what it is going to cost to fix them before we go into our
next funding cycle, our full funding cycle which will occur in 2009.
The legislation also fixes and modifies descriptions for highway and
transit projects that were included in SAFETEA-LU but have not yet been
completed. Without the changes included in this legislation, many of
these projects are stuck at a red light. Until that light turns green,
the benefits to the transportation system will not be realized.
This technical corrections legislation provides a green light that
could unleash up to $1 billion into the economy. Remember, this is not
new spending. This is freeing up the dollars we already voted to spend
on transportation projects, transit projects, highway projects. This is
funding that has already been provided through SAFETEA-LU. It is not
new money, but if we do not act, simply speaking, $1 billion of
important highway and transportation programs will simply not be spent.
Given the current slowdown in our economy, we can't afford to let
these funds remain unused due to technical matters. Just last month,
President Bush acknowledged that we must respond decisively to the
economic downturn we are going through. Investing in infrastructure is
one of the best ways to stimulate our economy. Infrastructure
investments provide immediate economic stimulus through job creation
and long-term economic benefits through reduced transportation costs.
In the past, the Department of Transportation has told us that for
every $1 billion in Federal spending on transportation infrastructure,
47,500 jobs are created. It may be that the number is slightly smaller
now due to inflation, but in any event we know it is tens of thousands
of good-paying jobs.
The benefits of infrastructure investment stay in America.
Infrastructure investment creates American jobs and helps American
businesses that produce most of the construction materials and
equipment used in our Nation.
Finally, I would like to point out again--again--that this
legislation will not increase spending. I have to say that over and
over again, and it complies with earmark disclosure requirements of
rule XLIV even though it only addresses changes to previously
authorized projects.
I thank Senator DeMint for giving me a call this morning and saying
that he was very pleased with the way our committee handled this
disclosure. I was very pleased with that call, and I thank him for it.
I urge my colleagues to support the technical corrections that have
been included in this legislation so we can make the final changes
needed to complete SAFETEA-LU and then turn our Nation to the next
highway transit and highway safety authorization bill to be completed
in the next Congress.
What I want to do is have put into the Record, if I might, Mr.
President, without objection, a very important letter that comes from
some very important constituents of all of ours.
I am going to show who sent this letter. I ask unanimous consent to
have the letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
April 1, 2008.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chairwoman, Environment & Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington DC.
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
Chairman, Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman, Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Republican Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Ranking Member, Environment & Public Works Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Ranking Member, Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Ranking Member, Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: We are writing to urge you to schedule a
vote on HR 1195 making technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU
(Public Law 109-59) as soon as possible.
Since enactment of SAFETEA-LU in August of 2005, Congress
has worked diligently to pass into law corrections to
SAFETEA-LU so that full implementation of important
transportation programs and policies is possible. To address
our Nation's transportation needs and challenges the full
benefit of our transportation programs and policies in
SAFETEA-LU is needed.
Congress' commitment to improving our transportation
systems through the programs and policies it provided in
SAFETEA-LU can be enhanced. We stand ready to continue to
support this commitment.
Sincerely,
American Association of Highway and Transportation
Officials.
American Highways Users Alliance.
American Public Transit Association.
[[Page S2963]]
American Road and Transportation Builders Associations.
Associated General Contractors.
Council of University Transportation Centers.
National Sand, Stone and Gravel Association.
National Asphalt and Pavement Association.
Mrs. BOXER. This is the group who sent the letter. I want to say who
it is, who signed this letter: No. 1, the American Association of
Highway and Transportation Officials; that is departments of
transportation in all 50 States--red States, blue States, purple
States--50 States signed this letter. They want us to move forward. No.
2, the American Highway Users Alliance; that is millions of highway
users throughout this Nation of ours; the American Public Transit
Association, which is transit systems from across the country, in all
of our States; the American Road and Transportation Builders
Associations, more than 5,000 members of the transportation
construction industry. We know our construction industry in the housing
sector is hurting. That means the jobs are decreasing. This is a moment
in time where we can give a little boost to our transportation workers;
the Associated General Contractors, more than 32,000 of them, service
providers and suppliers; Council of University Transportation Centers,
more than 30 university transportation centers from across the country;
the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, companies that produce
more than 92 percent of crushed stone and 75 percent of sand and gravel
used in the U.S. annually; and the National Asphalt and Pavement
Association, more than 1,100 companies that produce and pave with
asphalt.
Mr. President, I say to Senators who might hear my voice, this a
moment for us to come together across party lines such as Senator
Inhofe and I have done, just as Senators Dodd and Shelby have done and
just as Senators Inouye and Stevens have done in our respective
committees. This is a simple bill. This bill simply says we have about
$1 billion that is stuck because there have been some technical
problems with the language. Some projects were not able to move
forward. We substitute some others within the same funding cap. Some
have legislative language which was confusing, and we are dealing with
that. We feel very good about this bill.
We have listened very carefully to the ethics in the Senate. We know
we needed to act to put all these projects on the Web site. We have
identified who has asked for them, and we really do believe this
technical corrections bill is ready for action. I can only hope that we
will not see anybody try to hold up this bill for no reason at all.
If you have amendments, please let us know. We would be happy to give
you as much time as you want. Today is the motion to proceed to the
bill. We urge everyone to vote for that, and that vote will occur, as I
understand it, at 5:30; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. I will withhold the remainder of my time. How much time
do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I will withhold. I say that I expect that Senator Inhofe
will be here. I would ask my colleague from North Carolina, are you
here to speak on this bill?
Mrs. DOLE. No, I am not.
Mr. CRAIG. I will speak in morning business.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent if we can please go into morning
business to accommodate my colleagues. But I would say, Senator Inhofe
may well have a statement. I ask unanimous consent that my two
colleagues have 5 minutes each to speak and then the remainder of the
time be reserved for Senator Inhofe, minus my 7 minutes, then go to a
vote at 5:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Tribute to Senator Bob Dole
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the
remarkable accomplishments of a former Member of the Senate who
delivered his first speech in this Chamber exactly 39 years ago. It was
April 14, 1969, when that Senator stood, not far from here, to address
his Senate colleagues for the first time.
The Senator used his speech to call attention to a group of Americans
who were very close to his heart and who, up until that time, had been
largely ignored. It was a group of Americans he had joined on April 14,
1945, when, as a soldier in the famed 10th Mountain Division, he was
severely wounded as he led his troops into battle in the hills of
Italy.
As a result of his wounds, the soldier would spend 39 months in
various hospitals, and doctors would operate on him eight times.
Eventually, the soldier would be left without the use of his right arm.
So it was that Bob Dole rose on April 14, 1969, not just to speak as
a Senator, he also spoke as one of the millions upon millions of
Americans who happened to have a disability.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the speech
delivered by Senator Bob Dole on April 14, 1969, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Congressional Record, Apr. 14, 1969]
Proceedings and Debates of the 91st Congress, First Session
Handicapped Americans
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, my remarks today concern an
exceptional group which I joined on another April 14, twenty-
four years ago, during World War II.
It is a minority group whose existence affects every person
in our society and the very fiber of our Nation.
It is a group which no one joins by personal choice--a
group whose requirements for membership are not based on age,
sex, wealth, education, skin color, religious beliefs,
political party, power, or prestige.
As a minority, it has always known exclusion--maybe not
exclusion from the front of the bus, but perhaps from even
climbing aboard it; maybe not exclusion from pursuing
advanced education, but perhaps from experiencing any formal
education; maybe not exclusion from day-to-day life itself,
but perhaps from an adequate opportunity to develop and
contribute to his or her fullest capacity.
It is a minority, yet a group to which at least one out of
every five Americans belongs.
Mr. President, I speak today about 42 million citizens of
our Nation who are physically, mentally, or emotionally
handicapped.
WHO ARE THE HANDICAPPED?
Who are the handicapped?
They are persons--men, women, and children--who cannot
achieve full physical, mental, and social potential because
of disability.
Although some live in institutions, many more live in the
community. Some are so severely disabled as to be home-bound,
or even bed-bound. Still others are able to take part in
community activities when they have access and facilities.
They include amputees, paraplegics, polio victims. Causes
of disability include arthritis, cardio-vascular diseases,
multiple sclerosis, and muscular dystrophy.
While you may have good vision and hearing, many persons
live each day with limited eyesight or hearing, or with none
at all.
While you may enjoy full muscle strength and coordination
in your legs, there are those who must rely on braces or
crutches, or perhaps a walker or wheelchair.
While you perform daily millions of tasks with your hands
and arms, there are many who live with limited or total
disability in theirs.
And in contrast to most people, thousands of adults and
children suffer mental or emotional disorders which hinder
their abilities to learn and apply what is learned and to
cope adequately with their families, jobs, and communities.
Then there are those who are afflicted with combination or
multiple handicaps.
NOT JUST THE HANDICAP
For our nation's 42 million handicapped persons and their
families, yesterday, today, and tomorrow are not filled with
``everyday'' kinds of problems which can be solved or soothed
by ``everyday'' kinds of answers. their daily challenge is:
accepting and working with a disability so that the
handicapped person can become as active and useful, as
independent, secure, and dignified as his ability will allow.
Too many handicapped persons lead lives of loneliness and
despair; too many feel and too many are out off from our
work-oriented society; too many cannot fill empty hours in a
satisfying, constructive manner. The leisure most of us crave
can and has become a curse to many of our Nation's
handicapped.
Often when a handicapped person is able to work full or
part time, there are few jobs or inadequate training programs
in his locale. Although progress is being made, many
employers are hesitant to hire a handicapped person, ignoring
statistics that show he is often a better and more dependable
worker.
[[Page S2964]]
The result is that abilities of a person are overlooked
because of disabilities which may bear little or no true
relation to the job at hand. The result to the taxpayer may
be to support one more person at a cost of as much as $3,500
per person a year. To the handicapped person himself, it
means more dependency.
STATISTICS
Consider these statistics: Only one-third of America's
blind and less than half of the paraplegics of working age
are employed, while only a handful of about 200,000 persons
with cerebral palsy who are of working age are employed.
Beyond this, far too many handicapped persons and their
families bear serious economic problems--despite token
Government pensions and income tax deductions for a few, and
other financial aids. I recall a portion of a letter received
recently from the mother of a cerebral palsy child in a
Midwestern urban area:
There are the never-ending surgeries, braces, orthopedic
shoes, wheelchairs, walkers, standing tables, bath tables and
so on . . . we parents follow up on every hopeful lead in
clinics and with specialists; we go up and down paths blindly
and always expensively . . . I have talked with four major
insurance companies who do not insure or infrequently insure
CP children . . . although our daughter is included in her
father's group hospitalization plan, many families are not as
fortunate. These are just a few of the problems, compounded
by the fact we must try to adequately meet the needs of our
other ``normal'' children. In many cases, some kind of
financial assistance would enable us and others like us to
provide for our children in our homes, avoiding overcrowding
of already overcrowded facilities and further adding to the
taxpayer's burden costs for complete care.
There are other problems--availability and access of health
care personnel and facilities at the time and place the
individual with handicaps needs them. In my own largely rural
State of Kansas, many handicapped persons travel 300 miles or
more to receive the basic health services they require.
Education presents difficulties for many parents of
handicapped children. Although a child may be educable, there
may be few, if any, opportunities in the community for him to
receive an education. Private tutoring, if available, is
often too expensive. Sadly, to date, the Council for
Exceptional Children estimates less than one-third of the
Nation's children requiring special education are receiving
it.
In rehabilitation, the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare said recently 25 percent of America's disabled have
not received rehabilitation services and do not know where to
seek such help. They estimate that at least 5 million
disabled persons may be eligible for assistance.
Other problems the handicapped person faces each day
include availability and access of recreation and
transportation facilities, architectural barriers in
residences and other buildings, and many, many more.
still a promising outlook
We in America are still far from the half-way point of
assuring that every handicapped person can become as active
and useful as his capacities will allow. The outlook for the
handicapped person in 1969, however, is not altogether bleak.
Unparalleled achievements in medicine, science, education,
technology as well as in public attitudes have cemented a
framework in which the handicapped person today has more
opportunities available to him than ever before. Consider
first what government is doing.
the government story
The story of what the Federal Government, hand in hand with
State governments, is doing to help meet the needs of the
handicapped is not one that draws the biggest and boldest
headlines. Broadly, the story is a ``good'' one, consisting
of achievements in financial assistance, rehabilitation,
research, education, and training of the handicapped--a
massive effort to help many disabled Americans live as
normal, as full and rich lives as possible.
It is, in part, the story of a man who, at age 21, became a
paraplegic after sustaining injuries to his spinal cord and
head in an accident while on the job.
In 1968, he joined over 2,300,000 other disabled men and
women who have been restored to more productive, useful lives
since the State-Federal vocational rehabilitation program
began 48 years ago.
In 1964, the young man--a high school dropout with a wife
and child--was referred to his State's division of vocational
rehabilitation where a thorough program of total
rehabilitation began. In addition, he was enrolled in a
training school and was graduated as a fully licensed
insurance agent.
Today--4 years later--he has his own successful insurance
business. He and his wife have built a new home and adopted a
baby.
It is a measure of America's concern for its handicapped
citizens that even 50 years ago, this story could not have
been told.
It takes place now because the Congress and the Federal
Government initiated and guided a vital, vigorous program of
vocational rehabilitation.
Mr. President, vocational rehabilitation is one of many
ways the Federal Government works to aid the handicapped. But
none of the Federal programs necessarily reaches or helps
every handicapped person.
Nevertheless, the role of the Government has been basically
successful in terms of numbers assisted, basic research
performed, and the movement of increasingly large numbers of
persons into more productive, satisfying channels. It
demonstrates what Congress and Federal and State governments
are doing to help America's handicapped better participate
and achieve.
Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record, at the close of my remarks, a
brief summary of Federal programs for the handicapped.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
the private sector
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is in the American tradition
and spirit that parallel to Government effort there has
developed the vital and growing effort for the handicapped by
individuals, business and industry, churches and private,
voluntary organizations. It is a herculean task to properly
assess the many, far-reaching effects of the private sector--
in health care, education, employment; in research,
rehabilitation, by fundraising drives and through
professional organizations and groups for the handicapped
themselves. But it is here in the private sector--with its
emphasis on the creativity, concern, and energies of our
people--that America has become the envy of the world. Our
private economy and the resources of our people have combined
to improve the quality of life in America in ways and for
persons the Government could not begin to match or reach.
For the handicapped, their achievements have been no less.
I shall not today, detail or single out the achievements of
the voluntary groups and private enterprise involved in
aiding the handicapped. But let the record show that without
the sincerity, scope, and success of their efforts--in public
information, employment and training, in upgrading health
care and education personnel and facilities, in fundraising
and in supporting research to conquer or at least minimize
the effects of handicapping conditions--the prospects for the
handicapped individuals would not be as hopeful as they are
today.
where do we go from here?
Mr. President, as new public and private programs are
developed, as old ones are strengthened and some, perhaps
eliminated, as we in Congress allocate comparatively limited
funds to help the handicapped, the responsibilities and
opportunities loom large before us.
We must insure our efforts and money are not misplaced or
misdirected--that they do not just promise, but really do the
job.
Are we all doing our best to see that all the knowledge,
information, money, and other help is consolidated and
available to the handicapped person in the form he can use
and at the time and place he most needs it?
Is there sufficient coordination and planning between and
among the private groups and the Government agencies to avoid
multiplicity and duplication so that we best serve America's
handicapped?
Are we sometimes engaged in a numbers race--attending to
cases that respond more quickly in order to show results to
donors, members, and taxpayers, thus sacrificing some
attention which should be focused on the really tough
problems?
Many handicapped persons of our Nation are no longer
helpless or hopeless because of private and public efforts
which have helped them to better help and be themselves.
But the fact remains that some of our Nation's handicapped
and their families are attacking the very programs and
projects created to help them.
Some are disillusioned and disaffected by the programs.
Too often, the information, the services, the human help
and encouragement are not reaching the person for whom they
were intended and at the time and place he needs them.
Some sincerely believe there may be better ways we can
demonstrate our concern and thereby better achieve for the
person with handicaps the independence, security, and dignity
to which he is entitled.
I am reminded of a statement given recently by the 1968
president of the National Rehabilitation Association:
It is the person, not the program that is of overwhelming
importance. It is not the disability that claims our
attention, it is the person with handicaps. It is not
the maintenance of prestige of a particular profession
that matters. It is the contribution of the profession to
solving the complex problems of the individual who has
handicaps.
When more of this emphasis on the individual better
influences the agencies and professions dealing with the
handicapped, I believe we can begin to open new, more
meaningful vistas for more persons with handicaps.
We have been involved in efforts which have been creditable
to date. Of this, there is no doubt.
But are we doing our best?
A highly respected official of the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare summed up the problem this
way:
I do not feel we are spending our dollars--public or
voluntary--as effectively as we could. We need to take a
whole new look at what is going on, where the service is
given. We need to try to design new methods and clearer
purposes for our efforts. We need to relate our efforts more
closely to the needs
[[Page S2965]]
of a community, to the needs of its individuals. And we need
to try to measure, as concretely and specifically as possible
what is actually achieved by our expenditures.
Our handicapped citizens are one of our Nation's greatest
unmet responsibilities and untapped resources. We must do
better.
PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE
With this in mind, I suggest the creation of a Presidential
task force or commission to review what the public and
private sectors are doing and to recommend how we can do
better.
Composed of representatives of the public and private
sectors, this task force or commission could provide an
overview of how to provide the handicapped more help and
hope.
Such a task force or commission could provide valuable
assistance to Congress and the administration as we develop
programs and allocate comparatively limited funds for the
handicapped.
It could also help private organizations and voluntary
groups conduct their efforts more efficiently and
effectively.
The goal of a task force or commission, to achieve maximum
independence, security, and dignity for the individual with
handicaps, should encompass the total needs of the
handicapped, not just employment or education or any other *
* *
Rather the task force or commission should concern itself
with the whole broad spectrum of needs and services, because
as I have pointed out the problems of the handicapped do not
begin and end with the handicap itself.
Although there are hundreds of areas a task force or
commission could review, I am hopeful, if created, it would
include the following subjects:
First. Expansion of employment, transportation, and
recreation opportunities for the handicapped.
Second. A directory or central clearinghouse to help inform
the handicapped person and his family of available public and
private assistance.
There are many helpful handbooks and information sources
available. But most are not comprehensive and are more
accessible to professionals in the field than to the
handicapped who really need the guidance and information.
Third. Removal of architectural barriers.
Many persons cannot secure employment or fill their leisure
hours because their disabilities bar use of the facilities.
It is just as easy to build and equip buildings so that the
handicapped and unhandicapped can use them. The Federal
Government is doing this now for federally financed
structures.
Fourth. More development of health care on a regional or
community basis.
This is a tough, but priority matter and one which cannot
be accomplished quickly or inexpensively. But we must begin
to move toward more adequate health care facilities and
personnel which serve each person at the time and place he
needs them.
Fifth. Better serving the special educational needs of the
handicapped.
Both the person and the Nation suffer when any educatable
child--handicapped or unhandicapped--does not receive an
education.
Sixth. Income tax deductions and/or other financial
assistance to extend relief to more handicapped persons and
their families.
Seventh. More attention on the family of the handicapped
person.
These are the people who often need a degree of
encouragement, counseling, and ``rehabilitation'' themselves.
Are there services we should provide to family members whose
own lives and resources are deeply affected by the presence
of a handicapped person?
Eighth. Increased dialog and coordination between private
and voluntary groups and Government agencies to avoid
multiplicity and duplication.
What is at stake is not the agency, group, or program. What
is at stake is the future of the handicapped person with his
own abilities and potentialities.
conclusion
This, then, Mr. President, is the sum and substance of my
first speech in the Senate.
I know of no more important subject matter, not solely
because of my personal interest, but because in our great
country some 42 million Americans suffer from a physical,
mental, or emotional handicap. Progress has been and will
continue to be made by Federal and State governments, by
private agencies, and individual Americans; but nonetheless
there is still much to be done, if the handicapped American:
young, old, black, white, rich, or poor is to share in the
joys experienced by others. The task ahead is monumental, but
I am confident that there are forces in America ready and
willing to meet the challenge--including, of course, many of
my distinguished colleagues who by their acts and deeds have
demonstrated their great interest.
Exhibit 1
Federal Programs for the Handicapped Disabled Veterans
The program of services for disabled veterans as we know it
today began with enactment of the Soldier Rehabilitation Act,
which was passed unanimously by Congress June 27, 1918 (P.L.
178, 65th Congress). Under the law, the Federal Board for
Vocational Education, created by legislation the year before,
was authorized to organize and offer vocational
rehabilitation programs for disabled veterans.
The program was finally closed out July 2, 1928. In the
program's 10-year existence, about 675,000 veterans applied
for training. About 330,000 completed their courses
satisfactorily and were considered rehabilitated, and about
98 percent of them were employed at the time their training
was completed or terminated.
Soon after the U.S. entered World War II, planning began
for vocational rehabilitation programs for disabled
servicemen returning from that war.
On March 13, 1943, after much discussion over whether the
veterans program should be allied with the civilian
vocational rehabilitation program, the House passed a bill
authorizing a separate veterans' program. It was signed into
law 11 days later as P.L. 16, 78th Congress, and covered
veterans who served in the armed services between Pearl
Harbor Day, December 7, 1941, and the declared end of the
war. This legislation set into motion an effort which, before
termination, benefitted several hundred thousand disabled
veterans.
When the U.S. entered the Korean conflict, the Congress
enacted legislation to insure that the men who fought there
could receive the same services as World War II veterans. By
1955, about 36,000 Korean veterans had received vocational
rehabilitation training for service-connected disabilities.
Later legislation made it possible for veterans disabled
after the conclusion of the Korean conflict to receive
rehabilitation and other services of the Veterans'
Administration. This includes peace-time veterans and the
veterans of the Vietnam war. In 1968 alone, 5,192 veterans
participated in vocational rehabilitation training, bringing
the total number since the program began to 721,000.
Disabled veterans who need prosthetic and sensory aids can
obtain them from the Veterans Administration. In 1968
prosthetic appliances and services were furnished to about
465,000 disabled veterans, including 5,400 Vietnam veterans.
Approximately $10.2 million was spent in 1968 for the
procurement and repair of prosthetic and other related
appliances.
Last year, too, requests for grants were approved to help
pay for special automobiles for 2,850 veterans because of
loss of hands or feet or severe eye impairment. Expenditures
for this benefit in 1968 totalled almost $3.5 million,
bringing the total cost to $83.6 million since this program
was enacted in 1946.
Another special benefit for disabled veterans is the grant
program for acquiring specially-adapted housing for those who
need braces, crutches, canes, or wheelchairs. Grants totaling
$4.4 million were made to 460 veterans in 1968. Since the
program began in 1948, 9,705 grants at a cost of $92.7
million have been awarded.
With the creation of a new Department of Medicine and
Surgery December 31, 1945, the Veterans Administration set in
motion a new pattern of care and rehabilitation service for
sick, injured and disabled veterans entering VA hospitals. A
special rehabilitation service was developed; selected
hospitals were specially staffed and equipped for certain
disabilities such as spinal cord injury, blindness, epilepsy,
amputation and other conditions.
programs for disabled civilians
A rehabilitation program for disabled civilians was not
enacted simultaneously with the veterans' program because of
opposition that it was not practicable and also not the
responsibility of the Federal Government.
Two years later--June 2, 1920--President Wilson signed into
law the Civilian Vocational Rehabilitation Act (P.L. 236,
66th Congress). The bill, known as the Smith-Fess Act, is one
of the oldest grant-in-aid programs for providing services
for individuals. At that time, services under the act were
confined to counseling, job training, artificial limbs and
other prosthetic appliances, and job placement. It
provided for an appropriation of $750,000 for fiscal year
1921 and $1 million for fiscal years 1922 to 1924 and for
payments to States cooperating in vocational
rehabilitation of persons disabled in industry. Federal
funds were to be matched by the States and were not to be
used for institutions for handicapped persons except when
individuals entitled to benefits of the act, required
special training.
In its first year, the vocational rehabilitation program
helped rehabilitate 523 disabled persons. Authorization for
the program was renewed by Congress several times until 1935,
when the Social Security Act included permanent
authorization. This action demonstrated the consensus of
congressional thought that vocational rehabilitation should
be a permanent program in the United States. Continuing to
grow, the program rehabilitated 11,890 persons in 1940.
The entry of the United States into World War II caused a
manpower shortage which gave disabled persons who had been
rehabilitated an opportunity to show the nation that the
disabled could be productive, capable workers. Many employers
began calling for more rehabilitated workers than the
vocational rehabilitation program, despite its success, was
prepared to provide. For more than 20 years since its
enactment, the program had been limited in scope and
uncertainly financed. Some States had excellent programs, but
many did not. Development on a national scale had been
uneven.
Legislation in 1943 helped solve some of these problems,
and other legislation in later years helped to shape it into
the more meaningful and effective program it is today.
[[Page S2966]]
In 1943 after an attempt to combine the Veterans' and
civilian vocational programs was defeated, the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1943 (P.L. 113, 78th
Congress) were signed into law. the 1943 law superseded the
1920 legislation and broadened the vocational rehabilitation
program--more liberal financing, increased State services,
and broadened the concept of rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation services were extended to the mentally
handicapped and the mentally ill. Separate State agencies for
the blind were incorporated into the Federal-State
rehabilitation program. In addition, the now 50 States, and
Puerto Rico were all placed on the same footing with respect
to Federal grants. An improved provision of the 1943 law was
coverage for specified corrective surgery or therapeutic
treatment necessary to reduce or eliminate a disability.
Administration of the program was transferred from the
Commissioner of Education to the Federal Security Agency. In
1950, 59,597 persons were rehabilitated.
There were problems, however. Partly because the financial
system was becoming inadequate and because there was no
provision for research, professional training, and other
features, essential progress was not being made.
Legislation in 1954, supported by President Eisenhower, was
an effort to remedy these problems. While retaining the basic
pattern of services, the 1954 amendments (P.L. 565, 83rd
Congress) made sweeping improvements. They included
provisions for research, demonstration, and training
activities. The Federal share was increased on a formula
basis, to give greater support to States with relatively
large populations and relatively small per capita income. It
initiated a new system of project grants for improvement and
extension of services. For the first time, the use of Federal
grants to expand, modernize and equip rehabilitation
facilities and workshops was also authorized.
In 1954, congress also amended the Hill-Burton hospital
survey and construction act to provide Federal grants to help
construct rehabilitation facilities.
While in 1960, 88,275 persons were rehabilitated under the
vocational rehabilitation program, by 1965 it had mushroomed
to over 135,000 persons.
The 1965 amendments to the vocational rehabilitation act
(P.L. 89-333) were designed to bring the public and voluntary
agencies into a closer working alliance. It expanded and
enlarged the program by broadening its legal and financial
base. Services to the severely disabled, the mentally
retarded, the deaf, and other handicapped individuals were
increased. A national commission on architectural barriers to
rehabilitation of the handicapped was established. Federal
financial support was extended to local areas for funding
more vocational rehabilitation programs. In a drive to build
more rehabilitation facilities and workshops, funds were
authorized for a comprehensive program to improve the
workshops and to construct more vocationally-oriented
rehabilitation facilities. Grants to States to conduct
comprehensive State-wide planning by agencies designated by
the Governors were also provided.
In 1967 Congress took further steps to improve
rehabilitation programs for the Nation's disabled. The 1967
amendments (P.L. 90-99) extended and expanded grant
authorizations to States for rehabilitation services.
Provisions were made to establish a national center for deaf-
blind youth and adults and to extend services to disabled
migrants, and their families. In addition, the 1967
amendments required State agencies to provide services to the
handicapped without regard to their residence locations.
Finally, just this past year, Congress passed another bill
amending the vocational rehabilitation program. The bill
increased the Federal share for basic support of State
programs from 75 to 80 percent, beginning in fiscal 1970, and
established a minimum allotment of $1 million for each State
to increase efficiency, expand services, and reach more
clients. The 1968 amendments (P.L. 90-391) also extended
programs of grants for innovation, for special projects and
for rehabilitation facilities construction and staffing.
The bill established a new vocational evaluation and work
adjustment program to serve those who are disadvantaged by
such reasons as physical or mental disability, youth,
advanced age, low educational attainment, ethnic or cultural
factors, or prison or delinquency records, especially in
association with poverty.
Evaluation may include preliminary diagnostic studies to
determine whether the individual is disadvantaged, has or
will have an employment handicap, and needs rehabilitation
services. Work adjustment services include appraisal of the
individual's pattern of work behavior and development of work
habits, work tolerance, and social and behavior patterns
suitable for successful job performance.
Establishment of the social and rehabilitation service in
1967 also brought about an expansion of the Federal
Vocational Rehabilitation Agency, and its transfer to the
Division of Mental Retardation, under the newly-named
Rehabilitation Services Administration. In 1961, President
Kennedy appointed the President's Panel on Mental Retardation
and gave them a mandate to recommend a national plan to
combat mental retardation.
The Maternal and Child Health and Mental Retardation
Planning Amendments of 1963 (P.L. 88-156) carried out several
recommendations of the panel. This act provided funds to
assist the States in planning comprehensive State and
community programs for the mentally retarded. The Social
Security Amendments of 1965 (P.L. 89-97) extended
comprehensive planning grants to the States, enabling
implementation of their comprehensive plans to combat mental
retardation.
The Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental
Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 (P.L. 88-164)
authorized grants to States to construct facilities to serve
the mentally retarded. It also provided grants to assist in
construction of university-affiliated facilities to provide
an interdisciplinary approach for clinical training of
specialized personnel and for demonstration of new service
techniques.
The Mental Retardation Amendment of 1967 (P.L. 90-170)
extended these two programs and established a new grant
program to pay part of the compensation of professional and
technical personnel in community facilities for the retarded,
for initial operation of new facilities, or of new services
in a facility. Projects have been approved for construction
of 242 community facilities to serve over 63,000 retardates.
In 1963, Congress authorized the hospital improvement
program to support projects to improve services in State
mental retardation institutions. This program is assisting
about 100 of the 169 existing facilities.
The Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 90-
391) authorized projects for rehabilitation of mentally
retarded persons not eligible for vocational rehabilitation
due to age, severity of handicap, or other reasons. The first
appropriation for this program is being requested for 1970.
Today, there are 90 rehabilitation agencies with 800
offices operating nationwide and in four territories. They
serve nearly 700,000 handicapped persons each year at a
State-Federal cost of over a half-billion dollars.
programs for the blind
One of the first pieces of legislation providing Federal
aid for handicapped persons was approved March 3, 1879, under
the title ``An Act To Promote the Education of the Blind.''
This law set up a perpetual trust fund of United States
Bonds, the income from which, in the amount of $10,000 a
year, would go to the American Printing House For the Blind
in Louisville, Kentucky, so that books and other materials
could be distributed among the schools for the blind
throughout the country. Subsequent amendments gradually
increased the authorization for this program. In 1956, it was
$410,000 a year. Then in 1961, Congress removed the ceiling
from the annual appropriation and made it an amount to be
determined by Congress. In fiscal year 1968, the printing
house served some 19,000 blind children with books and other
teaching materials at a cost of $1.5 million.
The printing house was originally designed to serve blind
children. In 1931, Congress enacted the so-called Pratt-Smoot
Act (P.L. 787, 71st Congress) to ``Provide Books for the Use
of the Adult Blind Residents of the United States.'' This
legislation formed the basis for the Federally-supported
library service to the blind vested in the division for the
blind and physically handicapped in the Library of Congress.
In 1933, an amendment to the act made available for
distribution talking books, or phonograph records, in
addition to the Braille books already used.
As commercial firms became interested in producing talking
book records, a 1939 amendment gave preference to
``nonprofit-making institutions or agencies whose activities
are primarily concerned with the blind.'' A 1942 amendment
provided maintenance and replacement of talking book machines
as well as the talking books.
Then in 1952 Congress enacted an amendment removing the
word ``adult'' from the act, clearing the way for blind
children to also benefit from the program. In 1966, another
amendment extended the program to include other physically
handicapped persons. In 1968, 140,000 handicapped readers
received catalogs from which to select reading matter and
circulation of the containers, and reels, and volumes, was
over 5,265,000. The expenditure for the program in 1968 was
$5.6 million.
One aspect of the vocational rehabilitation program is the
emphasis given to adjustment, training, and placement of
blind persons in competitive employment. Attention was
first focused on this severely disabled group as a result
of the passage of P.L. 113 in 1943.
The amendments to the vocational rehabilitation act in 1954
made a limited amount of training and research money
available, so employment opportunities for blind workers have
been greatly expanded. In 1968, 6,800 blind and 12,000
visually-limited persons were placed in a variety of
occupations. In addition, special workshops for the blind now
employ approximately 5,000.
Another phase of employment for the blind was made
available through the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act
(P.L. 732) in 1936 which gave preference for operation of
snack bars, vending stands, and other facilities of Federal
properties to qualified blind persons. Installation of
facilities, training, and supervision of blind operators are
responsibilities of the State licensing agencies. In 1968,
3,259 blind persons earned $16.6 million, an average of
$5,580 per operator.
education of THE HANDICAPPED
In 1864 President Abraham Lincoln signed into law a bill
establishing a national college for the deaf later to be
known as Gallaudet
[[Page S2967]]
College, and in 1879, Congress enacted legislation giving
federal financial aid to the American Printing House for the
Blind. Unfortunately, these two programs were the extent of
Federal aid for education of handicapped children for the
next three quarters of a Century.
In 1954 Congress enacted the cooperative Research Act (P.L.
83-531) for research grants in education. In 1957, $675,000
of the $1 million appropriated under the Act was earmarked to
be spent on research on education of the mentally retarded.
In 1958 Congress passed the captioned films for the Deaf
Program (P.L. 85-905). Originally aimed at cultural
enrichment and recreation, amendments in 1962 and 1965
broadened the program into a flexible, comprehensive
instructional program for the deaf, including teacher
training. 1967 legislation extended the program to include
all handicapped children requiring special education.
Legislation in 1958 (P.L. 85-926) authorized grants to
educational institutions to help train professional personnel
to train teachers of mentally retarded children. In 1961,
Congress enacted legislation authorizing support for training
classroom teachers of the deaf (P.L. 87-276).
In 1963, these programs for training personnel to work with
handicapped children were expanded to include teachers of
children who are ``hard of hearing, speech impaired, visually
handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, crippled, or
other health impaired,'' as well as mentally retarded and
deaf. The same legislation (P.L. 88-164) authorized grants
for research and demonstration projects in education of
handicapped children. A 1965 amendment to this program
authorized construction, equipping, and operation of
facilities for research and related purposes.
The year 1965 saw enactment of a great body of legislation
to aid in the education of handicapped youngsters. The
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P.L. 89-10) provided
programs through local education agencies to reach
handicapped children in low income areas. It also provided
support for supplemental services including special
instruction for the handicapped and for innovative programs.
A 1965 amendment to this act (P.L. 89-313) provided grants to
State agencies directly responsible for educating handicapped
children. This brought assistance to State-operated or State-
supported schools for the deaf, retarded, etc., not eligible
under the original act.
Also in 1965 Congress enacted the National Technical
Institute for the Deaf Act (P.L. 89-36) authorizing
establishment and operation of a postsecondary technical
training facility for young adults who are deaf. This
institute, which is being established at the Rochester
Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, complements
Gallaudet College, which provides a liberal arts program.
1966 saw more legislation for education of the handicapped.
There was the Model Secondary School for the Deaf Act (P.L.
89-694) which created a model high school as part of
Gallaudet College to serve deaf children of the Washington,
D.C. area. Planned to offer a full curriculum and the normal
extracurricular activities of high schools, this model high
school for deaf children may lead to formation of other
similar schools throughout the country.
Also in 1966, Congress passed further amendments (P.L. 89-
750) to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which
authorized funds to assist the States in improvement of
programs and projects for the education of handicapped
children at preschool, elementary, and secondary levels. The
1966 amendment also required establishment of a National
Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children to make
recommendations concerning programs carried on for
handicapped children by the Office of Education.
In addition, the Congress undertook a bold precedent,
establishing the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped to
administer all Office of Education programs for the
handicapped. The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped has
made major strides in stimulating a local, State and Federal
partnership for improvement of education for handicapped
children.
The 1967 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act further broadened and extended the program of
services to the handicapped. Regional resource centers were
authorized to determine special education needs of
handicapped children referred to them, develop educational
programs to meet these needs, and assist, schools in
providing such programs. The 1967 legislation also authorized
establishment and operation of centers for deaf-blind
children, programs designed to improve recruiting of
educational personnel and to improve dissemination of
information on educational opportunities for the handicapped.
The 1967 Mental Retardation amendments (P.L. 90-170)
provided support for training professional personnel and for
research and demonstration activities in physical education
and recreation for mentally retarded and other handicapped
children.
The most recent piece of legislation for education of
handicapped children was enacted in the Handicapped
Children's Early Education Assistance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-
538). It authorizes grants to public and private agencies and
organizations for establishment of experimental preschool and
early education programs which show promise of developing
comprehensive and innovative approaches for meeting special
problems of handicapped children. This legislation recognizes
that the most rapid learning period comes in the years before
school traditionally begins. The programs engendered by this
legislation should do much to identify handicapped children
early and to help give them a better start toward full,
productive lives.
EMPLOYMENT OF THE HANDICAPPED
Once a handicapped person is rehabilitated and able to
support himself, he often encounters tremendous difficulties
in securing meaningful employment. A case is not considered
closed, in the vocational rehabilitation program, until the
disabled person is on the job, and has satisfactorily
adjusted in the eyes of both the disabled person and his
employer.
For many reasons, employers are reluctant to hire the
handicapped. The Federal Government is trying to change this
attitude among employers and the public and has met with some
success.
In addition to the placement program of the vocational
rehabilitation program, the Bureau of Employment security,
through state and local employment services, provides direct
employment counseling and assistance to physically and
mentally handicapped persons seeking work. Public information
and educational activities directed toward employers and
labor organizations are part of the effort made under these
programs. Selective placement techniques are also used to
help match the physical demands of a job to the physical
capacities of a worker.
The President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped,
a voluntary group of about 600 men and women, has made great
accomplishments in the past 20 years to promote greater
employment opportunity for qualified handicapped men and
women. Operating within the Department of Labor and within a
budget that until last year had a ceiling of only a half
million dollars, the Committee maintains working
relationships with the 53 cooperating governor's committees,
and with the various Federal Departments, Agencies, and
Commissions. The Committee works to help assure that the
handicapped are considered for their abilities, and to help
facilitate development of maximum employment opportunities
for them. The peak of its activity, although it goes full
steam throughout each year, is in the first full week of
October, National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week.
The Department of Labor is also involved in training the
handicapped. Enactment of the Manpower Development and
Training Act in 1962 widened the opportunity for the
Department to develop meaningful training programs for
handicapped workers. It was estimated that by the summer of
1966, well over 25,000 handicapped persons had received
training under MDTA and over 20,000 of those had already
obtained jobs.
HOUSING FOR THE HANDICAPPED
The Federal Government is involved in several programs
concerned with housing for the handicapped or disabled. The
Housing Assistance Administration of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development provides loans and
contributions to local housing authorities which, in turn,
provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for low-income
families at rent they can afford. Handicapped persons of
limited income are among those eligible for benefits under
this program, established by the U.S. Housing Act of 1937
(P.L. 75-412).
The Housing Assistance Administration also provides low-
interest, long-term loans to private nonprofit corporations,
consumer cooperatives, and public agencies for new and
renovated rental housing, dining facilities, community rooms,
and workshops for the elderly and the handicapped whose
incomes are above the levels set for admission to public
housing projects, but below that needed to pay rents for
available private housing. This program was enacted by the
Housing Act of 1959 (P.L. 86-372).
The Housing Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-70) established a grant
program for public and private groups to develop new or
improved means of providing housing for low-income persons,
the physically handicapped, and families. Demonstration of
means to provide housing is specifically authorized by this
legislation.
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-117)
authorized rent supplement payments to help assure privately-
owned housing is available to low-income individuals or
families of low income. The handicapped are among those
eligible for this program if their income does not exceed the
maximum amount established in the area for occupancy of
federally-aided, low-rent public housing.
ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS
Related to housing, Congress in 1968, passed legislation to
insure that certain buildings financed with Federal funds
are designed and constructed to be accessible to the
physically handicapped (P.L. 90-480). This legislation
applies to any public buildings constructed in whole or
part with Federal funds. The only exceptions are
privately-owned residences and buildings or facilities on
military installations intended primarily for use by able-
bodied military personnel.
This legislation was passed after recommendations were made
by the National Commission of Architectural Barriers to
Rehabilitation of the Handicapped, authorized by the
Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1965 and appointed by
the President in 1966.
[[Page S2968]]
The legislation should spur States and local governments to
enact legislation and regulations so that all public
buildings, not only those built with Federal funds, will be
so constructed that the disabled will be able to fully
utilize them. Some 45 States have laws or resolutions
already, but many of them are not strong enough to have much
effect. Only a few municipalities thus far have taken similar
action.
ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEEDY BLIND AND TOTALLY DISABLED
The Federal Government is involved in programs of support
for needy blind persons and for permanently and totally
disabled persons through social security legislation enacted
in 1935 and 1950. Under these public assistance programs, the
Government provides grants to States and the States, in turn,
provide three forms of assistance: cash payments for food,
clothing, shelter, and other basic needs; medical or remedial
care recognized under State law, through payments directly to
hospitals, physicians, dentists, and other providers of care;
and social services, such as counseling on personal problems,
help in finding better housing, referral to community
resources, and homemaker services.
These programs are available to needy blind persons so that
they may attain or retain their self-support or self-care
capability and to people over age 18 who cannot support
themselves because they have a permanent and total physical
or mental impairment.
In 1967 the number of persons receiving aid to the blind in
the States and territories with programs in operation totaled
over 82,000. Combined, total expenditure of local, State, and
Federal funds for this purpose was over $86.9 million, and
the average payment for all individuals participating
nationwide was $90.45 per month. Under the program for the
permanently and totally disabled, there were 646,000
recipients receiving a total of $573.5 million, averaging
$80.60 per monthly payment.
SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE
The basic social security program which provides benefits
to the worker when he retires also provides cash benefits to
covered disabled workers under age 65 and to their dependents
for as long as the worker is unable to engage in
``substantial gainful activity.'' In 1967, over two million
disabled workers and dependents received social security cash
benefits totalling over $147.8 million. Under the 1965 social
security amendments, use of trust funds was authorized to pay
the cost of rehabilitation services provided by the State
vocational rehabilitation agencies to certain disability
insurance beneficiaries.
The ``Medicare'' Act passed in 1965 included a little-
publicized but valuable new arrangement for restoring more
disabled people: It authorized the Social Security
Administration to transfer from trust funds for retirement
and disability benefits certain amounts for vocational
rehabilitation services to disabled workers receiving social
security benefits. A limit of one percent of the total
benefits being received placed a control on how many funds
could be transferred each year. These funds are used by the
Federal-State Vocational Rehabilitation Program to pay for
services to disabled beneficiaries, most of whom can be
restored to activity and work, thereby resuming their
payments into the trust funds. For this year, $18,077,000 was
transferred for this work.
SUMMARY
The above Federal programs have been described briefly and
quite possibly some programs may have been unintentionally
overlooked in our research.
At any rate, the summary may be of assistance to those
interested in the problems and programs concerning
handicapped Americans.
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I should like to express great
pride in, and ask to be associated with this most excellent
statement just made by my distinguished colleague. He speaks
of a problem which, in his own words, affects every person in
our society and every fiber of our Nation.
Here is, then, a definition coupled with a solution and,
treated with sympathy and yet with reason, an approach, I am
sure, that will yield to progress.
I think that one point he so clearly set forth is the
challenge. That is when he asked all of us:
Are we doing our best to see that all the knowledge, the
information, and money, and other help is consolidated and
available to the handicapped person in the form he can best
use and in the time and place he needs it most?
I think he answered that question by saying a little later
on that we must do better. He makes a proposal which is
specific in its recommendations, and is an enormous
contribution, I think, to a very great problem.
I look forward to the other proposal that he shall be
making in the days ahead in regard to what is, really, one of
the great problems facing this country in the last third of
the 20th century.
I congratulate my distinguished colleague. I am very much
pleased to be here today when he makes his first speech in
the Senate.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas
yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I should like to join my friend,
the other distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. Pearson), in
commending the distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dole)
for his contribution this afternoon.
I have served in this body many years. I do not know that I
have ever heard a new Senator make a greater contribution in
what he characterizes as his first speech in this body.
He talked on a subject which is close to the hearts of all
Americans. This country has grown so fast, with over 200
million people in it, with a huge Government requiring
complicated machinery, that it is a supertask for us to try
to see that some of the less fortunate people in this country
are not ground under the wheels of the massive instrument
that we have played our part in creating.
I predict for the junior Senator from Kansas a long and
distinguished career. I venture to say that although his
contributions, I am sure, will be great, he can always
remember with pride the fact that his first contribution was
on a subject which is so important to all Americans.
As a Member of the Senate, I join in congratulating the
distinguished Senator from Kansas on the masterly speech he
has just delivered.
Mr. MATHIAS, Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas
yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I should like to join the
senior Senator from Kansas (Mr. Pearson) and the Senator from
New Hampshire (Mr. Cotton) in commenting on the speech which
the junior Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dole) has just
completed--a speech which addresses itself to a problem which
is becoming increasingly felt as one of the serious problems
in America today. The subject has a humanitarian impact
because it deals with the problems of the individual, but it
also has a social and economic impact because it affects the
way in which we, as a nation, deal with problems that touch
the lives of so many of our citizens.
The Senator has treated the subject in great depth, with
thoroughness, and with understanding. I can only say that
this is typical of him. He and I entered the other body on
the same day. We came to the Senate on the same day. I have
known him very well in the intervening years.
The remarks of the junior Senator from Kansas today are
evidence of the promise of the enormously valuable service
which he will render in this body as the years pass by.
I wish to express my appreciation to him for his valuable
contribution.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished
colleagues for their patience and their kind remarks.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Kansas
is to be commended for his statement today on problems faced
by the handicapped. This statement, in many ways, typifies
the man who made it. It is well prepared, thoughtful, and
above all, it is a warm and human examination of the problem.
The Senator from Kansas, during his four terms in the House
of Representatives, established himself as a man who truly
cares about people and does his best to aid them. His
emphasis is not on statistics, but on the people involved.
This is as it must be. The dollars spent, the programs
generated, mean nothing unless they benefit those in need.
The problem of aiding the physically, mentally, or
emotionally handicapped is not one to be solved by government
alone. In the end it is people who must help. People will
provide jobs, training, and dignity. A partnership of
government, local and national, and the private sector of our
economy is the wise way of approaching the question of
assistance to the handicapped. It is the way highlighted by
the able Senator from Kansas.
There is one final point I wish to make, Mr. President. In
mentioning specific causes of disability, there is one the
Senator from Kansas left out--service to our Nation. A great
number of our citizens have made the sacrifice of health and
well-being for the cause of peace. The distinguished Senator
knows well the problems of which he speaks today. He knows
the vitality that remains in the human soul despite injury to
the body. He has demonstrated how well a man can serve his
country despite a handicap.
Mr. President, I congratulate the junior Senator from
Kansas on his fine remarks to the Senate.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read the speech
because it is as compelling and timely today as it was 39 years ago. It
offers a comprehensive analysis of the challenges facing those with
disabilities and the steps that need to be taken to fulfill their
dreams of full participation in our society. Thanks to the leadership
and perseverance of Bob Dole and the work of other Senators such as
Senator Domenici, Senator Harkin, and Senator Kennedy, those dreams
became a reality with the passage in 1990 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bob has described July 26, 1990, the day President George Herbert
Walker Bush signed the ADA into law, as one of the most rewarding days
of his life. He once said:
I suppose there were some that day who saw only a White
House lawn covered with wheelchairs and guide dogs. But that
just goes to show who in our society is truly limited.
[[Page S2969]]
My own perspective was very different. As I looked around,
I saw Americans with amazing gifts; Americans who could
finally contribute to a Nation much in need of their skills
and insights.
Bob Dole not only devoted much of his public life to serve as an
advocate for Americans with disabilities, he devoted much of his
private life as well. He began the Dole Foundation and worked to raise
millions, which were used to fund job training and placement programs
for disabled workers. Bob also established a scholarship fund for law
students with disabilities at the Washburn University School of Law.
The funds provide assistance to students with disabilities for tuition,
books, and other special needs.
Throughout his career, Bob Dole has never wavered in his special
commitment to the veterans who were disabled in service to our country.
As my colleagues know, last year President Bush appointed Bob and
former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala to serve as
cochairs of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returned
Wounded Warriors.
The Commission was asked to provide a comprehensive review of the
care provided to service men and women wounded in the global war on
terrorism and to recommend needed improvements to that care. In the
course of their work, the Commission visited DOD facilities, VA
hospitals, and other care sites across the country. They met with
injured servicemembers, their families, professionals who provide
medical and rehabilitative services, program administrators, and many
others.
Last July, the Commission issued a final report with important
recommendations that would serve and support our veterans while
simplifying an overly complex system. As Senators Roberts and Brownback
know, the State motto of Kansas is: ``To the stars through
difficulties.''
Quite simply, I can think of no American who has done more in his
life and career to ensure that individuals with disabilities have the
opportunity to fly as high and soar as far as their skills and talent
can take them than Bob Dole.
In doing so, he has earned more than the pride and admiration of a
loving wife. He has earned the respect of a grateful nation and the
enduring thanks of millions of individuals he has never met but whose
lives are immeasurably better and richer and more productive because of
him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. I have been listening to Senator Dole speak of her
husband, a great American. I would like to tell the Senator that as a
member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we are now examining the
Dole-Shalala proposal that the Senator referenced, which is a quantum
leap in good advice and sound understanding of the needs of America's
veterans. We thank you. More importantly, we thank Senator Dole for
that great effort.
Tax Code Reform
Mr. CRAIG. I rise today, on the eve of Tax Day, 2008, to discuss the
State of our Nation's Tax Code. Only a few weeks ago, we debated the
fiscal year 2009 budget resolution and some recurring themes very
quickly emerged.
Over and over again, both sides of the aisle were speaking of the
problems they heard about, the death tax and problems with the
alternative minimum tax and the unfair tax advantage of the wealthy and
the burden on the middle class and other problems that are systemic
within America's Tax Code.
You know what we did about these problems? We only offered temporary
solutions like we have offered for the last decade. Here is what is
wrong with that type of thinking: There are not temporary problems that
can be fixed with temporary solutions, they are fundamental problems
that require fundamental changes in America's Tax Code.
Our current Tax Code is broken, and you saw Democrats and Republicans
alike opining on the floor of the Senate during the debate over the
budget resolution about taxes. We tried to fix it with a temporary
measure, but we have served only to make things worse. There is exactly
what we have done over the last good number of years.
Today's Tax Code is over 67,000 pages long, and it is growing.
According to IRS estimates, taxpayers spend 6 billion hours annually
trying to fit themselves into the Tax Code and over $265 billion in
related compliance costs.
Ladies and gentlemen, fellow Americans, it is only going to get
worse. Since the last major overhaul of the Tax Code in 1986, we have
made 15,000 changes. That is right, since 1986, we have made 15,000
changes. That equates to a couple of changes to our Tax Code every day.
This nonstop tinkering has created a tax system that is overly
complex, incredibly inefficient, and extremely unfair. We cannot
continue down this unsustainable path of temporary fixes. We need to do
fundamental reform to our Tax Code. We need a system that is simple and
transparent and fair. We need to wipe the slate clean and start all
over.
I am amazed we have not done the very fundamental aspects of what we
need to do to fix the Tax Code. Our broken code does more than cost us
money in compliance costs and a waste of time, it hurts us both
socially and economically. Socially our Tax Code tells us when is the
best time to marry, how many children we ought to have, how much to
save, how much to invest, where to live, and even, to a degree, what
time we should die in our lives that is the most economically
advantaged to our estate.
That is what our Tax Code does. Economically, we waste billions of
dollars that could have been reinvested in the economy. Instead, we
employ some of America's brightest minds on innovation, while we waste
them on finding ways to navigate through this phenomenally complex
67,000-page code. Moreover, our complex Tax Code and high corporate tax
rate are putting Americans out of business as we compete in a world
around us, not just here in America but all over the world. Companies
today are locating where they have a greater tax advantage.
I spent several years examining several different tax systems, and
after examining the facts, I believe the best alternative to a broken
Tax Code has been the very tax idea I introduced some years ago. That
was a flat tax--no games, no gimmicks, a straightforward approach.
Our Tax Code is the workhorse pulling our economy, as I stated
earlier, pulling us in the wrong direction. This horse that pulls our
economy, the American Tax Code, has grown very lame. I grew up farming
and ranching. Let me tell you, when the horse got lame, you took it out
of the harness and put it in the barn. Sometimes, if it could not get
well, you would simply have to dispose of it. How tragic that was.
But today's tragedy is the lame horse that is still in the harness,
attempting to pull the Tax Code and the American people and the economy
in the right direction when it is headed in the wrong direction.
So now as Americans file their taxes responsibly and dutifully, after
they have navigated their way through a maze, and they have taken them
to their accountant, and their accountant puts his or her final seal on
it, and they send it in, if they were to ask an IRS agent: Did I do it
right, there is no IRS agent today, no matter how schooled and how
learned and how long-serving in the IRS, who can say: Yes, you have
done it right. And that is not appropriate. The best they can tell you
is that they think, in fact they guess, that you did it right.
That ought to be an embarrassment to our country, and more
importantly it ought to be an embarrassment to America's policymakers.
That is us, those who write the Tax Code of our country that drives our
economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me use some of the time for the issue at hand. First
of all, I wish to talk about the technical corrections bill that is
going to be voted on in about 15 minutes--not the bill but the motion
to proceed to the bill.
The Transportation bill that we are involved in, that Senator Boxer
and I were involved in back in 2005, that we passed August 10 of 2005,
authorized $286 billion in transportation and infrastructure spending
for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
Now, let me say that as a conservative standing here, that is a huge
[[Page S2970]]
number. I think that may have been the largest nondefense spending bill
at the time up to that time. But it is interesting that if we spend all
of that, it is not going to even maintain what we have today.
That is why we put into the bill a committee to look into new ways of
funding infrastructure, new ways of funding transportation. We have
been doing it the same way since President Eisenhower, and it is time
we tried something different.
I think there is a resistance to continuing to increase taxes as the
only way of funding our infrastructure. Included in the bill are
recommended technical changes from the Department of Transportation
that address functional problems in implementing the bill, technical
changes to safety products which will continue to be delayed from
breaking ground due to simple drafting errors and descriptions.
Furthermore, universities and other transportation research entities
will not receive their fully intended funding, and the States will be
unable to use millions of dollars in transportation funds that were
authorized 3 years ago.
Something that is interesting, the bill does not increase the overall
size of SAFETEA. I have heard a lot of people say: Well, this is a big
spending bill. First of all, it is not a spending bill, it is an
authorizing bill. But the technical corrections are also an
authorization.
Now, it is my understanding, and I believe it is true, that the total
amount of authorization that was in the bill itself is not changed by
the technical corrections bill.
A lot of people are implying it is. I do not believe it is. We have
had staff and ourselves looking at it. It may change some of the
priorities in the authorization, but the overall figure, the top line,
is going to be the same.
Several of my colleagues have approached me recently with additional
project fixes. In some cases, I have had to say no to their requests
because they either submitted them too late to be considered in our
negotiations with the House--the request went beyond the scope of a
technical fix--or because the proposed fix was to a House project which
the House objected to. Let's keep in mind, we have two Houses working
on this. We have the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is a
difficult type of legislation to get passed. But one thing you can't do
is start making changes and anticipate that the House is going to go
along with those changes, because I can tell my colleagues, they will
not do it. Our House colleagues have passed this bill several times,
but each time it comes over to the Senate it has been held up.
The bill before us, along with the manager's substitute amendment, is
the commutation of negotiations between the House and the Senate. Any
changes to the bill at this point will require the concurrence of the
House or the bill will not proceed. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to
understand that if they are planning on filing an amendment before the
chairman and I can agree to it, we need to determine if our
counterparts in the House would find it to be agreeable. I suggest they
probably will not.
I heard about an hour ago, when I arrived in Washington, that it
might be that the administration could have some objections. I am
having a hard time understanding how that could be. First, they
supported the bill. They signed the bill when it first passed in August
of 2005. Technical corrections is a common thing. It does not have a
net increase in authorizations. I can't see why it would be. I
understand there would be one provision having to do with rapid transit
that would not be in our committee. It was not in the committee chaired
by Senator Boxer and formerly chaired by me. It is in the Banking
Committee. So we want to look at that. If that is the objection, I
certainly believe we can talk to the administration and keep them from
opposing it.
We have some amendments that have been discussed. I have not been
here long enough to find out this week if people are going to come
forward with their amendments. My junior Senator, Mr. Coburn, makes a
very good point on a project down in Florida called Coconut Road, that
there have been some problems. Apparently, all those have been
corrected. The only thing I wish to talk to my junior Senator about is
if he wants to examine this, investigate this, that is a good idea. It
is already being done. However, we have enough committees and
commissions around this place, thousands of them. I am not sure we need
another one. That is something we might want to debate. I know Senator
Bond has an amendment that he has discussed. I look forward to visiting
with him. Any of these amendments, yes, we want to talk about them. But
keep in mind, we do have this commitment that we have a technical
corrections bill that has to pass or we cannot implement those
provisions that otherwise are going to allow us to correct some of the
problems we have.
Again, here I am, a conservative, saying this is not adequate, what
we have done today. We have another one that should be coming up next
year. Hopefully, it will. Sometimes it doesn't happen like it should.
But in the meantime, I want that committee that is supposed to be
examining the way we have historically funded roads and highways and
infrastructure to come up with some ideas. There are experiments in
different States right now. But we will have to recognize the fact that
this country has got to have infrastructure for it to survive.
In conclusion, I assure my colleagues that I appreciate their
responsiveness to our numerous requests to advise the committee of
their requests, thereby assisting us to help them. If we were unable to
satisfactorily address their concerns in this bill, there will be
additional opportunities do so when we reauthorize SAFETEA, and that
reauthorization should be under way next year.
With that, I hope those who object to this will at least let us
proceed to this bill. Then we can look at it and see if there are any
of the amendments that we feel would not violate the agreement between
the Senate and House and would have the effect of killing the whole
bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my ranking member. He and I,
when we are on the same page, have had very good results. I think our
colleagues trust that when we can come together on something, it has
gone through all the hoops and all the ``I's'' have been dotted and the
``T's'' have been crossed. I want to assure colleagues that on this
particular piece of legislation, we have worked closely together, as
have Senators Dodd and Shelby over at Banking, as have Senators Inouye
and Stevens. This is one of those moments which doesn't come that often
around here--not often enough for me--where we do have a lot of us
working together across party lines, across committee jurisdictions.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. I neglected to mention that when we went through this
long and arduous legislation initially, there are probably not two
Members of the Senate who are more opposed to each other
philosophically than the two of us, Senator Boxer and myself. But we
recognize that the process we used is one that is fair. We developed
criteria. There are projects in here that met the criteria. Some of
them I would oppose personally, but nonetheless, you have to come up
with a bill if you are going to have roads to travel and infrastructure
to serve this great Nation.
I compliment Senator Boxer in working with me on some of the problems
I had initially with this bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am pleased we can work so well
together. I want to thank our staffs also. We have developed very
trusting relationships with our senior staff, and it reflects the
relationship we have developed to be able, even if we disagree, to be
completely honest with each other. This is helpful for the Senate as a
whole.
I wanted to share with the Senate this amazing group who came
together to support us in our efforts on this technical corrections
bill which will unleash some funding that is rather stuck right now, at
a time when we could use some construction activity. I think it is
important to see. We have the American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials--those are Departments of Transportation from
all 50 States--American Highway Users
[[Page S2971]]
Alliance, millions of highway users throughout the country; American
Public Transit Association, transit systems from across the country;
American Road and Transportation Builders Associations, more than 5,000
members of the transportation construction industry--these people have
all written to us and have said: Get this bill going--Associated
General Contractors, more than 32,000 contractors, service providers
and suppliers; the Council of University Transportation Centers, more
than 30 university transportation centers from across the country;
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, companies in America that
produce more than 92 percent of crushed stone and 75 percent of sand
and gravel used in the United States annually; and the National Asphalt
and Pavement Association, more than 1,100 companies that produce and
pave with asphalt. These are the folks who are saying to all of us:
Please bring this bill to the floor, please work together.
I personally have a very good feeling about this bill. Senator
DeMint, who sometimes has trouble with these bills, was complimentary
to both of us and the work we have done. He has a couple of amendments,
maybe only one amendment. He said he did not intend to hold up our
bill. So I think we are moving in a good direction. But I want to
reiterate what Senator Inhofe said: Please, if you do have an
amendment, talk to us, because we are not going to have this bill go
through unless the House signs off. So we would hope we could keep this
bill pretty clean. We hope we can work out our differences with a
couple of Senators who have some problems. If we can't work it out, we
will have to see what the body wants to do. This is sort of a very mini
stimulus package, frankly, and one that doesn't mean one dollar of new
spending that hasn't already been authorized. It is a good moment for
the Senate.
I thank Senator Reid, working with Senator McConnell, for getting
this bill before us. A lot of our communities will be very happy when
they see that projects that were stalled, because there were some
technical problems, can now go forward.
Some of our colleagues who said: Look, leg one of this project can go
forward but not leg two. Can you change the wording?
We are allowing colleagues this kind of latitude. Of course, we put a
freeze on all of that because we had to cut off at some point. I think
this bill is a good bill. It is a technical corrections bill. It is not
breaking any new ground. We look forward to an ``aye'' vote from as
many of our colleagues whom we can convince this is a good idea. I
understand we are about to go into the vote. I look forward to a solid
vote. Then Senator Inhofe and I will be in the well, and we will talk
to all our colleagues who may want to talk about their amendments.
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.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 608, H.R. 1195, an act to amend the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, to make technical corrections, and
for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin, Charles E.
Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Frank R. Lautenberg, Jon
Tester, Mark L. Pryor, Bernard Sanders, Benjamin L.
Cardin, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, John D.
Rockefeller IV, Jack Reed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 1195, a bill to amend the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to
make technical corrections, and for other purposes, shall be brought to
a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--1
Bond
NOT VOTING--6
Clinton
Kennedy
Lautenberg
McCain
Menendez
Obama
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 93, the nays are 1.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I just need 30 seconds. On behalf of my
ranking member, Jim Inhofe, and myself, I thank colleagues for giving
us this go-ahead to go to the technical corrections bill. It is not the
most exciting of bills, but it will be a bit of an economic stimulus to
our Nation. It doesn't add a dollar of new spending; it just makes
corrections to a bill that is a very popular bill--SAFETEA-LU--and it
will allow a lot of highway construction and transit projects to
proceed. We are very pleased with this vote.
Before giving up the floor so Senator Inhofe can say a couple of
words, if my colleagues have any amendments--we know that amendments do
threaten this bill--we will be delighted to speak with our colleagues
about them and try to figure out a way to either work them out so that
the House agrees and we agree we can move forward or figure out a way
to get an early vote so we can get on with consideration and then on to
something else.
At this point, I yield the floor and again say thank you very much to
our colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me say I do agree with what Senator
Boxer says, although it is a little bit
[[Page S2972]]
more than that. Not only does it not spend more, it doesn't authorize
more. I think that is very important for people to understand. There is
some confusion from some things I have read in different publications
that make it appear that we have increased the authorization. Some
things have been moved around, but the bottom line is it has remained
unchanged.
The other thing that is important to repeat is that as big as this
bill was, the 2005 bill we are scheduled to get into again next year,
in 2009, it still doesn't take care of the problem. We have a problem
in this country with the $286 billion figure; it doesn't even maintain
what we have today. That is critical. I am hoping the committee that
was established for the purpose of exploring new ways of funding
transportation will come up with something a little more creative than
they have so far because we are not going to be able to do it just by
redoing and expanding what Eisenhower started many years ago. So we
need to have this bill in order to go ahead and finish the projects
that we have authorized and that are paid for at this time, and we
won't do it unless we can pass this bill.
So I hope anyone--I would agree with Senator Boxer--anyone with
amendments, let's bring them down and talk about them, and I am
available to talk, and I am doing that as we speak. I have spoken with
a couple of Members who have talked about an amendment. So if you have
any amendments, bring them down so Senator Boxer and I can visit with
you about the amendments.
I yield the floor.
____________________