[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1318-1330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT 
                           OF 2003--Continued


                      Amendment No. 2276 Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
withdraw amendment No. 2276 on behalf of Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Withdrawn

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with the approval of the committee, I now 
withdraw the committee substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.


                           Amendment No. 2285

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I now send a substitute amendment to the 
desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2285.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion on the pending 
substitute to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     substitute to Calendar No. 426, S. 1072, a bill to authorize 
     funds for Federal-Aid Highways, Highway Safety Programs, and 
     Transit Programs, and for other purposes.
          Bill Frist, James Inhofe, Christopher Bond, Gordon 
           Smith, Lamar Alexander, Richard G. Lugar, Pat Roberts, 
           Robert F. Bennett, Mike Crapo, Jim Bunning, Ted 
           Stevens, Conrad Burns, Chuck Hagel, Charles Grassley, 
           Trent Lott, Saxby Chambliss.

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will allow the manager to explain what 
went on so our colleagues will fully understand, but I wish to make a 
statement. I encourage colleagues who are interested in bringing 
amendments to the floor to do that and continue to work in that vein. 
Again, my whole purpose over the last week and a half we have been on 
this bill has been to make sure people could come to the floor to 
discuss the bill, and if there are amendments people feel strongly, we 
are going to continue to move forward.
  The objective of the leadership on both sides of the aisle is to 
complete this bill this week. I encourage people to come to the floor 
if they have amendments and to talk to the managers this afternoon.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Since this process started, we have been encouraging 
people to come to discuss their amendments. We are now in a position 
where they can actually offer their amendments. We had quite a few 
Members who worked over the weekend, who also had their staff working. 
They brought amendments down, and I thank all of those Members.
  We visited with them. As the managers, we accepted some. I think now 
we are at the point where we do encourage our Members to bring their 
amendments. While we are in this stage right now, let me share a couple 
of points that I think are very significant.
  There has been a lot of discussion that the formulas are unfair to 
some States. I suggest that in almost every case where there is a donee 
State that becomes a donor State, it is by a very small amount. On the 
average, the disparity between donee and donor is far less.
  In approaching this, we actually took the average donor and put 4 
cents on it and then from the donee took 4 cents off. I think it is a 
very fair way of doing it. But when people talk about the formulas, 
let's keep in mind the formulas are real. They have not been real in 
the past. They were not real in TEA-21. They tried to do it but they 
ended up with a minimum guarantee, which is a political document.
  The formulas include such things as total lane miles on the 
interstate, on principal arterial routes; vehicle miles traveled; 
annual contributions to the highway trust fund attributed to commercial 
vehicles; diesel fuel used on highways; relative share of total cost to 
repair or replace deficient highway bridges. That is one I am 
particularly interested in since, as I have said many times, my State 
of Oklahoma is dead last in terms of the conditions of bridges; 
weighted nonattainment and maintenance areas; rate of return of donor 
States. All of those are in the formula.
  This is the first time, since we started this process--at least since 
I have been here in 1991 when ISTEA came out--that we actually are 
using the formula and staying with it. It has not been easy, because 
people who do not like the way their State was treated come down and 
say all kinds of detrimental things about the formula, about our 
motives, about the bill in general.
  The bottom line is, we have been honest with the Senate and honest 
with all of the States.
  I do not think it will shock anyone to hear that there were political 
considerations in the past. We know that from the other body. The House 
Member from Pennsylvania was always very aggressive in getting the most 
he could for his State. I think a lot of them are like that, and we 
have corrected a lot of those.
  I would say this: Of all of the ones who are the big players in TEA-
21, and that was 1998, there was Senator Moynihan, whom we loved so 
much. His State was 1.25. We had Pennsylvania, which was Congressman 
Shuster, 1.21; Rhode Island, of course, Chairman Chafee, 2.17; the 
Senator from Montana was not only the ranking on the committee but also 
on the subcommittee, 2.18. At the same time all of that happened, my 
State was .9050, so we are way down there.
  With SAFETEA, our percentages really do not change that much. We do 
ultimately bring everybody up to 95 percent and that is what this will 
do. Some are dissatisfied because they do not get up to 95 percent 
until the sixth year. It is unfortunate we could not come up with any 
other way, but it would cost so much money that if we did that, the 
ones who would be paying for it would be the donee States, and that 
would not be fair to them.
  So I feel very good about where we are today. I think we have a fair 
bill. Very few people in this Chamber know the hours, the months, and 
the years that have been involved in this bill. Certainly the managers 
of the bill do because we have been working on this bill for such a 
long period of time.
  Now that we have cloture filed, after it expires, it is our intention 
to go ahead and have a vote on cloture and get the bill completed. I 
believe it can be done this week.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 1319]]


  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for up to 7 minutes as if in morning business and then we 
return immediately to the bill, S. 1072.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2286 To Amendment No. 2285

(Purpose: To provide a highway safety improvement program that includes 
        incentives to States to enact primary safety belt laws)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2286.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is an amendment I submitted the other 
day on behalf of myself, Senator Clinton, and Senator DeWine of Ohio. 
It is an amendment to increase our national seatbelt use rate to 90 
percent, a concept that is well known to the Members of the Senate. 
This amendment is identical to the legislation I introduced last year, 
S. 1993.
  As my colleagues examine the highway bill and what it means to each 
of our States, our foremost responsibility, in my judgment, and the 
judgment of many, as well as the judgment of the President of the 
United States, must be to improve highway safety for the driving 
public.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee because he has a section in the bill on improving 
highway safety. But I fear that somehow the President's proposal--
actually the proposal the President sent up to the Congress regarding 
the use of seatbelts--was not included in the final markup. It is for 
that reason I rise to include in this bill a provision that was sought 
by the President.
  Simply by increasing the number of Americans who will buckle up is 
the most effective--I repeat, the most effective--step that can be 
taken to save their lives and the lives of others. That is the single 
most important step.
  I am privileged to serve on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, which has the primary responsibility for reauthorizing TEA-
21. The bill addresses, as it should, highway safety measures such as 
how to build safer roads and how to use new technologies to improve 
safety.
  But statistics show that the greatest measure of safety, again, to 
drivers, passengers, and possibly third parties not connected with the 
vehicle, is through the use of a seatbelt. It is remarkable the lives 
that have been saved through the use of this simple device. America has 
about a 79-percent use rate of seatbelts. Now, that is quite a 
commendation to the drivers all across this country. Seventy-nine 
percent of Americans, according to reliable statistics, use their 
seatbelts. That has been translated into the saving of tens of 
thousands of lives and injuries in automobile accidents. But I believe, 
as do many in this Chamber, we can do better.
  Those are the facts. Are we just going to have a standstill or are we 
going to move forward? Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine, and I think we 
should move forward with a firmer approach with achievable goals and 
funding.
  We have debated the benefits of seatbelt use on many occasions in 
this body and elsewhere across America. And whether it is in the town 
forums we conduct, town meetings, or here on the floor of the Senate, 
there is always that individual who comes back: Don't tell me what I 
have to do. What does it matter to you, John Warner--or to any other 
colleague with whom I am privileged to serve--what does it matter to 
you whether I buckle up?
  Well, let's take a look. No one disputes that the absence of wearing 
a seatbelt causes more loss of life and serious injury. The statistics 
show that the impact associated with the crash, to the extent the 
driver can maintain control of the vehicle in those fatal seconds, the 
severity of the crash, and perhaps the loss of life can be reduced by 
the use of a safety belt--simply said.
  Accidents involving unbelted drivers result in a significant cost to 
your wallet. Many people are rushed from the accident scene to various 
emergency facilities. All of that has the initial cost of the law 
enforcement that responds, the rescue squads that respond, and 
eventually the costs to the emergency room or whatever medical facility 
you might have the good fortune to be taken to, to hopefully save your 
life. That isn't free. There is a cost. Regrettably, a number of 
persons who suffer these types of injuries in automobile accidents are 
uninsured. Again, the cost often devolves down on the good old hard-
working taxpayers--in most instances, the taxpayers who buckle up.
  When an accident happens on our roads and highways across this great 
Nation, we are all impacted. Accidents cause significant congestion, 
which results in lost time and productivity as we try to get to our 
work or to our home along the highway where they are engaged in trying 
to remove the accident.
  More often than not, the accident, with the combined slowdown of 
those passing the accident, causes significant congestion for some 
considerable portion of time. Either the lane in which we are traveling 
moves very slowly because of the accident or, indeed, we come to a 
standstill, as often is the case when a lane is closed to clear an 
accident. That standstill frequently is necessitated because of the 
severity of the injuries experienced in that accident. It takes the 
response team longer to get to the accident. It takes the response team 
longer in their carefully trained steps to extricate the injured 
person. All of that requires needed time.
  To give the initial treatment and then to carefully transport that 
individual, if necessary, to a medical facility takes time. That costs 
money. The road becomes backed up. That is lost time for your mission 
on the road, be it for business, family, or pleasure. That is lost time 
and productivity. Behind you often are trucks and other vehicles 
involved in commerce. That is lost time and delay due to the 
seriousness occasioned by injuries and accidents where there has been 
the lack of use of seatbelts. It is as simple is that. Those are the 
facts. Then, of course, there is the cost to the community for caring 
for the injured person who, regrettably, frequently doesn't have the 
insurance to pay for his or her costs. The local people in your 
communities end up paying the bill.
  The legislation we are proposing today will take an important step 
forward for the States to adopt either a primary safety belt law or 
take steps of their own devising to meet a 90-percent seatbelt rate--
not the Warner amendment or the legislative measure put forth by the 
administration upon which we draw our concept for certain portions. The 
States can decide for themselves how they achieve a 90-percent goal of 
the use of seatbelts in their respective States. That is the purpose of 
this legislation--to move every State to a 90-percent use rate for 
safety belts.
  In a letter dated November 12, 2003, to Chairman Inhofe of the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which I am privileged to 
serve, Secretary Mineta stated:


[[Page 1320]]

       President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt 
     usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease 
     highway fatalities and injuries.

  That is explicit and clear. The Secretary goes on to say:

       The surest way for a State to increase safety belt usage is 
     through the passage of a primary safety belt law.

  I have had this debate with Governors and former Governors, even in 
this Chamber with former Governors. I think they would tell you that a 
primary safety belt law is a tough piece of legislation for the State 
legislature to pass solely on its own. I mean that. Frankly, it needs 
the impetus of those of us here in the Congress, of the combined 
efforts of the executive and the legislative branches of the Federal 
Government because it is just one of those things that State 
legislatures have extraordinary difficulty grappling with.
  Regrettably, in my own State this law has come down to a single vote 
defeating it in two consecutive attempts. Stop to think, one vote in 
the distinguished General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has 
stopped our State from adopting this type of law.
  I believe the impetus here will make it possible for our State and 
many others to adopt this statute.
  As provided in our amendment, States can increase seatbelt use either 
by enacting, as I said, a primary seatbelt law. Everybody knows what a 
primary seatbelt law is and how it works. It means a law enforcement 
officer can literally stop a vehicle if they observe that the 
individual is not wearing his or her seatbelt. It is as simple as that. 
But a State, if they decide not to enact a primary safety belt law, 
can, by implementing their own strategies, whatever they may be--and 
there is a lot of innovation out in the States--that would result in a 
90-percent safety belt use rate. So that is a challenge to the States.
  The current national belt use, as I said, is 79 percent. But many 
States--those that have the primary law--are sometimes at 90, or even 
above 90, but those that do not have the primary seatblet law are down 
sometimes in the 60 percentile. It is the weight of the primary States 
that carries the percentile and brings it up to 79 from those States 
that don't have an effective law. States with their primary safety belt 
law have the greatest success for drivers wearing seatbelts.
  On an average, States with the primary seatbelt law have a 10- to 15-
percent higher seatbelt use compared to those with a secondary system. 
This demonstrates that secondary seatbelt laws are far more limited in 
their effectiveness than a primary law.
  Essentially, the secondary laws say that if a law enforcement officer 
has cause other than a perceived or actual seatbelt violation--namely, 
the driver didn't have it buckled--if they have cause to stop that car, 
for example, for a speeding offense or a reckless driving offense or 
indeed an accident and they observed there has been no use of the 
seatbelt, then in the course of proceeding to enforce the several laws 
of the State as regards speeding or reckless driving, or whatever the 
case may be, they can add a second penalty to address the absence of 
the use of the seatbelt in that State.
  Drivers are gamblers. They say: Oh, well, don't worry, I will not 
buckle up. State law doesn't require it. Unless they stop me--and they 
are not going to stop me today. It is that gambling attitude that, more 
often than not, will cause an accident. Then it is too late.
  So we come forward today to build on our national programs. We are 
building on what we did in TEA-21. I was privileged to be on the 
committee. I was chairman of the subcommittee 6 years ago. I worked 
with Senator Chafee, who was chairman of the full committee, and we 
drove hard to make progress with the seatbelt laws, and we did it. We 
basically put aside a very considerable sum of money to encourage 
States--again, using their own devices--to increase uses. As a direct 
consequence of what we did in TEA-21, there has been an 11-percent 
increase in these 6 years in the use of seatbelts.
  Sadly, traffic deaths in 2002 rose to the highest level in over a 
decade. It is astonishing. Of the nearly 43,000 people killed on our 
highways, over half were not wearing their seatbelts. That is according 
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And 9,200 of 
these deaths might have been prevented if the safety belt had been 
used.
  Those are alarming statistics. Automobile crashes are the leading 
cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. Stop to think of that: Age 2, 
that means a child; that means a parent neglected to buckle up a child. 
Automobile crashes as the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 
34. That is our Nation's youth. Do we have a higher calling in the 
Congress of the United States than to do everything we can to foster 
the dreams and ambitions and the productivity of our Nation's youth? I 
think not. And this is one of the ways.
  Last year, 6 out of 10 children who died in car crashes did not have 
the belt on--6 out of 10; that is over half. I plead with colleagues to 
join with me, join with the President who has taken this initiative.
  My primary responsibility in the Senate--and this is one of the 
reasons I got interested in this subject--is the welfare of the men and 
women in the Armed Forces. I say to colleagues, again, the statistics 
are tragic. Traffic fatalities are the leading noncombat cause of death 
for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They are in that high-
risk age category, 18 to 35.
  Someone even took a look at the statistics, the total of the 
fatalities least year, and said that represents in deaths approximately 
the size of the average U.S. Army battalion. That is several companies 
and maybe a reinforced element. Just think, that is the magnitude in 
one category of those who serve our United States, the men and women in 
the Armed Forces.
  I cannot think of any reason why we all cannot join behind this 
effort. That alone is a driving impetus for this Senator.
  The time is long overdue for a national policy to strengthen seatbelt 
use rates. I said a national policy, and that is what this bill 
represents, either through States enacting a primary seatbelt law or 
giving far greater attention to public awareness programs that result 
in more drivers and passengers wearing safety belts. Our goal is 90 
percent--90 percent.
  I have been privileged to serve on this committee 17 years, and I, 
together with many others, notably my dear friend and late chairman, 
Senator Chafee, addressed this issue. Our committee is rich in the 
history of focusing revenue from the highway trust fund on effective 
safety programs. It goes back through many chairmen and members of the 
committee.
  With jurisdiction over the largest share of the highway trust fund, 
our committee has had the vision to tackle important national safety 
problems. The legislation before us does provide more funding to help 
build safer roads--that is a step forward--but it does not have, in my 
judgment, that provision which represents a step up from what we did in 
TEA-21, that provision that would represent a recognition of the 
President's initiative.
  The President has taken a decidedly strong initiative to increase the 
use of seatbelts. It is absent from the bill, and this is why we need a 
provision to strengthen and to move forward the position of the 
Congress on the issue of increased use of safety belts. That is the 
purpose of this amendment.
  It is just unfortunate, but those with reckless intent quickly 
disregard responsible behavior and drive unbelted at excessive speeds 
and many times with the use of alcohol. So no increased dollars for 
improved road engineering, which is in this bill, can defy in many 
instances the type of personal conduct that results in reckless 
behavior. It is as simple as that.
  Our automobiles now come equipped with crash avoidance technologies 
and are more crashworthy than ever before, but these advances are only 
part of the solution.
  In repeated testimony before the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, from the administration, our States, safety groups, and the 
highway industry, we are told that three main causes of traffic deaths 
and injuries are unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol.
  The formula we have devised in this legislation does have a reduction 
in the

[[Page 1321]]

amount a State receives under this proposed bill that we will consider 
next year when they fail to achieve the 90 percent safety belt use 
rate. It is as simple as that. But the formula is patterned directly 
after the law that is on the books now with respect to the .08 legal 
blood alcohol content level.
  The net effect of this legislation is simply to recognize we are 
asking that the same type of sanction policy with regard to one of the 
three major causes of death--alcohol--be equated to a second cause of 
death and injury, and that is absence of the use of seatbelts, bringing 
into parallel two of the three principal causes of death and injury on 
today's highways.
  The administration put forward an innovative safety belt program, as 
I said, under the leadership of the President that was a major 
component of their new core transportation program, the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program. Our amendment incorporates the administration's 
bill and includes additional incentives for states to increase seat 
belt use rates.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of 
documents that show widespread support for this legislation, from the 
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, the American Medical 
Association, and the letter to Senator Inhofe from the Secretary of 
Transportation. One hundred thirty-five organizations across the United 
States are in support of this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 American Medical Association,

                                                 February 9, 2004.

  AMA Applauds Legislation To Promote Seat Belt Enforcement and Safety


    AMA Speaks at Congressional Press Conference to Urge Seat Belt 
                           Amendment Passage

       On behalf of the American Medical Association, I'm proud to 
     stand here with Senator Warner in support of enforcing seat 
     belt use. Preventing deaths and injuries on our nation's 
     roadways has been a priority of the AMA for many years. In 
     fact, over the last seven years the AMA has distributed more 
     than 16 million brochures on protecting children in motor 
     vehicles, and just last year we released a physicians' guide 
     to assess and counsel older drivers. Requiring all states to 
     enact a primary enforcement seat belt law or achieve a seat 
     belt use rate of at least 90 percent will help protect 
     Americans on the road.
       We know the wearing seat belts saves lives. Over half of 
     the 43,000 people killed on America's highways in 2002 were 
     not wearing seat belts. Tragically, six out of 10 children 
     who died that year in motor-vehicle collisions were also not 
     wearing seat belts. Just taking one moment to buckle-up could 
     make a life-or-death difference to the thousands who 
     needlessly die on our roadways every year.
       For those lucky enough to survive a devastating auto crash, 
     the health care costs can be staggering. On average, 
     hospitalization costs for unbelted traffic crash victims are 
     50 percent higher than for those who buckled-up. The needless 
     deaths and injuries that result from not wearing seat belts 
     cost society an estimated $26 billion annually in medical 
     care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs.
       There deplorable statistics are reversible. We can 
     significantly reduce deaths and serious injuries from motor-
     vehicle crashes by enforcing seat belt use nationwide through 
     a primary enforcement law like the one Senator Warner is now 
     proposing.
       In my home state of Michigan, a primary enforcement law has 
     been in effect for three years. In that time, nearly 200 
     lives have been saved, and over 1,000 serious collisions have 
     been averted because of this change in the law.
       As a physician, it is a rare blessing to be in a situation 
     where we can easily identify the solution to a public health 
     threat. Passage of the primary enforcement seat belt law will 
     saves lives. It's that simple.
                                                        Ron Davis,
     AMA Trustee.
                                  ____

                                              Virginia Association


                                          of Chiefs of Police,

                                   Richmond, VA, February 9, 2004.
       The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police (VACP) 
     endorses S. 1993, a bill to create incentives for the states 
     to enact primary safety belt laws. In 2002 in Virginia, we 
     had 913 automobile fatalities. Of those 913 fatalities, 438 
     (62.7%) were not wearing a safety belt. In those 913 fatality 
     crashes, 9,912 injuries were sustained by unbuckled 
     occupants.
       Under our current secondary enforcement law, Virginia's 
     front seat safety belt use is 74.6%, which includes drivers 
     and front seat passengers. Research tells us that front seat 
     occupants of vehicles involved in potentially fatal crashes 
     in states with primary safety belt laws have a 15 percentage 
     point higher belt use than persons in states without primary 
     laws.
       The VACP supports the passage of primary safety belt laws 
     as a proven tool to increase safety belt usage and reduce 
     serious injuries and fatalities in the event of a traffic 
     crash. Public education and enhanced traffic enforcement 
     efforts have failed to increase Virginia's safety belt usage 
     rate much beyond 75%. States with primary safety belt laws 
     consistently experience safety belt usage rates up to 90%. 
     The VACP believes that the passage of a primary safety belt 
     law in Virginia will increase belt usage and save the lives 
     of countless Virginians.

                                               Dana G. Schrad,

                                               Executive Director,
     Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police.
                                  ____



                              The Secretary of Transportation,

                                Washington, DC, November 12, 2003.
     Hon. James Inhofe,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: With almost 43,000 people dying every 
     year on our nation's highways, it is imperative that we do 
     everything in our power to promote a safer transportation 
     system. The Bush Administration's proposal to reauthorize 
     surface transportation programs, the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 
     (SAFETEA), offers several bold and innovative approaches to 
     address this crisis.
       President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt 
     usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease 
     highway fatalities and injuries. As a result, SAFETEA's new 
     core highway safety program provides States with powerful 
     funding incentives to increase the percentage of Americans 
     who buckle up every time they get in an automobile. Every 
     percentage point increase in the national safety belt usage 
     rate saves hundreds of lives and millions of dollars in lost 
     productivity.
       Empirical evidence shows that the surest way for a State to 
     increase safety belt usage is through the passage of a 
     primary safety belt law. States with primary belt laws have 
     safety belt usage rates that are on average eight percentage 
     points higher than States with secondary laws. Recognizing 
     that States may have other innovative methods to achieve 
     higher rates of belt use, SAFETEA also rewards States that 
     achieve 90% safety belt usage rates even if a primary safety 
     belt law is not enacted. I urge you to consider these 
     approaches as your Committee marks up reauthorization 
     legislation.
       While safety belts are obviously critical to reducing 
     highway fatalities, so too is a data driven approach to 
     providing safety. Every State faces its own unique safety 
     challenges, and every State must be given broad funding 
     flexibility to solve those challenges. This is a central 
     theme of SAFETEA, which aims to provide States the ability to 
     use scarce resources to meet their own highest priority 
     needs. Such flexibility is essential for States to maximize 
     their resources, including the funds available under a new 
     core highway safety program.
       I look forward to working with you on these critically 
     important safety issues as development of a surface 
     transportation reauthorization bill progresses.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Norman Y. Mineta.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I see other hands.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is appropriate that the occupant of the 
Chair at the present time is the Senator from Rhode Island because the 
amendment being offered by the Senator from Virginia is one that was a 
favorite of one of my favorite people, his father. I can remember many 
times he would be talking about this amendment. In fact, I can recall 
some disagreements.
  I would say: John, your son is a mayor of a significant city. I am 
sure if you call him up he will tell you, if there is one thing they 
don't want, it is unfunded mandates. I was the mayor of a city for four 
terms. The biggest, greatest plague we had was unfunded mandates.
  I will reluctantly oppose the Warner-Clinton-DeWine-Murray seatbelt 
sanction amendment at the appropriate time. This amendment makes a 
significant and damaging change to the core safety program established 
in the highway reauthorization bill.

[[Page 1322]]

  The amendment imposes a new sanction on States that fail to achieve a 
90-percent seatbelt rate or enact a primary seatbelt law. Currently, 
only 20 of the 50 States meet the requirements of this proposed new 
Federal mandate. As a result, if this amendment were to pass, 30 States 
would be immediately thrust into a status of noncompliance with this 
mandate and the clock would start ticking against them, threatening a 
significant penalty through the loss of funding. My State of Oklahoma 
is already in compliance. Actually it wouldn't affect us. We are in 
compliance with the requirements proposed by this new sanction. But I 
fundamentally oppose imposition of new sanctions on the States.
  While most agree that seatbelts represent the single greatest factor 
in saving lives on our Nation's highways, the decision to pass a 
primary seatbelt law is best made at the State level.
  The penalties proposed by Senator Warner's seatbelt sanction are 
twofold. The first penalty takes effect in calculating apportionments 
for fiscal year 2005. This is especially disconcerting because that 
gives States who do not already have primary seatbelt laws on the books 
only 8 months from now to enact a primary law. It doesn't affect me. 
Our State of Oklahoma already has them. This first penalty would 
require States in noncompliance to spend 10 percent of the funds 
apportioned to them under the new core safety programs on safety 
behavioral projects. Under section 405 of title 23, any funds subject 
to this transfer cannot be recovered in future years by a State's 
subsequent compliance with the seatbelt sanction.
  A second penalty would be imposed if States had still not enacted a 
primary seatbelt law or brought their seatbelt rate up to 90 percent by 
the beginning of fiscal year 2007. States still in noncompliance by 
this time would lose up to 4 percent of their apportionments under each 
of the National Highway System programs: The Surface Transportation 
Program, Interstate Maintenance Program, and the Highway Bridge 
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. That one is significant to me. 
These funds would be completely lost to the States in noncompliance and 
redistributed among other States.
  You could argue that my position in Oklahoma could be enhanced by the 
passage of this amendment because we know there will be some States 
that are not in compliance. Certainly our bridges in Oklahoma need as 
much help as they can get.
  The amendment proposes instituting a huge penalty for States without 
a primary seatbelt law. Although I support the increased use of 
seatbelts across the United States and would encourage States to enact 
primary seatbelt laws to reach this objective, I believe threatening 
States with the loss of needed Federal dollars for surface 
transportation is not the right approach.
  I admire so much the Senator from Virginia and his dedication. I 
never appreciated what he had to go through 6 years ago as chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee during the last 
reauthorization until I became the chairman and am going through it. I 
am sure he did a far better job than I. But I disagree with this 
particular amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. He is always so courteous about matters such as this, and 
particularly with reference to our dear friend, John Chafee, who felt 
very strongly about this legislation. It is more than a technicality, 
but this is not a sanction in the sense that we simply say each State 
should achieve 90 percent. Now, there may be ways by which States can 
achieve that other than following this path which, as the Senator 
correctly points out, has a certain sequence of penalties. They would 
meet the law and completely avoid the other path, where there are 
penalties.
  My question is this: When America was faced with the problems of 
alcohol, which is still prevalent on the roads in our Nation, we, the 
Congress, enacted what we call the famous .08 law; am I correct?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Didn't we have an identical series of steps in that law 
that I have put into this law?
  Mr. INHOFE. I know there are similar steps. If you say they are 
identical, I am sure they are.
  Mr. WARNER. I assure the Senator it is almost identical. You can come 
down to where it has worked in the case of alcohol, and now 47 States 
out of the 50 have adopted the alcohol legislation. I think, quite 
frankly, that we can see a similar number of States quickly adopt this 
legislation--a primary seatbelt law to avoid the penalties. So it is 
not without precedent, and it also gives the State the alternative of 
doing it by some other means than going down the path I have outlined.
  Mr. INHOFE. I agree with the Senator from Virginia. I only say, if 
your State were to devise a way to get to the 90-percent mark that they 
have to get to to keep from being penalized, it would have to take some 
reasonable period of time. They would have to establish some criteria 
and then try to get there.
  I cannot imagine it could be done within 8 months, and these people 
would already be subjected to the penalties imposed in the year 2005. 
That would be a concern.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague that 
we selected that time period because of the language the Secretary of 
Transportation forwarded to the Congress. If there could be a means, if 
you would be willing to help me devise a formula by which you think a 
greater degree of fairness can be achieved, I am open to that.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Senator 
from Virginia, as I always do. I think many of us who came to serve in 
the Senate who were either Governors or mayors in major cities somehow 
have this obstacle or obstruction in our minds on any kind of mandates. 
I plead guilty to that. I think other Members might oppose the 
amendment, such as the Senator from Missouri who was a Governor. That 
is primarily the reason.
  I would be happy to work with the Senator from Virginia, and I think 
he has an excellent point. I know his heart is right and he is trying 
to save lives. That is why we all love him so much.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, I will take into consideration the 
views of my distinguished chairman and see what we might do to make 
that accommodation. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while we are waiting for people to come 
with their amendments, I will make a few comments relative to 
statements that were made on the Senate floor yesterday concerning the 
bill.
  Comments were made by one Senator who said he would just suggest that 
we swap formulas between Oklahoma and Arizona. That was the senior 
Senator from Arizona, a very distinguished Senator. I only say that 
Arizona and Oklahoma and all other 48 States have exactly the same 
formula. You don't have to swap formulas. They are the same.
  I also suggest in the case of Arizona, it gets more money than 
Oklahoma does under this bill--by about $60 million. So if a swap were 
taking place, I think I would go along with that.
  I am concerned a little about the statements made that more States 
will become donor States. That is true under this bill. Right now, the 
disparity between donor and donee is far greater than it will be after 
this bill is passed. So if you have a State that goes from a $1.01 down 
to 99 cents, that is a small amount, but because it goes below the 
threshold of a dollar, then it is now in donor status. So the way we 
try to accomplish this is, if you take the average, the average donor 
State increased by 4 cents; the average donee State decreased by 4 
cents. I don't see that anything could be more fair than that.
  Third, I think if you look at the individuals who were driving this 
legislation 6 years ago--TEA-21--you found that there were some parts 
of the State that were perhaps treated better than other parts. 
Certainly, we had three of the most powerful people from the

[[Page 1323]]

northeastern seaboard--Senators Moynihan, Congressman Shuster, and 
Senator Chafee. When you look at the amounts that they, under TEA-21, 
achieved, New York was $1.25; Pennsylvania, $1.21; Rhode Island, $1.26; 
and Oklahoma, 90.5 cents, which was the minimum. A critic of this bill 
said we should do what we did 6 years ago and immediately go to 90.5 
cents as a floor instead of waiting until the sixth year.
  The problem with that is there is not enough money. And if we did 
that, that would have to come out of the donee State. The other problem 
is we are actually much more ambitious in this bill in reaching that 
point.
  If you look at this State by State--and several times on this Senate 
floor we have been challenged by Members from States who felt their 
State was not getting a fair shake--keep in mind that every State is 
going to increase by at least 10 percent under this bill, and every 
State is going to have a donor status of nothing less than 95 percent 
at the conclusion of this bill, at the sixth year.
  Mr. REID. Will the chairman of the committee yield for a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the issue now before the Senate, 
propounded by the senior Senator from Virginia, a unique situation has 
arisen in Nevada. In Nevada, the State legislature, last session, had a 
debate on whether or not they would have primary seatbelt requirements 
for the people of Nevada. They did something interesting. The State now 
has a law that requires seatbelts for children but not for adults. I 
think this is pretty compromising.
  The Senator from Virginia is not on the Senate floor, but I could go 
for something like that--that there could be a requirement that States 
have a mandate that children have to wear seatbelts. The State of 
Nevada debated this and, as far as adults, it failed. So I ask you and 
the Senator from Virginia to consider amending the matter now before 
the Senate to have a requirement for children. I think that is 
something that would be accepted. I think the debate would be very 
short and to the point.
  I think if he proceeds on his requirement to have seatbelts mandated 
for everyone, States that are individualistic, such as Nevada--the 
State of Nevada doesn't like to be told what to do. They believe they 
are a sovereign State and the legislature meets and debates these 
issues. On this issue about primary seatbelts, that was brought before 
the legislature just last session. I think it would be very difficult 
for this Senator to say that I know more than the Nevada State 
Legislature, which not only held hearings on this issue but had a long 
debate and turned down this mandate. While I personally may disagree 
with that, the point is that the people of the State of Nevada, through 
its elected legislature, have spoken.
  I hope--I repeat for the third time--that the Senator from Virginia 
would consider modifying the amendment now before the Senate and have 
this apply just to children.
  The question is, through the Chair to the Senator from Oklahoma, how 
he feels about this. Before he answers, I wish to compliment the Chair 
and his wonderful father who was one of my role models in this body. It 
is true he brought this amendment up on a number of occasions, but it 
never passed. We are now in the same situation as in years previous.
  It seems to me we would be well off if we made incremental 
improvement, and I think that improvement would be to make sure this 
covers all children.
  I again ask the question of my friend from Oklahoma, does he think 
that is a reasonable compromise?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, the 
argument I recall against the amendment was that the driver himself or 
herself would be in a position where they could lose control of a 
vehicle by not having a seatbelt on and, obviously, the children would 
be safer than if nobody had on a seatbelt.
  The Senator makes a very good point. It is one at which I would 
certainly like to look.
  I can assure the Senator from Nevada, I learned the hard way what our 
law was in Oklahoma when we started cranking out grandbabies. We have 
11 of them now. I did not realize the seriousness of this bill and I 
did not have one of the young ones in a seatbelt, and I had to pay the 
penalties. I learned the hard way they really meant business.
  Our law has teeth. I would certainly like to look and see what kind 
of results the State of Nevada has had.
  Mr. REID. If I could, Mr. President, I try very rarely to boast on 
the floor of the Senate, but this is an opportunity I can do so because 
I noted a sense of pride with the Senator from Oklahoma talking about 
his 11 grandchildren. A week ago last Sunday, I had born into my family 
my 14th grandchild. So is it OK if I am a little boastful about that?
  Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
  Mr. REID. Eleven is OK, but the Senator from Oklahoma still has a way 
to go.
  Mr. INHOFE. We haven't quit.
  Mr. REID. What is that?
  Mr. INHOFE. We haven't quit.
  Mr. REID. Neither have we. In fact, we have just begun to propagate.
  Mr. INHOFE. In terms of population of the State of Nevada and the 
percentage my grandchildren constitute in my State, the Senator from 
Nevada is way ahead of me.
  Mr. President, there are other points about which I could be talking 
that were brought up, but I don't think it serves any useful purpose. 
We made great progress on this bill. People have said nothing happened 
last week. Something did happen last week. We had a chance to bring up 
the bill, go over the bill, talk to people, and line up votes, quite 
frankly.
  We have the vast majority of people believing this is the right bill. 
I only regret there are those who try to say it is not fair for one 
reason or another. There is no question, if you take this and the last 
two 6-year reauthorizations, that this bill is far more fair than any 
other authorization we have done.
  All these points were kept in mind as to donee States and donor 
States. Now that we get up to 95 percent, we are going to forget about 
what it was like to be a 70-percent donor State, but I can remember. 
This will be an issue that will go away because you figure you are high 
enough. This bill got us there.
  At the same time, we have donee States, States that have done very 
well in the past. I mentioned a minute ago, partially because the 
former chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Congressman Bud 
Shuster--and I served with him for 8 years in the House on that 
committee--perhaps his State got a little higher than it should have 
through his anxious approach. However, when you compare that to the 
State of Oklahoma--this is an interesting comparison--you can look at a 
chart and see you are not getting as much as last year and, therefore, 
it is unfair.
  That is just not true. My State has roughly the same road miles as 
the State of Pennsylvania. If you look at the next 6 years, the State 
of Pennsylvania is getting three times as much money as we are getting 
in our State of Oklahoma. It doesn't sound like I did a very good job 
for Oklahoma.
  There are other factors involved. It was called to my attention by 
one of the Senators from that State that it is a pass-through State. 
Everyone goes through Pennsylvania to get someplace. How do you put 
that into an equation? How do you put down how many people stop to buy 
products or services in your State? Some of these factors can't be 
done.
  I will say this: The old bill turned out to be a minimum guarantee. 
That was wrong. That was a political document that merely said we will 
make 60 percent of the people in this Chamber happy, and we don't care 
what happens to the other 40 percent. That was not an appropriate way 
to approach that bill.
  With the factors of donee, donor, total lane miles, vehicle miles 
traveled, annual contributions to the highway trust fund from 
commercial vehicles, diesel fuel just on highways, relative share of 
the total cost of repair and replacement of deficient highways and 
bridges, weighted nonattainment

[[Page 1324]]

in maintenance areas, and rate of return for donor States, this formula 
has worked, and I am very proud of it.
  We have gone through the last 2 weeks complimenting each other and 
the leadership. I certainly compliment my friend from Vermont, the 
ranking member, Senator Jeffords, as well as Senator Reid, the ranking 
member on the subcommittee, and, of course, Kit Bond, the chairman of 
the subcommittee under my committee. But I also compliment the staff.
  I can promise you, Mr. President, that the staff worked many more 
hours than we did. They were down there all this last weekend. All I 
was doing was sitting on the phone calling for votes. It was a lot of 
hard work, a lot of dedication. I want all the staff members of the 
majority and the minority to know how much I personally appreciate 
them.
  I think it is necessary to have this bill. I can't think of anything 
worse than going on these short extensions and no one can plan in 
advance. With the bill we have today, we have it set up so we can plan 
in advance.
  The IPAM part of this bill will allow those projects which are ready 
to go to start working, to start those projects going, to hire the 
people.
  We had a chart a while ago as to the number of people this bill puts 
to work. We are talking about almost 3 million people, 3 million jobs 
that will be filled as a result of having this bill pass.
  I look forward to talking about the amendments, working toward 
cloture, and getting this bill passed in the Senate and sent to 
conference so we can all go to work in conference and come up with a 
good solution to our Nation's highways, roads, and infrastructure 
problems, as well as jobs in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I, first, commend my good friend from 
Oklahoma, and then I will give my synopsis of some of the areas of this 
bill. I have just never worked with someone who has been more 
cooperative--and our staffs--to bring about a consensus in a very 
difficult bill. A little change here and a little change there will 
change millions of dollars and who it goes to and will bring about a 
consensus that will at least make enough people happy to vote for the 
bill, which is the ultimate goal.
  We have made great progress. I think we are now in a position where 
we are going to be able to move forward.
  TEA-21 provided record funding levels for transportation, which 
allowed States and local governments to make greater investments in our 
transportation systems than ever before. S. 1072 will continue that 
trend.
  In crafting this bill, Chairman Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Reid, 
and I wanted to ensure the resources available under this bill would be 
spent wisely and responsibly.
  During our hearings, we learned of challenges facing communities and 
transportation agencies trying to manage a full load of increasingly 
complex transportation projects. In response, we crafted a bill that 
will improve the delivery and stewardship of the Federal aid highway 
program.
  First, we have expanded the scope of a program called ``value 
engineering.'' Value engineering provides States and local governments 
an additional approach to examining transportation projects before they 
are finalized. It promotes improved design, construction, and funding 
of transportation projects.
  Second, we have included provisions to address issues that arise when 
State and local governments develop large-scale projects, so-called 
mega projects that cost over $1 billion.
  To ensure these projects are developed and managed efficiently, S. 
1072 requires project management and financial plans.
  Finally, to ensure that money received by the States is properly 
accounted for, we direct the Secretary to annually review States' 
financial management systems.
  As my colleagues can see, S. 1072 provides record levels of funding 
for transportation investment and the provisions to ensure we are good 
stewards of the public funds.
  I look forward to going into the amendment process and making sure we 
work, hopefully, efficiently and effectively and quickly to get this 
bill before us in final form before too long.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the transportation planning process is a 
critical component of any surface transportation program or project. 
Poor planning may lead to cost overruns, project delays, and even 
project cancellations. An early and comprehensive planning process can 
help stakeholders and project sponsors to identify and overcome 
potential problems so transportation projects proceed smoothly.
  Our bill includes several provisions to encourage better planning 
practices at both the State and metropolitan levels. We make some 
additions to current law to encourage transportation planning agencies 
to consider our environmental, natural resource, and community health 
issues early in the planning process.
  The bill directs transportation planners to consult with relevant 
resource agencies when developing long-range transportation plans.
  Improved coordination will promote long-range plans and project 
proposals that adequately consider and address the diverse implications 
of transportation projects. Improved interagency consultation and 
coordination is only one component of a successful plan.
  As I have said before, transportation investment is about people and 
communities. It is about making life better for our citizens by 
providing an efficient, safe, and comprehensive transportation system.
  A successful transportation program is one that considers the needs 
and the wishes of the people it serves. Our bill will enhance public 
participation in the planning process, encouraging projects that meet 
our infrastructure needs without sacrificing the environment or quality 
of life.
  Finally, our bill emphasizes the role of new and emerging 
technologies in transportation planning. Geospatial mapping 
technologies have inspired innovative and successful planning processes 
in many States around the country. We encourage States to continue to 
develop and implement those technologies and to integrate them into the 
transportation planning process.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a couple of issues I will address 
as in morning business. I ask consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        A Premature BSE Decision

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday the Bush administration called 
to end the short-term investigation into the recent mad cow scare. 
While many of us believe Secretary Veneman and her staff have done a 
good job on many fronts, the decision to suspend the investigation is 
extremely premature. Despite the high safety standards met by cattle 
producers, consumers still have questions about the safety of America's 
meat supply. By curtailing its investigation, the Bush administration 
has chosen not to do all it can to settle the questions raised by the 
discovery of a single Canadian-born cow infected with BSE.
  In 2001, a herd of 81 cattle came into the United States from Canada. 
One of those animals turned out to have BSE. USDA, through its 
investigation, has managed to locate 28 of the remaining 80 Canadian-
born animals. We are grateful for these efforts, but there is a

[[Page 1325]]

lot more work to do. Twenty-eight is not 80.
  Last year, USDA Chief Veterinarian Ron DeHaven said:

       We feel confident that we are going to be able to determine 
     the whereabouts of most if not all of these animals within 
     the next several days.

  Six weeks later, those early hopes have been disappointed. Consumers 
have a right to know why those other cattle were not found and what 
more, if anything, can be done.
  If we assume the Canadian index herd were all fed the same bovine 
byproduct known to cause BSE, it is possible the other animals 
currently in the United States may also have the disease.
  An international panel convened by USDA announced last week they 
believe some cattle in the U.S. may actually have BSE. While the 
likelihood an American consumer would come into contact with the meat 
from one of the infected cows is low, Government has the responsibility 
to do all it can to instill consumer confidence in the safety and 
quality of our food system and the food we feed our families.
  That work has not been completed because the investigation has not 
been adequately ended. While the risk to human health may be remote, 
the Bush administration is doing a disservice to consumers by short-
circuiting the good work USDA has done to locate the Canadian-born 
animals in question.
  In the face of so many doubts and questions, it makes no sense to cut 
this investigation short. Some suggest pressure from the hugely 
concentrated meatpacking industry is responsible. A small handful of 
meatpackers controls 80 percent of the beef in the United States. In 
fact, this is such a significant problem that the Senate approved 
legislation as part of its last farm bill to address problematic 
concentration in the meatpacking industry. Unfortunately, that 
provision was stripped during the conference and was not included in 
the final farm bill.
  Along with this growing concentration comes greater influence within 
the administration itself. I am not suggesting the packers did 
something unlawful, but the fact remains they wanted to end this 
investigation because it cast a cloud over their products. Evidently, 
these are the interests the Bush administration has chosen to advance 
above others.
  Others have suggested the Bush administration took this step in its 
zeal for a single American trading continent--no borders with the 
Canadians or the Mexicans whatsoever. In fact, after the farm bill was 
passed, the Secretary suggested we should have a continent-of-origin 
label for certain agricultural products. If that had been pursued, we 
would never be able to differentiate between our highest quality 
products and those from Canada and Mexico. As it is, Americans today, 
still, do not have the option of knowing where our food comes from.
  This is particularly important with regard to beef in light of the 
BSE scare. American consumers are simply asking for a label with basic 
information about the food they eat. In fact, 80 percent of Americans 
have said they would like to know where their meat comes from. That is 
why Senators on both sides of the aisle fought for and won approval of 
the country-of-origin labeling law. It is why many of us have charged 
those opposed to COOL with acting irresponsibly. In a backroom deal 
before the BSE scare, Republicans met in private and delayed the COOL 
law for 2 years.
  The Senate has shown time and time again that we support this 
important consumer law and that we want to see it back in law, to 
ensure implementation this fall. In fact, the law still requires USDA 
to develop the regulations by this fall. So, when we change the date of 
implementation back to September of this year, there should be no delay 
whatsoever in USDA implementing it on time as the law originally 
required. But we should not even have to wait for that. USDA has the 
authority to immediately provide this information to consumers, to tell 
them where their food and, in particular, where their meat originated. 
If we have that, consumers can stay away from Canadian-born cattle, at 
least until the animals in question that have not been located in the 
United States are actually found.
  But to date the administration will have none of it. They will not 
help inform U.S. consumers, even though our major export markets have 
requested we certify that our exports are born and raised and processed 
in our country. I don't understand why the administration will not 
provide U.S. consumers the information they want and our foreign 
trading partners the information they now demand.
  The only answer that keeps coming back to many of us is while COOL is 
good for average Americans, it is inconvenient for the large 
meatpacking cartel since they would be required to affix a simple label 
to their products and track the meat from the stockyard to the store 
shelf. So, despite the support of 167 consumer groups representing over 
50 million Americans, the administration denies Americans this basic 
information.
  USDA should reopen the investigation and try to locate all of the 
cattle from the Canadian index herd. They should also assist American 
consumers and American farmers and ranchers by immediately implementing 
a ``Product of the USA'' labeling program under emergency regulations. 
Instead of bowing to pressure and cutting short a valuable 
investigation, the administration should take a step back and rethink 
its priorities. The BSE scare is now hurting all of our ranchers, as 
over 40 countries have banned imports from the United States. The 
American livestock industry is being tarnished and ranchers are 
suffering because of one Canadian cow. The industry should not be 
further tarnished by inappropriate Government action. The 
administration should reopen the investigation, drop its opposition to 
labeling, and implement COOL immediately.
  For the sake of America's farmers and ranchers, for consumer 
confidence in the safety of our food supply, the administration needs 
to do the right thing. Though it might upset a few special interests, 
the American people will overwhelmingly support such an action because 
it is in their interest. I, for one, will commend the President for his 
thoughtful reversal of this misplaced policy priority.


    White House Says Exporting U.S. Jobs Is ``Good for the Economy''

  Mr. President, the other issue I wanted to discuss briefly is a new 
position taken by the administration, reflected in this newspaper. The 
article appeared this morning in the Los Angeles Times. The headline 
reads, ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.''
  I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 10, 2004]

                  Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas

                    (By Warren Vieth and Edwin Chen)

       Washington.--The movement of American factory jobs and 
     white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive 
     transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, 
     even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush 
     administration said Monday.
       The embrace of foreign out-sourcing, an accelerating trend 
     that has contributed to U.S. job losses in recent years and 
     has become an issue in the 2004 elections, is contained in 
     the president's annual report to Congress on the health of 
     the economy.
       ``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international 
     trade,'' said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council 
     of Economic Advisors, which prepared the report. ``More 
     things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And 
     that's good thing.''
       The report, which predicts that the nation will reverse a 
     three-year employment slide by creating 2.6 million jobs in 
     2004, is part of a weeklong effort by the administration to 
     highlight signs that the recovery is picking up speed. Bush's 
     economic stewardship has become a central issue in the 
     presidential campaign, and the White House is eager to 
     demonstrate that his policies are producing results.
       In his message to Congress on Monday, Bush said the economy 
     `` is strong and getting stronger,'' thanks in part to his 
     tax cuts and other economic programs. He said the nation had 
     survived a stock market meltdown, recession, terrorist 
     attacks, corporate scandals and war in Afghanistan and Iraq, 
     and was finally beginning to enjoy ``a mounting prosperity 
     that will reach every corner of America.''
       The president repeated that message during an afternoon 
     discussion about the economy at SRC Automotive, an engine-
     rebuilding plant in Springfield, Mo., where he

[[Page 1326]]

     lashed out at lawmakers who oppose making his tax cuts 
     permanent.
       ``When they say, `We're going to repeal Bush's tax cuts,' 
     that means they're going to raise you taxes, and that's 
     wrong. And that's bad economics,'' he said.
       Democrats who want Bush's job were quick to challenge his 
     claims.
       Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for 
     the Democratic presidential nomination, supports a rollback 
     of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and backs the 
     creation of tax incentives for companies that keep jobs in 
     the United States--although he supported the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement, which many union members say is 
     responsible for the migration of U.S. jobs, particularly in 
     the auto industry, to Mexico.
       Campaigning Monday in Roanoke, Va., Kerry questioned the 
     credibility of the administration's job-creation forecast.
       ``I've got a feeling this report was prepared by the same 
     people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq,'' Kerry said. 
     ``I don't think we need a new report about jobs in America. I 
     think we need a new president who's going to create jobs in 
     America and put Americans back to work.''
       In an evening appearance at George Mason University in 
     Fairfax, Va., Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina mocked the 
     Bush administration's economic report.
       Edwards, who also supports repealing tax cuts for the 
     richest Americans and offering incentives to corporation that 
     create new jobs in the United States, said it would come as a 
     ``news bulletin'' to the American people that the economy was 
     improving and that the outsourcing of jobs was good for 
     America.
       ``These people,'' he said of the Bush administration, 
     ``what planet do they live on? They are so out of touch.''
       The president's 411-page report contains a detailed 
     diagnosis of the forces the White House says are contributing 
     to America's economic slowdown and a wide-ranging defense of 
     the policies Bush has pursued to combat it.
       It asserts that the last recession actually began in late 
     2000, before the president took office, instead of March 
     2001, as certified by the official recession-dating panel of 
     the National Bureau of Economic Research.
       Much of the report repeats the administration's previous 
     economic prescriptions.
       For instance, it says the Bush tax cuts must be made 
     permanent to have their full effect on the economy.
       Social Security also must be restructured to let workers 
     put part of their retirement funds in private accounts, the 
     report argues. Doing so could add nearly $5 trillion to the 
     national debt by 2036, the president's advisors note, but the 
     additional borrowing would be repaid 20 years later and the 
     program's longterm health would be more secure.
       The report devotes an entire chapter to an issue that has 
     become increasingly troublesome for the administration: the 
     loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since Bush took 
     office, and critics' claims that his trade policies are 
     partly to blame.
       His advisors acknowledge that international trade and 
     foreign outsourcing have contributed to the job slump. But 
     the report argues that technological progress and rising 
     productivity--the ability to produce more goods with fewer 
     workers--have played a bigger role than the flight of 
     production to China and other low-wage countries.
       Although trade expansion inevitably hurts some domestic 
     workers, the benefits eventually will outweigh the costs as 
     Americans are able to buy cheaper goods and services and as 
     new jobs are created in growing sectors of the economy, the 
     report said.
       The president's report endorses the relatively new 
     phenomenon of outsourcing high-end, white-collar work to 
     India and other countries, a trend that has stirred concern 
     within such affected occupations as computer programming and 
     medical diagnostics.
       ``Maybe we will outsource a few radiologists,'' Mankiw told 
     reporters. ``What does that mean? Well, maybe the next 
     generation of doctors will train fewer radiologists and will 
     train more general practitioners or surgeons. . . .  Maybe 
     we've learned that we don't have a comparative advantage in 
     radiologist.''
       Government should try to salve the short-term disruption by 
     helping displaced workers obtain the training they need to 
     enter new fields, such as healthcare, Mankiw said, not by 
     erecting protectionist barriers on behalf of vulnerable 
     industries or professions. ``The market is the best 
     determinant of where the jobs should be,'' he said.
       Bush's quick visit to Missouri--his 15th to a state 
     considered a critical election battleground--was the first of 
     several events this week intended to underscore recent 
     economic gains. Although U.S. job creation remains relatively 
     sluggish, the nation's unemployment rate fell from 6.4% in 
     June to 5.6% in January, and the economy grew at the fastest 
     pace in 20 years during the last half of 2003.
       The format of his visit to SRC Automotive--one that he 
     particularly likes--involved several employees and local 
     business owners sharing the stage with the president to 
     discuss their perspectives on the economy, with Bush 
     elaborating on their stories to emphasize particular aspects 
     of his economic program.
       Today, Bush is scheduled to meet with economic leaders at 
     the White House. On Thursday, he goes to Pennsylvania's 
     capital, Harrisburg--in another swing state that he has 
     already visited more than two dozen times since becoming 
     president.

  Mr. DASCHLE. When I saw the headline, I had to read it twice.
  I actually could not believe what I was reading. Again the quote is 
from the headline, ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.''
  Our economy has already lost 2.6 million jobs in the last 3 years. We 
have 9 million Americans who are unemployed. Long-term unemployment is 
at a 20-year high, and 80,000 workers are exhausting their unemployment 
benefits every week because our Republican colleagues refuse to extend 
temporary Federal unemployment benefits.
  What does the White House say? The President's top economic advisers 
tell us not to worry. They say shipping American jobs to China, India, 
and other countries is actually good for the economy. Those comments 
are actually in this article. It is a direct quote, that these American 
jobs shipped abroad are good for the economy. They say exporting 
computer programming jobs and other white-collar jobs is actually good 
for the economy.
  The White House acknowledges some workers will be hurt. But then they 
say the ``benefits'' of exporting American jobs ``eventually will 
outweigh the costs as Americans are able to buy cheaper goods and 
services and new jobs are created in growing sectors of the economy.''
  How are people without jobs supposed to buy all of these goods and 
services? How do you keep a consumer economy going when you export the 
jobs? What are they thinking?
  The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the 
office that wrote the report, says the ``government should try to salve 
the short-term disruption by helping displaced workers obtain the 
training they need to enter new fields, such as health care.'' That 
sounds like a cruel joke.
  The President's proposed budget for next year cuts money for Federal 
job training.
  You have on the one hand the President's council arguing we ought to 
train displaced workers but then have the budget presented to Congress 
as one which actually cuts the very training the administration is 
advocating.
  How do people know what fields to train for? How do they know the 
jobs they are training for won't be the next jobs targeted to be 
shipped overseas with the encouragement of the White House?
  Maybe exporting American jobs sounds like a good idea if you are 
sitting in some think tank, or behind a desk at the White House, or 
here on the Hill. But out in the real world, it is creating real 
hardship and anxiety.
  I have seen what happens when plants ship their jobs overseas. It 
happened in my hometown 2 years ago. Midcom, Incorporated makes 
electronic transformers for high-tech companies. They used to employ 
200 people in Aberdeen. One Tuesday morning in March of 2001, those 
workers showed up for work and were told their jobs were going to be 
gone in 3 months, many of them to Mexico and China.
  I have met with many of those workers. A lot of them are women in 
their 40s and 50s, and their families depended on their incomes to make 
ends meet. They don't see how exporting their jobs was a good idea for 
the economy, and neither do most Americans.
  The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers is 
quoted as saying, ``Out-sourcing is just a new way of doing 
international trade.'' ``More things are tradable than were tradable in 
the past. ``
  Not everything is tradable. The dignity that comes from earning an 
honest dollar and providing for your family is not tradable. The 
security that comes from knowing you can pay the bills and you are not 
going to lose your home is not tradable. The sense of patriotism and 
community that says we are all in this together is not a tradable 
commodity.
  The White House report predicts a miraculous economic recovery this

[[Page 1327]]

year. They say we could see the creation of 3.8 million jobs. The White 
House has said the economy will create millions of jobs every year now 
for the last 3 years. And they have been wrong. They are wrong now when 
they say exporting American jobs is good for the economy. The White 
House has lost more jobs on President Bush's watch than the last 11 
administrations put together. They have cut job training in education. 
They are blocking Federal unemployment benefits. And now, incredibly, 
they are saying that exporting middle-class, white-collar jobs is good 
for the economy.
  Instead of policies that reward companies for shifting jobs overseas, 
instead of letting companies open a post office box in some island 
nation and call it their corporate headquarters so they skip out on 
paying taxes, America needs a real plan to keep the good jobs we have 
here and create many more of them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand there is an amendment of the 
Senator from Virginia and the Senator from New York pending. Is that 
the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I spoke about this amendment this morning. 
For those who may not have been fortunate enough to hear it, let me 
reiterate just a few of the important points.
  This is a mandate. This is very clearly a mandate with a very severe 
penalty on any State that doesn't either have 90-percent usage of 
seatbelts or a primary seatbelt law.
  I came to this body as a former Governor who has seen so much of the 
big brother influence telling State Governors and State legislators 
what they have to do, and I said we need to find a better way of doing 
things. I also said I happen to be a strong believer in seatbelts. I 
have been in a couple of serious accidents. Because I had a seatbelt on 
and the shoulder harness, I came away with only a good fright, and, 
fortunately, with no serious injuries. I have seen many other people 
who were not so fortunate. I believe in encouraging seatbelt usage. I 
believe the proper way to do it is through incentives and 
encouragement.
  Under this proposed amendment, in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, 10 
percent of the funds under the Highway Safety Improvement Program would 
be transferred to the section 402 program, and beginning in 2007, 2 
percent of the Interstate Maintenance, Surface Transportation and 
Bridge Programs would be withheld from States that didn't have a 
primary seatbelt law or achieve at least a 90-percent safety belt use 
rate. The percentage withheld would rise to 4 percent in fiscal year 
2008 and thereafter.
  Why do I object to that? That is telling the people who pay the money 
into the Federal highway trust fund through their taxes on the fuel 
they buy that their legislature has to do what we say they should or we 
are going to withhold the money from them. I believe we cannot continue 
to usurp the activities and the roles of State legislatures and State 
chief executive officers.
  I introduced a letter from a number of organizations saying:

       Currently States face 8 highway safety-related sanctions 
     and penalties that are designed to force compliance with 
     various Federal highway safety mandates or goals, including 
     enactment, by specified deadlines, of various types of State 
     safety legislation. While our organizations support the 
     underlying safety goals, we oppose the use of penalties and 
     sanctions.

  They go on to say:

       Fewer resources to invest means delays in roadway and 
     intersection improvements, fewer dollars for upgrading 
     signage and markings, and less funding available for 
     investment and safety research.

  Also signing this letter are the executive director of the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the 
executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, the 
president and chief executive officer of the American Highway Users 
Alliance, the executive director of the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the executive director of the Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance, the executive director of the National Conference of 
State Legislators, the president of the American Council of Engineering 
Companies, and the vice president of Public Affairs of the AAA, as 
well, I might say not surprisingly, as the executive director of the 
National Governors Association.
  I hope we may be able to have a vote on that very shortly. But I 
would defer to the principal sponsor of the amendment to speak in 
opposition to the arguments I have made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy, and 
that of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe.
  I say to my dear friends: What price do you put on life? No one 
disputes this legislation will save lives. I don't know of anyone in 
this Chamber who wouldn't put the highest possible priority on saving 
lives.
  This legislation follows, in many respects, what this Chamber did not 
too many years ago when it was faced with the problem of trying to 
reduce the actions and loss of life or injury occasioned by the abuse 
of alcohol and then driving the automobile.
  As a consequence of that, 47 States now have complied with that 
statute. It is a success in terms of the limited goals that could be 
set realistically by the .08 drinking level. It achieved the goals in 
47 States.
  We are asking the average American, about 79 percent of our 
constituents in the 50 States--it varies from State to State but 
overall average, nationally, 79 percent--who use the seatbelt, we are 
just trying to take it from 79 percent up to 90 percent.
  That is the purpose, to save lives, very often innocent lives. It is 
a well-known, documented fact that in a collision, those who have 
safety belts on have a higher degree of physical control over the 
vehicle with the hope of trying to reduce the consequences of the 
inevitable accident. Without a seatbelt, the driver is often jostled in 
such a way that he or she loses total control of the car and often an 
innocent individual is injured.
  It is the youth of this Nation who will be the principal 
beneficiaries of this legislation because, regrettably, it is the young 
people who are so often involved in these frightful accidents. For 
whatever reason, macho or otherwise, they do not wear their seatbelts.
  This law would simply say that law enforcement in the several States, 
when they observe a car passing and the driver does not utilize their 
safety belt, can pull that driver over. In my State today, that driver 
cannot be pulled over unless he or she is committing an offense other 
than not wearing their safety belt. Law enforcement can then pull that 
driver over if he or she is not wearing their safety belt and levy 
whatever penalties are appropriate. But it is that fear of being pulled 
over, particularly among those young people, who always seem to be 
fighting accumulated points for driving infractions, who will be the 
principal beneficiaries.
  The men and women of the Armed Forces, regrettably--so many of them, 
again, ages 18 to 30--are involved in these accidents. So we are 
helping our military because they will comply with this law of the 
several States if there is a mandatory seatbelt law.
  When my colleagues cast their vote momentarily, stop to think, what 
price do you put on a life? I bet if you go back--perhaps I can 
resurrect how you voted on the .08 legislation for alcohol; this is a 
direct parallel in almost every way.
  This is not mandated because the State, on its own initiative, can 
devise a program to go to 90 percent. It does not have to follow this 
track. Go ahead, there might be a better idea in your State to reach 90 
percent. Then there is no problem under this law; you have met the 
criteria.
  As that bell rings and you approach the Chamber, just ask yourself 
the question, What price do I put on a life? Because no one in this 
Chamber can stand up and say this law would not save lives, would not 
save injuries,

[[Page 1328]]

would not save money now expended by your local community to care for 
those in an accident, many of whom do not have insurance. And the bill 
stops at your local hospital, unpaid. We did it for .08; we can do it 
for this.
  I thank my colleagues for patiently listening to me. My distinguished 
colleagues from Missouri read off a list of endorsements and I have 135 
groups here. The American Medical Association--I listened very 
carefully yesterday at a press conference when this was addressed by 
their representative--is strongly in favor of this. My colleague from 
Missouri mentioned the chiefs of police. I am proud to say my State, 
the Virginia Chiefs, endorse this statute. As I say, the President, 
through his Secretary of Transportation, while not directly addressing 
this specific piece of legislation, said:

       I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the 
     single most effective means to decrease highway fatalities 
     and injuries.

  I have two cosponsors on this bill. I wonder if the distinguished 
manager would enable me just to contact them?
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. In fairness to the Senator's cosponsors and in fairness 
to others who may not be easily retrievable at this time, I believe it 
would be a good idea to defer the vote. I will move to table and ask 
for the yeas and nays but ask the leadership to maybe put it tomorrow 
morning sometime. That will give the Senator ample time and provide 
time for them to be heard on the bill. Is that acceptable?
  Mr. WARNER. That is a reasonable request. I think the distinguished 
Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, would require, say, 10 minutes and 
the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and the distinguished 
Senator from Washington, 10; I will take 5 more minutes; maybe 40 
minutes on this side prior to the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I do not have a problem with that and 40 minutes on this 
side at all. Why not plan to do that?
  Now I have been told we cannot lock in time agreements on a tabling 
motion, so I will withhold.
  Let me be sure we all understand: In my State of Oklahoma, it perhaps 
makes no difference. We are one of the 20 States that has mandatory 
seatbelt laws. In fact, it could be argued we could be benefited by 
this because if other States do not comply and are punished, then that 
amount of money could go to the States that already comply. So I could 
actually benefit.
  My problem has always been, as the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia knows, it is a mandate. I would prefer not to do it this way.
  I know the Senator's heart is right. I know there is another great 
person who served in here by the name of John Chafee who felt as 
strongly about this as the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Also, Mr. President, we discussed the possibility that I 
could amend this because I think the distinguished chairman pointed out 
that 8 months is a short time. So if we could have a gentlemen's 
understanding that perhaps I could amend it in such a way to take that 
clause and revise it to enable States to have more time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are accommodating the desires of the 
managers of this bill. Certainly as the chief proponents of this 
amendment, as long as my cosponsors have an opportunity to speak to it, 
this matter will be handled fairly.
  I yield the floor.


                           motorcycle safety

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
tells us that almost 5 million motorcycles are registered to operate on 
America's roadways, covering almost 17 million miles per year. Many 
more are used off-road, and some estimates put the actual number of 
riders at up to 20 million.
  All these Americans choose to ride motorcycles either for recreation 
or for their primary means of transportation, and every year the number 
of Americans on motorcycles increases. As that number increases, so 
does the number of accidents, including fata accidents. Yet we are 
falling tragically behind in training these individuals to ride safely.
  The single best way to avoid injuries, fatalities, high insurance 
costs, lawsuits, medical costs and all the other factors that come into 
play is by avoiding the accidents in the first place.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in its Motorcycle 
Safety Program issued in January 2003, said: ``Crash prevention . . . 
offers the greatest potential safety benefit for motorcyclists.''
  And the single best way to avoid accidents is to provide safety 
training.
  Training works.
  Untrained riders have accidents, and trained riders do not. It is 
really as simple as that.
  A study of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program designed by Dr. 
John Billheimer and completed in 1996 found that rider training 
dramatically reduces accidents, and thus eliminates injuries and 
fatalities. Specifically, the study stated, ``Analyses of statewide 
accident trends show that total motorcycle accidents have dropped 67 
percent since the introduction of the California Motorcyclist Safety 
Program, with a drop of 88 percent among the under-18 riders. . . . If 
accident trends in California had paralleled those in the rest of the 
U.S. over this period, the State would have experienced an additional 
124 fatalities per year. By any measure, the California Motorcyclist 
Safety Program is a cost-effective program that pays for itself many 
times over in saved lives and reduced accident rates.''
  Even more recent statistics from the Commonwealth of Virginia are 
equally telling. Virginia has approximately 110,000 registered 
motorcycle. Since 1998, there have been 7,099 motorcycle crashes in 
Virginia and 222 of those crashes have been fatal. Yet out of all those 
accidents, the number involving riders with formal training is less 
than 4 percent of the total, and the number of fatal accidents 
involving trained riders is just 1.8 percent. The vast majority of all 
accidents--over 96 percent--are riders without training.
  The most far-reaching document yet completed on motorcyclist safety 
is the ``National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety,'' a cooperative effort 
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Motorcycle 
Safety Foundation, the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety 
Administrators, and a host of others representing the insurance 
industry, law enforcement, riders, traffic safety experts and others.
  The National Agenda identified a number of steps needed to reduce the 
tragic rate of motorcycle accidents. Uppermost among them is the need 
for better training.
  Where does motorcyclist training come from? Who does it? How is it 
funded?
  The truth is, training, and funding for training, is a mixed bag. And 
that, is exactly the problem. Most States provide at least moral 
support, but there is no uniform process for ensuring that training is 
provided, or that the facilities and funding is made available.
  In most cases, training is funded almost entirely by the students 
themselves, who pay up to $300 per person for the privilege. Many 
States also collect money--often a nominal charge of $5.00 for a 
motorcycle operator's license. Both these efforts to raise funds are 
strongly supported by and promoted by the motorcycling community--but 
they want to ensure that the funds are actually used for things that 
enhance motorcyclist safety.
  As for the curriculum itself, far and away the most frequent choice 
is the material created by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF), a 
group supported by the major motorcycle manufacturers.
  The MSF course material for beginning motorcyclists is extremely 
comprehensive. It focuses on teaching the skills and knowledge needed 
for safe riding--beginning with the use of proper equipment such as 
gloves, boots and helmets, goes on to teach students how to predict and 
avoid hazardous situations, and graduates to teaching the

[[Page 1329]]

physical skills needed for crash avoidance. This is precisely the 
course material that has produced such outstanding results in 
California, Virginia and many other States.
  You may well ask, ``If training is so successful, why do we still 
have so many accidents? The answer is as simple as can be: training 
availability lags far behind the demand.
  Throughout the country, the waiting list to join a training class 
ranges from several weeks to several months.
  In California, which has one of the oldest and strongest programs, it 
may take as long as 3 months.
  In Wisconsin, one of the States where training dollars were totally 
eliminated, motorcyclist groups have stepped up to the plate to self-
fund training, but the waiting list may be as large as 7,000 people.
  Illinois trained 8,500 people in 2000, but had to turn away nearly 
3,000 more for lack of space. Course capacity increased in 2001 and 
2002, but the number of people turned away increased faster. In 2003, 
almost 11,000 students completed training, but almost 4,000 were told 
``Sorry, there's no room for you.''
  And that's the story in State after State.
  Unfortunately, what that means is that untrained riders are 
increasing in number all the time. If you can pass your State's test, 
you can ride. And if you just spent thousands of dollars on a new 
motorcycle, the chances are you won't be letting that new motorcycle 
license go to waste. But a licensed rider isn't necessarily a trained 
rider, nor is he or she necessarily a safe rider. It takes training--or 
years of experience--to make a safe rider. The statistics from 
California and Virginia confirm that for all to see.
  At the appropriate time, it is my intention to seek action to 
encourage the State to provide more and better support for these vital 
training efforts.
  Now, let me turn to another concern of the motorcycling community. A 
large part of the training needed to produce safe riders consists of 
teaching them how to avoid road hazards that simply should not exist in 
the first place. In many cases, highway engineering practices focus on 
four wheels, not two.
  The average driver cruises past such things as bridge expansion 
joints, loose manhole covers, the slick sealants used to fill cracks in 
asphalt pavement, rough asphalt patches, rumble strips and lane-
dividing buttons that keep drivers awake, and the steel or steel cable 
barriers along the side of the road. Yet any or all of these things may 
be hazardous to a rider.
  The motorcycling community has long sought ways to let engineers and 
designers know about those hazards, and work with them to design better 
systems. I have seriously contemplated offering an amendment that would 
address this issue, but I am happy to report that such an amendment may 
not be needed.
  That concludes my statement for the movement, but at this time I 
would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee on this matter.
  I have been working in several areas to address the issue of 
motorcyclist safety. As part of this effort, I have been working to 
establish an Advisory Council to assist the Secretary of Transportation 
in developing the appropriate safety specifications for highways and 
motorcycles. Fatalities among motorcyclists have gone up dramatically, 
rising from 2,112 in 1997 to 3,244 in 2002. Because motorcyclists have 
special needs and concerns, I have long been concerned that the 
Department of Transportation has not had adequate input from either 
riders or experts outside the Department itself. Thus, I proposed 
establishing a council of riders and experts to advise the Secretary on 
their unique safety needs.
  Chairman Inhofe has been very helpful in trying to find the most 
appropriate way to get this accomplished. He suggested and I agreed to 
work with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials--AASHTO, which is the organization that actually develops 
guidelines for highway safety engineering.
  I recently received from AASHTO a letter describing a task force it 
has developed to identify strategies that can be used to reduce 
motorcycle fatalities and injuries. I believe this task force may be 
able to accomplish my goal of elevating the unique safety needs of 
motorcyclists to greater attention by including both riders and outside 
experts in its deliberations. As a result, I have decided not to offer 
an amendment to establish an advisory council at this time.
  I believe that Chairman Inhofe has had an opportunity to look over 
the AASHTO letter and I am wondering if he agrees with me that this 
will accomplish what we have been working towards.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have read the AASHTO letter to Senator Murkowski and 
agree with her that the task force proposed by AASHTO will indeed 
accomplish what she seeks to achieve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from AASHTO 
dated February 3, 2004 to Senator Murkowski be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials,
                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 2004.
     Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: It has been brought to our 
     attention that motorcycle safety issues are of great concern 
     to you and your constituents. As you know, motorcycle 
     fatalities have gone up dramatically in the past several 
     years, rising from 2,112 fatalities in 1997 to 3,244 in 2002. 
     The State transportation agencies share your commitment to 
     addressing this public safety problem.
       Motorcycle riding has special needs and concerns. 
     Currently, the American Association of State Highway and 
     Transportation Officials (AASHTO), through the National 
     Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), is developing 
     guidance for the State transportation departments on 
     motorcycle issues as part of the implementation of our 
     Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Part of this multi-million-
     dollar research effort is focused on improving motorcycle 
     safety and increasing motorcycle awareness. Targeted areas in 
     which I understand you may share a strong interest include:
       Increasing the awareness of motorcycles on the road through 
     a ``share-the-road with motorcycles'' campaign and stressing 
     the importance of motorcycle awareness information in driver 
     training courses, driver handbooks or manuals, and licensing 
     tests;
       Expanding comprehensive motorcycle rider education and 
     skill testing in all States for novice riders; and
       Reducing drinking and driving by motorcyclists through 
     alcohol awareness messages and targeted enforcement.
       As part of this effort, a workshop is being planned for 
     June 2004 to identify strategies that can be used to reduce 
     motorcycle fatalities and injuries. You and/or your 
     constituents are welcome to participate in, and contribute 
     to, this workshop. The result of this research project will 
     be the development of a guide for highway officials on 
     practices than can improve safety for motorcyclists 
     throughout the transportation system.
       Also as part of the implementation of our Strategic Highway 
     Safety Plan, ASSHTO has committed to the creation of a joint 
     task force to identify hazards/areas of concern to 
     motorcyclists, as well as highway practices that can help 
     minimize these concerns. Examples include the longitudinal 
     expansion joints on bridges, the slickness of material used 
     to fill asphalt pavement cracks, and the safety of various 
     types of guardrail including traditional steel W-beam 
     guardrail and the newer cable barriers. This joint task force 
     will consist of members from the State transportation 
     departments, the American Motorcyclist Association, the 
     Motorcycle Riders Foundation, the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration, and the Federal Highway 
     Administration. Additional input may also be sought from 
     other noted experts in the areas of motorcycle and highway 
     safety both here and abroad. The information developed by 
     this special committee will be used as input into the 
     revision and update of the various AASHTO manuals and guides.
       We are very pleased that you have an interest in this area 
     and we are committed to working with you over the next year 
     to ensure that these issues are addressed and that the 
     resulting recommendations are successfully implemented. 
     Please contact my office at (202) 624-5800 if you have any 
     questions regarding this information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John C. Horsley,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. INHOFE. I understand that the Senator has also proposed creating 
a new program to encourage improvements in the States' motorcycle 
safety programs. I believe this amendment

[[Page 1330]]

would be very valuable. I also believe it would be most appropriate 
offered as part of the Commerce Committee title, and would like to be 
added as an original cosponsor of the amendment when that happens.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chairman for his assistance and will add 
him as an original cosponsor when that amendment is offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion on the bill to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the 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, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     426, S. 1072, a bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes.
          Bill Frist, James Inhofe, Christopher Bond, Gordon 
           Smith, Lamar Alexander, Richard Lugar, Lincoln Chafee, 
           Elizabeth Dole, George Allen, Pat Roberts, Robert 
           Bennett, Craig Thomas, Richard Shelby, Norm Coleman, 
           Mike Crapo, Mike Enzi, Jim Bunning.

                          ____________________