[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1674-1721]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1072, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1072) to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Inhofe amendment No. 2285, in the nature of a substitute.
       Warner modified amendment No. 2286 (to amendment No. 2285), 
     to provide a highway safety improvement program that includes 
     incentives to States to enact primary safety belt laws.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Colorado, Mr. 
Allard, for his remarks on the economy. I want to get into the pending 
amendment. At that point, I hope the managers will allow me to continue 
and talk about this seatbelt amendment.
  I commend my colleague from Colorado, Senator Allard, for his 
comments. Tax cuts are working because individuals, families, and small 
businesses have greater freedom. They are investing. More jobs are 
being created, and there is more economic activity which makes our 
country more competitive.
  Our tax laws and regulatory policies--and any policy we have in this 
country--needs to ensure that there is more investment and more jobs in 
America. We ought not ruin opportunities for businesses to provide 
their employees with broad-based stock options. The People's Republic 
of China has technology companies that promote themselves because they 
have stock options for their employees. I hope in America we would not 
deny that opportunity. Internet taxes matter. We need not be imposing 
higher taxes on access to the Internet, particularly broadband. Energy 
is important. We need to have energy sufficiency and reliance, domestic 
production of natural gas or clean coal or oil, as well as advancements 
in new technology. And this highway bill is a part of that, it is also 
for infrastructure, jobs, and the movement of people to and from work 
with less congestion. I hope we will get to it.
  In the midst of this, we have an amendment. I have a tremendous 
amount of admiration and respect for my colleague, the senior Senator 
from

[[Page 1675]]

Virginia, Mr. Warner. His service to Virginia and to our Nation makes 
him a true American hero, in my view, and a great patriot. It is an 
honor to serve and partner with him.
  However, I am compelled to voice my opposition to an amendment that 
Senator Hillary Clinton and he have proposed to the underlying highway 
bill. The amendment that is before us, while certainly well-
intentioned, should not, in my view, be the purview of this body or the 
Federal Government. The proponents argue that it is a good idea to wear 
seatbelts. In most cases, that is true. But there is really no 
assertion nor persuasive reason that has been proffered for Federal 
jurisdiction in this case. This certainly is not interstate commerce. 
Without a Federal interest, I think this cause or this claim or this 
idea ought to be dismissed in the Senate and remanded to the place 
where this ought to be adjudicated; that is, in the State legislatures 
because this is clearly a State interest.
  Beyond the lack of Federal jurisdiction, I have long detested 
nannyism that emanates from the Federal Government. I believe 
legislating common sense is an ill-fated course that will result in 
countless mandates and directives imposed upon the American people.
  No one in this body or around the country will argue that wearing a 
seatbelt is not a good idea. I wear them. I make sure my kids are 
buckled up. Of course, there are laws that have to do with children, 
but we are dealing with adults with this amendment.
  The point is whether or not the Federal Government or any government 
ought to be legislating or coercing sensible behavior. There will be 
all sorts of ideas where people will say: Gosh, it is in government's 
interest--not just seatbelts but, gosh, you should not be drinking hot 
coffee, you should not be talking on the cell phone, and you should not 
be changing the radio station or trying to find your Alan Jackson CD 
while driving. You should not be eating a hamburger while driving. You 
ought not be looking at your Blackberry and replying while driving.
  If there are going to be laws in this area--which I do not advocate--
it ought to be at the State level.
  Any of these examples I cited, obviously, endanger not only the 
driver but others.
  I thank my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, for his great 
leadership on the highway bill, and also his support for the principles 
I will continue to espouse to my colleagues on this mandatory seatbelt 
dictate amendment.
  I don't think this body wishes to dictate mandates on a lot of things 
because they make good sense. Let's look at law enforcement. I am sure 
there are some in law enforcement officers who like this idea of 
primary enforcement rather than secondary enforcement. In my view, law 
enforcement has a lot of important things to do, especially on safety 
of the highways.
  For example, there is a driver on the road without his or her 
seatbelt on but otherwise driving the speed limit in their lane safely, 
not impaired by drugs or alcohol; meanwhile, law enforcement stops 
them, pulls them over, and it takes 20 to 30 minutes for them to cite 
someone who undoubtedly will be miffed by such pestering. At the same 
time, down the same stretch of highway there could be a drug-impaired 
or alcohol-impaired driver weaving down the road undetected because the 
sheriff's deputy or the State trooper or the police officer is 
bothering someone who is otherwise driving safely.
  This amendment clearly tramples on the rights, the prerogatives, and 
the jurisdiction that have long been the purview of the people in the 
States. I don't believe mandates such as this initiative should come 
from any level of government. I was not for it as a State legislator or 
a Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, if governments are 
to be making a decision on this, it ought to be the State governments, 
not the U.S. Congress.
  The logical regression is that somebody could make an argument that 
people riding motorcycles are safer wearing helmets than not having 
helmets. There are many States that do not have helmet laws. It is the 
right of the people of South Dakota, or whatever State it may be, to 
have such helmet laws. The logic, of course, would be that the Federal 
Government could say all motorcycle riders have to wear helmets.
  In my view, our State legislatures provide a much closer 
representation of the views, the beliefs, and the will of the people in 
their respective constituencies, in their respective States all across 
our country. I am a firm believer that the laws of a particular State 
do reflect the principles and the views of its constituents and how 
they want to be governed.
  I hope my colleagues realize that many States do not have primary 
seatbelt laws. In fact, 30 States do not. While New York and New Jersey 
have primary enforcement, as do Maryland, Delaware, and California, 
there are 30 States, from Maine to Virginia, to South Carolina, to 
Florida, to Missouri, to Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and Alaska, that do 
not. If such seatbelt laws are desired, the citizens in these States 
will elect representatives and State legislators who share this belief 
and who want to pass such a petty law.
  A minority of the States currently have the primary enforcement of 
seatbelt laws. I am sure it has been considered by State legislatures. 
It has been considered in Virginia for many years and debated as to the 
benefits of primary seatbelt statutes. Never, though, has it been 
agreed to be the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In fact, just 
last week the Virginia House of Delegates Transportation Committee 
tabled a measure that would have established a primary seatbelt law.
  Again, I am often puzzled by the scant Federal nexus on this issue. 
Is it that State roads go through other States? For the Federal 
Government to usurp State authority on an issue that does not concern 
the safety of the public but only the individual in my view is Federal 
meddling at its worst, especially when coupled with repressive 
extortion.
  When these issues are decided by State legislatures, all sorts of 
interesting things come up. There is naturally the libertarian streak, 
which my good friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, and I will 
discuss from time to time. That is an issue. But, interestingly, some 
other issues will come up. Last year in the debate in the Virginia 
General Assembly and the House of Delegates, Delegate Ken Melvin of 
Portsmouth, VA, voiced his opposition to a primary seatbelt law, 
stating: I know what happens when you are stopped by police, as a black 
man in this country and in Virginia, in particular. He explained how 
his son was harassed and pulled over numerous times for no apparent 
reason.
  So we end up with concerns of driving and persecution of people on 
account of their race. That is something to be decided in a State 
legislature. I am not sure if every State has it. I am sure most places 
in Virginia do not have this problem. Nevertheless, that is the 
discussion that was held on the floor of Mr. Jefferson's capitol in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.
  The Virginia Legislature and the legislatures of other States, from 
Alaska to Florida and South Carolina, can discuss the impact of this on 
the people of their States rather than have the Congress hold hostage 
desperately needed funds for highways to make them comply with the one-
size-fits-all edict and agenda.
  Proponents will say this initiative provides States with supposed 
options. The reality is, by withholding highway funding, it is a de 
facto mandate. I do not believe in blackmailing the people of the 30 
States, or any State with primary seatbelt laws for funding that their 
citizens have paid into the Federal highway trust fund.
  I have watched this debate very closely on the reauthorization. We 
have heard the vast majority of Senators, thank goodness, laud the 
potential of this measure to create thousands of jobs in their States 
and obviously alleviating aggravating congestion in metropolitan and 
suburban areas of our country. If that is the case, why should we, as a 
Federal Government, withhold any portion of this funding, given its 
great prospects for

[[Page 1676]]

jobs and also its ability to improve the quality of life? Our 
Commonwealth of Virginia would lose tens of millions of dollars until 
enacting a primary seatbelt law or convincing the federal government 
ninety percent of Virginians are wearing seatbelts.
  Given the congestion in Hampton Roads, northern Virginia, and the 
number of Virginians seeking employment, I cannot support a measure 
that would reduce the amount of benefits available to Virginia.
  I commend my friend and partner, Senator Warner, on what he has been 
able to do over many years in getting Virginia's share of Federal 
dollars up from 79 cents to 80 cents to 90 cents and, in this measure, 
up to 95 cents. But Virginia is already paying in more than we get 
back. In addition, punishing the people of Virginia by withholding 
until they are coerced in the legislature into passing a primary 
enforcement of a seatbelt bill, to me, is wrong.
  I know what they will have to do; they will have to pass it, just as 
they had to pass in all the States raising the beer drinking age and 
the .08 blood alcohol content maximum. The latter did not have an 
impact in Virginia because as Governor I advocated .08 and we enacted 
into law.
  States need the funds for roads and transit. It is contrary to the 
best interests of Virginia to force primary seatbelt mandates in 
exchange for funds. We ought to be making the most funding available 
for highways rather than returning less of Virginia gasoline taxes to 
them until they pass such an officious measure as this.
  There are more effective ways to convince Americans to wear seatbelts 
when driving or traveling in an automobile or pickup truck. But 
meddling into every aspect of our citizens' lives, usurping the 
authority of the people through their legislatures, holding hostage 
infrastructure funds that are so needed, to me, is not the appropriate 
method to realize these salutary goals.
  As I said, I have a great deal of respect for Senator Warner. I know 
he cares passionately about this issue, but I don't believe this is in 
the best interests of the Commonwealth of Virginia or 49 other States. 
In my view, it continues a dangerous precedent that allows the Federal 
Government to further encroach on an issue traditionally determined by 
the States by withholding these infrastructure funds. This is simply 
not an issue for the Senate. It is not an issue for Congress to decide. 
It is clearly properly reserved to the people in the States.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this amendment, tabling 
it, however it comes before the Senate. I certainly do not want to play 
the role of ``father knows best'' or senatorial nanny to coerce or 
reverse the decisions clearly made by my State's legislature or, for 
that matter, 29 other States.
  Let there be no mistake. I strongly support greater seatbelt usage. I 
believe it can save lives on our roads and highways. But I do not 
support that usage coming as a result of a dictate and blackmail from 
``Federales'' here in Washington, DC.
  Let's not meddle with the laps of drivers driving safely down the 
road as adults. Let's trust free people to make these decisions and 
their State legislatures as to what they think the laws and enforcement 
ought to be, whether it is helmet laws or whether it is seatbelt laws. 
Let's also pass this otherwise beneficial bill that will help reduce 
congestion and help create jobs in our country.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator, my dear 
friend, yield for some questions?
  Mr. ALLEN. I would be happy to.
  Mr. WARNER. I think as the two of us are here on the Senate floor, I 
am reminded that when Ben Franklin emerged from the Constitutional 
Convention, a reporter asked him: Well, what have the delegates to the 
convention rendered America? He said: A republic, if you can keep it. 
And this is the very essence of the Republic, if we can keep it, 
because here we are, two of the best of friends, proud to represent the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, and 90 percent of the time we are aligned. 
Yet our system allows the two of us to debate opposite positions on a 
piece of legislation I offered. I think that is magnificent, not only 
for our State but for the country.
  Mr. ALLEN. If I may, I would much rather be debating this issue with 
your colleague on this, the junior Senator from New York. It would be 
much more enjoyable than with someone who is such a great partner. I 
yield back.
  Mr. WARNER. I believe there would be somewhat greater notoriety, but 
I think some of the folks down in Virginia would be rather amused that 
here we are, the two elected Senators, having an honest and forthright 
debate, and in a friendly spirit.
  But I picked up on one or two of your words. I know you love that 
word, Congress being the ``nanny.'' But, first, I ask my junior 
Senator, have I ever been a nanny toward you?
  Mr. ALLEN. Of course not.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. ALLEN. I wouldn't allow it, and you wouldn't either.
  Mr. WARNER. So be it. Let's put that to one side.
  Mr. ALLEN. I would say for the record, Mr. President, no, the senior 
Senator from Virginia has given me guidance but never in a sense of 
being an officious nanny whatsoever.
  Mr. WARNER. Nor will I ever because I have tremendous respect for the 
Senator. We come to the Senate with different career backgrounds: You, 
a very distinguished State legislator, then Governor, and now U.S. 
Senator. How well I know that. I campaigned as a U.S. Senator when you 
were a State legislator, when you were running for the governorship, 
and then for the Senate. I am privileged and delighted that the Senator 
is here.
  But you used one word I have to ask you to reconsider: This will 
establish a dangerous precedent. I ask my good friend--Virginia has the 
.08 drinking law, which has been very effective. It has saved lives. 
That is the purpose of this legislation, to save lives. To me, a little 
less concrete, a little less asphalt, and we may save a life, and we 
may save thrusting expenses on the local communities--whether it is the 
small community of Hopewell, VA, or the large community of Richmond. 
When an accident happens, they are the ones who bear the cost of 
sending out the police, the rescue squads--fortunately, Virginians 
volunteer in many instances--to attend to the wounded, the sick, and, 
indeed, the dying as a consequence of the accident.
  That is costly, and it is clearly documented that we save lives with 
the increase in the use of seatbelts. The Secretary of Transportation, 
on behalf of the President, wrote this body a letter, addressed to the 
distinguished chairman, Mr. Inhofe, which is in the Record. It 
explicitly says the increase in the use of seatbelts saves lives. I do 
not think throughout this debate--I have been here throughout this 
debate--not one single Member of the Senate has taken the floor and 
addressed this legislation that it does not save lives. That is a 
given.
  So let's go back to the .08 law. Is that not a direct precedent for 
this piece of legislation? This legislation is drawn, sentence by 
sentence, comparable to the .08 law. That was my objective.
  Mr. ALLEN. I say to my colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia, 
it is similar in some respects.
  Let me make a few points. Talking about cost--local rescue squads, 
volunteer fire departments, and so forth, having to work accidents--
well, it is not as if the State legislatures do not care about these 
costs because, after all, if it is State police or if it is local 
supervisors or whoever it may be, they all care about that as well. And 
that is the proper forum for this because I think the people in the 
States do care just as much if not more and are much more in tune with 
what they would like to do in their laws than the Federal Government.
  The difference on .08--I did allude to it, and it is a good, 
probative question--the .08 blood-alcohol level for drunk driving, or 
driving while under the influence of alcohol, is something that I 
advocated when you were alongside of me campaigning for Governor in 
1993. There was opposition to that. But I thought, as well as you do, 
that at .08

[[Page 1677]]

most people are going to be impaired and, therefore, a danger, in that 
case to themselves, but what I cared most about was the danger to 
others.
  In the case of somebody's lap, whether they are wearing a seatbelt or 
not, if it is a danger, it is only a slight increase in danger to 
themselves. It is not a danger to others on the road. Whereas, for 
somebody who is a drunk driver, clearly it is going to be a danger to 
themselves, but what might they do to an innocent pedestrian, somebody 
else driving on the road? So even .08, while we had it--and so the 
dictate and the extortion, whatever term you want to use on .08, it did 
not matter to Virginia because we had already passed that law, imagine 
that, without the wisdom of Washington. We actually did that. The point 
is, in this case, unlike a drunk driver, not wearing a seatbelt is not 
a danger to others, while a drunk driver is. And that is a distinction 
I would make.
  But in either case, just personally--this is just philosophical to 
me, and maybe it is because of my experience serving in the State 
legislature and as Governor--I think the people in the States are 
perfectly capable of making these judgments themselves. And to restrict 
or take away funds unless you follow the dictates of the Federal 
Government in something that while desirable is not really the proper 
jurisdiction of the Federal Government, to me, is just wrong.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I full well know, 
having had the privilege of working with you throughout much of our 
public service careers, your strong feeling about States rights. And I 
have mine also. But I have to tell the Senator, the facts do not bear 
out the assumption that that individual driving without the seatbelt is 
of minimal danger to an innocent person, be it a pedestrian or one in 
another car, for this reason: It is very clear that if an accident 
occurs with an individual driving under the restraint of a seatbelt, he 
or she has, in that split fraction of a second, better control over the 
car than one who is totally jostled out of the driver's position and 
loses the ability to operate the controls of the car because of the 
absence of a restraint to keep that individual in the position of the 
driver.
  Now, the record is replete with those facts. Secondly, yes, you think 
the people of Virginia--and we love them dearly and they will be on 
your side, not on mine; they will be on your side--should make the 
decision. But, tragically, for children, 6 out of 10 die who do not 
have the seatbelt put on them.
  By the driver putting on his or her seatbelt, there is more of an 
inclination, then, to do the same with the other passengers in the car. 
The death on our highways today cuts into the young people, the younger 
generation coming along behind us far more deeply than our age group. 
The main category of deaths in this country, on the highways, is 
between the ages of about 17 and 30. There is the preponderance of 
deaths.
  How well you know and I know when we were that age, you know: The 
laws be damned; we can handle anything.
  That is the magnificence of youth, the exuberance, to meet the 
challenges, whatever they are, and ``don't tell me.'' I always admire 
that flag of New Hampshire that says: Don't tread on me. But now and 
then we have to tread ever so lightly upon our citizens to induce them 
to take those fundamental steps, not only to protect themselves but to 
protect that innocent victim on the streets or in another vehicle.
  This formula is drawn up, yes, that some funds are withheld if the 
State does not go ahead. We only lost by one vote in the Virginia 
General Assembly on two occasions to get this very piece of 
legislation. You acknowledge that fact.
  Mr. ALLEN. It has failed for many years.
  Mr. WARNER. One vote. All I am saying to you is, if you just require 
the State, all right, if you don't do it, you will have to give up a 
little asphalt, a little more concrete, but in return we are saving 
lives, not only the lives of the young people in that car but the 
innocent victims, the passengers of another vehicle, or the pedestrian. 
For a very few cubic yards of concrete and asphalt, we may well save a 
life.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, may I make a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Which of the two distinguished Senators from Virginia has 
the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I can answer that, the distinguished junior Senator has 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished junior Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I imagine the manager of this measure, the 
chairman, Senator Inhofe, may want to speak on this. I will just say I 
very much enjoyed listening to the arguments of my esteemed senior 
colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. I was just thinking, this is 
the sort of argument that ought to be made in Mr. Jefferson's capital. 
If you look at all the rest of the States, folks care about kids. There 
are laws requiring children under certain weights and ages to be in car 
seats and they do have to be buckled up.
  Here you have the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, according 
to the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, 
Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, 
Wisconsin, Minnesota that don't have primary enforcement of seatbelt 
laws, they probably have secondary enforcement laws like Virginia. 
Additionally, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, 
Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Alaska.
  Those folks, if they want to pass these laws, I guarantee, none of 
them have anyone as articulate and persuasive and passionate and caring 
about this issue and America than John Warner. I am not suggesting the 
Senator join a State legislature. But those folks can come to these 
conclusions. They can look at their statistics. They also could make 
these decisions.
  In addition to that, to say States that are sending Federal gas tax 
money up to Washington are going to get less back unless they comply 
with an issue that is their purview, I think is wrong. It is an honest 
disagreement, a difference in philosophy. I very much respect and 
appreciate Senator Warner's true and sincere beliefs. I still respect 
him and always will. This will probably be a close vote. It is just to 
me a place we should not be dictating a course to the States in matters 
that are rightfully their prerogative.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for one further point?
  Mr. ALLEN. I surely will.
  Mr. WARNER. He enumerated a number of States that still do not have 
it. If you go back, as I have done, and studied the .08 law, it was 
vigorously resisted here on the floor of the Senate repeatedly for the 
very same reasons you have given. But once it was passed and it became 
mandatory, suddenly the States joined up. There are now 49 States that 
have the .08 law as a direct consequence of the Congress having given 
the impetus for those additional States that were hanging out, all of 
which you just enumerated; in this instance they joined.
  Lastly, I think it is also important in the debate to mention your 
own personal experience of an individual who was concerned that it 
would begin to have cars pulled over by virtue of race. But one of the 
most interesting individuals who attended a press conference the day 
before yesterday was a black legislator from Arkansas who is chairman 
of the National Conference of Black State Legislators. He brought with 
him that organization's endorsement of this bill. So I do believe there 
is some legitimate difference within one minority with respect to the 
question of how this law will be felt.
  Five States had 21 minimum drinking age, when President Reagan, your 
idol and mine, signed that into law. So I am just telling you, .08 is 
an example of how Congress finally acted, and then all the States, save 
one--I won't mention the one; somebody can do their

[[Page 1678]]

homework; it is rather curious which State it is--have accepted the .08 
law.
  I say to my good friend, we have had a marvelous debate. I have 
enjoyed it. My respect for him as a consequence of the debate has 
increased, my dear friend.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Will the distinguished Senator from Virginia yield for 
a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. ALLEN. What is the question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is asking the 
Senator to yield for a question.
  Mr. ALLEN. I will yield, but before I do, I want to make a statement. 
After that I would be happy to answer a question.
  This is the fundamental difference. On .08, as Governor, as a 
candidate, I thought it was a great idea. The reason all the States 
have the .08 but for one is because you are withholding or the Federal 
Government is saying we are going to withhold some of your highway 
funds for it. It is blackmail. It is extortion, raising the beer-
drinking age in Virginia because of that. Ronald Reagan is my hero. He 
is the one who motivated me to get into organized politics. I think he 
was wrong to do that. I think for people who are 18, the States can 
make these decisions. They can enter into binding contracts. They can 
vote for President, vote for Members here, and they can also 
theoretically be drafted to fight and potentially die for their 
country. I think the people of the States can make those decisions.
  On this issue, in particular, the .08, I am with you, I am for it. I 
think that should be done at the State level. The mandatory seatbelt 
law and primary enforcement is something that when I held Mr. 
Jefferson's seat in the House of Delegates I voted against. So if I 
have voted against it and was opposed to this nannyism when I was in 
the State legislature, I know the air is more rarified up here, but I 
still have some of those senses. I certainly do not want to do 
something in the Senate I would not want to do as a legislator and, 
moreover, tell the folks in other States to do it.
  With that, I yield to the junior Senator from New York.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could just make one reply to my colleague and then 
we will yield the floor. This bill is carefully crafted, that, yes, 
there is a withholding of those yards of concrete and asphalt, but once 
the State complies, what has been withheld by way of funds comes back 
to them to go right into the mainstream of their funding, not unlike 
.08.
  Mr. ALLEN. Understood. I yield to the Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. With respect to this legislation that I am a proud 
cosponsor of, along with the key sponsor and advocate, the senior 
Senator from Virginia, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Corzine be 
added as a cosponsor as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. With respect to the debate that has been occurring, I 
understand the concerns raised by the Senator from Virginia, but under 
this amendment States would have the option of either enacting a 
primary seatbelt law or bringing their seatbelt usage rates up to 90 
percent without such a law. Therefore, it is an option provided today. 
Would the Senator from Virginia agree that the lack of seatbelt usage 
causes up to 30,000 people a year to die in automobile accidents that 
occur on our highways and byways in this country?
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I say to the junior Senator from New York--
her question was do I agree that not wearing seatbelts causes 30,000 
deaths? No. Not wearing them doesn't cause death; death is caused when 
somebody is drunk or impaired by drugs, not paying attention, or 
speeding, or taking a turn too quickly. The sole fact of not wearing a 
seatbelt is not the proximate cause of the death. Whereas, if you look 
at the statistics, impaired driving is clearly the No. 1 cause of 
fatalities, and not just of drivers but also those who are not.
  Having said that, I do think it is a good idea to wear seatbelts. I 
have no objection to it. I think airbags are a great invention. There 
were those in previous years wanting to dictate to the manufacturers to 
put airbags on their cars. People realized that airbags could save 
lives. Whether somebody is wearing a seatbelt or not, of course, the 
maximum safety is the airbag. Car manufacturers are using that 
accessory as a selling point rather than a Government dictate. But not 
wearing a seatbelt does not proximately cause death.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I clearly have a fundamental 
disagreement with the views of the junior Senator from Virginia. I hope 
our colleagues will look at the facts. The facts are that failure to 
enforce seatbelt laws, to make it absolutely clear that there are 
penalties associated with not wearing seatbelts, causes deaths from 
accidents that would otherwise not cause fatalities.
  This amendment will help us encourage States to adopt stricter 
seatbelt laws. We give them an option. I hope our colleagues will join 
with us in voting for this very important safety measure.
  I thank the Senator for yielding the floor.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I do yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2311

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the outsourcing 
                           of American jobs)

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I also rise today to offer an amendment 
that is a sense of the Senate on an issue I spoke briefly about on the 
floor yesterday. I know the majority leader and several others touched 
on it this morning. It is regarding the issue of jobs and the 
administration's economic policies.
  This sense-of-the-Senate amendment is on an issue that is of critical 
importance to New Yorkers and all Americans, the loss of jobs in our 
country. We have lost 2.2 million jobs since the beginning of this 
administration. This sense of the Senate is not about cutting or 
raising taxes; it is about protecting the jobs that Americans have 
today, because these 2.2 million people are not statistics; they are 
factory workers, office workers, laborers, engineers, radiologists--
people holding down jobs in every sector of the economy throughout our 
Nation.
  Why are they losing jobs? Because this administration has failed to 
provide the leadership or put forth an economic plan that inspires 
confidence in our markets and inspires investments by our companies in 
the United States.
  So where are these dollars and investments going? They are going 
overseas, where companies don't have the same environment and labor 
standards, and where they don't have to pay the wages that are 
necessary to support a middle-class lifestyle in America.
  Now, these lost jobs are a tremendous concern to those of us in this 
Chamber. I hear about it everywhere I travel in New York. You would 
think if there could be a consensus on anything in this Nation, it 
would be on how we keep jobs in America, how we prevent jobs from being 
outsourced, sent overseas. But apparently there is no consensus. That 
is what is troubling me.
  According to the Los Angeles Times yesterday, ``Bush Supports Shift 
of Jobs Overseas.'' I did a double take. I could not believe that was 
the headline. The L.A. Times wasn't the only newspaper surprise. The 
Seattle Times headline read: ``Bush Report: Sending Jobs Overseas Helps 
U.S.'' The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: ``Bush Economic Report 
Praises `Outsourcing' Jobs.'' The Orlando Sentinel said: ``Bush Says 
Sending Jobs Abroad Can be Beneficial?''
  Where did this come from? It came right from the White House. 
According to Gregory Mankiw, the President's chair of the Council of 
Economic Advisers:

       Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. 
     More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And 
     that's a good thing.

  I know the Presiding Officer shares my concern about lost jobs. He 
sees it in his State, as I see it in my State. I don't think losing 
American jobs is a good thing. The folks at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue apparently do. Maybe that is because they have no 
real strategy of creating jobs in America. Maybe that is why in this 
budget

[[Page 1679]]

they have sent up they are gutting investments in workforce training 
and dislocated worker help, and they are not pushing for stricter 
standards in trade agreements on labor and the environment. They are 
really coming forward with no plan to help control health care costs or 
pension costs facing American companies.
  The only economic policy they have is to cut taxes, cut taxes, cut 
taxes. The more, the merrier. Give those CEOs and wealthy folks at the 
top even more money to take jobs and move them out of our country.
  It is all starting to make sense. The administration thinks moving 
jobs overseas is a good thing. This is part and parcel of a set of 
economic policies that are out of touch with the needs of America's 
working people.
  I now send this amendment to the desk. I hope this Congress will take 
up this issue as quickly as possible, because we need to send a clear 
message to Americans of all political persuasions, in all regions of 
our country, that we care about jobs. If the administration doesn't 
have a strategy, then this Congress will have a strategy. I ask for 
immediate consideration of this amendment, and I ask that Senator 
Bingaman be added as a cosponsor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2311.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE OUTSOURCING OF 
                   AMERICAN JOBS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the President's Chairman of the Council of Economic 
     Advisors recently described the outsourcing of American jobs 
     overseas ``as a good thing'' and said, ``outsourcing is just 
     a new way of doing international trade'';
       (2) the President's economic policies have either failed to 
     address or exacerbated the loss of manufacturing jobs that 
     our country has experienced over the last 3 years;
       (3) American families are facing an economy with the fewest 
     jobs created since the Great Depression;
       (4) 2,900,000 private sector jobs have been lost since 
     January 2001, including 2,800,000 manufacturing jobs;
       (5) on several occasions the Senate has supported reforming 
     our tax laws to eliminate policies that make it cheaper to 
     move jobs overseas; and
       (6) job creation is essential to the economic stability of 
     the United States and the Administration should pursue 
     policies that serve as an engine for economic growth, higher 
     wage jobs, and increased productivity.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate should--
       (1) oppose any efforts to encourage the outsourcing of 
     American jobs overseas; and
       (2) adopt legislation providing for a manufacturing tax 
     incentive to encourage job creation in the United States and 
     oppose efforts to make it cheaper to send jobs overseas.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 2286

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity to offer 
the amendment which is now pending before the Senate and to engage in 
debate with my colleagues on the important issue of increasing the use 
of seatbelts in this country.
  At the request of my colleague, the manager of the bill, Chairman 
Inhofe, my amendment was modified last night to give States a full 2 
years before it takes effect.
  I wish to take a few moments to summarize this amendment and be sure 
that my colleagues understand precisely what this amendment is and what 
it is not.
  To the point, this amendment is not a mandatory seatbelt law.
  This amendment sets as our national policy that States are to reach a 
90-percent seatbelt use rate by 2006--a full 2 years from now.
  States can meet this goal in two ways. First, they can meet this goal 
by any means or programs they devise. They can implement new programs 
or modify their existing occupant protection programs. Funding is also 
provided to assist States with implementing or expanding their existing 
programs. This language is identical to the provisions recommended in 
the administration's bill, but it is not included in the bill before 
us.
  States can also meet the requirements of the amendment by enacting a 
primary seatbelt law.
  This 90-percent belt use rate is not a number that I have invented. 
It is the figure recommended in the President's highway reauthorization 
bill.
  Wearing seatbelts is a critical public health and safety issue. For 
the first time in a decade, highway deaths are on the rise. In 2002, 
nearly 43,000 persons were killed on our highways and over half of 
these deaths involved people who were not wearing their seatbelt.
  If for no other reason to support this amendment, we must protect our 
Nation's youth. Today, automobile crashes are the leading cause of 
death for Americans age 2 to 34.
  These tragic statistics are reversible if we take action today.
  That is why over 130 organizations are endorsing this amendment. The 
support includes major national organizations such as the American 
Medical Association, law enforcement officials, major insurance 
companies, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Mothers Against 
Drunk Driving, and the list goes on.
  These are the people who deal every day with the wasteful and 
avoidable deaths on our highways. They are on the front lines in 
responding to a crash. They are in our hospitals providing care to 
those who have sustained serious injuries because a seatbelt was not 
worn. They are the ones who see ever-increasing insurance costs for all 
Americans because seatbelts are not used. They are the ones who know 
that safety devices in our cars--such as air bags and enhanced 
bumpers--are less effective when seatbelts are not worn.
  My colleagues who do not support this amendment have read letters of 
concern from State groups and others. That is no surprise. At every 
turn in our Federal transportation policy for the past 15 years these 
same groups have opposed every public safety initiative. They opposed 
raising the minimum drinking age to 21, they opposed the zero tolerance 
for minors alcohol program, and they opposed the .08 BAC drunk driving 
level.
  My only interest is to ensure that this critically important 
legislation contains some meaningful protections for drivers and 
passengers.
  In TEA-21, there was a 40-percent increase in construction funding, 
which I proudly supported, to make our roads safer. Yet, traffic deaths 
are increasing. In SAFETEA, there is a $65 billion increase for highway 
construction, yet inadequate protections for our drivers. No 
engineering features of our roads will protect against reckless driving 
behavior. That is what causes a majority of our accidents.
  Unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol remain the three biggest safety 
problems on our roads--not unsafe roads. We are taking meaningful steps 
to get tough on those who irresponsibly use alcohol and drive. Now it 
is time to do what we know works to address the other major problem--
unbelted drivers.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, let me summarize the amendment. 
States are to achieve a 90 percent belt use rate by 2006--2 years from 
now--or have a primary seatbelt law enacted.
  If a State does not meet either of these two provisions, 5 percent of 
one category of their construction funds are transferred to their 
highway safety programs. The purpose of this transfer is to provide 
States with additional funding to dedicate to their own programs to 
encourage drivers and passengers to wear their seatbelts.
  If by 2008--4 years from now--a State has not met the 90 percent belt 
use rate or has not enacted a primary seatbelt

[[Page 1680]]

law, 2 percent of a portion of their construction funds are withheld. 
For each of the following years, 4 percent of a portion of their funds 
are withheld.
  States will receive any funding that is withheld when they reach the 
90 percent belt use rate, or enact a primary safety belt law. This is 
the same provision that is law today for the .08 BAC drunk driving 
standard. Since it was enacted in 2001, 47 States now comply.
  There is a solution to the tragic deaths that are occurring on our 
highways every day. This amendment is the beginning. Let's do what we 
know works to save lives on our highways.
  Let's not pass the buck by believing that it is the responsibility of 
others to take action. It is our responsibility. I urge my colleagues 
not to support the motion to table.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as always, the Senator from Virginia was 
very courteous yesterday to modify his amendment to give States more 
time to comply with the requirements of his amendment. I sincerely 
appreciate his willingness to do so. Unfortunately, my underlying 
concern with imposing sanctions still requires that I oppose the 
amendment.
  Two days ago, the U.S. Department of Transportation released a 
statement on sanctions and withholding Federal funds from States which 
do not have a primary seatbelt law. The statement reads as follows, and 
I quote:

       The Bush Administration's continuing efforts to increase 
     local enforcement and education have boosted safety belt use 
     to the highest level in U.S. history. The Administration 
     opposes sanctions and withholding state funds, both of which 
     would jeopardize important state-level safety programs and 
     infrastructure maintenance programs already in place.
       The Administration is working hard to help pass primary 
     safety belt laws throughout the country, and we're seeing 
     results. Twenty states and the District of Columbia already 
     have primary laws. And many other states, including Florida, 
     South Carolina, Ohio, Arizona and Virginia are currently 
     considering primary laws--with our help, not with mandates.
       The Administration calls on Senator Warner to join us in 
     helping Virginia state legislators understand the need for a 
     primary safety belt use law.

  As I said yesterday, I support the use of seatbelts, and I would 
suggest that instead of threatening the states with a stick the better 
approach would be to induce them to achieve better performance in this 
area with some kind of incentive. Title IV, Surface Transportation 
Safety, of the pending substitute, contains an incentive grant program. 
As proposed by the Commerce Committee, this $100 million per year 
incentive grant provision would go a long way to achieving the goals 
that I believe my colleague from Virginia is trying to accomplish in 
his amendment.
  Offering incentive grants to States that pass a primary seatbelt law 
or increase their seatbelt use rate is a much better approach to this 
problem than combination of mandates and penalties. History has also 
shown that so far, no State has been able to achieve the benchmark 
level of a 90 percent seatbelt use rate without enacting a primary law. 
Ultimately we all know that the decision to pass a primary law is up to 
each state individually. Although neither a sanction, nor an incentive 
approach is guaranteed to prod every State to produce results, the 
incentive method is the much better option. In a bill where money is 
tight, I am grateful that the Commerce Committee saw fit to apply some 
of those limited funds to this purpose. With that in mind, I question 
what the benefit would be of having both an incentive and a penalty, 
where just an incentive would do.
  Currently, only 20 of the 50 States meet the requirements laid out in 
the mandate offered by the good senator from Virginia. I can't get over 
the fact that 30 States would be immediately thrust into noncompliance 
and subject to a possible cut in Federal funding under this plan.
  As I have said before, my home State of Oklahoma is already in 
compliance with the requirements proposed in this new sanction, but I 
fundamentally oppose any imposition of new sections. As much as I 
personally agree with using seatbelts, I have to recognize that the 
only proper place for this decision to be made is in each State 
legislature, not in Washington, DC.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Warner amendment No. 2286, as 
modified, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2286, as modified. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
     Kerry
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 9, I voted nay. I 
intended to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise to discuss a second-degree 
amendment that I intend to offer. It deals with a very important 
problem in the national interest--assuring that rental and leasing car 
operations can be performed in all 50 States.
  Right now there are several States which have something called 
unlimited bicarious liability. Under this, if a leasing company leases 
a car or a vehicle to a person who appears to be a reasonable and 
responsible driver who meets all of the requirements, and that person 
goes out and has a horrendous accident, in a few States the victims and 
the personal injury lawyers are enabled to sue the leasing company 
which had no control over the car or truck or van and had no evidence 
of negligence or shortcomings in their procedures in leasing that 
vehicle. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars of judgments.
  We have seen in a small number of States liability being imposed on 
rental and leasing companies without fault.

[[Page 1681]]

It has cost car and truck renting and leasing companies more than $100 
million annually. The problem is these costs don't just come out of the 
pockets of those in that State; they are paid nationally.
  When any of us go to rent or lease a car, we are paying far more than 
we otherwise would because they have had to cover the costs of 
outrageously high judgments imposed by a few States which allow this 
bicarious liability language and bicarious notion to apply.
  In other words, if you are in New York, for example, and you have 
leased a car, if you go out and hit somebody, it doesn't matter whether 
the leasing company is at fault. The leasing company is the one that is 
sued. If there is $100 million judgment against that company, guess who 
pays for it. Not the people who lease the car in New York but all of us 
as consumers who may go out to lease a car in all of the 50 States.
  Therefore, the amendment I am proposing says provided there is no 
negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner of a motor 
vehicle, no such owner engaged in the trade or business of renting or 
leasing motor vehicles may be held liable under State law for harm 
caused by a person to himself or herself, another person, or to 
property which results or arises from that person's use, operation, or 
possession of a rented or leased motor vehicle by reason of being the 
owner of such motor vehicle.
  In other words, if the owner of the vehicle hasn't done anything 
wrong--there has been no negligence, no criminal wrongdoing--but the 
person who leases that car goes out and has a horrendous wreck, the 
person who has leased the car is the one who ought to be held 
responsible.
  We should not have to finance jackpot judgments against leasing 
companies that pass those costs on to all of us across the Nation 
whenever we go to lease or rent a car or a van. Consumers nationwide 
are being hurt by these higher rates--not just consumers in the 
bicarious liability States.
  These laws apply where the accident occurs. It does not matter 
whether the car or truck was rented or leased. Since companies cannot 
prevent their vehicles from being driven to a bicarious liability 
State, they cannot prevent their exposure to these laws, and they have 
to raise their rates for all of us accordingly.
  In addition, we have also seen that these higher costs drive many 
small companies out of business. Actually, a small company trying to 
engage in the business of renting or leasing may find itself caught in 
one of these bicarious liability States and wind up with a judgment 
that puts them out of business. This is a death knell for small 
businesses in the leasing and rental business. That is why we have to 
do something about it.
  Accident victims in bicarious liability States would not be left out 
in the cold. They would be compensated according to the same standard 
used by the vast majority of States which do not have bicarious 
liability laws.
  More importantly, accident victims in the same bicarious liability 
State would no longer be treated differently based solely on whether a 
vehicle involved was rented or leased instead of individually owned. In 
other words, if you are hit by a negligent driver in any State, file 
suit against that driver and collect a judgment against that driver 
logically to be paid by the insurance company of that driver, or if it 
is self-insured then that driver would have to pay out of his pocket.
  That same standard still applies. What we are saying is you can't 
reach out and bring in somebody who had nothing to do with the accident 
and was not at fault. When we do that, we are going to provide relief 
for small businesses. We are going to provide relief to the people who 
lease cars and rent cars and vans across the Nation.
  This provision would not allow a company to escape liability if they 
were at fault or negligent in an accident in any way.
  I ask that it be supported by my colleagues.


                Amendment No. 2327 To Amendment No. 2311

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2327 to amendment No. 2311.

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

 (Purpose: To limit liability with respect to the owners of rented or 
                         leased motor vehicles)

       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1409. RENTED OR LEASED MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 301 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 30106. Rented or leased motor vehicle safety and 
       responsibility

       ``(a) In General.--Provided that there is no negligence or 
     criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner of a motor 
     vehicle, no such owner engaged in the trade or business of 
     renting or leasing motor vehicles may be held liable under 
     State law for harm caused by a person to himself or herself, 
     another person, or to property, which results or arises from 
     that person's use, operation, or possession of a rented or 
     leased motor vehicle, by reason of being the owner of such 
     motor vehicle.
       ``(b) Construction.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if such 
     owner does not maintain the required limits of financial 
     responsibility for such vehicle, as required by State law in 
     the State in which the vehicle is registered.
       ``(c) Applicability and Effective Date.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, this section shall apply with 
     respect to any action commenced on or after the date of 
     enactment of this section without regard to whether the harm 
     that is the subject of the action or the conduct that caused 
     the harm occurred before such date of enactment.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' shall have 
     the meaning given the term under section 13102(14) of this 
     title.
       ``(2) Owner.--The term `owner' means a person who is--
       ``(A) a record or beneficial owner, lessor, or lessee of a 
     motor vehicle;
       ``(B) entitled to the use and possession of a motor vehicle 
     subject to a security interest in another person; or
       ``(C) a lessor, lessee, or bailee of a motor vehicle, in 
     the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, 
     having the use or possession of such motor vehicle, under a 
     lease, bailment, or otherwise.
       ``(3) Person.--The term `person' means any individual, 
     corporation, company, limited liability company, trust, 
     association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, 
     or any other entity.
       ``(4) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the 
     United States, or any political subdivision of any such 
     State, commonwealth, territory, or possession.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 30105 
     the following:

``30106. Rented or leased motor vehicle safety and responsibility.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the 2.4 
million jobs that have been lost in this country. As we discuss 
investment in infrastructure, we need to keep in mind that investment 
in human infrastructure is just as appropriate. There are families out 
there who are continuing to struggle to put food on the table, make 
sure they can take care of their mortgage payment, and make sure they 
can take care of individual hospital and insurance needs. I ask my 
colleagues to put themselves in the position of working men and women 
who have lost their jobs and now have no means to take care of their 
family needs.
  We have been before this body dozens of times now in the last several 
months asking for an extension of unemployment benefits because the 
economy has not truly recovered--certainly has not recovered from the 
2.4 million jobs that have been lost. Yet dozens of times my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have objected. They have objected to 
this extension because they say we are in fine economic shape.
  I will bet you that families trying to figure out how they meet those 
mortgage payments would disagree with the

[[Page 1682]]

kind of shape my colleagues think the economy is in.
  In fact, in December, 90,000 people per week started exhausting their 
unemployment benefits and had no Federal program to pick them up. That 
is \1/2\ million people who have gone without aid since the program 
stopped accepting new applicants. Put yourself in that position and 
understand that if unemployment benefits are not extended--and the 
economy grows at a very slow pace--by the end of the year, 2 million 
people will be cut off from this program. For people without a paycheck 
or an unemployment check, that means their families will continue to be 
forced to make very tough decisions.
  A recent poll showed that over one-half of the unemployed adults 
found they had to postpone medical treatment or cut back on food. One 
in four has had to actually move out of their house because of the cuts 
in unemployment extension programs. More than one-third have had 
trouble paying gas or electric bills. I am sure in my State the number 
would be more than one-third, given our high energy rates. My amendment 
reinstates the Federal Insurance Unemployment Benefit Program and 
provides 13 additional weeks of benefits to all States, carrying us 
through June.
  My colleagues ask, Why should we do this? The economy is recovering. 
If we look at the facts and figures and compared them to the last time 
we had a recession, this point where we are in our economy is still 
very disappointing. Last Friday, economists came out, for example, with 
a report on our job growth and said it was ``well below market 
expectations,'' and confirmed that jobs in the markets in the United 
States are still weak. While the economy created about 110,000 jobs 
last month--and that is a step in the right direction--it is a pretty 
small step in the direction we need to go.
  My State of Washington, obviously, has faced a lot of downturn 
because of Boeing, because of high tech, and because many workers 
throughout the State have been laid off as subsidiaries to those large 
corporations and interests.
  I hear colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying once the 
economy starts to recover, that is when we need to cut off unemployment 
benefits because people can still find jobs. The point is during the 
1990s, we had an extension of unemployment benefits to take care of the 
downturn we were facing in the economy, both started by the first Bush 
administration and then by the Clinton administration, to help take 
care of unemployment problems.
  During that time period in the early 1990s recession, we were 
offering unemployment benefits for a 27-month period of time. During 
that 27-month period of time, we actually saw an increase in 2.9 
million jobs. The program worked well as the economy continued to 
rebound and add more jobs. In the 1990s, under two administrations, a 
Republican and a Democrat, we said, let's extend unemployment benefits 
for 27 months. The net result was 2.9 million jobs were created and we 
curtailed the benefit program.
  We have had this recession and downturn and we have only been going 
for 22 months of this program. We have only been giving people who have 
been affected by this downturn in our economy 22 months of unemployment 
extension. During that same period we have actually seen a net loss of 
2.4 million jobs.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say when the economy 
picks up, we should curtail this program. What they should really ask 
is how many jobs have we created during this time period, and are 
Americans finding jobs? If they are not finding jobs, how can we cut 
them off from unemployment benefits that are actually a stimulus to the 
economy in helping to pay the mortgage payments, covering health 
insurance, keeping families in their home, and not deterring us from 
economic growth? Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance generates 
an additional $2 into local economies.
  Let's look at it a little differently during this time period of 
unemployment benefits. The line on this chart during 2002 continues to 
go down into the red. This is where we are thinking about cutting off 
unemployment benefits. Yet we have had no job growth. Juxtaposed to 
what we did in the 1990s, we continued to increase the unemployment 
benefits as the economy grew and we did a better match of keeping 
Americans with some paycheck or unemployment check, thereby keeping our 
economy at a more steady rate.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is time to 
stop denying working Americans who have lost their jobs, through no 
fault of their own, from some sort of help and assistance when they can 
actually find no jobs.
  I will point out a few of my constituents who have written to me. One 
from Camano Island said he cashed out every dime of his 401 saving 
plan, with significant penalties, and does not know how he will make 
his mortgage payment, does not know what he is going to do, as the 
benefits are expiring. Another constituent from Everett, WA, in the 
manufacturing area, applied for over 200 jobs and received 4 interviews 
in the last year. They are trying to find opportunities but they do not 
exist. Another technology worker from Seattle has 25 years' experience 
and has been laid off since 2001 and is unable to find a job. Another 
worker from Seattle was working at a print company and over 500 people 
were laid off in 2 years as their company was sold overseas to a 
multinational company. In his individual situation he has tried to 
cover both the health insurance for himself and his wife. 
Unfortunately, he had some very severe health problems and had to get a 
kidney from his wife and ended up with some severe health problems and 
he does not know how he will address those problems in the future 
because of these benefits being curtailed and his inability to cover 
health insurance.
  Many people in my State ask what we are going to do about these 
unemployment benefits and whether we are going to remember the working 
men and women in our State who have continued to deal with this issue.
  There are many constituents who ask, what will it take to get the 
other side of the aisle to own up to the responsibility that there are 
not jobs being created at a fast enough pace to put Americans back to 
work. Our past bipartisan efforts by two administrations, a Republican 
and a Democratic, did far better in addressing this issue than we are 
doing today.
  I ask my colleagues to support a temporary emergency employment 
compensation program through June. It is the only responsible thing to 
do, to recognize that men and women of this country would rather have a 
job than an unemployment check. Without a check and without 
opportunities for jobs, we are doing neither them nor our economy any 
service. We need to do the responsible thing and put them back to work. 
That is why I am asking my colleagues to do the fair thing and expand 
this program through June with 13 weeks going to each State. Until 
then, we will not have the necessary tools to help Americans. Let's 
help them with the unemployment benefits and put them back to work.
  I ask unanimous consent we lay aside the pending amendment and 
consider this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, could you repeat this 
unanimous consent request?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I move the pending amendment be set aside and that this 
amendment be considered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, let me be clear to my colleagues what 
just happened in the Senate. That is, that for about the dozenth time 
now, the Senate is not going to consider unemployment benefit 
extensions. We are not going to consider whether working men and women 
in this country who have been unemployed, through no fault of their 
own, but a general downturn in the economy, many who have been impacted 
by September 11, many who have been impacted by the recession hit by 
many companies that have

[[Page 1683]]

been impacted by September 11, are not going to get our help in the 
extension of this program, that if these same men and women happened to 
have been unemployed in the 1990s, their plight would have been 
different. They would have gotten help from the administration. They 
would have gotten help from my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle.
  So what we have done today is continue to say to unemployed 
Americans, while the economy is just barely beginning to produce jobs, 
we expect you now to move out of your house, deal with not being able 
to cover health insurance, not being able to meet your family 
obligations, while we continue to struggle to find jobs in this 
country.
  I think it is irresponsible. I think my colleagues should make sure 
we have a vote on this amendment. We will continue, on this side of the 
aisle, to offer this amendment until we get a vote on it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, 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. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, most of us who had an opportunity to 
get home to our own States and perhaps travel around the country 
recently have found a number of concerns of working families. It is 
pretty uniform. I certainly have found it so in my travels in the State 
of New Hampshire and Iowa, out in the Southwest, Midwest, over recent 
weeks.
  One of the enduring issues, I find, that is uniform across the 
country is the state of our economy. It is reflected in a variety of 
different ways. It might be reflected in one family which finds that 
increased college tuition is putting an extreme burden on a family 
budget. Maybe another family has the high cost of prescription drugs 
that is putting an extraordinary burden on those under Medicare and 
Social Security and the savings of other members of the family. It may 
be those who have lost jobs and have gotten back in the job market and 
actually found a job, but they are concerned because their incomes are 
generally 23, 24, 25-percent less with the new job than the old job.
  By and large, the state of our economy is an ongoing concern, and it 
doesn't have to be this way. We have seen when we have had strong 
Presidential leadership--and the most recent case was with President 
Clinton where we had extraordinary economic growth, price stability, 
virtually free from inflation, and we had the creation of 22 million 
jobs. I don't think an administration can continuously say that jobs 
are going to be better, that we are having a military conflict, we 
inherited a recession, and there is nothing more we can do. I reject 
that, and I think most economists do, and many political leaders do as 
well.
  We have to look at what we can do in a very temporary way in the 
Senate. One of the mechanisms that we can provide is to extend the 
unemployment compensation for men and women who have paid into that 
fund over the years, and now we are seeing that Republicans are 
blocking having even a temporary extension of unemployment compensation 
funds, even though the fund itself is in surplus of some $17 billion. 
That is being rejected.
  As a matter of fact, we are seeing parliamentary gymnastics being 
used on the floor of the Senate to even prohibit a vote in the Senate 
to get accountability by Members of the Senate on this issue. Those on 
the other side say: No way; we are going to use the parliamentary 
gymnastics so you will not even get a vote, Senator Cantwell, on your 
unemployment issue, and, no, Senator Clinton, on one of the glaring 
economic policy issues of this administration, and that is shipping 
jobs overseas. Can you imagine that? The administration's spokesperson 
said shipping jobs overseas is to the advantage of the American 
economy.
  Why don't we debate that on the Senate floor and find out who on the 
other side wants to defend shipping jobs overseas? You cannot travel 
around this country and go to any community and not hear workers' fear 
about outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas. You cannot do it. Here, 
the Senator from New York wants to get a debate and discussion about 
what we ought to do about that. Members of this body have ideas on what 
we ought to be doing and they want to express their views. But, no, 
they are cut off. No. No, you cannot do it. We are going to use the 
rules of the Senate to prohibit that kind of discussion and debate and 
prohibit some kind of resolution, some accountability by Members. Maybe 
there are those who want to do it.
  I think the American people would have more respect for us if we vote 
up or down on that resolution. But, no, our Republican friends say, no, 
we don't want to--I say this--embarrass our Members by having to take a 
tough vote on it. I don't blame them. But it is poor solace to those 
workers when they find out at last what the economic policies of this 
administration are and they value sending the jobs overseas. That is 
what we are going to attempt.
  Madam President, I want to review what the job situation has been 
over the period of these recent years and measure where we are with 
what was actually predicted by President Bush and the Bush 
administration. I think by looking at this at least we can begin to 
understand why the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, wanted to 
have an extension of the unemployment compensation. Ninety thousand 
workers a week are losing their unemployment compensation.
  I don't know how they get by. You are going to see that real wages 
have gone down. Most families are having a tough time, and they live 
from paycheck to paycheck. They are paying the mortgage, putting food 
on the table, and clothing their children, perhaps putting something 
aside for higher education. How are they going to deal with the fact 
that when they lose jobs, through no fault of their own, they are going 
to be denied a helping hand to deal with the cyclical factors that 
impacted our economy?
  Look at what this chart shows. This says: ``Every year, job growth 
falls short of the Bush promises.'' This goes back to the year 2001. 
The difference between what this administration promised in 2001 and 
where we are today is represented by 5.2 million jobs. Do you 
understand that? The promise in 2002 was that we would have 5.2 million 
jobs more than we have today. We missed the prediction by 5 million 
jobs. Now, in 2003, the President makes a different judgment about 
where we are going to be in 2003. He is only off by 2.5 million jobs 
for 2003. This line represents what was predicted by the Bush 
administration in 2002. This line here is what they predicted in 2003, 
and this orange line is the reality.
  Let's look at it in another way. This chart shows a purple line, what 
was actually predicted by the Bush administration for 2002 promise. 
These are the number of new jobs predicted. We heard the other day 
about the administration predicting new jobs. All you have to do is 
look at their predictions over time and you can see how much value we 
ought to give those predictions. Here it is: 2001 is the purple line, 
and 2002 is the green line, 2003 is the blue line, all going up there. 
The actual jobs are represented by the red line, showing that we have 
lost 2.5 million jobs. Those are the facts.
  As a result of the fact that we have lost those 2.5 million jobs, 
let's just look at what has happened in terms of the average wages for 
the jobs that we have retained in the United States. The jobs gained do 
not pay as much as the jobs lost, this chart says. This is the average 
wage--the national average for 2001, which was $44,570. Today, it is 
$30,410. That is a reduction of 21 percent for average wages for 
workers in this country.
  Not only have we seen the loss of jobs, but even for the jobs that 
have been retained, we have seen the income going down, headed south. 
Not only is this the reality of what is happening in

[[Page 1684]]

the job market, but also our Republican friends want to eliminate any 
opportunity for these families to gain additional funds with overtime. 
That is what is happening out there across this country.
  Now we hear, well, we have had a recession, but we have come out of 
the recession and everything is going to be OK. Everything is just 
going to be hunky-dory in terms of the labor market area and wages for 
American workers.
  Look at this chart. If you compare what happened in the 1990s, up 
through 1998, and to the year 2000, in the fourth quarter of each of 
the recessions that took place during that period of time, you will 
find in the last quarter of the recession during that period of 8 to 10 
years, the job was paying $18.30 an hour. The old jobs were paying 
$16.31 an hour. Now in this last recovery that this administration says 
is so great, look at this: The average job was paying $16.92 an hour, 
and the new jobs are paying $15.65 an hour. The new jobs are paying a 
good deal less. It says just what the other chart says.
  So not only are we not reaching the job goals, they missed it by 5 
million. Even the jobs that are being created, the pay is 20, 25 
percent less.
  Let's look at what has happened in terms of the number of those who 
are long-term unemployed. Look at this chart. Compared to what it was 
in January 2000, when we had 680,000 people unemployed, it was 1.9 
million people in January of 2004. These are the long-term unemployed. 
These are the men and women who have been looking for jobs, trying to 
get jobs. This doesn't even measure the number of people who have 
become so discouraged, they are not even looking any longer.
  We have an enormous number of people who are looking for jobs. This 
chart is probably more reflective of the problem. From 1973 to 2003, 
the average number of unemployed in January: 151,000. That is through 
good times and recessions. Today it is 375,000. These figures are from 
the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. It is 375,000, more than 
double the average. That is why we are asking: Why can't we reach out 
to these workers? These are hard-working Americans who paid into the 
fund over a long period and are entitled to those payments.
  The fund is $17 billion in surplus. The proposal of Senator Cantwell 
would cost $7 billion. We have 90,000 workers a week who are losing out 
on this amount. Look at the contrast between this administration and 
the previous administration on unemployment compensation to workers. 
Let's look at the difference.
  In the early 1990s, when we were facing a recession, coming into 
1990, 1991, and early 1992, we had an increase in unemployment. The 
previous administration, the Clinton administration, kept the extension 
on unemployment compensation until we had grown 2.9 million jobs. Then 
they terminated it, as they should; we were in a period of very 
significant expansion.
  Look at where we are now. We have lost 2.4 million jobs, and we have 
terminated unemployment compensation.
  Do you see the contrast between the two administrations and how they 
reached out to working families? Nonetheless, we are denied the 
opportunity to even consider an amendment that was going to be offered 
by the Senator from Washington to permit some 6 months and have the 
temporary workers.
  This is what is happening as a result: We have a decline in 
purchasing power for workers; we have an administration that is against 
overtime, an administration that is against extending unemployment 
compensation, against any kind of increase in the minimum wage.
  There are 7 million Americans who would benefit from an increase in 
the minimum wage, and this is what has happened:
  More than half of the unemployed adults have had to postpone medical 
treatment--that is 57 percent--or cut back on spending for food. That 
is happening in America. They had to postpone important medical 
treatment or cut back on food. One in four has had to move to other 
housing. We are talking about workers who have worked hard, played by 
the rules, struggled for their families, and this is our answer to 
them: Let's do a parliamentary trick so you can't have a vote on 
extending unemployment compensation. That is the answer of the other 
side. We are not even going to give you a vote on the issue.
  This is what is happening to fellow Americans: 38 percent have lost 
telephone service; 22 percent are worried they will lose their money; 
more than a third have trouble paying gas or electric bills. These are 
real problems. The list goes on.
  What is the impact? We have been talking about dollars and cents, but 
we haven't talked about the quality of life of these workers and what 
they go through: 77 percent of unemployed Americans say the level of 
stress in their family has increased. That is understandable. We don't 
think about it. I don't know how you put a dollar figure on that.
  Two-thirds of those with children have cut back on spending on their 
children. This is an issue not only for workers, it is an issue for 
their children as well. It is a children's issue. It is a family issue. 
We heard a great deal on the other side about family issues, family 
values. We have one right here on unemployment compensation. This is a 
children's issue, a family issue.
  Twenty-six percent say another family member had to start a job or 
increase hours; 23 percent had to interrupt their education. That is 
nice, isn't it? The children of these workers had to drop out of school 
because a member of their family--their father or mother--has been laid 
off and cannot get the resources to go to school.
  We hear a good deal from the other side: Senator Kennedy, you don't 
just understand. We have a recovery. It is on the way. It is taking 
place today. You just don't understand it. These problems will all be 
resolved. Right? Wrong.
  Look at this chart. The Bush economy corporate profits ballooned 
compared to workers' wages. Look in the early 1990s--this chart is 
1993--when we were recovering. When we had the recovery, workers' wages 
represented 60 percent of the economic expansion during this time. The 
percent that went to corporate profits was 39.74 percent; 60 percent 
for wages, 39 percent for corporate profits.
  We all heard at the time of the President's State of the Union 
Address those descriptions about how the economy was doing so well, 
profits were up, expanding the American economy. Look at today's 
recovery: 87 percent in profits, 13 percent in wages.
  I don't know how many other indicators we need to understand what is 
happening to workers in America. They are hurting, and hurting badly. 
Many of them need the kind of help that unemployment compensation 
provides.
  At other times, with different administrations, with a Democratic 
administration, we were prepared, particularly when the fund was in 
surplus and particularly when these workers have paid into the fund--we 
were willing to extend that unemployment compensation. There have been 
11 times in the last few weeks that Members of this body on this side 
of the aisle have requested we have an extension of unemployment 
compensation. The House of Representatives voted for it, including 39 
Republicans. But this Republican leadership says: No, no way; fill up 
the tree; get all kinds of procedural blocks to make sure we don't even 
bring it up and we don't have a vote.
  American workers ought to understand this point. That is against the 
background of the leading economic advisers explaining to the President 
of the United States that we are better off if we ship more jobs 
overseas. And this institution, that should be debating national 
policy, is being shut down by those who don't want to hear the debate 
and don't want accountability. That is a great mistake. It is a 
mistake, most of all, for our workers and their families, it is a 
mistake for our economy, and it is a mistake for our country.
  I join with others who will say these issues are not going away. You 
may be able to get a little block here and a little block there, but we 
are going to bring these issues up time and again.

[[Page 1685]]

  We have that responsibility to these workers and their families, and 
they should recognize that we are not going to retreat; we are not 
going to step back. We are going to do everything that is necessary to 
make sure we are going to get the economic justice these workers 
deserve.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


        Independent Commission to Investigate Iraq Intelligence

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was relieved that the President decided he 
was going to appoint an independent panel to review what took place in 
our going to Iraq, but after he made the decision to do that and 
appointed the panel, it was obvious it was just a hoax. This panel is 
laughable--if it were not so serious. All one needs to do to understand 
how this panel is not serious is to look at who is the cochair of this 
panel. One of the most partisan people in all America is a man by the 
name of Judge Silberman. Judge Silberman is a person who proudly wears 
the label of a partisan, even though he hides it as often as he can 
from the public.
  As I said, I was glad President Bush realized we needed a commission 
to investigate what went wrong, although I would have preferred that 
Congress appoint members to ensure its independence. If this commission 
is going to do its job, it must be free of political influence. It must 
be above even the appearance of partisan bias. Throw those things out 
the window because there is not only the appearance of partisan bias, 
there is political and partisan bias because the cochair of this 
commission is a man by the name of Laurence Silberman.
  He is a long-time political operative in the far right of the 
Republican Party. He has served in a number of different capacities 
over the years. He has been involved in many partisan matters over the 
years. To show how well reasoned and thinking people feel about this 
man, I quote a professor of law at American University by the name of 
Herman Schwartz:

       He [Laurence Silberman] is fiercely partisan, pugnacious 
     and very political. He is an odd choice for a panel that is 
     supposed to be above suspicion on a matter that is very 
     important and potentially very partisan. Picking Silberman 
     verges on the brazen. It is a thumb in the eye to those who 
     were looking for a real investigation.

  That is who we have as cochair of this independent commission, a man 
who is politically partisan and the appointment is brazen. As I 
indicated, he is a long-time political operative, far right of the 
Republican Party. He served in many capacities. He was an aide in the 
Reagan-Bush campaign. One of his assignments then was to serve as 
liaison to the Islamic regime in Iran where Americans were being held 
hostage. There is some question as to whether a deal was made that the 
crisis would not end until after the election. One can read lots of 
information about that, but as soon as the election was over and the 
hostages were released, it is interesting to note that Laurence 
Silberman was appointed by the President to the Court of Appeals in 
Washington, DC.
  It speaks volumes to indicate that one of his early decisions came in 
the case of LTC Oliver North, a principal figure in the Iran-contra 
affair, which involved the release of Iranian hostages. There is the 
documentation of many meetings of Silberman with the people in the 
White House, including Colonel North, prior to this all taking place. 
Even though North and Admiral Poindexter were convicted of lying to 
Congress, their convictions were voided in 1990 by Judge Silberman.
  It is also interesting to note that another one of the appointees 
there on that court, who joined with Silberman in overruling the North 
and Poindexter convictions, Mr. Sentelle, who became a judge, was 
largely responsible for the 1994 decision to remove Whitewater 
prosecutor Robert Fiske and replace him with the more partisan Kenneth 
Starr as an independent investigator. We know that investigation cost 
$60 million or $80 million and accomplished nothing.
  Silberman worked as an attorney in the Justice Department. He took 
the No. 2 job under President Ford when Rumsfeld and Cheney had top 
jobs in the White House of President Ford. I repeat, in the fall of 
1980 when Ronald Reagan was running to unseat President Carter--and 
this is from the L.A. Times, a direct quote:

       . . . Silberman and two other Reagan advisors met secretly 
     with a man who claimed to have ties to the government in 
     Iran, which is holding 52 American hostages. The brief 
     meeting later led to unproven allegations that Reagan's aides 
     sought to delay the release of the hostages until after the 
     November election.

  Well, it is interesting to note that he had not done enough, it 
appears. In 1987, when Reagan was under investigation by an independent 
counsel, Silberman did away with the Independent Counsel Act, saying it 
was unconstitutional. Of course that one was followed up on by the 
Supreme Court, which overwhelmingly reversed him just a month later. 
But Silberman had the last word. His opinion, joined by fellow Reagan 
appointee David Sentelle, voided North's conviction and also spared 
Reagan's National Security Adviser, John Poindexter.
  During the Clinton years, Silberman was one of President Clinton's 
most aggressive tormentors. In 1998, he was part of a Federal appellate 
panel that rejected the administration's claim of executive privilege 
to block the Secret Service from testifying about Clinton's 
relationship with former White House worker Monica Lewinsky. 
Silberman's opinion, to say the least, was very political. He ripped 
the Attorney General for acting in the personal interest of President 
Clinton and questioned whether the President, by allowing aides to 
criticize independent counsel Kenneth Starr, was ``declaring war on the 
United States.'' Not very judicious, I would think.
  There was a book that was a best seller called ``Blinded by the 
Right,'' written by David Brock. It is a very interesting book. It 
talks about how this young man, who was a student at one of the 
universities of California, decided to join with the far right, and he 
made it through even working for the Washington Times. In his book, he 
explains how that was an interesting experience and how unfair they 
were in almost everything they wrote. But David Brock, during his 
tenure as a spokesperson for the right, and writing all these very 
damaging, misleading articles and even books, said in the book, 
``Blinded by the Right,'' that his adviser, the person who directed him 
where to go, what to say, and even went through books and articles he 
had written to proofread them to see if he could be more hard-hitting 
than Brock was, this is the man who is going to be the cochairman of 
the independent commission. The term ``independent commission,'' used 
along with Laurence Silberman, is like many of the things in George 
Orwell's book, ``1984.'' Many of the things are just the opposite. 
Laurence Silberman cannot be independent. The commission cannot be 
independent as long as he is there.
  As Brock indicated, he wrote articles about President Clinton, an 
article on Travelgate, which was charges by Arkansas State Troopers 
about the former Governor Clinton and extramarital sex. Silberman was, 
and I quote, ``his faithful advisor.''
  ``The judge,'' according to the LA Times, Brock said, ``encouraged 
him to be aggressive, and even on one occasion, suggested a specific 
tip involving the President's sex life to pursue.''
  When David Brock, at the direction of many in the right wing, wrote 
critically about the late Senator Paul Simon, he sent an advance copy 
to Judge Silberman's home. Brock wrote that Silberman was ``ecstatic 
about the case he made against Simon. . . .''
  During this period of time, Brock said he was introduced to leading 
conservatives who met regularly in the judge's home even with him and 
his wife. They were friends and close companions of Vice President 
Cheney and his wife.

[[Page 1686]]

  Mr. President, people have a right to be as partisan as they choose 
but not if you are a judge. Judges not only have to do away with what 
is wrong, but with what appears to be wrong. Just with the little bit I 
set forth here, doesn't it seem wrong that this man, Laurence 
Silberman, is the cochairman of a bipartisan, independent commission 
when it has been acknowledged by most everyone that this is one of the 
most partisan people in our community? An American University law 
school professor says:

       He is fiercely partisan, pugnacious and very political. . . 
     . He is an odd choice for a panel that is supposed to be 
     above suspicion on a matter that is very important and 
     potentially very partisan. Picking Silberman verges on the 
     brazen.

  I agree with that, the ``brazen.'' Let's see if that means what I 
think it means, ``brazen.'' I have a little dictionary here. Let's see 
what it says.

       Brazen: Boldness.

  Yes, he is pretty bold.
  For the President to pick this man to be cochairman of this 
commission is, as Professor Schwartz says, ``brazen.'' I continue the 
quote.

       It's a thumb in the eye to those who were looking for a 
     real investigation.

  This is no real investigation. This is going to be Judge Silberman, 
in an aggressive way, making sure that nothing gets out of hand. He is 
there to protect the President, not to get fair information. He is 
there to protect him.
  Sitting judges are not supposed to do what Silberman does. But he has 
a lifetime appointment and the canons of judicial ethics mean nothing 
to him. He is bold, he is brazen in what he does. He does not hide his 
partisanship. But, in spite of that this administration, knowing 
everything there is to know about this man, selects him to be the 
cochair of this independent commission.
  Brock says, in his book: ``Larry''--that is Laurence Silberman--
``would often preface his remarks to me with the wry demurrer that 
judges shouldn't get involved in politics. `That would be improper,' 
he'd say--and then he'd go ahead . . .'' and give this information that 
was partisan and, even, according to Silberman, would be improper. But 
he would just go ahead and do it anyway.
  Most recently, to show his partisanship, after a lower court 
unanimously ruled that Attorney General John Ashcroft had exceeded his 
authority in assuming broad wiretap powers, Silberman was the judge 
involved in the decision that overturned it. By engaging in partisan 
activities while he was a sitting judge, Silberman has raised questions 
about his impartiality, and that is an understatement.
  So I hope we continue to talk about the need for an independent, 
bipartisan commission because as long as Laurence Silberman is attached 
to this commission, it will be tainted. This crucial investigation as 
to what went wrong with our intelligence operations cannot be tainted 
with any hint of bias or prejudice--and it is. It is not tainted, it is 
smeared with partisan prejudice because of this man.
  There is already a distrust of the intelligence gathering surrounding 
weapons of mass destruction. The Silberman appointment only makes 
matters worse.
  I call upon the President to replace Judge Silberman on this 
commission. There are many respected Republicans in public service who 
have demonstrated an ability to put their ideological and partisan 
views aside when it comes to what affects our Nation. Silberman cannot 
meet that. This is such an issue and demands such a person. Laurence 
Silberman is not such a person.
  To show how skeptical the country is about our intelligence-gathering 
operations, even Bill O'Reilly--even Bill O'Reilly, reports Reuters 
News:

       Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on 
     Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration 
     and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that 
     Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
       The anchor of his own show on Fox News said--

  This is Bill O'Reilly--

     he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the 
     doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons 
     program posed an imminent threat, the main reason cited for 
     going to war.

  Appearing on TV, O'Reilly said:

       I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all, and I think 
     all Americans should be concerned about this.

  We have a committee, a commission appointed by the President, in the 
guise of being independent, in the guise of being bipartisan. It simply 
is not true. As long as Laurence Silberman has anything to do with 
this, it cannot be a fair, independent, bipartisan commission.
  The scope of this so-called independent commission was determined by 
the President through Executive order. There was no discussion with the 
legislative branch of Government; it was just a fiat. Despite the fact 
that numerous questions have been raised about the actions or 
statements of both the intelligence and communications community in the 
days before the war, the President's Executive order specifically rules 
out an examination of the administration's actions.
  Can you believe that? Instead, his Executive order makes clear the 
only issues the commission can address are related to the performance 
of the intelligence community, precisely the same issues, in many 
cases, that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees in the 
House and Senate are already exploring. Unfortunately, this will not be 
a real commission that can answer the main question we believe needs to 
be addressed; namely, the administration's role in all of this.
  On top of all this, they have appointed Laurence Silberman to 
cochair. This is a gross mistake. I can't imagine how the President and 
his people think he can get away with this.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Nevada will 
yield? I wonder if he would yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to my friend. He and I have had 
discussions. I would just preface it for this----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is not 
recognized. The Senator from Nevada yields for a question.
  Mr. REID. I would say through the Chair, the Senator and I have 
discussed this on many occasions off the Senate floor.
  Both agree that this issue has to be talked about publicly.
  This is a disgrace to a determined, independent, bipartisan 
commission. It is just wrong.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend from North Dakota for a 
question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have visited the Senator from Nevada and 
others following the announcement of the cochairs of this commission.
  First of all, I believe there should be an independent commission. I 
believe very strongly that the question of intelligence--both the 
gathering of and use of intelligence--is critically important to this 
country because it, and only it, will provide protection for this 
country against the next terrorist attacks. We have to get it right.
  When Mr. Kay comes before a committee and says it was all wrong, it 
was wrong and it failed the President--it also failed the Congress and 
the American people--we had better figure out what happened, what was 
wrong. There needs to be a commission. But it needs to be an 
independent commission.
  Now what we have is the President announcing a commission to 
investigate the intelligence. But more than that, the point the Senator 
from Nevada just made about the cochair, Mr. Laurence Silberman, a 
judge--I read this book from a while ago, ``Blinded By the Right.'' I 
was aware when I read this book by David Brock of Mr. Silberman's 
activities in other venues as well.
  I must tell you that having read this book and seen that a sitting 
Federal judge was involved in the sort of things Mr. Brock says he was 
involved in with respect to a series of things that it seems to me 
would go well beyond what would be acceptable activities by a Federal 
judge, I think it is just Byzantine that the President would appoint a 
cochair to this commission who doesn't meet the test of objectivity or 
the test of common sense at all. There

[[Page 1687]]

can be nothing independent about a commission that is cochaired by a 
sitting Federal judge whose discussions and activities in this book 
disclose that there is nothing at all impartial about this judge.
  I will not read into the Record these passages. I assume perhaps the 
Senator from Nevada has. I know many of my colleagues are talking about 
the same thing.
  I ask the Senator from Nevada: Can there be a presumption of 
impartiality by a cochair of this commission, appointed by the 
President to investigate this issue of the executive branch--by the 
way, without subpoena power or anything of the sort--when the President 
has chosen a very strident, aggressive, partisan supporter as the 
cochair?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do not understand how the President and 
the people around him could do this. Do what? Have a commission with an 
outline that is very weak and won't contribute very much to find out 
what our intelligence community did or did not do. But maybe he could 
get by with it a little better by not having a person who has been 
proven to be one of the most partisan people in all of America as 
cochair of this commission. Here is a man who is violating the canons 
of judicial ethics and responsibilities that judges have. Yet he is on 
this commission as cochair. I have trouble articulating how 
irresponsible and unfair and brazen this is.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, again, inquiring further of the Senator 
from Nevada, aside from the fact that this is not an independent 
commission, it is not what is needed to be done at this point to 
evaluate and investigate the ``failures'' Mr. Kay described in our 
intelligence. This so-called commission cannot possibly be a commission 
held in much respect if the selection as the cochair is a fierce 
partisan whose exploits are described at least in part in this book.
  Incidentally, I think the question should rest with the judicial 
system, Why has this not been investigated? I know of no investigation 
in the judicial system with respect to what is alleged with respect to 
the activity of Mr. Silberman.
  This country needs an impartial, independent, aggressive 
investigation of what happened with respect to our intelligence.
  As I indicated, our safety and security depend on intelligence 
getting it right with respect to protecting us against the next 
terrorist attack. That is why this is so important.
  I personally plan to support and aggressively speak in favor of a 
truly independent commission. I am assuming one will be offered by 
perhaps Senator Corzine who has offered it on the floor of the Senate. 
We will have this debate at some point. We need a commission. It needs 
to be independent. It needs to be cochaired by people who do not have a 
partisan agenda. That is simply not the case with the independent 
commission that has been announced now by the President.
  I ask the Senator from Nevada: Is that not the case?
  Mr. REID. It is absolutely the case.
  I also ask the Senator from North Dakota, through the Chair, to 
respond to a statement by David Kay given to me yesterday. He said 
there should be an examination of how the intelligence was used by the 
administration--not simply the failings of the intelligence community.
  Will the Senator agree that David Kay is right, there should be an 
examination of how the intelligence was used by the administration--not 
simply the failings of the intelligence community?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might respond, there is no question 
that any evaluation of this should be an evaluation of what kind of 
intelligence existed and how it was used. That is not an attempt to put 
any one person under a microscope; it is an attempt to evaluate what 
happened here. What on Earth happened?
  Again, I say there are some who want to say nothing happened. They 
want to allege nothing has happened. Clearly, something has happened.
  The top weapons inspector came back to this country and said our 
intelligence community has failed the President, and in fact the 
intelligence community failed, and we now believe that to be the case. 
The Secretary of State went to the United Nations and he said: We know, 
we know, we know, on point after point after point, slide after slide, 
intelligence pictures, satellite photos, we know this, we know this, we 
know this. It turns out we didn't know that.
  This is important business. This country needs to act on what we 
know--not what we think we know. If our intelligence community failed 
us, as Mr. Kay indicates it did, and he says failed the President--I 
say failed all of us--then the question is, Why? How did that happen? 
How was intelligence gathered? Where did that failure exist? And how 
was that intelligence used? I believe only an independent commission 
will get to that answer. I think it is urgent that we get there.
  As you know, in England they are now having such an investigation, 
with an end date I believe of July. They understand the urgency. They 
are saying let us do it, and let us do it quickly but thoroughly.
  In this case, we have a so-called independent commission, cochaired 
by a strident partisan, and at the same time we are told it is fine to 
have that commission report sometime after next year. I just do not 
think that is the right thing.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I have the floor. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. INHOFE. I think we are in a highly charged political season right 
now. Everyone is talking about this, and the subliminal picture that is 
trying to be painted here is that somehow this President may have not 
known something he should have known or knew something and he didn't 
act appropriately.
  Let us remember what David Kay said. He said, when he came in, we all 
thought there were weapons of mass destruction. We acted accordingly. 
And, quite frankly, I contend there were weapons of mass destruction. I 
asked him that question. I don't think either one of the two Senators 
in the Chamber--I am about to finish my question--were at that hearing.
  I asked him this question: I said, If in January, 13 months ago, they 
found 11 chemical rockets with a capacity of a warhead of 140 liters, 
and they had enough VX on hand to do that, and that one chemical rocket 
with 140 liters of VX could kill a million people, and subsequent to 
that, 3 months later, they found 36 more--that is 47 weapons of mass 
destruction that were found--I asked him: Aren't they truly weapons of 
mass destruction? He said: Well, yes, if they put the chemicals in the 
warheads.
  The other thing people keep talking about, What did they know or what 
did they not know about a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama 
bin Laden. That should have been put to rest about a month ago when 
there was a leak to the Weekly Standard. They specifically drew that 
connection and said, yes, in fact, there is a connection. In fact, two 
of the passports of the pilots were gotten by Saddam Hussein and his 
people.
  Just this morning in the New York Times there is an article stating 
the connection is there. This is the New York Times, not a Republican 
operation. It says: ``Found, Smoking Gun.'' That is the name of this 
article.
  We are enjoying this very much, but the political season is on us. I 
hope we will keep cool heads and do the best we can to improve our 
intelligence.
  Right after September 11 we had the bicameral commission look at 
this. We came a long way. I ask the assistant leader if that is not 
correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Senator from Nevada responds, the 
Chair feels constrained to remind all Senators, Senators may yield for 
questions but not for speeches.

[[Page 1688]]

  The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma says this 
is political season. We are in the Senate. Every day of our life is 
political season. That is what we do. That is what we do for the 
American people. That is what we do for the people of the State of 
Nevada, the people of Oklahoma, the people of North Dakota, and the 
people of Missouri.
  I agree with my friend's statement, there is no showing of weapons of 
mass destruction. True. The point is, this is serious business. This is 
not trying to determine what happened at half time at the Super Bowl. 
This is looking at the situation involving the security of this Nation 
and actually the security of this world. We should have an independent 
commission, bipartisan in nature. Everyone agrees with that.
  I personally do not like the parameters of what the President set 
forth. It does not establish what needs to be done. But the purpose of 
this discussion today with Senator Dorgan and this Senator from Nevada 
is the commission, as set up as an independent bipartisan commission, 
is tainted. As I indicated earlier, it is not only tainted, it is 
smeared. Why? Because the President chose as the cochair of this 
commission a man who is one of the most partisan zealots in the history 
of this country. So this commission can never render anything of 
substance that will be accepted in this country because of this man 
being the cochair. I suggest, get him off. If he had any care about 
this country, he would resign.
  The Senator from North Dakota hit the nail on the head: Where is our 
judicial system? There could be hearings and proof established, for 
example, that David Brock went into this man's home, time after time 
after time while he was sitting on important cases. What was Brock 
doing--getting advice as to how he could berate, denigrate, lie, cheat 
about the President of the United States?
  These are facts.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me respond briefly to my friend from Oklahoma, and I 
will phrase it in the form of a question to the Senator from Nevada. 
There is no question the world is better off because Saddam Hussein was 
found in a rat hole and no longer runs the country of Iraq. The world 
would be better off if Kim Jong Il were not running the country of 
Korea. That is not the issue. An interesting point, but not the issue.
  The issue is, the top weapons inspector says that which we said we 
knew, which we told the world we knew, was not the case. Why? Because 
he said our intelligence system failed.
  No one here should sleep quite as soundly as they used to sleep, 
understanding that our intelligence system failed.
  We all ought to demand on an urgent basis to understand what happened 
and how it happened. That is the point the Senator from Nevada and I 
are making. I hope the Senator from Oklahoma believes in the urgency of 
this, as well.
  I ask the Senator from Nevada if it is not the case that the question 
by the Senator from Oklahoma about the September 11 commission moving 
in the right direction, is it not the case that yesterday we saw this 
headline: ``9/11 Panel Threatens to Issue Subpoenas for Bush's 
Briefings''? In fact, they have already had to issue subpoenas. This 
commission investigating the September 11 attacks had to issue 
subpoenas against the FAA and others and is now threatening to issues 
subpoenas against the White House and said this morning they had more 
cooperation.
  Is it not the case that any administration, Democrat or Republican, 
ought to say to this commission and any commission: Here are our 
records. They are open. We want you to get to the bottom of this.
  Mr. REID. I say through the floor to my friend from North Dakota, the 
Senator makes the point. The other body which is doing the 
investigation, no one raises any question about the Members of that 
commission. They are Democrats and they are Republicans. Very 
conservative Congressman Tim Roemer is part of that. But no one 
questions what they are trying to do to get to the facts of this 
matter.
  My point is, and the point of the Senator from North Carolina is, 
this so-called bipartisan independent commission can never render 
anything the American public will accept because of the person that is 
cochairing it. Laurence Silberman is a partisan zealot.
  Now the New York Times article the Senator pointed out is a group of 
people, including Tim Roemer, and Governor Kean of New Jersey. No one 
questions his integrity. He believes we should move forward and get 
this done as soon as possible.
  I repeat, the independent commission President Bush has appointed to 
look at the failure of intelligence in our country will never, ever be 
accepted for a number of reasons, not only the breadth and scope of the 
investigation but because of the cochair, Laurence Silberman.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, let me reiterate how important this bill 
is to our country's infrastructure and our country's economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. This bill will provide desperately needed funds to 
rebuild decaying roads and bridges and to improve transit systems 
across the country. It will pump billions of dollars into real, lasting 
improvements in physical infrastructure.
  In the process it will provide new, quality jobs for hundreds of 
thousands of people. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced. I 
repeat--these are jobs that cannot be outsourced.
  The President says that this bill is too expensive. He also 
apparently believes that outsourcing American jobs is a good thing. He 
is wrong on both counts.
  If we can spend billions rebuilding Iraq's physical infrastructure, 
surely we can find the money to maintain America's transportation 
infrastructure. Without well-maintained roads, bridges, and transit 
systems, our economy will inevitably suffer.
  Let's keep the big picture in view here. This bill spends money to 
pay Americans for work done in this country. This work translates 
directly into improved roads, bridges, and transit systems. Better 
infrastructure reduces transaction costs and makes the economy more 
efficient. This is an economic fact.
  This bill also reduces congestion on our Nation's roadways by 
enhancing public transportation and promoting intermodal solutions to 
regional transportation problems.
  As we all know, less congestion means shorter commute times. Shorter 
commute times means more time for productive activity. This too is an 
economic fact.
  But this bill goes far beyond simply improving the infrastructure in 
this country. It also enhances our ability to move goods across our 
borders in trade with Canada and Mexico. By enhancing freight capacity 
and improving binational transportation planning efforts, the bill 
reduces the transactions costs associated with cross-border trade.
  That means that American consumers will pay lower prices for imports 
from Canada and Mexico. It also means that our exports will be less 
expensive for Canadian and Mexican consumers, and that's good for 
American manufacturers. This too is an economic fact.
  Finally, as several of my colleagues have noted, this bill will also 
enhance safety on our Nation's highways. With improved safety we can 
reduce injuries and loss of life from highway accidents. That's 
obviously good for the American people in a deeply personal sense. It 
is also good for the country as a whole because it reduces the social 
costs associated with injury and loss of life.
  Our country needs this bill and it needs it now. I urge my colleagues 
to

[[Page 1689]]

help pass this bill before the Senate concludes its business this week.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday when we were discussing the 
seatbelt law, quite frankly, I was opposed to it. I am opposed to any 
kind of mandate. I cannot find anyone in this body who has either been 
a former Governor or mayor of a major city that won't oppose mandates. 
Of course, that would have been a great one, with three penalties. That 
is behind us now.
  During that time, the assistant minority leader had a suggestion that 
we might want to consider what they have done in Nevada. They had this 
requirement just for the babies and small children, which was 
interesting. I commented that I am very familiar with that, having 11 
grandchildren. I know all about the seatbelts and all these little 
requirements they have and how expensive they are. In an attempt to 
outdo me, as sometimes happens on the floor of the Senate, the Senator 
from Nevada commented that, yes, you have 11 grandchildren, but I have 
14. I got a phone call after that and found out that I in fact have 12 
now. So I want to get the record straight that we are still working on 
it and we are going to catch the Senator from Nevada. A new Swan will 
be born; that happens to be my daughter's name.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I say to my friend that under 
the rules the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has established, he 
is counting those children who are in gestation and not having been 
born. If that is the case, I can still up him one. I will have 15 
because we have a new baby who will be born a month from now. So I am 
still two ahead of him.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reclaiming my time, I observe we are both still working 
on that, and when they are conceived they are babies.
  Mr. TALENT. Will the Senator yield? I hope the Senator's child and 
in-law have already announced this expected occasion and you have not 
revealed it to the Senate and the world.
  Mr. INHOFE. I did get that permission. I made that mistake once. I 
was commenting back when a little boy was born to my older son and his 
wife. My older son is James Mountain Inhofe II. He kept having baby 
girls. The years went by and they kept cranking the girls out. I always 
wanted to have a boy, selfishly, James Mountain Inhofe III. So we found 
out--and this happened a couple years ago--that in fact my daughter-in-
law was unexpectedly pregnant--Jimmy's wife. I respond to the Senator 
that what we did is for 8 months we prayed every day it would be a boy. 
I figured if Abraham could do it, I could do it. Sure enough, we were 
up in the waiting room and the nurse came in while I was doing a 30-
minute talk show with Ollie North. Right in the middle of that, she 
came in and said, ``Senator, how did you know? You are the only one who 
knew it was going to be a boy.'' I said, ``Ollie, James Mountain Inhofe 
III has been born.'' On the way back it occurred to me they had not yet 
named that child, and I announced the name on the radio. So I learned 
that lesson.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I am sure sons and daughters-in-law have 
been forgiving proud grandparents of a lot worse things than that. I 
congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Nevada on 
the additions to their families.
  We are really talking about a subject today that is important to all 
of our families. That is why we are here. That is why those who have 
worked so hard for transportation, including my friend from Oklahoma, 
have done what they have done. I am here to rise in support of the 
bill, and also in support of an amendment I am now offering at this 
time with my friend from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and also on behalf of Mr. 
Corzine and Mr. Coleman.
  This is an amendment that has broad support within the community of 
those who are particularly interested in transportation, including the 
support of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials, Associated General Contractors of America, Chamber of 
Commerce, National Heavy and Highway Alliance, which represents the 
labor unions, operating engineers, carpenters union, iron workers 
union, cement masons, the teamsters, and bricklayers, and many others. 
We call it the Build America Bond Act of 2003.
  We think it is one of the most important things we can do on behalf 
of the Nation's transportation infrastructure. I am here to explain the 
amendment and the idea and argue on behalf of it.
  First, however, I want to say thank you to my friend from Oklahoma, 
Senator Bond, Senator Reid, and Senator Jeffords for their efforts on 
behalf of the underlying bill. Those efforts have been heroic. They 
have done a great job to get the level of spending in the bill up to 
where they got it. I am going to make the point in a couple minutes 
that it needs to be a lot higher than that. In making that point, I 
don't wish to be understood as criticizing them for their work. They 
have done the best they can do with the traditional methods of funding.
  I would also like, before I begin discussing the amendment, to thank 
my friend from Oregon, who may or may not make it to the floor this 
afternoon to talk about this amendment. I know he wants to. We have had 
the pleasure of working together for almost a year now on the Build 
America Bond Act. For me, it has been a personal as well as 
professional pleasure to renew an acquaintance and working relationship 
we had together in the House during our years when we were there 
together.
  I thank our friends who are handling this bill, especially my senior 
Senator, Kit Bond, for his great work on behalf of the underlying bill. 
I am pleased they have gotten the measure to where it is right now. Yet 
I have to tell the Senate the measure is not big enough. I say that 
because it bothers me when critics of this bill say it spends too much. 
The truth is it does not invest enough. It bothers me when critics of 
the bill say spending on transportation infrastructure is 
irresponsible, when actually the opposite is the truth. Not spending 
enough on transportation infrastructure is what is irresponsible, 
because we have a transportation deficit in this country. It is growing 
every day we fail to take the necessary steps in the Congress.
  The Department of Transportation studied the Nation's highways, 
bridges, and transit systems, and reported back to Congress. They filed 
a long report and concluded we needed a highway bill that was about 
$375 billion. This is the report of the expert agencies on behalf of 
the Federal Government. It says $375 billion, not $311 billion. I am 
glad we got it to that point, but it will not take $311 billion, not 
$300 billion, not $280 billion, not $250 billion, but $375 billion--or 
something close to it--if we are going to begin paying back the 
transportation deficit we have.
  I don't believe what I am saying about the status of our Nation's 
transportation system is seriously contested by anybody. A lot of 
people don't want to remedy it and pay what we need to pay to do 
something about it, but they are not contesting that there is a serious 
problem.
  Thirty-two percent of the Nation's roads are poor or mediocre; 36 
percent of our urban roads are poor; 37 percent of our bridges are 
obsolete. We lose $67 billion a year in wasted time and wasted fuel 
costs because of congestion caused by inadequate roads. We lose 4.5 
billion man-hours from people around this country who are stuck in 
traffic. Those are hours they are not at the office or the factory 
producing things. Those are hours they are not at home with their 
families.
  We spend $49 billion a year on extra vehicle repair costs because 
maintenance costs are higher than they

[[Page 1690]]

should be because the roads are no good. Those are the overall 
statistics. And everybody has their own anecdotal stories about the 
shocks they had to replace because of the potholes, the time they lose 
getting to work in the morning.
  There are so many examples of poor infrastructure that my friend 
Senator Bond and I could give. I called back to Missouri and asked for 
a picture of the bridge over the Missouri River leading into Hermann, 
MO. Don Kruse, who is the editor of the Advertiser-Courier in Hermann, 
did me a favor and went out and took a picture of it. This is a bridge 
not over some small river or not over the Missouri River where the 
river begins where it is narrow. This is over the Missouri River in 
east central Missouri. This is the bridge you take to get into Hermann, 
MO, which, by the way, is a great town. It is a bustling town, a town 
with a future if we can get the proper infrastructure.
  I don't know if most Members of the Senate can see this picture or if 
the people in the Galleries can see it that well, but the rails are 
rusted. We can see how narrow the bridge is. That is a Mack truck 
coming one way, and that is a car trying to go the other way. You don't 
have to be a transportation expert, you don't have to work for the 
Department of Transportation to say: I don't think that bridge is 
adequate. It isn't.
  You have to either laugh or cry over it. When I drive over it, I say: 
We ought to tell Hollywood if they ever want a crumbling bridge or a 
poor bridge to use in a movie, they don't have to build one; come here 
and use this one outside Hermann.
  We have blood alleys all over Missouri. I have driven on them--roads 
that are so dangerous people regularly die because the roads are no 
good. We also have interchanges in our growing communities, such as 
Springfield, the I-44 and I-64 interchange that are inadequate.
  There are many opportunities around Missouri for economic growth of 
which we cannot avail ourselves because the transportation system isn't 
what it should be.
  North Missouri has been in economic trouble for a long time, long 
before the existing recession. It is not because of the people there. 
They are productive people with a vision. A big part of the reason is 
the roads are not good enough.
  If we could turn Highway 36 in north Missouri into a four-lane road, 
it would link up Hannibal to St. Joseph, which links up Chicago to 
Kansas City, and the jobs would follow that corridor. We don't have the 
money.
  There are too many first-tier, urgent projects in the State of 
Missouri and in States all over this country that are not being done, 
not because they shouldn't have a priority, but because there isn't 
enough money. So they get pushed further and further behind, and we are 
all familiar with that situation.
  We are all familiar with the departments of transportation saying: We 
are going to do that; we are going to widen that road; we are going to 
do the system maintenance; it is on the books for 2020. Everybody in 
the communities knows what that means. It is never going to be done.
  If that isn't enough--and it should be enough--in Missouri, we lost 
1,028 people to highway fatalities in 2002 alone. The statistics show 
that one out of three accidents are related to the fact that the roads 
are no good.
  When you travel around Missouri, one of the things you notice--and I 
wonder if they have this in other States. I should ask some of my 
colleagues; I never have. But the highway department allows people, 
grieving families to put little white crosses on the side of the road 
where they lost a loved one, and they will write the names of those 
loved ones on the crosses, sometimes the age. You might see ``Jennifer, 
age 7'' as you whiz by and see that little white cross.
  Every one of those people who died on one of those roads has a family 
who loved them. Tell those families that this highway bill is too big. 
Tell them we don't need to spend more on transportation infrastructure. 
Tell them that.
  What can we do about it? We can do something. We have a mechanism 
available that is used in States and localities all over this country, 
a mechanism that will produce dollars immediately to help us remedy 
this transportation deficit. We can do it responsibly. It has the 
support of groups involved in transportation from all over the country. 
It is bonding, and that is why the Senator from Oregon and I in the 
spring of last year sponsored the Build America Bonds Act.
  We argue that it is the only way we can address this issue quickly, 
in combination, of course, with the traditional methods of funding that 
we also support. This is a way to jump-start this effort. This is a way 
to make up for this deficit in transportation, for this work that we 
should have done in the past and did not.
  Basically, the amendment, if and when we get a chance to offer it, 
would create a federally chartered nonprofit corporation that would 
raise $56 billion in tax credit bonds that could be immediately 
invested in transportation infrastructure. According to our amendment, 
$40 billion could go to highways, $10 billion to public transit, and $6 
billion to rail. It could be invested right away, not even over the 
life of the bill, the 6 years, but as fast as we can raise it and get 
it out to the States, and the work could be done in the course of the 
next year or two.
  It is a great job creator. Every billion dollars in transportation 
investment creates about 47,000 jobs. Build America Bonds have the 
potential to create over 2 million jobs. It is one of the reasons the 
trade unions are so strongly in support of it, because their members 
have to drive on these roads and use this transportation system, too. 
Our amendment also has the potential to generate over $300 million in 
economic activity.
  There is a feature to it that my friend from Oregon and I 
particularly like. The amendment would require that a percentage of the 
bonds be issued in small denominations, $25, $50, so that moms and dads 
and grandmas and grandpas could go out and buy a Build America bond and 
give it to their kids or their grandkids for their birthdays and know 
that they were investing their moneys in American roads and creating 
American jobs and protecting the future of their kids as they grow up 
in this country.
  The bill has the potential to save us up to $67 billion that we now 
spend or waste in traffic congestion and the $50 billion spent in extra 
vehicle repair.
  This kind of financing is done all over this country. The funny thing 
is, there is a certain irony to it. This Government will borrow--and 
everybody here is going to vote for this highway bill or has voted for 
one at one time or another--hundreds of billions of dollars in long-
term debt to pay for operating expenses. Nobody else in the country 
does that. Yet unless this amendment passes, we will not borrow money 
for long-term capital expenses, which routinely happens all over the 
country in public and private life. We will not borrow the money for 
the items we should finance--investments in capital goods that pay off 
over time.
  What is the cost? The way we have set this mechanism up and given the 
international bond markets and their sophistication, we estimate that 
under current market conditions, the total cost to the taxpayers would 
be $2.5 billion a year, for 30-year bonds. It would be $2.5 billion a 
year. For that we get about 2 million jobs. We actually get this bill 
up to the level which the Department of Transportation says we need to 
really begin remedying this transportation deficit. It is, quite 
simply, the cheapest way of addressing the problem.
  What is the most expensive way?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri yield for a question?
  Mr. TALENT. I will be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I so appreciate the Senator's leadership on 
this issue and opportunity to be a bipartisan partner in this effort. 
Isn't it fair to say the Federal Government is now essentially the only 
entity on the planet that isn't going with the kind of approach that 
the Senator from Missouri has been advocating? It is being

[[Page 1691]]

done at the State level, it is being done at the local level, and it is 
being done through various private initiatives.
  It seems to me what the Senator has identified is essentially a case 
for saying the Federal Government ought to join the rest of the world 
in its approach to this logical way. Would the distinguished sponsor of 
this amendment, my partner, address that briefly?
  Mr. TALENT. I thank the Senator for his question. He is absolutely 
correct. I have been to ribbon cuttings and ceremonies in Missouri, and 
I bet the Senator has been to them in Oregon, where localities have 
financed local bond issues in order to do transportation 
infrastructure, because there is not enough money coming from the State 
and Federal Government. States also do this.
  The Senator and I are not talking about shifting over to bonding as a 
way of replacing other highway dollars, or taking over the job of 
financing transportation, because we do not want that. But bonding 
should be part of a package that will give us the ability to do the big 
projects, the one-time projects. We are not suggesting the States 
should build this into their regular maintenance budgets because this 
money is going to come in and is going to be invested. It is not a 
regular stream. It is part of an overall financing package absolutely, 
and it is done all over this country. Given the deficit transportation 
situation we are in, the fact that we have this terrible problem with 
transportation, I think it is foolish of us not to consider it.
  It is one of the reasons I have appreciated so much working with my 
friend. I say to my friend, through the Chair, what is the most 
expensive way of dealing with this? If we were looking for the most 
expensive and risky way to pay for the transportation problem we have 
to fix the roads, rail, and transit that we need in this country, what 
would we do? We would wait. I submit that is what we are proposing to 
do with this bill, as heroically as the sponsors have worked to get it 
up to the level where they have gotten it up to.
  If one were a homeowner and had a hole in their roof, they would 
consider how to fix it. They might try to do it out of their current 
income. They might take another job to fix it, which would raise their 
income. They might decide that the best thing to do would be to take 
out a home equity loan and pay for it that way.
  What they would not do is say: ``Well, this is optional. I am going 
to let this go because it would be irresponsible for me to spend on 
this. I would be mortgaging my kids' future if I took out a home equity 
loan to fix the hole in the roof.'' They would know eventually they 
were going to have to fix this hole, because if they waited, what would 
happen? Was the problem going to get better? No. Holes in roofs do not 
get smaller if they are not fixed, they get bigger, and if one waits 
long enough, the roof collapses, and then they do have to spend some 
money, don't they?
  My wife called me the other day about this cold weather we have been 
having in Missouri, as well as in Washington. We have had ice storms 
and the driveway has been under ice because I did not get out quickly 
enough to scrape it off when the snow and the ice started, which she 
and I had a little discussion about. But she is noticing now that some 
of it is melting, that part of the driveway is beginning to chip. She 
is upset about it, and so we are going to fix that and seal that 
driveway. What would happen if we waited and we did not do that? The 
cracks in that driveway are not going to get any better. They are going 
to get worse.
  This highway bill is a lot bigger than the last highway bill--if we 
can get the number my friends from Oklahoma and Missouri have worked so 
hard to get. It is a lot bigger. It is 30 percent higher than the last 
highway bill we passed. It is a lot bigger because the problems have 
gotten a lot worse.
  One thing I will guarantee is, if we do not do something decisively 
to fix this problem now, we are going to have a highway bill 6 years 
from now and it will be even bigger. It will be much bigger. The gap 
between the size of the bill and what we will need to do then to fix 
the problem is going to be a lot bigger, too. We are trying to bail out 
a boat and we do not have a big enough bucket. Bonding will fix that. 
We have a chance to do that in this Congress. We have strong bipartisan 
support.
  This is one of the few things we may be able to do on a real 
bipartisan basis. We have support from the transportation community. We 
have support from the bonding community. There is precedent for this 
all over the country. The cost is extremely small relative to the gain 
and relative to the risk of doing nothing, because if we do not do this 
now, we are going to pass the bill for our poor transportation system 
on to the next generation. Let's not kid ourselves that we are doing 
them any favors by not investing. We are passing it on to them and we 
are guaranteeing that their bill is going to be a lot bigger than it 
needs to be. The economic growth they are going to need to be able to 
pay that bill when we give it to them is going to be undermined if we 
do not act now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Before my friend from Missouri leaves, I again say how 
much I have enjoyed working with him on this legislation. I think it is 
fair to say that nothing important in the Senate gets done unless it is 
bipartisan.
  What the Senator from Missouri has done is lead the Senate in an area 
that I think is bold and innovative. In my view, it is an opportunity 
to provide a real turboboost to our economy. I represent a State that 
consistently is suffering high unemployment, loads of working-class 
families facing extraordinary economic hurt, and as we have talked 
about now for a good part of the day, there is no initiative before the 
Senate that will do more to create good-paying jobs than this 
particular legislation.
  I think it is important for the Senate to say on this bill, at this 
critical time, that we are not going to stand pat, that the status quo 
is not good enough. Let's not have a business-as-usual transportation 
bill. I like the idea of getting our citizens excited, for example, 
about buying a child or a grandchild a Build America bond, something 
where kids can save and families can engage in an effort to strengthen 
our country's infrastructure, rebuild our critically neglected 
transportation systems, as the Senator from Missouri has noted, and 
particularly get the American people involved in the exercise.
  I have just come from a round of town meetings at home across Oregon 
and talked about Build America bonds. As we have said, this is to 
supplement the good work that has been done by the Senator from Vermont 
and the Senator from Oklahoma and all of the Senators who have been 
part of our leadership. This is not to supplant existing funds; it is 
to supplement them, and to supplement the transportation sector at a 
very critical time.
  I have long believed we cannot have big league economic progress with 
little league transportation systems. The pictures that have been shown 
today by the Senator from Missouri could essentially be pictures that 
could come from any of our communities, the communities of Vermont or 
New Hampshire or any of our individual States. In my State, there are 
traffic jams and backlogs in communities where no one could have even 
dreamed there would be a traffic jam even a few years ago. So it is for 
that reason that the Senator from Missouri and I come to offer a 
bipartisan and fresh approach involving a tax credit and an opportunity 
to address our country's transportation needs.
  I will say to my colleagues that we are very much aware of the 
situation on the Senate floor with respect to this topic and the 
administration's views on it. My own belief is that at the end of the 
day, when the Senate and the House get together, led by the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, 
when they are in that room at the end of the day negotiating between 
the Senate and the House, I think they are

[[Page 1692]]

going to be looking for opportunities to do a lot of good in the 
transportation area where the pricetag is pretty modest. When you use 
that as a definition in a conference committee, where you are trying to 
wring out the maximum in terms of value for job creation in meeting our 
country's infrastructure needs, if that is your measure, I think the 
legislation that Senator Talent has authored, with the help of myself 
and Senator Corzine and Senator Coleman of Minnesota--we have been very 
pleased on our side to be joined by Senator Durbin and Senator Dayton 
and others--I think when the Senator from Vermont and the distinguished 
whip, Senator Reid of Nevada, and others are in that final set of 
discussions with the House, this proposal is going to look pretty 
darned good. It is going to look very attractive compared to a tax 
increase, which certainly some have debated. It is always a 
noncontroversial topic to discuss tax increases in the Senate.
  But I think to go with an approach like this, the Build America Bonds 
Initiative, where, as I learned in the course of the discussion, and 
the Senator from Missouri has just confirmed, the Federal Government is 
the only entity now that has not figured out how to do this, it seems 
to me we have an opportunity to address that deficiency and to do it in 
a responsible way.
  The administration has indicated they want to cut the Senate bill. 
That has certainly generated concern in many quarters. It seems to me, 
when we can find hundreds of billions of dollars for various kinds of 
international challenges and concerns around the world, we can do some 
rebuilding here at home. I think this bonding proposal is a very 
innovative approach to, in effect, think outside the trust funds, think 
outside the box, and because of the various opportunities for 
transportation services to be addressed, this legislation lets the 
country think outside the gas tank.
  As we have indicated, we call on this legislation for issuing 
federally backed bonds to pay for new transportation construction 
projects. A very broad coalition of groups has come together, groups 
representing business organizations, labor organizations, and all of 
them are united around the proposition that at a time when workers and 
communities are reeling from layoffs and getting pounded economically, 
we ought to look for opportunities to responsibly get the dollars that 
are needed for the transportation sector.
  The Build America Bonds Program is a stimulus that will generate 
funding for our economy today. It is a chance for the Federal 
Government to hold up its end of the bargain with our States. I am 
hopeful Congress will finish the critical work on this legislation 
quickly, but more than anything, let us pass a transportation bill that 
is not business as usual. These are not standpat times. This is not a 
time, based on the meetings I just had in Oregon, where folks will say 
let's just keep doing what we have been doing and we can stand pat 
because everything is hunky-dory. I think they are looking for bolder 
and more creative ways to get our citizens and our economy going where 
we need to go.
  The legislation Senator Talent and I have sponsored will help America 
get going in the right direction by providing additional funding to 
meet our country's transportation and economic needs.
  I understand the situation with respect to the floor and the Senate 
today. I hope our colleagues will continue to work with Senator Talent 
and me as we go forward in the Senate, as it is debated with the House, 
because I am absolutely convinced that in the last hours of this 
discussion, when the Senate and the House are looking for a way to meet 
this country's transportation needs and looking for a way to do it in a 
cost-effective fashion, they will say the legislation that Senator 
Talent and I have put together is an opportunity to do a lot of good in 
a fashion that is fiscally responsible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I am not going to inflict myself much more 
on the subject, but my friend spoke so eloquently on it, and I wanted 
to add a little bit to what he was saying, particularly with regard to 
cost.
  The thing he and I emphasized that I believe is so important is that 
these problems we have in transportation are problems that are not 
going to go away if we don't do anything. If the Federal Government 
were a private company and its capital infrastructure were in the 
condition that America's capital infrastructure is in, you would have 
to list that somehow on the books as affecting the valuation of the 
company. I am no expert on these things, but that inadequate capital 
infrastructure of that company would be an ongoing obligation of the 
company. It would be a debt that the company has to pay because 
everybody in the commonsense world, if I can say that, understands that 
eventually you have to deal with this issue.
  It is also common knowledge, uncontested, that in particular with 
regard to transportation, when you delay, costs go up a lot because 
there are so many inputs to transportation costs: Material costs; 
wages, of course, go up, one hopes, periodically; costs of right-of-way 
can go up. There are a lot of things affecting those costs. Everybody 
knows it is dangerous to put off projects because costs can escalate 
far beyond the rate of inflation, far beyond what you are earning on 
the money you are not spending because you didn't want to pay for the 
transportation.
  Under current market conditions we estimate this proposal of ours 
would cost about $2.5 billion a year, which is about, not 1 percent, 
but one-tenth of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. It is 
considerably less than other proposals which have been made for new 
kinds of spending, and which I have generally supported, but which were 
not paid for by any other new stream of revenue. For example, the 
global AIDS bill, which received wide support in the Senate and which I 
certainly supported, costs more every year than this costs.
  This kind of spending empowers us. This kind of spending gives us the 
opportunity to create jobs. The Senator from Oregon and I have not even 
talked about the dynamic impact of transportation investment. But if 
you Members don't believe that investment in roads and highways and 
rail and transit has a dynamic impact, go and talk to the economic 
development people in your State--in the urban areas, in the smaller 
towns. They are all for this.
  I remember when I was traveling around Missouri in support of Build 
America Bonds and I went to Springfield, one of our dynamic cities in 
Missouri. I had a meeting at the Chamber of Commerce. The head of the 
chamber came rushing up to me and he said: ``You know, I like the tax 
cut. But this,'' he was waving the one page we had for Build America 
Bonds, ``is a jobs stimulus.''
  He understands that.
  This is a proposal whose time has more than come. I want to reiterate 
what the Senator from Oregon said. I know the problems the bill faces. 
We certainly do not want to imperil the underlying bill for this. I 
would not do that. I don't want to suggest that those supporting this 
bill have not done great work. I am looking forward to supporting this 
highway bill. But at some point in this process we need to be able to 
confront this because this is not a problem that is going to get any 
better if we don't do anything about it.
  I yield the floor.
  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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Jobs Move Overseas

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will address the most important 
subject we have confronting us in this country. It is brought about by 
a headline yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, ``Bush Supports Shift of 
Jobs Overseas.'' I

[[Page 1693]]

know the distinguished Presiding Officer, as well as this particular 
Senator, was shocked to see that. But it is the truth. It is 
unfortunate because of the policy of this particular body, the Senate, 
we are as guilty as the President of the United States.
  I hear my colleagues weeping and wailing, how could he say such a 
thing? Heavens above, how could you pass fast track? It's just shipping 
jobs overseas faster. There's all this free trade, free trade whining; 
all of this level the playing field, level the playing field but we're 
shipping jobs overseas.
  What really happens is the distinguished President--I don't know what 
his situation is with respect to being AWOL in the National Guard, but 
I make a categorical statement--and many others are AWOL from the trade 
war. Now let's talk about the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, the 
terrorism war, but more than anything else, a trade war.
  Senator, let me tell you how to start one. It was in the earliest 
States, the colonies that are great forefathers started. That is the 
greatest generation. We sit around here, a few of us, veterans from 
World War II being called the greatest generation. But the real heroes 
are not here. The real greatest generation was Madison and Jefferson 
and Washington and Hamilton and Adams. That was the real great 
generation of our time.
  The colonies had just won their freedom when the mother country 
corresponded back and proposed exactly what we hear today, economists 
running around all over the land yelling ``comparative advantage.'' 
Today, we read in the Los Angeles Times article about the comparative 
advantage. But the doctrine started with David Ricardo, when the 
British suggested what to do is trade back to the mother country what 
you produce best--your comparative advantage--and they will trade back 
with you what they produce best. Free trade, free trade, free trade.
  Alexander Hamilton wrote a little booklet, ``Report On 
Manufacturers.'' I say to the Senator, there is one copy in the Library 
of Congress. I have been allowed to make a copy of it, but that is the 
only original copy I know of. But, in any event, rather than wasting 
the time of putting it in the Record here, in a line, Hamilton told the 
British: Bug off. We are not going to remain your colonies, shipping to 
you the rice, the cotton, the indigo, the timber, the iron ore, and the 
natural produce of the land, and continue to import the manufacturing.
  There was a law before we won our freedom that you could not erect a 
manufacturing plant in the Colonies. It was against the law to produce. 
Oh, yes.
  So how do you start a trade war? On July 4, 1789, the second measure 
that passed the Congress in its history--the first was the Seal of the 
United States--but the second, on July 4, 1789, was a tariff bill. It 
was protectionism. It was a 50-percent tariff on over 60 articles. That 
is how we started to build up our economic strength.
  Our economic strength, I say to the Senator, is the vital leg in the 
three-legged stool of a nation's security. You have the one leg of a 
nation's values. That was unquestioned until we started preemptive 
wars. But we are known the world around--they do not hate us. They do 
not like this policy, but they do not hate Americans. I have traveled 
the world for the last 37 years, and I can tell you they love America. 
They revere our stand for individual freedom, democracy, and human 
rights.
  We have sacrificed the world around; and we still are. We have, 
counting in Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait, 14 peacekeeping forces 
around the world right now. So we have sacrificed.
  But there is no sacrifice for this war in Iraq back home, and there 
is no sacrifice in this Congress. We need a tax cut so we can get 
reelected. So we tell the poor fellow in downtown Baghdad: We hope you 
don't get killed. And we really hope you don't get killed because we 
want you to hurry back so we can give you the bill.
  But, in any event, the second leg is the military, unquestioned as 
the world's superpower. We have the fine soldiers we have deployed in 
both Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in those peacekeeping outfits. 
More particularly, the economic leg, that third leg is what has been 
fractured.
  Now how did we build it up? How do you build an economy? Every 
country in the world is engaged in this trade war. You have to compete. 
You have to protect your economic interests.
  After the forefathers came Abraham Lincoln, the father of the 
Republican Party. When they came to President Lincoln and said: We are 
going to build the transcontinental railroad, and we are going to get 
steel, he said: We are not going to get the steel from Britain. We are 
going to build our own steel mills. When they were completed, they not 
only had a transcontinental railroad but a steel capacity under Abraham 
Lincoln.
  In the darkest days of the Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
protected America's agriculture. It is still the envy the world around. 
But we put in import quotas, subsidies for agriculture, and they should 
be protected unless we want to lose that. They jump all over poor Trade 
Representative Zoellick. He finally got a free trade agreement with 
Australia. There were exemptions--dairy exemptions, farm exemptions. 
You get what you can. We don't have just one agreement and that is the 
end of the world. If you cannot get an agreement with Australia, our 
best ally--and their standard of living, they have labor rights, 
environmental rights galore in Australia--if we cannot get a free trade 
agreement with that group, we are not going to get a free trade 
agreement with anybody. So we got it. I would support that because we 
have the same standard of living.
  Not only President Roosevelt, but Dwight David Eisenhower was a 
protectionist. He put on oil import quotas--back in the mid-1950s.
  And John Fitzgerald Kennedy--he had import quotas on textiles. He had 
a seven-point program to protect textiles. I helped write it. I can see 
me down in the press room now with Pierre Salinger and Andy Hatcher, 
the assistant in the press room in the White House. I will give you an 
original copy of the seven-point program. But we saved, with the 
multifiber arrangement, textile production in America until we started 
giving it away willy-nilly in yarn. We gave away $2 billion to Turkey 
in Desert Storm. We gave away $1 billion here and $1 billion there. 
They continue with the African, the Caribbean agreements, and 
everywhere else.
  President Reagan came down to South Carolina, and he committed to 
protect textiles. We passed the textile bill through the House and the 
Senate just to enforce the multifiber agreement. He vetoed it. We 
passed it under ``Papa'' Bush through the House and the Senate just to 
enforce the multifiber agreement, and ``Papa'' Bush, who had committed 
to textiles, vetoed it.
  They keep coming in to Greenville, SC, promising, promising anything 
during an election. I have to come up here to Washington and watch them 
go back on their promises. So don't give me any of this stuff about 
protectionism.
  Let me tell you, fair and square, we are in a trade war. That is how 
you build up your economic strength. Before you open your front door, I 
say to the Senator from Vermont, for ``Jeffords Manufacturing,'' you 
will need to pay minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. You 
will need to have clean air, clean water, plant closing notice, 
parental leave, safe working place, safe machinery--I can keep going 
down the list.
  So what happens? You can go to China and open a plant for 58 cents an 
hour--and none of that, none of that. Still, let's talk ``cents.'' If 
your competition goes, you have to go. If you continue to work your own 
people, you go bankrupt. So, you see, they have given dignity to this 
dilemma with this headline: Supports the Jobs Overseas. We in the 
Congress are responsible for setting the trade policy. We are the 
guilty parties around here. We have to change the culture and say: 
Don't worry about this free trade and that you might start a trade war. 
We are in the war.
  We started unilaterally disarming for a wonderful purpose after World 
War II.

[[Page 1694]]

Let me tell you where we were before World War II. This is the most 
interesting thing because this is not a politician speaking. This is 
none other than the famous author Edmund Morris in ``Theodore Rex.'' I 
will just read you a few short paragraphs about where we were at the 
turn of the century. I am quoting from ``Theodore Rex'':

       The first year of the new century found her worth twenty-
     five billion more than her nearest rival, Great Britain, with 
     a gross national product more than twice that of Germany and 
     Russia. The United States was already so rich in goods and 
     services that she was more self-sustaining than any 
     industrial power in history.
       Indeed, it could only consume a fraction of what it 
     produced. The rest went overseas at prices other exporters 
     found hard to match. As Andrew Carnegie said, ``the nation 
     that makes the cheapest steel has other nations at its 
     feet.'' More than half of the world's cotton, corn, copper, 
     and oil flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one 
     third of all steel, iron, silver and gold.
       Even if the United States were not so blessed with raw 
     materials, the excellence of her manufactured products 
     guaranteed her dominance of the world markets. Current 
     advertisements in the British magazines gave the impression 
     that the typical Englishman woke to the ring of an Ingersoll 
     alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor, combed his hair with 
     Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow shirt, hurried downstairs 
     for Quaker Oats, California figs, Maxwell House coffee, 
     commuted in a Westinghouse tram (body by Fisher) rose to his 
     office in an Otis elevator and worked all day with his 
     Waterman pen under the efficient glare of Edison lightbulbs. 
     ``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag suggested, ``for 
     [us] to take American coal to Newcastle.'' Behind the joke 
     lay real concerns. The United States was already supplying 
     beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia, and oranges to Valencia.

  Now we import all of it. And why? Because at the end of World War II, 
in order to prosper, we had to spread prosperity, the Marshall plan. We 
sent over not just the money of the Marshall billions, we sent over the 
expertise, the equipment. And it worked. We industrialized Europe and 
the Pacific rim and capitalism has defeated communism. So it worked. 
But in that 50-year period, we more or less unilaterally disarmed.
  I can remember back as a young Governor in 1960, I testified before 
the old international tariff commission, and Tom Dewey was the lawyer 
for the Japanese. He was chasing me around, and I was attesting to the 
fact that if this continued, with imports of textiles, 10 percent of 
the American consumption in textiles would be represented in imports. 
Over two-thirds of the clothing I am looking at now is imported, not 10 
percent. Over 86 percent of the shoes are imported. And so it goes with 
automobiles and steel and hand tools and everything else.
  I have been watching Lou Dobbs. He has had a series on how the world 
is sending us their architects; then they are sending over medical 
personnel, and doctors in America are sending mammograms to be read in 
India. And then I find out that my utility in South Carolina--SCANA--
was administering my light bills in downtown Bangalore, India, and my 
Food Stamp Program at the State capital in my home State had moved to 
India. I said: Heavens above.
  The other night I turned on the series, and now we are moving our law 
work to lawyers abroad. Instead of hiring paralegals for $75,000 to 
$80,000 a year in New York to do the background work on a brief or an 
appeal--they are moving the work to lawyers overseas. They are going to 
move everything overseas except politicians. We are already too cheap, 
I can tell you that. They will be importing everything except us 
politicians. And we keep sitting around whining and beating the desks 
and showing charts how we are leveling the playing field.
  How do you think you level the playing field? You raise a barrier 
against a barrier and then remove them both. This proposition of the 
Golden Rule doesn't work in business, I can tell you that.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. REID. I would like the Senator to comment on the Los Angeles 
Times headline: ``Bush Supports Shift to Jobs Overseas.''
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Show that to the viewing public, please. That is the 
theme here.
  Mr. REID. You are aware, of course--that is why you are here--of 
``the loss of work to other countries, while painful in the short term, 
will enrich the economy, his report to Congress says.'' This is the man 
who succeeded Lawrence Lindsey, who had such a great career in the 
Federal Government. You are familiar with Lawrence Lindsey, are you 
not?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I surely am.
  Mr. REID. This is his successor. I think he will maybe fit in the 
same shoes as Lawrence Lindsey did. So the Senator doesn't think this 
is such a good philosophy, that we are shipping all the jobs overseas?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I tell you, it has been ship, ship, ship. And who is 
financing this extravagance we have going? Let me bring you up to date. 
In 2003, as of the end of November, the Chinese had borrowed, in the 
People's Republic $143.8 billion and at Hong Kong $55.5 billion. So 
they have financed your and my extravagance to the tune of $199.7 
billion--they are financing our debt.
  Treasury Secretary John Snow goes to China and he says: How about 
floating your yen here so we can do away with that advantage you have? 
And the fellows in Beijing say: Bug off, boy. Go on back home. We might 
start selling your bonds rather than buying them, if you don't think 
that will wreck your economy and get the Democrats elected in November. 
That is what they told Snow. And Snow put his tail between his legs and 
came home. This is what controls the trade policy. We don't control it 
because we abdicate. Just like President Bush is AWOL in the trade war, 
we have been AWOL in the trade war--we have, this Congress.
  Article I, section 8, of the Constitution reads that the Congress of 
the United States shall regulate foreign commerce. What do we do? We 
bug out. We want the money from the big guys and the rich guys and the 
multinationals, so we bug out and say, oh, no, you take it, Mr. 
President, we will give you fast track so we cannot even amend trade 
agreements and you have the responsibility. With that responsibility, 
he goes AWOL. Here is the headline. And we are AWOL.
  You have the candidates running all over the land weeping and wailing 
about jobs. Let me tell you one thing, Mr. President. If you are going 
to try to rebuild an economy, you have to do one thing. I am going to 
give you our jobs omnibus bill and we will draw it up and I will get 
the distinguished Senator from Vermont to look at it and see what he 
thinks of it.
  No. 1, what we have to do is immediately quit financing the move of 
jobs overseas. I will never forget, I called Walter Allen Drissi. In 
Lexington, SC, I helped him with the water and sewer lines. He went out 
and got himself organized and started a high-tech company, Avenax. He 
got involved with Bill Gates and MCI. So 4 or 5 years ago, when his 
stock was up, I called Walter out in California and I said: Now, when 
you expand, I want a plant somewhere in South Carolina. We were good to 
you and you still have a home in Columbia.
  He said: I will keep my home. I love South Carolina, but I don't make 
anything in this country. He said: I got my research and sales out 
here. He said: I go right to China for my product. I get a year-to-year 
contract. I don't have to build a plant. They have the plant and the 
workforce. I got a quality man and I am sitting here with the Internet. 
I watch it every day. My good and trusted man watches the quality. I 
make two or three visits a year. At the end of the year, I have made a 
wonderful profit. If I haven't, I haven't lost anything really because 
I don't have to renew the contract. If I have done better than 
expected, I get another contract. It is a sweetheart deal.
  That is what is going on with American business. Do you know who the 
enemy within is? The enemy within is our best organizations--the 
Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of 
Independent Business. They are running all over the floor saying: free 
trade, free trade, free

[[Page 1695]]

trade. Are you for free trade? And we jump like monkeys and say, yes, I 
am for free trade, but I want to level the playing field. This is 
nauseating. I have been watching this for years.
  Even the newspapers are against it. They make a majority of their 
profits on retail advertising, and the retailers buy all their products 
overseas.
  I used to sit right where the Senator is standing, talking about how 
retailers have 100,000 articles at Christmastime, and when they run out 
of supplies and need another 10,000 dozen quick they would get it from 
New Jersey. But now they make a way greater profit on the imported 
article than on the New Jersey production. So the retailers make all 
their profits on the imported articles, and they advertise and they 
call up and they give the already canned editorials to the newspapers, 
so all the newspapers are hollering free trade, free trade, saying it 
creates jobs. It loses jobs.
  I have lost 58,000 jobs since President Bush has taken office. Come 
on. My State is in trouble. That is why all the candidates were running 
around there making promises. They started a movement. But they have to 
understand that we have to change the culture.
  How do you change the culture? You change the culture by, No. 1, quit 
financing them, and letting them keep the profits they make overseas. 
They don't have to pay income tax. That has to stop. We have a bill in 
that takes those benefits from overseas production and gives it to the 
particular domestic manufacturer that continues to work his own people.
  No. 2, we have to start enforcing our laws. I have worked with the 
private community over the years in customs law and enforcement of 
trade laws, and it has been left to the manufacturer and the private 
entity to enforce it.
  I will never forget the final climax of this so-called enforcement in 
customs laws occurred back when President Reagan was President. If you 
had a problem, you had to go first before the International Trade 
Administration, prove a dumping violation, come before the 
International Trade Commission and prove an injury, and then go to the 
U.S. Supreme Court and prove the legality; and then you have one final 
step, where the President of the United States, on national security 
provisions, can vitiate the whole thing.
  In the Zenith case, they won it all. They won before the Trade 
Administration and the International Trade Commission. They won before 
the Supreme Court. Then the Cabinet was gathered around the table and 
they agreed unanimously to enforce the finding. In walked President 
Reagan and he said: I have talked to Prime Minister of Japan and we are 
going to have to reverse that. That was the end of it--three years, 
millions of dollars, all kinds of motions and pleadings and everything 
else, and it didn't get anywhere.
  So the real trial bar in trade cases has just about disappeared 
because it is not worth the billable hours to go through the exercise. 
We need an Assistant Attorney General on textile laws. We have an 
Assistant Attorney General on antitrust. We need an Assistant Attorney 
General on trade laws and on dumping.
  We ought to start enforcing our dumping or selling lost leaders below 
cost. That is against the law in the domestic economy and the 
capitalistic society that we have, to have lost leaders and sell below 
cost. That is exactly what they are doing.
  That Lexus that costs $32,000 in America sells for $42,000 in Tokyo 
on the main street there. They have been selling below cost here, 
financing with the banking system to get market share. They don't care 
about profits. Market share is the competition.
  They say it is not WTO compatible. Well, if it is not World Trade 
Organization compatible, we have to change that or get out of the World 
Trade Organization. After getting that, in addition to enforcing our 
laws, we have to make sure we have the customs agents.
  I got an office in the Customs house in Charleston, SC. I used to go 
to them on textiles and they said: Senator, wait a minute, we are 
shorthanded. Do you want me to enforce drugs or textiles?
  I said: No, no, let's be sure we get the drugs.
  Now I go to them and they say: Wait a minute. Do you want me to 
enforce homeland security, or drugs, or textiles?
  I say homeland security and drugs, forget about the textiles.
  The Treasury Department and Customs testified that they got 5 billion 
in transshipments--illegal transshipments of textiles into this 
country. We could save thousands of jobs if we could just get that law 
enforced.
  We need specifically to fully fund the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program. We need a list of the 
critical materials in the Defense Department that are necessary to our 
national security. We must make sure we aren't running a deficit in the 
balance of those critical materials.
  Do you know why we waited that long to go into Desert Storm? We 
couldn't get the flat panel displays for the lookdown, see-down, before 
we could go in and decimate Saddam. Now, for much of that defense 
materiel we have to depend on allies whom this administration has made 
generally unfriendly.
  Come on, in this terror war, might doesn't make right; right makes 
might in the war on terror. Don't worry about a big old defense budget. 
Get me a big old State Department budget. Let's start making friends. 
We can't do this by ourselves. We are whistling ``Dixie'' running 
around with an atom bomb and a bunch of GIs killing.
  The question is: Was it really worth the invasion of Iraq to get rid 
of Saddam with 530-some American dead, over 3,000 injured, $160 billion 
in costs, and creating more terrorism rather than less terrorism? We 
actually, this minute, have more terrorism rather than less terrorism. 
We hope--and we want to support our effort in Iraq to bring it to as 
quick a conclusion as possible--we hope we have democracy, but right 
now, if you had to call the hand, it would be a loser because we were 
misled into this war.
  Saddam Hussein didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, but when 
the President--and I want to explain that vote--when the President on 
October 7, 2002, said there is clear evidence of peril--those are his 
words, ``clear evidence of peril''--we cannot wait until the smoking 
gun is a mushroom cloud.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Wait a minute. That was on October 7. On October 11, we 
voted. Once the Commander in Chief says there is clear evidence of 
peril, and 4 days later we have a vote, anybody reasonably sane and 
prudent would vote to support his Commander in Chief. We thought there 
was clear evidence of peril. There was not clear evidence of peril.
  I will be delighted to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that 13 months ago 
they found 11 chemical rockets with warheads that would hold 140 liters 
of any kind of chemical? They found with that VX gas enough to load 
these 11 rockets. Subsequent to that they found 36 more. That is 47. 
Each rocket, with 140 liters of VX gas, can kill a million people; is 
the Senator aware of that? Would the Senator call that a weapon of mass 
destruction?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We ought to make my colleague, Senator Inhofe, the 
inspector rather than David Kay, who didn't find any of what the 
Senator was listing. In other words, I don't think there is any more 
argument. There might have been a little bit here, a little bit there, 
but there was no imminent threat. There was no clear evidence of peril. 
You can find stuff that could have killed anybody. We could all get the 
chicken flu, but we are not trying to eliminate the State of Delaware 
because they have a little chicken flu there. Come on.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. If they found 47 chemical rockets, rockets that would 
hold 140 liters of chemicals, why would they have them if they didn't 
intend on using them against somebody? Would you inform the Senator?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Why didn't they use them? Excuse me, why didn't they 
use it? You found them, why didn't they use them? Why didn't you call 
Saddam and say use them?

[[Page 1696]]


  Mr. INHOFE. Why did they have them if they weren't wanting to use 
them at some point?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. What is the excuse? You should have called him, you 
found them, and Saddam didn't use them. The proof of the pudding is in 
the eating. You are running around on the floor of the Senate finding 
all kinds of things, but we had inspectors upon inspectors, and they 
have pretty well proved there was no clear evidence of peril.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I commend the Senator for his accurate statement 
relative to the purported threats. There was no way to deliver. I think 
900 miles was the furthest rockets could carry, and there was no threat 
really ever given anyway. I want to clear that up from my perspective.
  I thank the Senator from South Carolina more so for the wonderful 
economic history of this Nation he has given us and how we came to the 
incredibly strong positions we were in but now find ourselves 
dissipating all those great triumphs we had in the past and watching 
them all march overseas.
  I think what Senator Hollings has given us today ought to be put in 
marble so everybody can read and better understand the situation of 
this Nation at this time. I thank him for that wonderful contribution 
to our history.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Vermont has been overgenerous to me, 
but I think what we both agree we are at fault as much as the President 
in shipping jobs overseas. We are the ones under the Constitution, 
article I, section 8, the Congress, not the President, not the Supreme 
Court, the Congress shall regulate foreign commerce, but we have 
abdicated our responsibility, and we have gladly done so. Why? Because 
the Conference Board and the Business Roundtable and the United States 
Chamber of Commerce gives us money, and we need the money to run. So we 
take the money and run and avoid our responsibilities.
  We have to change the whole culture. We are into a dynamic trade war. 
We had a plus balance 10 years ago with Europe. We have a negative 
balance now. NAFTA hasn't worked. We had a $5 billion-plus balance 
before NAFTA. Now it is a negative $15 billion balance, and the average 
Mexican worker is not making less. What we really need is a Marshall 
Plan for our neighbor, the country of Mexico. That is what we ought to 
have rather than going back and forth.
  We had last year a $500 billion trade deficit, and about $500 billion 
in a budget deficit. So we have infused--infused--$1 trillion in the 
last year into the economy, and we created no jobs. That should worry 
everybody in the Congress. And what the President proposed for next 
year's budget is not a $521 billion deficit. Look on page 392, and you 
will find it's a $726 billion budget deficit that he proposes, and he 
doesn't include anything for Afghanistan and Iraq and the cost of the 
alternative minimum tax, which is another $200 billion.
  We are in real trouble. We have to sit down in a bipartisan way and 
quit running around with the signs saying the President is AWOL, 
because the Congress is AWOL. That is my beef. I fought these trade 
bills. I couldn't get anybody's attention, but now we have their 
attention. Baloney with that Business Roundtable, and profits, and 
downsizing and moving overseas. Let's make it profitable for 
manufacturers to do business in the United States. That is common 
sense. I say to the Senator from Vermont, doesn't he want to do that? I 
am sure he does. I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind 
attention. These are the most important issues we have ever had. There 
isn't any question about that.
  The January 27th New York Times reports that at a business meeting in 
Davos, Zhu Min, an economic adviser to the President of China, was met 
with silence when he asked Americans how their country planned to 
finance its economy with both blue collar manufacturing and white 
collar service jobs going elsewhere.
  The world has changed. Come on, wake up and start working out a good 
jobs policy in this Congress and quit blaming each other. There is 
plenty of blame to go around for all of us. But when it gets so bad 
that the economic adviser to the President of China, is asking how you 
pay your bill with all of these jobs going over here, and the economic 
adviser to the President of the United States says, ``Right on, we need 
more of them overseas, it is good for the country,'' we are in real 
trouble.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.


            The Future of Science and Technology in America

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, for the last 2\1/2\ years the primary 
efforts of the President and much of official Washington have focused 
on: How do we meet the threat of terrorism? Clearly, that is a threat 
we need to meet as a country, but there are other threats and other 
challenges that demand our attention as well. The first, most important 
of those, in my view, is the need to create high-wage jobs. Others have 
spoken about that. The Senator from South Carolina spoke about it. 
Others in the Senate have spoken about it in the last few days.
  High-wage job creation requires, as a precondition, that we adopt 
sound monetary and fiscal policies. The monetary policy we leave up to 
the Federal Reserve, but the responsibility for maintaining sound 
fiscal policy rests with the President and with the Congress. Both this 
President and this Congress have failed miserably in carrying out that 
responsibility.
  Much has been said about that failure, and I am not going to repeat 
those arguments again today. But even if the President and the Congress 
come to their senses and pursue a policy that is responsible with 
regard to fiscal affairs, the problem of how we are going to create 
high-wage jobs is still unaddressed.
  So the question is: What actions can we take to achieve that goal? 
Each of us can list at least some of the building blocks for a high-
wage society, fair and equitable tax structure, an educated and skilled 
workforce, an efficient, robust transportation infrastructure, a modern 
communications infrastructure, and so on.
  I would argue that any discussion of high-wage job creation should 
start with what military strategists refer to as the point of the 
spear, the tip of the spear, and I firmly believe that in the economic 
competition for high-wage job creation, this point of the spear is 
science and technology. Just as in the case of our national security, 
our economic future depends on our remaining the world leader in 
science and technology. If that leadership is lost, then our capacity 
for high-wage job creation will soon atrophy.
  Joseph Schumpeter, who taught all of us about the creative 
destruction that is inherent in our capitalist system, the competition 
that is brought on by new technologies and new markets destroys 
companies, it destroys entire industries. Jobs that existed in those 
industries are lost, only to be replaced by new jobs in other 
industries, in new companies that are nimble enough to take advantage 
of the dynamic change that is ongoing at all times.
  As Andy Grove of Intel has said, only the paranoid survive. If we 
want the United States to lead in the 21st century, we need to 
recognize that the world of the future is being shaped by new 
technologies and their rapid diffusion. Entire industries may disappear 
in the process or be utterly transformed, and there are many examples. 
One is the entire industry of recorded music that is being reshaped by 
the ease of downloading music from the Internet. Sales of recorded CDs 
have been dropping each year for the past few years. Today, blank CDs 
for making recordings at home substantially outsell recorded CDs. When 
one walks into Staples or Office Depot, one sees a big display of blank 
CDs for sale, and one can be certain that most of those

[[Page 1697]]

CDs are not destined to be used to store spreadsheets of data. Even the 
small number of high-profile lawsuits against individuals who burn 
disks of music without regard to the copyrights have not substantially 
altered this phenomenon.
  The music industry still is in search of a mechanism to adapt to this 
fundamentally new business environment brought about by the diffusion 
of two new technologies; that is, the Internet and, secondly, cheap CD-
burning drives.
  Another example: The biotechnology industry. This is an industry that 
has sprung up in a very short period of time. The basic patent for 
genetic engineering, the Cohen-Boyer patent on making recombinant DNA, 
was issued 30 years ago. No one at that time could have predicted we 
would one day have a biological industry rivaling the chemical 
processing industry that was already a century old at that point.
  The United States has reaped enormous economic benefits from being 
the first country to lead in the development of the Internet and the 
harnessing of biotechnology, but these revolutions are far from being 
the last technological revolutions we have seen or will see in the 
future.
  So the key questions at this point in time for us are: Which 
countries will win the competition to develop these new industries, 
these new jobs, based on future technological changes? Which countries 
will benefit overall from those changes? Which countries will lose out? 
After the current wave of technological change has passed, which 
countries will be best positioned for the next inevitable wave of 
change?
  We ignore these questions at our peril. After reviewing the 
President's proposed 2005 budget for science and technology, I am 
persuaded that this administration is ignoring these questions now. It 
is clear that we are, in fact, in the middle of a set of interrelated 
technological revolutions that are both reshaping existing industries 
and leading in a number of cases to entirely new industries.
  A short list of those ongoing revolutions would include the 
following: Microelectronics, particularly the continued miniaturization 
and diffusion of data processing power; secondly, high-end super 
computing; third, telecommunications technologies; fourth, man-made 
materials, including materials in which the structure has been designed 
and built at the atomic or the molecular level.
  This is, in essence, nanotechnology. Another example is robotics. 
Another is biotechnology, which I have referred to before. Also, 
technologies to increase energy supply such as renewable energy 
technologies that are as inexpensive as traditional fossil fuel sources 
of energy and that use hydrogen as an energy carrier, and also 
technologies for increased energy conservation. We know that these 
technologies are crucial to our future.
  The question is: Will America play a leading role in their continued 
development? The answer is not that self-evident. In the 60 years since 
World War II, other countries and other regions of the world have built 
science and technology capabilities that rival ours today and in many 
cases are destined to rival ours in the future. The Governments of 
China and India and Japan and the European Union have all targeted 
advancements in their research and innovation system as key elements of 
their plans for future national and regional economic prosperity. Even 
if we have a strong science and technology policy in this country, 
these other countries and regions will give us stiff competition.
  Unfortunately, though, just as this international challenge is 
becoming very clear, this administration appears to be sticking its 
head in the sand. A look at the budget proposal for fiscal year 2005 
submitted by President Bush on February 2, shows the serious gaps in 
support of the kind of basic science and engineering that will be the 
most important to the development of technologies and industries of the 
future. Let me give some examples:
  The budget proposes $660 million in cuts for basic and applied 
research at the Department of Defense, the sort of research that has 
the greatest potential for dual use and effective spinoff to the 
civilian high-technology industries.
  There is a proposed $68 million cut for the Department of Energy's 
Office of Science, which is a major supporter of basic physical 
sciences and engineering research.
  There is a $63 million proposed cut for energy conservation research 
and development at the Department of Energy.
  There is a proposed $183 million cut for fiscal year 2005 for 
agricultural research.
  There is a proposed $24 million cut for transportation research.
  There is the proposed total elimination of the Advanced Technology 
Program in the Department of Commerce. That is a loss of $171 million 
for new technologies that would otherwise have been enabled and brought 
to commercial reality. This termination of the Advanced Technology 
Program is particularly egregious in light of the circumstances we 
face.
  The rationale for the termination in the President's own budget 
document deserves to be enshrined as some sort of classic wrongheaded 
reasoning. Let me read this for anyone who is listening to understand 
what was said. This is word for word out of the President's budget 
document. The heading is ``Advanced Technology Program--ATP.'' This is 
a description:

       The ATP endeavors to help accelerate the commercialization 
     of high-risk, broad-benefit enabling technologies with 
     significant commercial potential. ATP is a merit-based, 
     rigorously competitive, cost-shared partnership program that 
     provides assistance to U.S. businesses and joint R&D ventures 
     to help them improve their competitive position. The 
     President's 2005 Budget proposes to eliminate the program 
     and, therefore, no funds are requested for FY 2005.

  So that is it. I did not add a single word. I did not subtract a 
single word from the President's rationale. Literally it says ATP is a 
great program; it helps our competitiveness; it is effective. 
Therefore, we propose to kill it.
  There is another aspect to President Bush's budget that makes the 
point that science and technology policy is a low priority for this 
administration. That is the underfunding of important R&D programs that 
Congress has recently authorized by overwhelming margins and that the 
President has signed into law.
  One example is cybersecurity research and development. Every American 
knows that computer viruses and worms can cause serious damage to the 
economy. In November of 2002, Congress passed, and the President 
signed, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. That bill 
authorized a significant program of research and development on 
computer and network security in the National Science Foundation. For 
fiscal year 2005, those R&D authorizations amounted to just over $122 
million.
  After signing the bill, the President had a complete budget cycle to 
develop a budget request incorporating the authorizations that he 
signed into law. There appears to be no proposed funding in 2005 in the 
National Science Foundation to carry out the law. In essence, the 
President's signature on a law to increase R&D investment in 
cybersecurity meant nothing when it came time for the administration to 
put together a proposed budget for 2005. In fact, the budget element 
for the National Science Foundation budget that would fund this 
activity is proposed for a decrease of $40 million.
  A similar situation has occurred in the area of nanotechnology. 
Again, last year Congress passed, and the President signed, a major 
research authorization bill for nanotechnology. The contents of the 
bill were well known during the bulk of the budget cycle. For fiscal 
year 2005, the bill provide for nanotechnology spending across five 
agencies adding up to over $800 million.
  The President chose to hold a formal signing ceremony at the White 
House on this bill, and this is unusual for a bill dealing with 
research and development legislation. The White House press release for 
the signing ceremony noted that the President had previously requested 
a 10-percent increase in nanotechnology funding for the 2004 budget. In 
the fiscal year 2005 budget

[[Page 1698]]

request, after the signing ceremony, after the photo opportunity, the 
President asked for a 3-percent increase for the national 
nanotechnology initiative as calculated by the Office of Management and 
Budget.
  Before we passed the legislation, he asked for a 10-percent increase. 
After we passed the legislation, he asked for a 3-percent increase. 
When you compare the President's nanotechnology request for fiscal year 
2005 to the authorized levels that he signed into law, it turns out 
that he has requested $200 million less for nanotechnology R&D in the 
budget that he sent us on the February 2, compared to the authorization 
that was signed a few months earlier.
  Finally, there is a total disconnect between science and the 
administration's plans for the space program. At the same time that the 
President is cutting and terminating or failing to fully fund R&D 
programs with demonstrated effectiveness in creating jobs and wealth in 
the country, he is proposing a manned Moon-Mars initiative at NASA. 
That is likely to yield some benefit to the Nation. There is a lot of 
debate about how much benefit.
  Most of the alleged technology spinoffs of past space exploration 
activities have not been as great as was advertised. We did not invent 
Teflon or Velcro or even Tang, as part of the space program, contrary 
to the belief of many.
  To pay for the new Moon-Mars initiative, the President proposes to 
take funds from other parts of NASA during the next few years. Beyond 
that, future Presidents will have to direct substantial funds to manned 
space fight in order to keep the program on schedule.
  We have already seen the first wrongheaded move at NASA in the area 
of diverting resources and that is the proposed abandonment of the 
Hubbel space telescope, which is one of the premier assets of NASA at 
this time. The Hubbel telescope is still in its prime. It is capable of 
continuing to make major discoveries about our universe and its 
formation. The proposal to abandon the Hubbel telescope to find money 
to plan for a manned mission to Mars is a clear example of the low 
value that seemingly is placed on real science by the administration.
  Because of the outcry from the scientific community and from some 
colleagues in the Congress, notably Senator Mikulski of Maryland, this 
proposal is now getting a second review, but it is too soon to say that 
it will, in fact, be withdrawn. The fact that this termination was 
proposed in the first place illustrates the lack of priority given to 
science in the administration's thinking about our Nation's future.
  There are other policies as well that this administration has put 
forward related to science and technology that are also deleterious to 
our future, just as these cutbacks in funding are, to which I have 
referred.
  One example is the visa and other immigration restrictions that have 
been put in place over the past 2 years related to science and 
engineering students in this country. Foreign-born students coming to 
this country have for decades been an important asset to the United 
States. After completing their training, many have stayed here to make 
significant contributions to both basic science and innovation. They 
are a great source of strength in our innovation system and to our 
country.
  We have only to look at the current Director of the National 
Institutes of Health, Dr. Zerhouni, who was born in Algeria and came to 
the United States in his early twenties to train in diagnostic 
radiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Today, in the name 
of increasing our national security, we are making it extremely 
difficult for the best and brightest foreign students to come to the 
United States and be educated and to remain in this country and become 
citizens as Dr. Zerhouni was able to do.
  Instead, the effect of our policies and the ham-handed way we are 
implementing those policies is driving away from the United States some 
of the scientists and engineers who want to come here to build a better 
life for themselves and for our society. This is an issue we need to 
look at seriously, and we need to begin to make rational decisions with 
regard to it.
  The end result of these policies that have been implemented today is 
that the brightest students from around the world will increasingly 
choose non-U.S. educational institutions for their advanced education, 
and major scientific meetings will increasingly take place outside the 
United States. Our policies could have the effect of strengthening the 
innovation systems in other countries. As a result, we might well be 
encouraging high-wage job growth to take place overseas instead of the 
United States.
  What can we do about these issues? We in Congress can do several 
things. Let me mention a few.
  First, Congress can put more pressure on the President to beef up the 
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, or OSTP. One of 
the basic reasons there seems to be so little leadership on science and 
technology issues coming out of the White House may be that the Office 
of Science and Technology Policy appears to be significantly and 
severely understaffed. The current Science Advisor is authorized under 
law to have six high-level deputies and most previous Science Advisors 
were extremely well qualified people in all of those positions. Under 
this administration, only two of those six positions have been filled. 
No attempt was made to adjust that staffing strategy after the events 
of 9/11.
  Clearly, this is an issue that deserves attention. The President's 
Science Advisor appears to have spent the bulk of his energy on 
terrorism-related issues since 9/11 with the result that the overall 
health of our science and technical foundations has not gotten the 
attention it otherwise could have received from a fully functioning 
OSTP.
  A second action item we could address in Congress is require the 
President to actually prepare and make public a science and technology 
policy. We have a lot of speeches about how we need a national energy 
policy in the country. Why don't we need a national technology policy? 
Having such a document is not a panacea, but the discipline of having 
to sit down and write such a document will force the White House to 
give some thought and examination to the technological opportunities 
and revolutions we face and on which we are in danger of missing out. 
Previous Presidents have had explicit policies in this area. The value 
of such policies has only increased in recent years.
  A third action we can take in preparing this new budget resolution is 
to insist that the entire Federal science and technology budget get 
better and more unified consideration. It would be valuable to have 
some joint hearings across the relevant committees in the Senate on the 
overall shape of our science and technology spending. It might be worth 
considering whether the functional structure of the budget itself 
should be revised to put the entire Federal S&T budget in one place so 
that there is more transparency as to what the real trends are in the 
national budget for science and technology.
  A final action item I would mention today is Congress needs to take a 
strong role in resisting the cuts that are being proposed by this 
President to the research and development budget, particularly to 
programs such as the Advanced Technology Program. Frankly, instead of 
terminating the ATP, we should be looking to duplicate its strategies 
and successes in other Federal agencies.
  For example, both in the Department of Energy and in the 
Environmental Protection Agency, we could benefit from having programs 
structured along the lines of the Advanced Technology Program as part 
of the overall mix of programs in each agency to spur the development 
of new technology.
  One thing I hope Congress does not do is what the administration 
unfortunately has done; that is, to lose focus on where the real source 
of our future national wealth and high-wage job creation opportunities 
lie. Our future economic security crucially depends on innovation and 
genius as reflected in our scientists and engineers, particularly

[[Page 1699]]

universities and major laboratories that are supported by the Federal 
Government. Our long-term economic future depends upon us making well-
reasoned choices about what our real priorities are, and science and 
technology needs to be recognized as a priority that it in fact is for 
the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to respond to 
the Senator from New Mexico and some of the thoughts and ideas he has 
presented. I appreciate his interest in this topic and his interest in 
science and technology. But I strongly disagree with some of the 
conclusions he draws.
  I think the reason for some of those conclusions is that all too 
often when Members of the House or the Senate talk about issues of 
science and technology, we assume that all programs having to do with 
science, technology, or research that carry that label in the Federal 
Government are all created equal; that they all have the same goals, 
motives, and effects in areas of science or research and the same 
effect on our economy. They simply do not. I think it is important that 
we draw a distinction between the various types of research and 
technology programs that have been discussed.
  The Senator from New Mexico mentioned NASA's program. He touched very 
briefly on National Science Foundation programs, many of which fund 
some of the nanotechnology initiatives. He mentioned the Advanced 
Technology Program, and that in particular is the one I wish to talk 
about.
  If there is one program in the Federal Government that ought not to 
be expanded, it is the Advanced Technology Program. It is for the 
reasons that are described or listed in the description read by the 
Senator from New Mexico. He described a program that invests in or 
subsidizes commercial research for private companies to develop new 
products to sell in the market. This isn't investing in research that 
subsidizes or supports basic physics or chemistry or computational 
mathematics. This is new product development for private--and in most 
cases profitable--companies. The description he read of their 
commercial applications means that someone somewhere has to assess the 
value of these new products. I think the description also mentioned the 
risk involved.
  Those who have worked in manufacturing, engineering, and product 
development understand there are risks involved in developing new 
products. But there are also rewards to be gained. That is why many of 
these companies are quite profitable.
  What this program in particular--not all federally funded research, 
and certainly not the work of the National Science Foundation that 
provides support for physics and chemistry and computational 
mathematics but the advanced technology program--is doing is 
subsidizing product development for private sector companies. That 
naturally begs the question, What companies? What companies are 
benefiting from these subsidies? As I said, they are profitable. But 
these are companies that have competitors. That means someone in the 
Federal Government--a man or woman somewhere in the Federal 
Government--is looking at a number of different firms in a given 
industry and picking one or two to provide a taxpayer-funded subsidy 
for the development of a new product that they are going to sell in the 
marketplace and make money from.
  The Federal Government doesn't get an equity position. We don't get 
royalties. We are not benefiting from the fruit of these subsidies, but 
we are certainly taking the taxpayers' money from families who might be 
earning $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 a year--middle income or low 
income. We are taking their tax money and giving it to some private 
corporation to subsidize their new product development. That is simply 
wrong. It does not matter if there is a merit review. It does not 
matter if the man or woman or the board evaluating these programs is 
being very thoughtful about it and very judicious in trying to be fair 
and balanced and pick the right technology or the most promising 
technology.
  It is wrong to be subsidizing the product development of a private 
company selling its goods into the marketplace, trying to make a 
profit. It is certainly not an efficient way to run an economy. It 
certainly is not fair to those competitors who are selling similar 
products who have to compete with the company getting the big 
government subsidy or the small government subsidy. It does not matter 
to me if they get $100,000 or $200,000 or $2 million. It certainly is 
not the role of the Federal Government to try to manipulate or 
micromanage markets for commercial products. That is not the role of 
the Federal Government.
  I do not take issue with a lot of the concern and interest shown in 
encouraging our children to dedicate themselves to areas of science or 
technology or mathematics. I certainly enjoyed math and science as a 
student, and although I don't know how well I performed, I performed 
well enough to go to engineering school and work at least at one time 
in the real world helping to develop new products and helping to bring 
them to market. Maybe it is that personal experience, having worked at 
the very type of firm that may be applying to the Federal Government 
for these subsidies, that makes me so concerned this is not the right 
role for the Federal Government. This is not the best way to spend 
taxpayers' money.
  That is precisely the reason the administration has said we ought not 
to be spending $150 million in this way. We can find a better use for 
this money. We can find a better way to utilize it for the public good 
in a way that does not, in my opinion, sap our economic strength by 
trying to manipulate or micromanage these markets.
  There are many areas of the Federal Government where we might be 
providing support--through the National Science Foundation, through the 
National Institutes of Health--the basic research in medicine or 
physics or chemistry or mathematics or some of the other areas I 
mentioned which might be very worthwhile, to expand our understanding 
in these areas of basic science and mathematics. But helping some 
company develop a new air conditioning system or new control system or 
write a new software code they can sell into the marketplace is not the 
way to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond briefly to the comments 
of my colleague. I respect his background and knowledge in engineering 
and science. He is, I believe, the only qualified engineer we have 
serving in the Senate at this point. I certainly respect that.
  I believe strongly the Advanced Technology Program which he has 
discussed is a very good use of taxpayer dollars. It is not, as he 
describes it, subsidizing product development by individual companies. 
It is, in fact, assisting with generic, broad-based, high-risk, 
precompetitive technology development.
  I suggest to my colleague much of our ability to compete in world 
markets depends upon our remaining world leaders in the various generic 
technologies we are talking about. In microelectronics, in 
nanotechnology, in a whole range of areas, we need to have Government 
support for continued development of generic technologies so our 
companies can, in fact, pick up on that and hopefully be competitive in 
the world markets. That is what has happened in biotechnology.
  Maybe the genome project is a terrible use of taxpayer dollars, 
funding the development of the genome product. There are a lot of 
commercial benefits coming out of that and many more in the future. But 
that was a government-funded research effort, and that was an extremely 
good investment. That is one of many examples.
  The Advance Technology Program--and I do not have all the examples 
with me today, but I will bring them to the Senate in the days ahead. 
But to say the rest of the world can do what it wants in the way of 
pursuing generic-enabling, precompetitive technologies, we are doing 
nothing in those areas, is

[[Page 1700]]

shortsighted in the extreme. Essentially, that is what this 
administration has done. We do not want an Advanced Technology Program 
in this country. The Japanese can do what they want, the Europeans can 
do what they want, the Chinese can do what they want, along with every 
other major country.
  I just returned 2 months ago from a trip to Taiwan. I urge my 
colleague to go to Taiwan--maybe he has been to Hsinchu Science Park 
near Taipei--and talk to them about how it is inappropriate for 
government to be involved in any way assisting in the development of 
precompetitive technology that might benefit some of these companies. 
They do not understand what language you are talking in that kind of 
discussion.
  We are in a severe competition with the rest of the world to remain 
the world leader in science and technology. The advanced technology 
program is an essential part of us maintaining that leadership. It is 
wrongheaded for this administration in this day and time to be coming 
to the Congress and saying, let's eliminate this program. Sure, we want 
high-wage jobs to be created, but the answer to that has been, Let's 
cut taxes some more.
  That is not an economic strategy that is going to get the job done. 
We need various elements of an economic strategy. One of those is to 
remain the world leader in generic precompetitive technology 
development. That is what the Advanced Technology Program is intended 
to do. I strongly favor continued and increased funding of it.
  We have a basic disagreement on this issue. I wanted that on the 
record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Mexico.
  To reiterate what I hope I was clear in saying before, I am not 
talking about National Science Foundation funding, which was the 
funding principally used to support the development of the human genome 
project. I have been quite supportive of the NSF funding and the 
National Institutes of Health funding research, which is where the 
human genome funds came from.
  Talking about the Advanced Technology Program, I am not quite sure 
what ``precompetitive'' means. I would like to use the definition that 
is just behind the Senator from New Mexico. It says ``commercial 
potential.'' That means products that are commercially viable that will 
be sold in the marketplace, in a competitive marketplace, in that 
description behind the Senator from New Mexico.
  It says the grantees of this program are businesses--businesses and 
joint R&D partnerships that are funded by, I assume, I hope, American 
businesses. In fact, at one time some of the largest grantees of this 
program were those in the automotive industry, automotive manufacturing 
industry. We were using these ATP funds for the partnership for the 
next generation vehicle. This was an initiative driven originally by 
Vice President Al Gore at the time to develop a hybrid car, hybrid 
electric and combustion engine. After spending about $2 billion in all 
with the Advanced Technology Program, that effort was abandoned. It 
simply is a case in point as to why it is not a good idea to take 
taxpayer money and try to subsidize the product development--in this 
case, of cars--that is a product sold in the marketplace, and in a 
competitive marketplace at that.
  One final anecdote, and I think it is an important anecdote. The 
Senator from New Mexico mentioned Taiwan. I have been to Taiwan before; 
not to this particular office park. I do not believe in a national 
economic policy that says: Let's do what the Japanese are doing. Let's 
do what the Germans are doing.
  In Germany right now they have over 10 percent unemployment. In Japan 
right now they are still in the throes of a deflationary spiral and a 
stock market collapse that began several years ago.
  I do not want to be Japan. I do not want to be Germany. I want to be 
America. I want the strongest, most competitive, most vibrant economy 
in the world. That is what we have today. I do not want to lose that, 
certainly. But if we look back just a little bit, back to the late 
1980s, industrial policy wonks within the Senate and the U.S. 
Government were insisting if we wanted to be a competitive economy, we 
had to subsidize the development of the high-definition TV standard, 
and they did not talk about putting $100 million or $200 million or 
$150 million, as we have in the Advanced Technology Program today, into 
subsidizing the development of a TV standard. They were talking about 
billions--$2 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion--to subsidize the 
development of a commercial application.
  Fortunately, the United States did not do that. But Japan, the model 
cited by the Senator from New Mexico, did do it. They put roughly $20 
billion of their federal taxpayer resources into the development of 
that commercial standard. As a result, they have a high-definition TV 
standard that cannot rival the standard that was developed by the 
private sector, the competitive marketplace here in the United States.
  It is a small example.
  We might be able to point to an example where a technology or venture 
in ATP did result in a good commercial product that enabled the owners 
of that product to make a lot of money. But, as I often point out to my 
constituents, if you let me spend $150 million a year, I can certainly 
create a few jobs with it; the question is, is it the role of the 
Federal Government. Should we be micromanaging private sector, 
profitable companies in the private marketplace? Should we be 
subsidizing one company at the expense of its competitors? Is it the 
right thing to do? I think in this case it simply is not.
  I yield the floor and very much appreciate the Senator from New 
Mexico engaging in this discussion and difference of opinion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I first of all extend my appreciation and my 
apologies to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, for allowing me to 
go before him. I will be as brief as possible. I wanted the discussion 
to be in keeping with what has been said by the Senator from New Mexico 
and the Senator from New Hampshire.
  I am not a scientist, but I am a historian. I understand history. I 
know, for example, in 1844 Congress was approached by a man who said: I 
want to revolutionize the communications systems in this country. He 
asked Congress to appropriate $40,000 for an experiment he did not have 
the wherewithal to do. He had been trying for many years to get the 
money to do this.
  The experiment was to build a telegraph line between Washington, DC 
and Baltimore, MD. For $40,000 they did it. The Federal Government did 
not ever have to put another penny into that project. It revolutionized 
the way we communicated in America--the telegraph system. The Federal 
Government did the right thing by doing the research and development on 
this issue.
  Let's fast forward now more than 100 years from 1844 when two 
scientists from MIT, by the name of Danby and Powell, were stuck in 
traffic in New York. They were both professors at MIT, scientists. They 
said: This is ridiculous. We shouldn't be stuck in traffic like this. 
We should figure something out that would stop this.
  They went back to the laboratories, and they, within a short period 
of time, invented magnetic levitation, which is the ability of these 
huge trainlike vehicles to speed through the air, but the vehicle is 
less than a quarter of an inch off the guideway. It goes 300 miles an 
hour.
  The Federal Government, the United States of America, for 5 years 
paid for research and development for this new technology. There were 
cost-cutting issues that came forward and it was eliminated. There was 
no more research and development. But the Germans and the Japanese 
picked up from where we left off, and now they are in the process of 
finalizing their experimentation of magnetic levitation.
  We are going to have magnetic levitation in this country, no question 
about it. It is only a question of when.

[[Page 1701]]

The bill that is now before this body will spend hundreds of millions 
of dollars on magnetic levitation. The bill before that did not spend 
that much. It is going to happen, but we are going to have to import 
the equipment and the technology from Germany and Japan.
  I believe the Senator is right. I believe the Federal Government has 
to be very careful in picking and choosing where we help with research 
and development on a scientific project, but we have an obligation, I 
believe, to the taxpayers of this country to develop the telegraph or 
magnetic levitation.
  I underscore the need for this and applaud and congratulate the 
Senator from New Mexico for his usual farsightedness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just continue, if I can, for 
another 2 minutes before yielding to my colleague. I promise it will be 
very short.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada very much for the examples he cited. 
I think there are many other examples, and in the coming days and weeks 
I will try to bring some of those to the floor, as I am sure my 
colleague from Nevada will.
  The truth is, we would not have an Internet if it were not for 
Government-funded technology development. The President himself has 
identified some areas where he believes we need to put additional 
resources into research and development--developing hydrogen-operated 
vehicles, for example.
  There are a great many areas where the Government does have a 
legitimate role to play in underwriting generic, precompetitive 
technology our companies can then take to be competitive and remain 
competitive. That is what the Advanced Technology Program has done. 
There are many examples we can point to over the years of successes 
they have had, and we will get those examples out for the Senate.
  But it is shortsighted in the extreme for us to be saying, in this 
day and time, when we are worried about high-wage job creation in this 
country, that the way to start dealing with that is to eliminate this 
kind of program, to eliminate our support for science and technology 
development in the Department of Commerce. That is a very shortsighted 
approach. I hope this Congress will not agree with this President and 
go along with this kind of cut.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor. Again, I thank my 
colleague, Senator Thomas, for his courtesy in allowing us to continue 
this debate as long as we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the debate.
  I do rise to talk some more about the issue that is before us, the 
issue we have been talking about now for 10 days, and that hopefully we 
will be able to complete within the next couple of days, and that, of 
course, is the highway transportation infrastructure bill that is now 
before us.
  I thank the chairman of the EPW Committee and the ranking member and 
the staff for continuing to move forward with this important bill.
  Sometimes we take for granted what is out there, whether it be 
electricity--we have been working on the electric bill--whether it is 
energy. Because it is there, we just sort of forget all that goes into 
making sure it is there.
  But our previous transportation infrastructure bill, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, expired on September 30 
of the past year. Now we are nearly half a year beyond the bill 
expiring to take care of our infrastructure needs. For some time, then, 
the transportation system has been operating under a 5-month extension, 
which expires at the end of this month, by the way, and which doesn't 
fund nearly to the present needs because it is a CR from before.
  So the infrastructure is in great need. All of us recognize that. 
There is an increasing use of it, increasing numbers of cars on the 
road, increasing numbers of trucks.
  Our whole economy depends on this transportation infrastructure. The 
Interstate Highway system is almost 50 years old. Thirty-two percent of 
our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. You can see that, 
particularly when we have had the rain and the storms, you drive around 
and bump into the potholes.
  But more importantly, we don't have the kind of expansion to handle 
the increased traffic. Twenty-nine percent of our bridges are 
structurally deficient, functionally obsolete. Thirty-six percent of 
the Nation's urban rail vehicles and maintenance facilities are in 
substandard condition. Twenty-nine of the Nation's bus fleet and 
maintenance facilities are substandard or in poor condition. We really 
have a challenge with one of the most important aspects of our economy 
being in poorer shape, certainly, than we would like to see it or even 
imagine that it is.
  I am very pleased that we are working on this bill. I happen to be a 
member of the EPW Committee as well as the Finance Committee. Those are 
the two main committees involved. I have been involved for some time--
in fact, 6 years ago I was involved in the previous program from the 
EPW Committee. I feel strongly about this issue, very strongly about it 
in terms of the infrastructure, very strongly about it in terms of the 
jobs that it creates. Quite frankly, it creates more jobs more quickly 
than any other kind of activity we could undertake.
  We are in the process of seeking to get that resolved, of course. 
This legislation would result in thousands of jobs. In my State of 
roughly half a million people, one of the smallest States in the 
country, 20,000-plus jobs mean a lot. We would have those very quickly. 
In fact, for every $1 billion in highway construction, we can expect 
47,000 new jobs to occur. This means creating opportunities for people 
to work.
  In my State, again, we have nearly 20,000 people who are employed as 
truckers and move more than 31 million tons of manufactured freight and 
earn more than $674 million in wages. So this is part of the economy 
that is impacted and affected. Without good, safe roads, of course, 
these people can't get their jobs done.
  The highway system is almost 50 years old. You don't think about all 
the things that are involved in that. It is terribly expensive to have 
roads fixed. Last year we had 20 or 30 miles of roads being fixed over 
the mountain into Yellowstone Park. This is a U.S. road. This is an 
interstate highway that people were using. Of course, it is very 
expensive. So there are a lot of dollars involved in doing this. But we 
can't allow these kinds of things to continue to deteriorate.
  I just came from a meeting for an hour or so with the Director of the 
National Park Service. I happen to be chairman of the Park Service 
Subcommittee. One of the issues important to the Park Service is 
maintenance of highways in national parks. Of course, here again it is 
very expensive but absolutely necessary to have it done. There is a 
great deal of discussion about what we ought to do. The expenses are 
high. We are all concerned about the budget and the deficit, of course. 
We want to work to change that. But we have had that in mind as we have 
gone along on this whole program.
  Of course, the basic source for funds for highway funding is the tax 
on gasoline that each of us pays, 18.5 cents each time we put in a 
gallon of gas. That goes into this fund. It goes into the fund for 
highways, partially for mass transportation as well. The funding 
actually was done in the Finance Committee, and there has been a 
considerable amount of talk about the fact that there was some sort of 
trick being pulled in order to get money in there that didn't belong 
there. Quite frankly, I followed it as closely as I could. I keep 
hearing these incorrect allegations.
  I encourage critics to read the Finance Committee title. Under the 
committee title, the highway trust fund will maintain more of the 
excise taxes that were intended to go into that fund originally but 
have not been there. This accomplishes partial elimination for the 
ethanol blend of fuels. These fuel users now pay the full excise tax, 
and the trust fund under this plan will receive the money. It has not 
in the past. The benefits will be taken as a

[[Page 1702]]

tax credit against the general fund as are all other energy production 
incentives.
  Likewise, the trust fund will retain excise taxes collected from 
certain users such as State and local governments using the highways 
and paying into that fund. Currently, these users get a refund. Under 
the committee amendment, the refund is not charged to the highway trust 
fund. What we have done is made some changes in the funding that should 
have been going into the trust fund but has not been going into the 
trust fund, and then finding some others to replace these so that there 
is not a reduction in the general fund but that the highway trust fund 
has more body to it.
  The committee changes have been called gimmicks. We hear the 
allegation that the Finance Committee used accounting gimmicks. This is 
unfair and incorrect. What the Finance Committee did do was ensure that 
the trust fund keeps more of the excise tax, which is what it was 
designed to do in the first place.
  Then, for instance, the Finance Committee recognized that the trust 
fund should earn interest on the balance. It is a huge amount of money, 
and the interest is a significant amount. It has not gone into the 
trust fund in the past. It would do that.
  So there are a number of aspects that have been changed here. We find 
a good deal of complaint on the floor that these were gimmicks and 
criticisms of the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, interestingly 
enough, the Commerce Committee is also a part of this. They have been 
able to spend $7 billion in their programs, but they don't ever mention 
that. All they do is complain about what the Finance Committee is 
doing.
  I can't emphasize enough the need to move this bill and to move it 
now. This idea that we would have a CR for a year simply doesn't deal 
with the issues we have, the problems we have, keeping up this 
infrastructure in the way it needs to be kept up. We have solved these 
issues. What we need to do is pass this bill this week and go into 
conference committee. Get the House to do what they are going to do 
with it, go into the conference committee, work with the House and the 
White House and with the Senate and come up with a bill that is 
appropriate for everyone and will be accepted by others. That is the 
system we have.
  Increasingly, if someone disagrees with the system, instead of 
debating and discussing their differences, they just look for ways to 
hold up the bill. Quite frankly, that is a high price to pay for all 
Americans to not have these jobs, to not have this infrastructure kept 
up, to not be able to do what is needed on one of the most important 
aspects of our economy. We have the opportunity to do that.
  I am certainly hopeful that we can come to some agreement. No one in 
this Senate is more concerned than I am about the spending level. I 
think you have to take a look at what we are seeking to do to balance 
the budget, to reduce the deficit, and to help increase the economy.
  These are the issues we have been dealing with. Of course, in 
addition to that, as a cause of the deficit, we had September 11. So it 
is not easy. But we can do it. I certainly hope we do and that we move 
forward as quickly as possible to be able to do this.
  I yield to my friend from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator made a very good point about the 
need to move this bill. He raised the question about a 1-year 
extension. Is it the understanding of my colleague that the major 
projects that would generate the kind of work that is needed to improve 
our Nation's infrastructure, the major highway and bridge projects, 
cannot be undertaken on a 1-year extension because these are multiyear 
projects and they need a multiyear extension?
  Mr. THOMAS. The Senator is absolutely right. These are large 
projects. They are contracts. They take a while. If you are going on a 
1-year extension, our highway department, for example, couldn't put the 
contracts out on some of the most important jobs because they wouldn't 
be finished in that length of time and they don't have the dough. It is 
that simple. That is a very important aspect to continuing to resolve 
this question now.
  Mr. BOND. If the Senator would further yield, I know the Senator is 
from a Western State in the north, and the time during which 
significant highway construction can go forward is limited by the 
weather.
  What is the timeframe for summer construction in your State?
  Mr. THOMAS. Well, of course, in order to have summer construction, it 
is necessary that now the Transportation Department be able to know 
what their funds are going to be, what their ability to contract will 
be, so that they can do it very soon, so that these contractors can get 
in place in April and begin to work for a longer summer. If they have 
not gotten the contract until late in the summer, they are all faced 
with a couple of months of work, and they go into winter, which they 
cannot do. Seasonal is very important. We have a chance to take 
advantage of the summer construction system now.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that question because some people 
talked about a 3- or 4-month extension. I wonder if my colleague agrees 
that that simply would miss an entire season, even in Missouri, where 
our weather may not be quite as harsh but we would not be able to 
really undertake any construction projects. Is that similar to the 
condition in the Senator's State?
  Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely. We have heard a great deal from our 
transportation people before Christmas, wanting this. This was supposed 
to have been done in September, when the fiscal year began. They wanted 
to be in to make the contracts then so that these contractors could get 
ready. It is going to be quite close now. Still, if we can move in 
February, it will give us a pretty good shot.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?
  Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the picture here says it all. We 
have on the floor now two of the majority party and two of the minority 
party, representing diverse areas of this country, including Wyoming, 
Missouri, Vermont, and Nevada, and I also see my friend from New Jersey 
in the Chamber. Each State is so reliant and dependent upon doing 
something about this highway bill that all of us in the Chamber are 
doing everything we can to move this ball down the field.
  The State of Wyoming is an example that doesn't have a lot of people 
coming there to pay enough money into the trust fund to take care of 
the needs of that great big State. Not only is it large area-wise, but 
having spent some time there myself in the cold winter, I know 
maintaining the roads in Wyoming, compared to a place such as Nevada, 
is more expensive because of the tremendous variation in temperatures.
  My point is that this legislation is bipartisan. It is legislation 
that is for every part of the country, as evidenced on the floor.
  I was speaking here, off the record, with the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri. We are going to pass this legislation now in a matter of 
hours. It is imperfect, but it is a really good piece of legislation to 
allow the director of the Department of Highways in the State of Nevada 
to have some ability to look down the road, as they have a continuum 
for money, so we can complete projects we have to do in Nevada. We are 
a big State area-wise. We have problems in the southern part of the 
State that are totally different from in the northern part of the 
State. It rarely freezes in the southern part, but in the northern 
part, for instance, we have Wild Horse Reservoir that, on various 
occasions, is the coldest place in the country. So we have our own 
problems, as do Missouri, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wyoming. I am so 
happy there has been this cooperation on this bill. I hope it sets a 
tone for the rest of the year. It is a Presidential election year and 
some Senate seats are up.
  For the first bill this year, I think the distinguished majority 
leader and

[[Page 1703]]

the distinguished Democratic leader picked a good one to show that we 
can work together on matters and set aside our partisan differences. We 
have done it on this bill. I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, very briefly, this is a difficult bill, as 
the distinguished Senator from Nevada has said. There is a lot of work 
that goes into it. If anybody was completely 100 percent happy with it, 
we would not have done our job, because there are too many interests. 
The only way to accommodate them is to work on a bipartisan basis.
  I want to say this while the Senator from Nevada is here. The Senator 
from Nevada and the Senator from Vermont and, obviously, my good friend 
from Wyoming, on both sides of the aisle, with Senator Inhofe as 
chairman of the committee, have worked well together, including the 
occupant of the chair. This is probably one of the most important 
economic stimulus infrastructure bills we are going to act on this 
year, or maybe for quite a few years. I hope we can get a solid vote to 
move forward tomorrow. There is a lot more work to be done, as I 
believe several have already said. We are waiting for the House to act. 
When the House acts, we will take it and work with them and we will 
take into consideration what the White House has said to see if we 
can--and we must--craft a good bill that takes care of the crying needs 
of infrastructure.
  I have said before on this floor so many times that it is not just a 
question of convenience, of cutting down on idling time, it is a 
question of long-term economic growth as well as immediate jobs. In 
Missouri, it is a question of saving lives by having adequate highways. 
When we have two-lane highways carrying 15,000 or 20,000 cars a day, 
that is too many. We should have divided highways. The fact that we 
don't means that wherever you travel in Missouri on heavily traveled 
two-lane roads, you see little white crosses where grieving families 
and friends have indicated the place where a loved one was lost.
  This bill isn't going to solve all the problems in Missouri. If we 
pass this bill, many of the problems in Missouri and around the country 
will be solved. I urge my colleagues to work together and move forward 
on the bill. Our staffs are working now on a cooperative basis with a 
very large number of amendments that have been filed to see how many we 
can accept, how we can move it along.
  Tomorrow is going to be a very busy day. We will try to accept as 
many amendments as we can on a bipartisan basis. If you want more 
money, please tell us where you are going to find it because we are 
strapped for money and major new spending sources without revenue are 
going to be difficult to accommodate.
  Within those parameters, I urge everybody to work together. The 
filing deadline for first-degree amendments is past. I know what we 
have in front of us. I hope we can resolve as many as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement. I 
want to reassure all of our Members that we will be working together 
and have been working together, and we will find a solution to many of 
those amendments. We won't unless they are filed. The sooner they are 
filed, the sooner we may even have a chance to get home for the 
weekend. That might be incentive for some.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment that 
was cosponsored by Senator DeWine from Ohio. We would like to have had 
this considered in this important transportation bill.
  I want to say this to those who are managing the bill and who have 
developed it. We see a piece of legislation that has a lot of good 
aspects to it. My State of New Jersey is doing better in this bill than 
it has on occasions in the past, with some adjustments here and there 
that give us some more funding in transit as well as highways. We 
appreciate that.
  The subject we want to discuss is one that deals with safety, which 
is an integral part of this legislation and certainly should be, and 
that subject is the result of drunk driving.
  Drunk driving cost the lives of 17,419 people in 2002. It is an 
increase for the third straight year in a row. This is unacceptable in 
our society by any measure. This is evidence that we are not doing 
enough to win the war on drunk driving. In 2000, I was proud to team up 
with Senator DeWine to standardize our Nation's drunk driving blood 
alcohol concentration level at .08. That is a critical step toward 
reducing drunk driving, but that measure alone will not end this 
crisis.
  During my career of public service, I promoted many legislative 
initiatives to help curb drunk driving in our country. In addition to 
.08, I wrote the law that established a minimum legal drinking age of 
21. Most Americans have responded to these laws by drinking responsibly 
and reducing fatalities and injuries on our highways.
  At one point it was estimated that we saved 1,000 young people a year 
from dying on the highways as a result of that change in the age of 
drinking.
  The most feared category of drunk drivers who have failed to mend 
their ways is also the most shameful: the hardcore drunk drivers. These 
are the problem drinkers. These are the ones who ignore the dangers and 
have no concern for the safety of those of us on the road, including 
our families and our friends.
  It is estimated that hardcore drunk drivers are responsible for as 
many as 40 percent of all alcohol-related deaths on the road, and that 
means about 6,000 to 8,000 people a year die at the hands of a hardcore 
drunk driver. That is not an acceptable situation.
  Many of us have terrible, tragic stories involving lost loved ones 
due to drunk driving crashes. A young woman on my staff recounted a 
moment in her life when she was a teenager, when five of her close 
friends, all juniors in high school from southern New Jersey were hit 
by an SUV. Four were killed and one was badly injured. This was in 
broad daylight at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. A heavily intoxicated 29-
year-old woman had plowed her SUV into the girl's car. One police 
officer described the scene as ``an explosion with glass everywhere.''
  The driver of the SUV is what safety experts term a ``higher-risk'' 
or ``hardcore'' drunk driver. In fact, her blood alcohol content was 
found to be .21 nearly 5 hours after the crash, and usually that 
diminishes significantly. This is almost three times the legal limit of 
.08. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this story is the fact that 
this driver had two prior charges of driving while intoxicated in 1991 
and 1996.
  Some States have adopted laws that try to get hardcore drunk drivers 
off the road. It is something we heard a lot about when we put in place 
the .08 blood alcohol concentration standard. They said you have to get 
to the hardcore people; they are the ones who are really dangerous on 
the road. That is true, but anybody who is impaired while driving is a 
problem.
  A TEA-21 program that we put into place resulted in 36 States and the 
District of Columbia passing repeat offender laws, but currently only 
13 States have enhanced penalties based on blood alcohol concentration 
levels of .15 and above. Thirteen States and our own District of 
Columbia still do not have laws mandating alcohol assessment and 
treatment by a professional. Fourteen States do not have laws mandating 
that a drunk driver's vehicle be impounded.
  We have to take action to keep these hardcore drunk drivers off our 
roads. The costs we pay are too high. We can save thousands of lives by 
passing this bipartisan commonsense amendment that I would like to 
offer along with Senator DeWine.
  Victims rights groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have 
brought to our attention the need to change our laws to make our roads 
safer. It is my great pleasure to work with the dedicated, thorough, 
and caring people of MADD.
  This hardcore drunk driving amendment takes advantage of research and

[[Page 1704]]

policies that have been proven effective to fix what is wrong with this 
current repeat offender program.
  First, it builds on the excellent work done by Senator Inhofe and 
Senator Jeffords in the bill by allowing the use of ignition 
interlocks, a popular and effective tool. Forty-two States have laws 
allowing for ignition interlocks to be used so that in case of 
hardships, a conditional license can be granted.
  Our amendment also fixes the loophole that currently exists to allow 
States to spend Federal funding designated for driver safety programs 
on construction projects. While road construction is certainly a worthy 
ambition, this loophole defeats the purpose of the Federal program in 
the first place and must be addressed.
  Our amendment cracks down on very high blood alcohol concentration 
drivers. Drivers with a .15 percent or greater blood alcohol 
concentration are almost 400 times more likely to be involved in a 
fatal accident than a sober driver.
  I believe the Federal Government needs to continue strong leadership 
in relation to reducing alcohol-impaired driving. Not all States have 
dealt with this safety crisis in a comprehensive manner. Loopholes 
still exist, loopholes so large that drunk drivers continue to drive 
right through them.
  Now is the time to take the next step in getting these hardcore drunk 
drivers off our roads. I look forward to working with Senator DeWine, 
Senator Dorgan, and Senator Corzine, all of whom joined with me in 
trying to reduce the 17,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities that 
occur each year.
  It is regretful that we cannot have an opportunity to offer our 
amendment. It is relevant and germane to this bill, but not having the 
chance to offer the amendment, frankly, hurts our work and our 
interests in keeping our highways safer, saving lives wherever we can.
  This is something I hope we can work out with the managers of the 
bill to see if there isn't something we can do to show that we are 
seriously interested in getting drunk drivers off the road. Remember, 
over 17,000 deaths a year on our highways, 40 percent of which are due 
to the antics of the repeat drunk driver.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey leaves the floor, I want to make this comment. I am sure we all 
wonder, having served in legislative bodies, what has been 
accomplished, what have we been able to point to that we have done that 
changes the lives of people in our country. Let me say to my friend 
from New Jersey, he need not worry about that because his legacy has 
already been established.
  I owe so much to the Senator from New Jersey, as does my whole 
family, and I speak for most families--I should say the vast majority 
of families in America, many of whom don't realize what the Senator 
from New Jersey has done to make their lives more pleasant.
  When we used to travel back and forth from Las Vegas and Reno to 
Washington with my family--they were little children at the time--my 
daughter and my boys, especially two of them, could not stand cigarette 
smoking in an airplane. It really made them physically ill. We would 
pacify them and say, well, that is in a different section; do not worry 
about it. As we know, when one person smoked on an airplane, we all 
smoked on an airplane. The Senator from New Jersey is more responsible, 
by far, than any other one person, or group of people, for being 
persistent and pushing that there would be no smoking on airplanes. The 
Senator from New Jersey did that.
  When he started out on this issue, people thought he was tilting 
windmills. No one believed with the very powerful interests that 
favored smoking on airplanes, including the airplane owners and, of 
course, the cigarette manufacturers, that the Senator from New Jersey 
could accomplish what he did. But he did.
  In addition to that, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Senator 
from New Jersey for pushing to make sure all States had a .08 standard 
for blood alcohol. The Senator from New Jersey did this.
  The reason I mention these two things that are the legacy--and I have 
only mentioned a couple of things because they stick out in my mind 
that the Senator from New Jersey has done, that I know. With the 
tireless efforts of the Senator from New Jersey on the things that he 
believes in, that he is talking about, this will get done. This will be 
accomplished for a number of reasons, not the least of which it is the 
right issue but, No. 2, because the Senator from New Jersey is the one 
who is pushing this.
  I want the Senator from New Jersey to know how much I--and I speak 
for millions of Americans--recognize his great contributions to making 
our lives healthier, better, and safer in America.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I take this moment to respond to my 
good friend from Nevada. He has always been interested in the safety 
and well-being of our people at the basic level, where we can make a 
difference. Senator Reid from Nevada is always there, and I appreciate 
his support. I like working with him. When he says this is going to be 
done, my colleagues can take it to the bank because we are going to 
keep on working on it.
  If we ever forget what it is we are talking about today, just 
continue to read the papers, and there will be stories about the 
intoxicated driver who went way over the limit and took a life.
  I will never forget a young woman who came in from Maryland to talk 
to us one day. She was waiting with her daughter for the schoolbus, 
child in hand. Someone driving a car at 8 in the morning jumped the 
curb and killed this child whose hand she was holding.
  Then there was the man in Hawaii who was driving with his wife behind 
a car that his son and daughter had rented. They were struck by a drunk 
driver. It killed them both.
  These things happen all the time, enough to kill over 17,000 people a 
year. That means that in less than 4 years, there will be as many 
people killed on our highways as were killed in Vietnam. So this is not 
a trivial thing, and we are going to have to keep on working on it.
  I am willing to do it, and I know the Senator from Nevada is willing 
to do it. We just have to hope that the opportunity arises.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The minority whip.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from New Jersey was responsible for one of the 
most memorable debates that I ever was present for in the Senate, and I 
am sure the Senator from New Jersey will remember it. It was a debate 
on drunk drivers. The very articulate Dale Bumpers, former Senator from 
Arkansas, gave many great speeches but none more memorable than when he 
spoke about his being a law student at Western University and he 
received a call from his brother. He knew it was bad news. He did not 
know how bad it was, but a drunk driver had killed his parents when he 
crossed over the line.
  The Senator will also remember the distinguished former chairman of 
the Budget Committee, now the ranking member of the Budget Committee, 
the Senator from North Dakota, Kent Conrad, who was made an orphan as a 
little boy by a drunk driver who killed his parents.
  So we have to continually do more to keep these higher-risk drunk 
drivers off the road. They are a menace to society. In my opinion, the 
only thing they understand is force, power. They have to be put in 
jail. They have to be prevented from driving their cars.
  As the Senator knows, we are in a parliamentary quagmire and maybe 
there is a short-lived victory for those who oppose what the Senator is 
trying to do but it will not last long.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the highway 
transportation bill which we are on right now. I will discuss basically 
two general points. The first has to do with the

[[Page 1705]]

amount of funding in the bill and the administration position on that 
matter. Then secondly, I will talk a little bit about the funding 
formula in the bill.
  As everyone knows, we are talking about a bill that would authorize 
and pay for the highway transportation and mass transit needs of the 
country over the next 6 years, financed historically by the gas tax. 
The 6-year bill that has been offered intends to be more generous than 
that by taking in some additional revenues, providing a lot more 
funding, and extending the authorization that currently exists for a 
period of 6 years.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks this 
Statement of Administration Policy be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KYL. I am quoting now from a February 11, 2004, Statement of 
Administration Policy from the executive office of the President, 
Office of Management and Budget. As my colleagues know, these 
Statements of Administration Policy are issued with respect to 
important legislation and they set forth the administration's position 
on the legislation.
  After noting that the administration supports enactment of the 6-year 
highway funding bill, the letter says the following:

       The administration's proposal, as modified by the 
     President's FY 2005 budget, would provide $256 billion over 
     six years, an historically high level of investment for 
     highways and transit. This proposal represents a $45 billion, 
     or 21 percent, increase over the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the six-year bill enacted in 
     1998.

  The administration goes on in this Statement of Administration Policy 
to say the following:

       The administration believes that surface transportation 
     reauthorization legislation should exhibit spending restraint 
     and adhere to the following three principles.

  Now, let me digress before I state what those principles are. The 
reason the administration is talking about spending restraint is 
because the bill that is before us is far larger in its amount of 
spending than what the administration's proposal and the President's 
budget provide for, and it is far larger than is necessary. Frankly, in 
view of the status of our excess spending and our Federal budget 
deficit, it is more than we can afford.
  Moreover, it is greatly in excess of the funds we collect with the 
gas tax, which in the past has been the funding that has been used to 
pay for this highway bill. So this is what the President and the 
administration is writing in this letter.
  The administration believes the legislation should exhibit spending 
restraint and adhere to the following three principles: One, 
transportation infrastructure spending should not rely on an increase 
in the gas tax or other Federal taxes. Two, transportation 
infrastructure spending should not be funded through bonding or other 
mechanisms that conceal the true costs to the Federal taxpayers. And 
three, highway spending should be financed from the highway trust fund, 
not the general fund of the Treasury.
  It goes on:

       All spending for highways should be authorized and 
     appropriated from the Trust Fund and derived from taxes 
     imposed on the highway use, thereby maintaining the link 
     between Trust Fund revenues and highway spending.

  Madam President, how does the administration's position and the 
articulation of the three principles under which it believes the bill 
should be funded compare with what we are considering on the floor 
here? I am going to go on and quote the administration's 
characterization of the legislation on the floor.

       However, the bill pending before the Senate authorizes $262 
     billion on highway and highway safety, which is $50 billion 
     above the President's request, and $56 billion on mass 
     transit, which is $12 billion above the President's request. 
     In total the Senate bill authorizes $318 billion in spending 
     on highways, highway safety, and mass transit over the next 
     six years, a full $62 billion above the President's request 
     for the same period.
       The Administration's proposed authorization level of $256 
     billion over six years is consistent with the three 
     principles listed above. We support a responsible six-year 
     bill and support many of the provisions contained in this 
     legislation. However, we oppose S. 1072 and the pending 
     substitute because their spending levels are too high and 
     they violate these principles discussed above. Accordingly, 
     if legislation that violates these three principles--such as 
     this legislation which authorizes $318 billion--were 
     presented to the President, his senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto the bill.

  There is more in the letter, but I think you get the gist of it. The 
administration is trying to tell us it would prefer a bill that, No. 1, 
adheres to the President's budget, to spend no more than $256 billion, 
and, No. 2, does not violate the three sensible funding principles the 
President lays out in the bill.
  But the statement of administration policy notes that the bill before 
the Senate is a full $62 billion above the President's request, and it 
concludes in this part by noting that:
  The administration, therefore, opposes Senate bill S. 1072 because 
the ``spending levels are too high'' and because ``they violate the 
principles discussed above.''
  And if we end up passing legislation such as this, then the 
President's senior advisors will recommend he veto the bill.
  I think the President is getting the same message the rest of us 
should be getting from our constituents, the American people: Congress 
and the President have been spending too much money.
  In defense of the President, he has reached agreements in the past 
year with the leaders of the House and the Senate over spending limits 
and has said he would not support any legislation--and I presume he 
would have vetoed legislation--above that level. We have sent him bills 
at those levels. So in that regard, it is not the President's fault.
  But I take responsibility as a Member of this body, and all of my 
colleagues should as well, that we as the body that initiates the 
spending proposals and sends them to the President must act more 
responsibly in ensuring that we do not exceed revenues, that we send 
the President bills that are fiscally restrained and that will not add 
to our budget deficit.
  Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Fed, has made the point many 
times in recent months that the biggest threat to our economic growth 
and to our fiscal stability is profligate spending, and he has urged us 
to rein in our appetite for spending.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side have expressed great dismay 
that when the Office of Management and Budget was finally able to 
calculate the cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill from last 
year, instead of $395 billion of cost over 10 years, as calculated by 
the Congressional Budget Office, the administration's people found that 
it actually would be far higher than that, over $500 billion.
  Some of our Democratic friends have said--I gather they seem to 
suggest that therefore it is the President's fault. The President's 
people are the folks who found out that the spending was more than the 
$400 billion and have brought that forth and told us that. What should 
we do?
  Later on I am going to give my colleagues an opportunity to bring the 
spending back in line with the $400 billion of which they seem so 
enamored. I think that is plenty. I think we can live within that $400 
billion limit. So we will all have an opportunity to decide whether we 
really mean it when we say the spending on that bill should be limited 
to $400 billion over 10 years.
  My point in digressing from the discussion of the highway bill is to 
note that there has been a focus on a lot of the spending the Senate 
and House have engaged in recently, and certainly the prescription drug 
and Medicare funding bill is one of the largest. Another we have had 
before us is the energy bill, which has a subsidy of about $30 billion. 
The administration budget request was $8 billion. That is another bill 
that, were we to pass in excess of $8 billion in subsidies, would 
exceed the administration's request.
  Here is a third example where the Senate is poised to pass a bill way 
in excess of the President's request. My

[[Page 1706]]

point is it is not the White House that is doing the spending, it is 
the Congress that is passing the bills that have the spending in them. 
The President is sending us a signal that he is tired of this and his 
advisors are saying, to be precise about it, that they will recommend a 
veto to the President if we don't get this bill more in line with what 
the President's budget is. He is sending us a message.
  I urge my colleagues to read that message, to listen to what the 
President is saying. He means business. He is right. We are spending 
too much money. This bill is an over 40 percent increase in highway 
spending. We all know roads and bridges need to be built. We all 
understand some jobs are produced. That is fine. But do we, in this era 
of budget deficits and excess spending, have to increase spending in 
this one area by over 40 percent? Isn't a 21 percent increase over last 
year sufficient?
  The President's budget is almost flat. It has about a half a percent 
increase--except for homeland security and defense--for the 
discretionary part of our budget. We know it is going to be difficult 
to live within that, but we should try. But how can we in good 
conscience pass a budget that has virtually no growth in it, except for 
homeland security and defense, and then with regard to highways say 
that is an exception; we are going to increase spending by 21 percent? 
The income of how many people in this country will grow 21 percent this 
year? Not very many. Not, certainly, for the average working man and 
woman.
  I daresay, at a 21 percent increase, we can do just as well, in terms 
of building our roads and highways, and then if we need to adjust it 
later on because we are rolling in dough, we can do that. But for this 
year at this time with this kind of deficit, we should not do it. That 
is what the President's advisors are saying in this letter.
  What I would like to do is talk for a little bit about how the bill 
before us violates those three principles. Let me just cite a couple of 
examples.
  The first principle is that the transportation infrastructure 
spending should not rely on an increase in the gas tax or other Federal 
taxes. It doesn't rely on an increase in the gas tax, but it will rely 
upon Federal taxes because we will be taking money from the general 
fund. That gets us to the second and third points. Transportation 
infrastructure should not be funded through bonding--we are not going 
to do that--or other mechanisms that conceal the true cost to Federal 
taxpayers. I will show you in this bill how that happened. And the 
third principle is highway spending should be financed from the highway 
trust fund and not from the general fund of the Treasury.
  No. 2 and No. 3 go together here. Let me give a couple of examples 
from the highway part of this; not mass transit but the highway part is 
funded from the gas tax. We are going to collect $196 billion in gas 
tax revenue. That is how much we should spend on highways. But, no, we 
are going to be spending much more than that. How do we make up the 
difference? Obviously, Members of Congress are pretty creative in 
figuring out how to pay taxpayer dollars. So, a lot of new ways of 
deeming money to be in the trust fund have been thought up here. Some 
of them actually I suggest have some merit.
  Just to give one example: Interest in the highway trust fund. The 
highway trust fund is a fund that has maybe $9 billion or $10 billion, 
give or take $1 billion, in it at any given time. You have to have some 
money in the bank. It is like a bank account, to pay the checks when 
they come due. There is always money coming in when people buy gasoline 
and pay the tax, and one thing we could do is attribute to the trust 
fund interest which is otherwise attributed to the general fund. That 
is between $1 and $2 billion. I am perfectly happy to have that 
attributed to the trust fund.
  If you go through some exercises like that, you can get up to $214 
billion, more or less, in revenue you say is somewhat legitimately 
attributed to gas tax revenues.
  Let me give you two examples of revenues that are being attributed to 
the highway trust fund that really are not revenues in any sense of the 
term, and, therefore, would violate both principle No. 2 and principle 
No. 3.
  One of these concepts has to do with the fact that counties, cities, 
towns, churches, and schools are by and large exempt from paying a gas 
tax. What we are going to do in this bill is pretend like they actually 
paid the tax. That is worth, I think, $8 billion. That is a nice thing, 
if you can get away with it. But I don't think it reflects reality. 
That is $8 billion. We are simply going to treat this as if the trust 
fund had received all of the money from counties, cities, towns, and so 
on.
  Is the general fund going to collect that money from the schools, 
churches, cities, and towns? No. There isn't going to be any new 
revenue. Your school district is not going to have to pay money for the 
gasoline that it buys for the schoolbuses that are driven. They will 
not have to pay the Federal gasoline tax, but we will pretend like it 
does. That $8 billion is pretend money.
  There is another part of this which they calculate at $9 billion that 
is attributed to the highway trust fund. What is this? The gas tax is 
18.3 cents. But for ethanol users, we provide that they don't have to 
pay 5.2 cents of that. There is an exemption for that of 5.2 cents on 
each gallon. In this bill, we are going to pretend like they paid that 
to the trust fund. We are going to actually collect their money. The 
revenue will actually be collected. But when people ask for a refund, 
we will send it right back to them. Assuming that most people will ask 
for a refund because they can get it, we are going to be sending the 
money right back to them.
  As a result, we take with one hand and we give back with the other, 
and the fund is no better off. There is no real money in the fund 
except what was there before. We haven't added to the fund. We have 
collected the 5.2 cents and then we give it back when the people apply 
for the refund.
  Since Federal contractors actually have to pay their people, buy 
asphalt, and run their road graders, how are we going to make up this 
$17 billion?
  As I have indicated, in both cases this is not real money. We are 
going to get it from the general fund. We are going to just spend that 
money from the general fund.
  How are we going to do that? It is not in the budget. The Finance 
Committee has come up with a variety of tax law changes which will 
close certain corporate loopholes and in other ways raise revenue that 
is not currently raised. We had hoped and anticipated that additional 
revenue would be applied to a reform which has to do with corporate tax 
relief that will have to be passed this year because the WTO--the World 
Trade Organization--has ruled against the United States in a case in 
which we have been providing some tax relief to American manufacturers 
abroad. We are going to have to take that tax relief away in order to 
make these companies whole. We will have to pass a different kind of 
tax relief. To do that, you have to have the ability to pay for it. 
That is what this money was going to be used for. Instead of using it 
for that, we will use it to build bridges and highways. We will take 
that money, put it in the general fund, and send that over to the 
highway trust fund.
  We are violating the principles laid down by the administration that 
none of this bill should be paid for by either a mechanism that 
conceals the true cost to the taxpayers or financed from the general 
fund of the Treasury.
  This bill, both by being in violation of at least some of the 
principles laid down by the President and by being $62 billion in 
excess of what the President said the bill should cost, is going to 
create a situation in which the senior advisers of the President are 
going to recommend a veto. We should not be passing a bill under those 
circumstances or be passing this bill under those circumstances.
  What do we do about it? There are a couple of different options. One 
of the options is that we could simply modify the bill to take out that 
$62 billion, get it back down to the level of the President's budget, 
and support that. I have

[[Page 1707]]

an amendment that would do that. In effect, it will say the President's 
budget of $256 billion--that represents a 21-percent increase--ought to 
be enough, and, therefore, we would finance only that amount of money.
  I think we should vote on that and express our will in that regard, 
support the President, and be willing to begin exercising some fiscal 
restraint.
  Some people say they do not want to reduce the 6-year funding by that 
much money. They would actually be able to spend over 40 percent more 
than last year and, therefore, maybe what we should do instead is 
simply reauthorize the existing law for 1 year, get past the election, 
and then do another 6-year authorization bill that will spend 40 
percent more than last year, since, obviously, that is going to cost 
more money than we are taking in in gas tax revenues, since there are 
objections to taking it from the general fund because that creates a 
horrible precedent, and therefore we will raise the gas tax.
  We don't want to tell people that because, of course, in an election 
year we wouldn't want anybody to really think we intend to raise the 
gas tax. So let us be real quiet about this and not discuss this 
alternative too much because it assumes that next year we will come in 
and provide this large amount of money and raise the gas tax. We could 
do that. It certainly is at least better than what we have before us, 
because it simply reauthorizes at existing levels the highway 
authorization bill for 1 year and we can decide to do it next year at 
the time. Some of us would oppose the gas tax increase.
  I suggest that either of those alternatives are better than the third 
alternative, which is to pass the bill that is before us.
  I want to make this clear. There are not very many people in this 
body for whom I have greater respect than the chairman of the EPW 
Committee, the Senator from Oklahoma. I don't mean to suggest in 
anything that I am saying here that the effort of the committee and the 
chairman of the committee is anything other than an attempt in good 
faith to try to satisfy the demands of our country's infrastructure and 
provide the best possible highway transit funding program they can. I 
will say they have been very unfair about the way they treated my 
State, but that is another matter that I will talk about in a minute. I 
want to make it clear that the chairman has a tough job. He has done 
his very best in this regard. I want that to be very clear.
  But the third alternative is to pass the bill before us. The argument 
made is that we know it is way too much money but we will get into the 
conference committee because the House will pass a bill and then you 
will have the House and the Senate bills. We will get together and 
figure out an appropriate amount of money. We will get the President's 
people in there to negotiate to make sure it won't be too much so the 
President won't veto the bill.
  That is another way to do it. I can't support that because we would 
be supporting a bill out of this body that is far too big in spending.
  The House bill presumably will be above the President's request. It 
is a little hard to figure out how we are going to start with a bill 
that is $62 billion over what the President wants, and the House bill 
is--I don't know how much but let us pick a number--say, $50 billion 
more than the President wants. And somehow they are going to compromise 
at a number closer to what the President wants. That is ordinarily not 
the way things work around here. I think it will be close to $256 
billion. They are playing with fire and risk sending the bill to the 
President which he is going to veto. That will demonstrate that we are 
not very responsible. I think that would be the wrong thing to do.
  Let me address the other subject I said I would address, and that is 
the fairness of this bill.
  I say to my colleague from Oklahoma that he would be the very first 
to say it is almost impossible to get a bill that spends this amount of 
money and divvy it up among over 400 Members of the House of 
Representatives and 100 Senators and have everybody think they have 
been treated fairly, especially given the historic unfairness of the 
way the formulas have worked.
  Again, he has a tough job. I make the point right up front that I 
know he has tried his hardest to do this right. In fact, one of his 
guiding principles was to try to get all of the States up to a level of 
funding equal to 95 cents out of every dollar that they send to 
Washington for the highway gas tax. The minimum level today is 90.5 
cents.
  There are a lot of us who represent donor States such as Arizona. We 
are donors. We send $1 and we only get 90.5 cents back in highway 
revenues. The chairman wanted to try to do something about that to try 
to remove some of that unfairness. I commend him for that. For the most 
part, he has gotten States up to 95 cents out of every $1.
  A lot of States are donee States, and they are way above a dollar. 
Obviously, the reason only some States get 95 cents back is some States 
get more than $1. But I commend the chairman for trying to get at least 
to 95 cents.
  The problem is, as has been explained to me, there are some fast-
growth States, such as Florida, California, Colorado, or Arizona. We 
have been at such a low level in the past in terms of the amount we 
were reimbursed, the 90.5 cents, and we are growing so fast in order to 
keep up with our growth, it would require so much money to catch us up 
to the 95-cent level that basically it cannot be done. So they will 
bring other States up to 95 percent, States that already for the past 5 
years have done very well, for the past 10 years have done very well. 
For those States that have continually lagged behind, such as the 
``growth'' States I mentioned, since it is so darned expensive to catch 
them up, we just will not try to do that for 5 years.
  So here is the result we get, demonstrated on this chart. I note the 
dark blue represents on the chairman's chart a green color which he 
demonstrated the other day when we were discussing this, saying: 
Arizona actually will increase its spending over this period of time. 
Then in 2009--assuming the money is there--you will go back up to 95 
cents like everyone else.
  In 2004, the State of Arizona, which is in the dark blue, would get a 
little bit more--it gets 90.5 cents. That is what is guaranteed. In 
2005, we get 90.5 cents. In 2006, we get 90.5 cents, as well as in 
2007. In 2008 it goes up a little bit but is still under 91 cents. Then 
if there is enough money in 2009, hopefully we get to go back up to 
where everyone else is, guaranteed 95 cents.
  We just took a State perhaps roughly comparable to Arizona, and this 
State happens to be Missouri, but I could pick any number of States 
that illustrate the same idea. Missouri, on the other hand, is 
guaranteed 95 cents each one of these years.
  Here is the point: During this 5-year period of time--because there 
was not enough money, some State had to sacrifice or be sacrificed and 
that happens to be my State of Arizona. I don't like that, and I don't 
think it is fair. I would have rather had, in this case, Missouri 
brought down to 93 and raise Arizona up to 93 rather than taking some 
all the way up to 95 and leaving the rest of us down at 90.
  My colleague from Oklahoma says, but you are getting a substantial 
percentage increase and even a dollar increase, because you are growing 
so fast. That is true. But in terms of the total amount of money 
Arizona would lose during this period of time, it is over $160 million. 
So during this 5 years, Arizona will lose out on over $160 million it 
would have received if it had been treated the same as the other States 
and gotten the base of 95 cents.
  Remember, there are a lot of States that are way up here that are 
getting over 100 cents, 110 cents; some are getting several dollars 
back. I will not name names.
  The bottom line is some States are treated very well and States such 
as my State of Arizona are not treated so well. I obviously cannot be 
expected to support a bill that picks on a few States such as mine and 
says, look, we just did not have enough to go around so you have to be 
the one that does not get paid what everyone else gets paid. We are 
sorry; be happy with the fact

[[Page 1708]]

you are getting more money than you have ever gotten before.
  My answer is, we are growing faster than anybody and therefore, of 
course, we are getting more money than we got in the past, but we are 
not getting the same relative amount other States are. We are not 
getting 95 cents on our dollar contributed. We are still stuck down 
here at this 90.5 cent level. That is not fair.
  I want to be clear about this. My opposition to this legislation is 
based upon the first two points I made. It is too much money and we are 
going to fund it now out of general revenues rather than the highway 
trust fund, as a result of which there will be no logical constraint on 
how much we spend in the future. At least pegging it to what we 
received in Federal gas revenues in the past was a break-loss, a check 
and a balance, and it prevented us from going beyond that amount of 
money. But once you begin to dip into the general treasury, there is no 
logical end to how far you can dip. As I said, you could double the 
amount of increase the administration has asked for, you could go to 
over 40 percent increase and say, we are just going to make part of 
that up through general revenues. Why not 50 or 60 percent? There is no 
logical end once you get away from the highway trust fund. That is why 
I oppose this bill.
  The sponsors of the bill were not able to equalize the States, as 
hard as they tried, in terms of the funding formula, and therefore 
there are some Members from some States that obviously have to point 
this out, have to demonstrate the unfairness and inequality of it and 
ask the bill be amended to provide a more fair result.
  The amendment I spoke of that funds the bill at $256 billion over 6 
years does not address this problem. So I make it clear, the amendment 
I have offered that allows people to vote for an amount in the highway 
spending that is consistent with the President's budget request does 
not fix this. I am willing to support that amendment. I am willing to 
send the bill to conference with that amount of money, but I am also 
hopeful my colleague from Texas will be offering an amendment 
tomorrow--has filed it and will offer tomorrow--that will to some 
degree at least fix this problem for those states such as Texas and 
Arizona which are not guaranteed the same 95 cents everyone else is 
guaranteed.
  I am hopeful we will be able to vote on that and support that 
tomorrow.
  There are other amendments which I will speak to later, one that my 
colleague Senator McCain has offered that represents a good compromise 
in the way we fund highway revenue and reimburse the States. We will 
talk about that tomorrow. There may be an additional amendment offered 
tomorrow we will want to support.
  I am hoping I will have a chance to vote on these tomorrow. The way 
this bill has procedurally come before the Senate, we will vote on a 
cloture petition tomorrow at 9 o'clock. That is a vote which presumably 
will pass. It means we then have only 30 hours of debate on the bill 
and opportunity to offer amendments and have those amendments voted on. 
My understanding is there are over 400 amendments that have been filed. 
On a bill of this importance and this magnitude, I don't think it is 
right we only have 30 hours to dispose of 400 amendments. It obviously 
cannot be done.
  I ask for my colleagues' understanding that when this debate begins 
after the cloture motion is approved tomorrow--assuming it is--we will 
have an opportunity to offer these amendments, have a brief period of 
time to discuss them, have a vote on them, and go on to the next 
amendment. It is not my intention to try to garble up the works or slow 
things down. I hope we can speed things up to the point we can get 
these amendments considered within that period of time. If not, because 
there are actually two different cloture motions here, we may have to 
have a second cloture vote and then have another 30 hours so we can 
continue to try to get the amendments adopted. That is something we are 
just going to have to work through. I ask for my colleagues' 
cooperation so that perhaps we can avoid that second 30 hours. But if 
necessary, obviously, we will have to use that.
  Now, if there are questions or refutation of anything I have said, I 
am happy to hear that and I can stay for a few minutes to try to answer 
or respond to questions.
  If my colleague from Oklahoma would like to speak, I yield the floor 
to him.

                               Exhibit 1

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2004.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  s. 1072--safe, accountable, flexible, and efficient transportation 
                               equity act

       The Administration supports enactment of a six-year 
     highway, highway safety, and transit authorization bill and 
     procedural efforts that would limit consideration of 
     extraneous amendments and bring the bill to an up or down 
     vote. Such a multi-year authorization would provide States 
     and localities with predictable funding that enhances long-
     term transportation planning. The Administration's proposal, 
     as modified by the President's FY 2005 Budget, would provide 
     $256 billion over six years, an historically high level of 
     investment for highways and transit. This proposal represents 
     a $45 billion, or 21 percent, increase over the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the 
     six-year bill enacted in 1998.
       The Administration believes that surface transportation 
     reauthorization legislation should exhibit spending restraint 
     and adhere to the following three principles: (1) 
     transportation infrastructure spending should not rely on an 
     increase in the gas tax or other Federal taxes; (2) 
     transportation infrastructure spending should not be funded 
     through bonding or other mechanisms that conceal the true 
     cost to Federal taxpayers; and (3) highway spending should be 
     financed from the Highway Trust Fund, not the General Fund of 
     the Treasury. All spending for highways should be authorized 
     and appropriated from the Trust Fund and derived from taxes 
     imposed on highway use, thereby maintaining the link between 
     Trust Fund revenues and highway spending.
       However, the bill pending before the Senate authorizes: 
     $262 billion on highways and highway safety, which is $50 
     billion above the President's request, and $56 billion on 
     mass transit, which is $12 billion above the President's 
     request. In total the Senate bill authorizes $318 billion in 
     spending on highways, highway safety, and mass transit over 
     the next six years, a full $62 billion above the President's 
     request for the same period.
       The Administration's proposed authorization level of $256 
     billion over six years is consistent with the three 
     principles listed above. We support a responsible six-year 
     bill and support many of the provisions contained in this 
     legislation. However, we oppose S. 1072 and the pending 
     substitute because their spending levels are too high and 
     they violate these principles discussed above. Accordingly, 
     if legislation that violates these principles (such as this 
     legislation, which authorizes $318 billion) were presented to 
     the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he 
     veto the bill.
       In addition, the Administration opposes inclusion in a 
     surface transportation bill of unrelated provisions regarding 
     Amtrak. Any legislation regarding the future of Amtrak should 
     be considered separately and should provide for meaningful 
     reforms, such as those proposed by the Administration. If 
     surface transportation legislation containing such provisions 
     were presented to the President, his senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto the bill. The Administration wants to 
     work closely with Congress to achieve an acceptable bill and 
     recommends attention to the following areas.
       Safety. The Administration appreciates the creation of a 
     new Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and a strong 
     safety belt incentive program, but believes the bill should 
     also require States that have not enacted primary safety belt 
     laws or achieved safety belt use rates of 90 percent to spend 
     no less than 10 percent of core highway safety construction 
     HSIP funds on behavioral safety projects eligible under the 
     Section 402 program. In addition, the Administration opposes 
     limiting a State's flexibility to use HSIP funds by requiring 
     mandatory set-asides for rail-highway grade crossings or safe 
     routes to schools. The Administration believes that several 
     programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration (NHTSA) should be consolidated and a portion 
     of those funds should be used to reward States that 
     aggressively reduce fatalities in the manner proposed by 
     Section 2001(a) of the Administration's proposal. Also, 
     language similar to that included in the Administration's 
     proposal on providing for NHTSA-administered highway safety 
     data grants should be added to help States improve their data 
     to reasonable standards.
       Environmental Provisions. The Administration opposes 
     substantially broadening the list of eligible projects for 
     Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding because 
     many of these new projects would have

[[Page 1709]]

     minimal air quality benefits. Eligibility for CMAQ funds 
     should be limited to projects that achieve air quality 
     benefits, particularly because the number of Clean Air Act 
     nonattainment areas, which need this type of funding, will 
     increase. The Administration believes that the bill should 
     improve project delivery while protecting our environment. 
     The bill should include a 180-day statute of limitations for 
     legal challenges following final agency approval of highway 
     and transit projects. This limit is necessary to reduce 
     litigation uncertainty that can impede project development 
     for years. The bill should also avoid adding new requirements 
     to the transportation planning process, and integrate the 
     transportation planning process with other environmental 
     review processes to reduce redundancies.
       With respect to project review under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act, the bill should clarify the 
     authority of State and local governments to be joint lead 
     agencies, with the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 
     preparing environmental documents. The Administration also 
     notes that section 1511 is inconsistent with the President's 
     proposal is SAFETEA, and encourages the Senate to adopt the 
     President's proposal.
       The Administration also believes that the bill should 
     clarify standards pertaining to public park and recreational 
     lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites--
     commonly referred to as ``Section 4(g).'' A clarification of 
     the Section 4(f) definition of ``prudent'' is needed to 
     forestall confusing standards applied unevenly by the Federal 
     Courts of Appeals. In addition, the bill should address the 
     overlap between Section 4(f) and Section 106 of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act to decrease project delays and 
     uncertainty.
       In addition, the Administration believes that the bill 
     should not include a mandatory two percent set-aside from the 
     Surface Transportation Program (STP) to support a highway 
     stormwater discharge mitigation program. Stormwater discharge 
     mitigation costs are already eligible under STP.
       New Regulatory Mandates. The Administration strongly 
     opposes the numerous mandated rulemakings for NHTSA and the 
     FMCSA. These provisions predetermine timetables and outcomes 
     without adequate grounding in science, engineering and proof 
     of net safety benefits. By prescribing specific requirements 
     and mandating priorities, these provisions will delay or 
     interfere with ongoing safety initiatives and may have the 
     unintended consequence of redirecting agency resources away 
     from programs that will do more overall good for safety. The 
     Administration also objects to the inclusion of: (1) costly 
     and burdensome provisions of the bill requiring FMCSA to 
     issue medical certificates to 6.5 million commercial drivers 
     while limiting the performance of medical examinations to 
     physicians alone; and (2) the bill's expansion of hours-of-
     service safety exemptions.
       Financing and Freight Mobility. The Administration 
     appreciates the bill's expansion of the Transportation 
     Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan 
     program by lowering the project threshold and broadening the 
     list of eligible projects to include freight projects. 
     However, the Administration opposes removing the TIFIA 
     program requirement that a borrower have a dedicated source 
     of revenue for repaying its TIFIA loan. Likewise, the 
     Administration opposes allowing railroads to use Federal 
     grants to pay the credit risk premium or repay Railroad 
     Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loans.
       The Administration supports amending the bill to give 
     States the ability to manage congestion and raise additional 
     revenue by allowing drivers of single occupant vehicles to 
     use High Occupancy Vehicle lanes by paying tolls. The 
     Administration also supports amending the bill to provide 
     States flexibility to implement variable tolls on interstates 
     for congestion management or air quality improvement 
     purposes. In addition, the Administration supports amending 
     the bill to incorporate the Administration's proposal to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit the issuance by 
     State and local governments of ``private activity bonds'' for 
     highways and surface freight transfer facilities.
       Public Transportation Programs. Aside from concerns about 
     overall funding levels, the Administration is pleased that 
     the bill includes provisions to improve human service 
     transportation coordination and expand the ``New Starts'' 
     program, but is disappointed by the omission of a performance 
     incentive program to reward transit agencies based on 
     increases in transit ridership.
       Accountability and Oversight. The Administration is pleased 
     that the bill includes stringent project management and 
     financial plan requirements which were requested by the 
     Administration. Improved accountability and focused oversight 
     by the Federal Highway Administration will help maximize the 
     effective use of available funds.
       Funding Firewalls and Guarantees. The Administration 
     supports a separate category or ``firewalls'' for determining 
     the level of spending from the Highway Trust Fund, but only 
     in the context of the Administration's proposal for annual 
     statutory limits on discretionary spending. In addition, the 
     Administration does not propose the creation of ``firewalls'' 
     for general fund spending on such critical areas as defense 
     and homeland security, and therefore opposes such treatment 
     for general fund spending on mass transit programs.
       Byrd Test Change. The Administration opposes weakening the 
     Byrd Test to compare spending authority to current resources 
     plus for years, rater than two years, of estimated future 
     revenue. The Byrd Test was established at the creation of the 
     Highway Trust Fund in 1956 to ensure that future revenues 
     would be sufficient to cover outstanding spending authority. 
     The Byrd Test has been successful in ensuring the Highway 
     Trust Fund's solvency for nearly 50 years, and modification 
     could allow levels of spending that cannot be sustained by 
     estimated revenues to the Highway Trust Fund.
       Park Roads. The Administration supports the funding level 
     for park roads, but opposes the provisions of section 1806 of 
     the bill that establish a park funding priority system that 
     would reduce the Administration's ability to implement the 
     President's Park Legacy Program. Allocation of park road 
     funding should be consistent with the sound asset management 
     approach on which the President's Park Legacy Program is 
     based and which is currently used by the National Park 
     Service, in a manner that will best address the needs of all 
     parks, not just a few.
       Cross-Border Transportation. The Administration opposes the 
     bill's provisions defining foreign trucks and buses engaged 
     in the cross-border transportation of cargo and passengers 
     into the United States as ``imports.'' Existing statutory 
     provisions already address cross-border transportation 
     safety, and the revised definition would significantly 
     disrupt the almost $2 billion daily cross-border movement of 
     goods.
       MAGLEV. The Administration opposes the continued 
     authorization of funding for Magnetic Levitation 
     Transportation Technology Deployment (MAGLEV). The 
     Administration's SAFETEA proposal did not seek funding for 
     MAGLEV and believes funds can be better spent investing in 
     the Nation's public transportation systems.

                    Budget estimates and enforcement

       This bill would affect direct spending and receipts. It is 
     critical to exercise responsible restraint over Federal 
     spending in a manner that ensures deficit reduction and the 
     Administration looks forward to working with Congress to 
     control the cost of this bill. The Budget Enforcement Act's 
     pay-as-you-go requirements and discretionary spending caps 
     expired on September 30, 2002. The President's FY 2005 Budget 
     includes a proposal to extend the discretionary caps through 
     2009, a pay-as-you-go requirement that would be limited to 
     direct spending, and a new mechanism to control the expansion 
     of long-term unfunded obligations. OMB's cost estimate of 
     this bill currently is under development.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, there is no one I have a higher regard for 
than the man who was elected with me to the other body in 1986, Senator 
Kyl, the junior Senator from Arizona, and they elected him then to come 
over to this body in 1984. We are both conservatives.
  He has heard me say many times when I was first elected to the other 
body, I got on the Transportation Committee and the reason I did it was 
because I always felt the conservatives were pretty big spenders in two 
areas. One is national defense and the other is infrastructure. That is 
what we are sent here for. Apparently, the most recent poll I saw shows 
the vast majority of the people, 69 percent, are willing to spend more 
money if it will be spent on highways, roads, and bridges. I see that 
as what we are here for.
  I have to address the fact that there are a lot of amendments that 
have come up. I have stood here for 2 weeks trying to get people to 
propose amendments, to discuss their amendments. We sit down here and 
we talk about everything there is to talk about until now at last there 
is hysteria that we do not have time to bring up our amendments. There 
has been plenty of time.
  I have to say, too, to my good friend, the junior Senator from 
Arizona, it is because of the senior Senator from Arizona that we have 
not been able to bring up the amendments because they are objecting to 
any motions to bring them down to vote. That means the only thing we 
can vote on that does not require that particular permission is a 
tabling motion which we have done only once because no one else has had 
anything else to table.
  So that is the reason.
  I regret that we wasted a lot of time when we were inviting people to 
come down. Those who were opposed to this for any number of reasons--
some legitimate reasons, some not so legitimate--were the ones who were 
stopping us from moving forward with the bill.

[[Page 1710]]

  First, I think as far as the cloture motion, the Senator from Arizona 
is exactly right. In fact, I appreciate the letter he was citing from 
the administration that came down today. It says: ``The Administration 
supports enactment of a six-year highway [bill],'' and so forth, and 
they are in support of the cloture motion.
  So this is the administration that is in support of the cloture 
motion. I think if you look at the letter--and I will give you a 
different slant than my friend from Arizona--they have three criteria. 
There is nothing new about this. I saw this 2 months ago. I saw it on 
the 4th of this month when they sent a letter from the administration. 
It says these three criteria are:

       [T]ransportation infrastructure spending should not rely on 
     an increase in the gas tax or other Federal taxes. . . .

  I believe this meets that guideline.

       (2) transportation infrastructure spending should not be 
     funded through bonding or other mechanisms that conceal the 
     true cost to Federal taxpayers. . . .

  I agree with that. In fact, I have been the one who has rejected the 
suggestion of any type of a bonding that might just be deficit spending 
in disguise, something we are going to pay back in the future, some 
increased debt.
  This is the big one. This is the one the Senator, with his vast 
knowledge, has gone through and who is in a better position to do that 
than I; and that is the criterion that says:

       [H]ighway spending should be financed from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, not the General Fund of the Treasury.

  Now, perhaps it is hard. There could be an honest disagreement here. 
If some money is going to the general fund and is being paid at the 
pumps by people who are paying for the gas tax, that should be going 
into the highway trust fund. It is user paid. We all agree with that 
concept.
  For those of us who feel strongly about this, I can remember I was 
outraged back in the middle 1990s when the previous administration came 
through and they wanted $8 billion so they could do something other 
than roads, and it came out of the trust fund and went into the general 
fund. Frankly, this takes it back. This rectifies a problem that should 
not have existed in the first place and keeps us honest with the 
American people.
  Look at the moral issue part of this. The people drive up to the 
pump. There is not a Senator who does not have constituents who drive 
up to the pump. They don't mind paying that tax--some say they would go 
ahead and pay more taxes--and they assume that money is going to go for 
the repair and construction of roads and infrastructure. In fact, that 
is not the case. There have been raids on that for a long period of 
time.
  I am not going to go over the list of the Finance Committee. I talked 
to the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee back 
when we were working on this bill well over a year ago. It said when we 
come up with what we believe is necessary to just stay even--there is 
one report out that says even with this spending level that does not 
even keep us repairing what we have today, but if this comes up, you 
guys in the Finance Committee are going to be the ones who have to come 
up with this.
  I have never been on the Finance Committee. I have never attended one 
of their meetings. I don't know how it works. But I do know the 
chairman and ranking member said: We have come up with a way to come up 
with this money. Sure, a lot of it, as the Senator mentioned, is 
spending down the trust fund. Yes, we can do that probably to $6.5 
billion without hurting ourselves. That is an assumption we make here. 
The interest? Yes, it should go to the trust fund. There are some fixes 
in there in terms of ethanol that are all part of it. This going after 
people who avoided paying taxes is something we would all agree is 
something that should happen.
  The one area the Senator mentions, frankly, I can't address is having 
to do with the WTO. I am just going to trust the Finance Committee that 
they have come up with this and have done what I asked them to do a 
long period of time ago.
  Oh, yes, in response to that, I was underlining something. This came 
out in the Finance Committee, I say to my friend from Arizona. It said: 
In the view of the Finance Committee, these tax policy benefits--we are 
talking about benefits deductions, whether they are ethanol or maybe a 
car that is fuel efficient--nonetheless, to encourage them to do that, 
they are exempt from certain taxes. But those cars and those trucks 
still drive on our roads, still cause damage to the roads, and because 
they want to have a tax policy that has nothing to do with 
infrastructure, has nothing to do with roads and highways, fine, if we 
all agree on that, it should come out of the general fund, it should 
not come out of the highway trust fund. We are rectifying that and 
getting it back to the highway trust fund.
  Now, on formulas, this is the most complicated part of the bill. I 
say to the Senator, your senior Senator came down and said he would 
like to trade formulas with Oklahoma. I have to say, as I have said 
several times down here in the last 2 weeks, everyone has the same 
formula. You have the same formula. North Carolina has the same 
formula. Maine has the same formula; Oklahoma does.
  Now, the results come out differently because in that formula we are 
taking care of problems that are real problems. Arizona is a fast-
growing State, the State of Texas, the State of California, the State 
of Florida. So in order to make all of this happen, there are caps, 
there are ceilings. If you bump the ceiling, we are not going to go 
above that. You may not like it because you are a fast-growing State. 
But if you don't, then that is going to be paid for in the formula with 
a change, maybe a change that is going to be coming in the form of an 
amendment tomorrow, by getting into some of the States such as 
Pennsylvania and New York.
  So here is what we have in the formula: No. 1, total lane miles on 
the interstate, on principal arterial routes; No. 2, VMT--that is, 
vehicle miles traveled--on the Interstate System, on principal arterial 
routes, excluding the interstate, and on the Federal aid system; No. 3, 
annual contributions to the highway trust fund attributed to commercial 
vehicles; No. 4, diesel fuel used on highways; No. 5, relative share of 
total cost to repair or replace deficient highway bridges--I am very 
sensitive to that; my State of Oklahoma is dead last in terms of the 
condition of bridges--next, weighted nonattainment and maintenance 
areas and, lastly, rate of return of donor States.
  We all know that the Senator from Arizona and I both know all about 
being a donor State. If we accelerated the point within those 6 years 
to raise that amount, then, obviously, there would not be enough money 
to ultimately get to the 95 percent we want to ultimately get to. So if 
you change one thing in the formula, it changes everything. You cannot 
do it in a vacuum.
  There will be amendments, I am sure, tomorrow that are going to be 
addressing this and wanting to change the formula. But if you do it, it 
is going to change other States.
  Now, if you will remember, the reason I am proud of this formula is 
that we have tried to do it. We tried to do it in 1991 with ISTEA. We 
tried to do it in TEA-21 in 1998. We failed during that time because 
right about at this point in the process they said: Well, we can't do 
it. There are too many people who don't like the way the formula has 
come out. So instead of that, we need 60 votes. How do we get 60 votes?
  So they had a minimum guarantee. They said: All right. We are going 
to offer 60 of these votes what they want in terms of a percentage of 
the overall, and then, once we get to 60 votes, who cares? We have our 
60 votes and we are going to pass it.
  Well, I refused to do that back when the temptation was great to do 
it about 3 months ago. So the formula is going to be the first pure 
formula that we have had. But are there frailties in it? Yes, there 
are. There are corrections to be made because if you look in previous 
years at States where they have had an undue political influence, they 
have gotten more than their share.

[[Page 1711]]

  Let's look at Pennsylvania. They had a good friend of the Senator 
from Arizona and myself who served in the other body, Bud Shuster, a 
Congressman from Pennsylvania. He, for a number of years, was the 
chairman of the committee, and Pennsylvania did disproportionately 
well.
  I would say the same thing of our beloved Daniel Patrick Moynihan of 
the State of New York; certainly John Chafee, one we all loved, from 
Rhode Island. So the Northeast got kind of a benefit to which they were 
not entitled.
  In fact, to be specific, under TEA-21--let's keep in mind I was a 
senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 1998 
when we put this together. And so at that time, in terms of a 
percentage of taxes paid in, New York got $1.25 back; Pennsylvania, 
$1.20 back; Rhode Island, $2.16 back; Montana--Senator Baucus, who is a 
very hard worker for his State--$2.18 back; Oklahoma, 90.5 cents, the 
minimum, the bare minimum.
  I am the guy who should be out here complaining. When your senior 
Senator said, we ought to swap, if we swapped, I would end up with $40 
million more. I will stand here right now and swap with you, and it 
will not affect any of the rest of the formula.
  The formulas are not an easy thing to deal with.
  Insofar as the State of Arizona is concerned, if you take an average 
of the 6 years of TEA-21, $463 million, and then you watch as it goes 
up here to finally reach $800 million, the total amount of increase is 
$1.11 billion in the State of Arizona. For my State of Oklahoma, the 
chart looks almost the same, but the difference is we end up at $1.07 
billion. So there is $40 million more going to the State of Arizona. I 
don't like that. If I were to try to do something as chairman, I 
probably could have. I could probably have looked at the first run and 
said, no, Oklahoma needs to have more. But I didn't do it because we 
wanted the formulas to work. So the formulas are something that you 
can't mess with because if you do, you get right back to the minimum 
guarantee policy we have had in the past. I don't think that is good 
for anyone.
  Since we have committed some time to two other Members, including the 
Senator from North Carolina, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record the Statement of Administration Policy dated February 11, 2004, 
and also, though I did not quote from it, an editorial of the Wall 
Street Journal entitled ``Road Kill,'' and the date is February 10, 
2004.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget, Washington, DC, February 11, 2004.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  s. 1072--safe, accountable, flexible, and efficient transportation 
                               equity act

             (Senator Inhofe (R) Oklahoma and 3 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports enactment of a six-year 
     highway, highway safety, and transit authorization bill and 
     procedural efforts that would limit consideration of 
     extraneous amendments and bring the bill to an up or down 
     vote. Such a multi-year authorization would provide States 
     and localities with predictable funding that enhances long-
     term transportation planning. The Administration's proposal, 
     as modified by the President's FY 2005 Budget, would provide 
     $256 billion over six years, an historically high level of 
     investment for highways and transit. This proposal represents 
     a $45 billion, or 21 percent, increase over the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the 
     six-year bill enacted in 1998.
       The Administration believes that surface transportation 
     reauthorization legislation should exhibit spending restraint 
     and adhere to the following three principles: (1) 
     transportation infrastructure spending should not rely on an 
     increase in the gas tax or other Federal taxes; (2) 
     transportation infrastructure spending should not be funded 
     through bonding or other mechanisms that conceal the true 
     cost to Federal taxpayers; and (3) highway spending should be 
     financed from the Highway Trust Fund, not the General Fund of 
     the Treasury. All spending for highways should be authorized 
     and appropriated from the Trust Fund and derived from taxes 
     imposed on highway use, thereby maintaining the link between 
     Trust Fund revenues and highway spending.
       However, the bill pending before the Senate authorizes: 
     $262 billion on highways and highway safety, which is $50 
     billion above the President's request, and $56 billion on 
     mass transit, which is $12 billion above the President's 
     request. In total the Senate bill authorizes $318 billion in 
     spending on highways, highway safety, and mass transit over 
     the next six years, a full $62 billion above the President's 
     request for the same period.
       The Administration proposed authorization of $256 billion 
     over six years is consistent with the three principles listed 
     above. We support a responsible six-year bill and support 
     many of the provisions contained in this legislation. 
     However, we oppose S. 1072 and the pending substitute because 
     their spending levels are too high and they violate these 
     principles discussed above. Accordingly, if legislation that 
     violates these principles (such as this legislation, which 
     authorizes $318 billion) were presented to the President, his 
     senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
       In addition, the Administration opposes inclusion in a 
     surface transportation bill of unrelated provisions regarding 
     Amtrak. Any legislation regarding the future of Amtrak should 
     be considered separately and should provide for meaningful 
     reforms, such as those proposed by the Administration. If 
     surface transportation legislation containing such provisions 
     were presented to the President, his senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto the bill.
       The Administration wants to work closely with Congress to 
     achieve an acceptable bill and recommends attention to the 
     following areas.
       Safety. The Administration appreciates the creation of a 
     new Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and a strong 
     safety belt incentive program, but believes the bill should 
     also require States that have not enacted primary safety belt 
     laws or achieved safety belt use rates of 90 percent to spend 
     no less than 10 percent of core highway safety construction 
     HSIP funds on behavioral safety projects eligible under the 
     Section 402 program. In addition, the Administration opposes 
     limiting a State's flexibility to use HSIP funds by requiring 
     mandatory set-asides for rail-highway grade crossings or safe 
     routes to schools. The Administration believes that several 
     programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration (NHTSA) should be consolidated and a portion 
     of those funds should be used to reward States that 
     aggressively reduce fatalities in the manner proposed by 
     Section 2001(a) of the Administration's proposal. Also, 
     language similar to that included in the Administration's 
     proposal on providing for NHTSA-administered highway safety 
     data grants should be added to help States improve their data 
     to reasonable standards.
       Environmental Provisions. The Administration opposes 
     substantially broadening the list of eligible projects for 
     Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding because 
     many of these new projects would have minimal air quality 
     benefits. Eligibility for CMAQ funds should be limited to 
     projects that achieve air quality benefits, particularly 
     because the number of Clean Air Act nonattainment areas, 
     which need this type of funding, will increase. The 
     Administration believes that the bill should improve project 
     delivery while protecting our environment. The bill should 
     include a 180-day statute of limitations for legal challenges 
     following final agency approval of highway and transit 
     projects. This limit is necessary to reduce litigation 
     uncertainty that can impede project development for years. 
     The bill should also avoid adding new requirements to the 
     transportation planning process, and integrate the 
     transportation planning process with other environmental 
     review processes to reduce redundancies.
       With respect to project review under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act, the bill should clarify the 
     authority of State and local governments to be joint lead 
     agencies, with the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 
     preparing environmental documents. The Administration also 
     notes that section 1511 is inconsistent with the President's 
     proposal in SAFETEA, and encourages the Senate to adopt the 
     President's proposal.
       The Administration also believes that the bill should 
     clarify standards pertaining to public park and recreation 
     lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites--
     commonly referred to as ``Section 4(f).'' A clarification of 
     the Section 4(f) definition of ``prudent'' is needed to 
     forestall confusing standards applied unevenly by the Federal 
     Courts of Appeals. In addition, the bill should address the 
     overlap between Section 4(f) and Section 106 of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act to decrease project delays and 
     uncertainty.
       In addition, the Administration believes that the bill 
     should not include a mandatory two percent set-aside from the 
     Surface Transportation Program (STP) to support a highway 
     stormwater discharge mitigation program. Stormwater discharge 
     mitigation costs are already eligible under STP.
       New Regulatory Mandates. The Administration strongly 
     opposes the numerous mandated rulemakings for NHTSA and the

[[Page 1712]]

     FMCSA. These provisions predetermine timetables and outcomes 
     without adequate grounding in science, engineering and proof 
     of net safety benefits. By prescribing specific requirements 
     and mandating priorities, these provisions will delay or 
     interfere with ongoing safety initiatives and may have the 
     unintended consequence of redirecting agency resources away 
     from programs that will do more overall good for safety. The 
     Administration also objects to the inclusion of: (1) costly 
     and burdensome provisions of the bill requiring FMCSA to 
     issue medical certificates to 6.5 million commercial drivers 
     while limiting the performance of medical examinations to 
     physicians alone; and (2) the bill's expansion of hours-of-
     service safety exemptions.
       Financing and Freight Mobility. The Administration 
     appreciates the bill's expansion of the Transportation 
     Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan 
     program by lowering the project threshold and broadening the 
     list of eligible projects to include freight projects. 
     However, the Administration opposes removing the TIFIA 
     program requirement that a borrower have a dedicated source 
     of revenue for repaying its TIFIA loan. Likewise, the 
     Administration opposes allowing railroads to use Federal 
     grants to pay the credit risk premium or repay Railroad 
     Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loans.
       The Administration supports amending the bill to give 
     States the ability to manage congestion and raise additional 
     revenue by allowing drivers of single occupant vehicles to 
     use High Occupancy Vehicle lanes by paying tolls. The 
     Administration also supports amending the bill to provide 
     States flexibility to implement variable tolls on interstates 
     for congestion management or air quality improvement 
     purposes. In addition, the Administration supports amending 
     the bill to incorporate the Administration's proposal to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit the issuance by 
     State and local governments of ``private activity bonds'' for 
     highways and surface freight transfer facilities.
       Public Transportation Programs. Aside from concerns about 
     overall funding levels, the Administration is pleased that 
     the bill includes provisions to improve human service 
     transportation coordination and expand the ``New Starts'' 
     program, but is disappointed by the omission of a performance 
     incentive program to reward transit agencies based on 
     increases in transit ridership.
       Accountability and Oversight. The Administration is pleased 
     that the bill includes stringent project management and 
     financial plan requirements which were requested by the 
     Administration. Improved accountability and focused oversight 
     by the Federal Highway Administration will help maximize the 
     effective use of available funds.
       Funding Firewalls and Guarantees. The Administration 
     supports a separate category or ``firewalls'' for determining 
     the level of spending from the Highway Trust fund, but only 
     in the context of the Administration's proposal for annual 
     statutory limits on discretionary spending. In addition, the 
     Administration does not propose the creating of ``firewalls'' 
     for general fund spending on such critical areas as defense 
     and homeland security, and therefore opposes such treatment 
     for general fund spending on mass transit programs.
       Byrd Test Change. The Administration opposes weakening the 
     Byrd Test to compare spending authority to current resources 
     plus four years, rather than two years, of estimated future 
     revenue. The Byrd Test was established at the creation of the 
     Highway Trust Fund in 1956 to ensure that future revenues 
     would be sufficient to cover outstanding spending authority. 
     The Byrd Test has been successful in ensuring the Highway 
     Trust Fund's solvency for nearly 50 years, and modification 
     could allow levels of spending that cannot be sustained by 
     estimated revenues to the Highway Trust fund.
       Park Roads. The Administration supports the funding level 
     for park roads, but opposes the provisions of section 1806 of 
     the bill that establish a park funding priority system that 
     would reduce the Administration's ability to implement the 
     President's Park Legacy Program. Allocation of park road 
     funding should be consistent with the sound asset management 
     approach on which the President's Park Legacy Program is 
     based and which is currently used by the National Park 
     Service, in a manner that will best address the needs of all 
     parks, not just a few.
       Cross-Border Transportation. The Administration opposes the 
     bill's provisions defining foreign trucks and buses engaged 
     in the cross-border transportation of cargo and passengers 
     into the United States as ``imports.'' Existing statutory 
     provisions already address cross-border transportation 
     safety, and the revised definition would significantly 
     disrupt the almost $2 billion daily cross-border movement of 
     goods.
       MAGLEV. The Administration opposes the continued 
     authorization of funding for Magnetic Levitation 
     Transportation Technology Deployment (MAGLEV). The 
     Administration's SAFETEA proposal did not seek funding for 
     MAGLEV and believes funds can be better spent investing in 
     the Nation's public transportation systems.
       Budget Estimates and Enforcement. This bill would affect 
     direct spending and receipts. It is critical to exercise 
     responsible restraint over Federal spending in a manner that 
     ensures deficit reduction and the Administration looks 
     forward to working with congress to control the cost of this 
     bill. The Budget Enforcement Act's pay-as-you-go requirements 
     and discretionary spending caps expired on September 30, 
     2002. The President's FY 2005 Budget includes a proposal to 
     extend the discretionary caps through 2009, a pay-as-you-go 
     requirement that would be limited to direct spending, and a 
     new mechanism to control the expansion of long-term unfunded 
     obligations. OMB's cost estimate of this bill currently is 
     under development.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 2004]

     Road Kill--Congress's Spending Binge Moves to the Passing Lane

       An old political adage has it that the most dangerous place 
     in Washington is between a Congressman and asphalt. That is 
     exactly where taxpayers now find themselves as Congress 
     conspires to pass another monster highway bill. The only good 
     news is that President Bush is showing signs he may fight 
     this election-year porkfest.
       The Administration has its own highway proposal, which is 
     hardly cheap. Mr. Bush is asking for $256 billion over six 
     years, which is 21% more than the past six years and fairly 
     close to Treasury estimates of revenue from the current 18.4-
     cent-a-gallon federal gas tax that is earmarked for roads.
       Ah, but this isn't enough for the boys of summer 
     construction. The draft Senate bill demands $55 billion more 
     than Mr. Bush and is loaded with fiscal gimmicks that divert 
     money from general (non-gas-tax) revenues into road building. 
     The House bill from Transportation Chairman Don Young is even 
     worse--an astonishing $375 billion with a five-cent gas-tax 
     increase.
       Notwithstanding lip service to the budget deficit, the 
     strategy for passing this is to offer so many goodies for 
     individual Members that they can't resist. The American Road 
     & Transportation Builders Association, aka the road graders 
     lobby, recently advertised how much more booty each Member 
     could take home under the Young bill.
       In the Senate, meanwhile, Minority Leader Tom Daschle is 
     planning to attach his stalled ethanol-subsidy legislation 
     (cost to drivers: $8.5 billion a year) to the bill in order 
     to attract farm state votes--and grease his own re-election 
     this year. Republicans who go along with this self-serving 
     gambit will be helping Mr. Daschle defeat GOP challenger John 
     Thune in South Dakota this fall.
       One of the more embarrassing arguments from Congress's 
     highwaymen is that this is somehow a ``jobs bill.'' So at 
     least for this parochial matter, Republicans claim to believe 
     in the superiority of government over private spending. Some 
     Econ 101: Highway spending rolls out slowly over many years 
     but new taxes are immediately taken away from the more 
     productive private economy. It's more accurate to say that 
     Mr. Young's bill would be a net job loser.
       If Republicans really wanted to be true to their 
     principles, they'd scale back the federal highway fund and 
     return road-financing to the states. The federal government 
     got into this game in the 1950s to build the Interstate 
     Highway System. That network is nearly complete, but Congress 
     now views the highway trust fund as a way to make all 
     Americans pay for local road projects. States are much better 
     placed to judge real needs, and they'd have the flexibility 
     to experiment with innovative proposals like tolls, express 
     lanes and public-private partnerships.
       Such delusional hope aside, the ultimate size of this bill 
     will depend on Mr. Bush's determination to enforce his budget 
     request. History isn't necessarily on his side; when Ronald 
     Reagan vetoed a highway bill in 1987, Congress overrode him. 
     And despite calls last week from fiscal conservatives to 
     delay the bill, Majority Leader Bill Frist refused after 75 
     Senators voted to start debate.
       Still, this is a fight worth having. Congress will keep 
     spending freely until Mr. Bush shows he's willing to spend 
     political capital to say no. In a letter to Congress last 
     week, Administration officials warned that any bill that 
     includes higher gas taxes, trickster accounting or a 
     siphoning of general tax revenues will face a veto. 
     Presidents who make veto threats and don't fulfill them 
     quickly become irrelevant.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record the summary of the Finance Committee's highway trust fund 
proposal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Summary of Finance Committee Highway Trust Fund Proposal

       Finance Committee jurisdiction extends to the highway use-
     related excise taxes, the Highway Trust Fund, and the 
     expenditure authority of the Highway Trust Fund. The Finance 
     Committee acted primarily on the cash flow into and out of 
     the trust fund. Cash flow into the trust fund is represented 
     by trust fund excise tax receipts. Cash flow out of the trust 
     fund is represented by trust fund outlays. Matters involving 
     contract authority and obligation limits are not Finance

[[Page 1713]]

     Committee subject matter and the committee did not speak to 
     them.
       According to the Congressional Budget Office (``CBO''), 
     current law trust fund receipts will total $227.8 billion 
     over the six year period. CBO projects $196 billion in 
     highway account receipts and $31.8 billion in mass transit 
     account receipts.
       The authorizing committees' actions placed demands on the 
     trust fund of $231 billion for highways and $36.6 billion for 
     transit for the six year authorization period. That means a 
     total of $267.6 billion in demands on the trust fund.
       Prior to Finance Committee action, demands on the trust 
     fund exceeded receipts by $39.8 billion over the six year 
     period. To make up this funding gap, the Finance Committee 
     developed two categories of proposals. The first category 
     increased trust fund receipts by tightening compliance. The 
     second category included accounting changes that raised trust 
     fund receipts.
       The compliance changes raised trust fund receipts by $5.6 
     billion over the authorization period. These changes were 
     also scored as revenue raisers by the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation. These proposals have no impact on the budget 
     deficient.
       The budget resolution assumes that 2.5 cents per gallon of 
     gasohol receipts, currently held by the general fund, will be 
     transferred to the trust fund. That transfer raises trust 
     fund receipts by $5 billion over the authorization period. 
     The Finance Committee also assumed that trust fund balances 
     would be spent down by $7.5 billion over the authorization 
     period. Adding all of these changes together with the 
     compliance changes, the Finance Committee closed the gap by 
     $18.1 billion over the authorization period. That left a 
     funding gap of $21.7 billion.
       The Finance Committee proposed to close this gap with a 
     group of trust fund accounting changes. These proposals raise 
     trust fund receipts by shifting the burden of tax policies 
     from the trust fund to the general fund. In the view of 
     Finance Committee, these tax policy benefits have nothing to 
     do with highway use and should not burden the trust fund. 
     Included in these proposals is a repeal of the partial 
     exemption for ethanol-blended fuels. The tax benefit for 
     ethanol, like nearly all energy production incentives, is 
     transferred to the general fund through a tax credit. The 
     same effect is applied to refunds for special categories of 
     users such as State and local governments. Finally, the 
     Highway trust Fund will earn interest on its balance, so that 
     the highway and transit programs are not prejudiced. This 
     second category of proposals closed the funding gap, but, 
     without revenue offsets, would have increased the budget 
     deficit by $21.7 billion.
       Finance Committee members decided that this second category 
     of proposals should not have a deficit impact. To this end, 
     the Finance Committee title includes a group of loophole 
     closers previously approved by the committee.
       Ninety-five percent cost over $120 billion . . . the cost 
     forced us to construct a new method. Equity Bonus keeps the 
     cost of rectifying donor states affordable.


    comparison of nh and vt [both low population states per mccain]

       Response: VT does very well under the formulas for the core 
     programs (not changed from TEA-21 in this bill). Former NH 
     Sen. Smith's position on the EPW committee during TEA-21 
     ensured that NH did well under the politically drafted 1104 
     table despite their relative poor performance under the 
     formulas.


                        co is getting a raw deal

       Response: Colorado has the highest rate of growth . . . 
     Senator Allard, a member of EPW has been very supportive of 
     the bill.


                          additional comments

       Highway Trust Fund was raided during TEA-21 of $8 billion 
     (Note: argument will be made that the $8 billion was given up 
     in order to get the ``firewalls'')
       If we were to accelerate getting all states to 95 percent 
     sooner it would add to the cost of the bill and donee states 
     like PA and NH would have a lower rate of return
       On average, in SAFETEA, donee states lost 4 cents from TEA-
     21 and donor states gained 4 cents from TEA-21 . . . I would 
     call that a fair exchange.

                            PLAYERS IN TEA-21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2003 of   2009 of
                                             TEA-21    SAFETEA  Historic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York (Moynihan).......................    1.2488    0.9975     1.23
Pennsylvania (Shuster)....................    1.2084    0.9746     1.16
Rhode Island (Chafee).....................    2.1662    1.8234     2.22
Montana (Baucus)..........................    2.1842    2.2015     2.35
Oklahoma..................................    0.9050    0.9500     0.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            formula factors:

       Total lane miles on the Interstate, on principal arterial 
     routes (excluding the interstate), and on the Federal aid 
     system
       Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on the Interstate system, on 
     principal arterial routes (excluding the Interstate), and on 
     the Federal aid system
       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
       Weighted non-attainment and maintenance areas
       Rate of return of donor states

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, if I could ask my colleague from Oklahoma a 
question, I appreciate the relative dollars received by States such as 
his and mine. I would just ask one question: Does the State of 
Oklahoma, under this policy, receive 95 cents in each of the next 5 
years, and does the State of Arizona receive 90.5 cents for every 
dollar we send in?
  Mr. INHOFE. The State of Oklahoma does not. It goes up to 95 cents. 
The first year, it is 90.5; next year, 91.75; and it gradually goes up. 
Yours does not because for the State of Arizona, it hits the ceiling. 
So you have 90.5 each of the first 4 years, then 90.84, then 95.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, our transportation infrastructure is one 
of this country's most important investments. It is literally the 
foundation of America. Each day our roads, bridges, buses, and railways 
help countless Americans travel to their jobs, visit a faraway 
relative, or take a day trip with their kids.
  As a former Secretary of Transportation, I am constantly in awe of 
this vast reach of modern-day transportation. I can still recall from 
my tenure at the Department the completion of the Interstate 40 
corridor which runs from Wilmington, NC, to southern California, an 
enormous stretch of highway that literally links us from coast to 
coast. It is these kinds of investments that are vital to sustaining 
our communities and our economy. By ensuring that our roads, bridges, 
and infrastructure are prepared for the future, we provide economic 
stability. For my home State, that is a crucial component of our 
economic recovery.
  As many of you know, North Carolina is going through painful economic 
times as traditional textile, furniture, and other manufacturing jobs 
are diminishing. Improving our transportation infrastructure is a vital 
part of getting North Carolina's economy back on track.
  Let me give an example. Construction is already underway for 
Interstates 73 and 74 in North Carolina, and planning has begun for 
Interstate 20. The Department of Transportation estimates that the 
projects in this bill would create 86,900 jobs in North Carolina.
  Further, these roads go through areas that are among the hardest hit 
by economic difficulties, creating jobs especially in rural parts of 
North Carolina, where mobility between towns and cities is essential 
for commerce. These routes of opportunity make our communities more 
attractive to businesses and promote investment in our neighborhoods.
  Additionally, there is an 89 percent increase in funding to address 
North Carolina's growing transit needs, with a special emphasis on our 
rural areas. This money can be used to provide more buses as our rural 
residents travel from home to work each day. And for urban areas, such 
as Raleigh, Greensboro, and Charlotte, I am proud that the Banking 
Committee on which I serve has included much-needed dollars to relieve 
congestion by investing in buses, street cars and, in some cases, light 
rail.
  We all know that relieving congestion creates a cleaner environment, 
improves worker productivity, combats stress, and gives employees more 
time with their families and less time struggling with a long commute.
  This legislation also addresses a problem that exists with the 
highway trust fund. Right now, North Carolina gets just 90.5 cents for 
every dollar we put into the trust fund. This legislation guarantees 
that North Carolina's share will increase to 95 cents over the next 5 
years. That will mean an additional $50 million a year for 
transportation construction, and we all know how much good can be done 
with those dollars.
  The bill also expands the Small Starts program to include mass 
transit projects under $75 million. My State and local leaders' biggest 
complaint is the mounds of paperwork and regulatory hurdles that must 
be completed,

[[Page 1714]]

even for the smallest transportation project. It simply is not fair 
that these smaller projects must jump through the same large hoops as 
the biggest projects in the United States. The Small Starts project 
will allow for simpler, less costly review of these projects, and that 
is good news for our States.
  Now let me touch on another area of the legislation that is near and 
dear to my heart. Safety was at the forefront during my 5 years as 
Secretary of Transportation. Our rule 208, as we called it at 
Transportation, encouraged the passage of State seatbelt laws and the 
inclusion of passive restraints in new cars.
  In 1984, there were only a handful of airbag-equipped cars on the 
road. Not a single manufacturer was currently offering airbags at that 
time. I remember a long search for a car with an airbag to use in a 
demonstration on the White House lawn. But today that number stands at 
40 million. And as we all now know, airbags save lives and prevent 
crippling, disabling injuries. At that time, in 1984, there was only a 
14 percent usage rate for seatbelts, and there was not one single State 
seatbelt law in the United States.
  Our regulation 208 helped change all of that. Today, 49 States and 
the District of Columbia have seatbelt laws. As of 1998, the national 
seatbelt use rate was 69 percent. Some States, such as my home State of 
North Carolina, have a use rate of over 80 percent. It is estimated 
that 11,900 fatalities and 325,000 serious injuries are prevented each 
and every year due to usage. It is said that rule 208 literally changed 
the climate of highway safety in America.
  It was also a privilege back then to work with my friend, Senator 
Frank Lautenberg, to champion legislation encouraging States to raise 
their drinking age to 21, thereby helping to eliminate drunk driving 
and blood borders between our States.
  There are many safety provisions included within this bill. Funding 
is there to ensure that our secondary roads are safer, something that 
is vitally important to rural areas. Too often accidents occur on the 
small two-lane secondary roads, in many cases leaving death and 
destruction in their wake. The money in this bill will make those roads 
safer for our families and our children.
  There are also provisions for installing skid-resistant surfaces at 
intersections, traffic signal upgrades, and improvement in pedestrian 
and bicyclist safety. All of these are sorely needed. Safety on our 
roads must continue to be a priority.
  Madam President, it is imperative we act now to pass this critical 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. It is a win-win for 
all of our States, for businesses, and especially for the millions of 
Americans who rely on our transportation infrastructure each and every 
day.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, before the Senator from North 
Carolina leaves, I want to say we are very fortunate to have her 
expertise having served as Secretary of Transportation and in other 
capacities where she provided leadership. She has an understanding of 
transportation needs probably greater than any other single person in 
this Chamber. I thank her for her contributions here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I want to discuss a couple of amendments I 
intend to offer if the opportunity arises in the next couple of days.
  I thank the bill's managers, Senator Inhofe and the ranking member, 
Senator Jeffords, for standing up against what I believe are very 
misguided attempts to take a meat cleaver to this very important bill. 
It is terribly unfortunate that immediately following the most recent 
budget projections, which show enormous deficits for this year and for 
the years thereafter, the very first legislation that comes to the 
floor is this one that provides transportation funding for the next 6 
years.
  This is not, I urge my colleagues, the place to economize. To do so 
in this bill would be penny wise and pound idiotic. It would be kind of 
like a person who was told by his doctor he has to lose weight and he 
decides to eliminate fruits and vegetables. These are public 
investments in our Nation's highways, bridges, rail lines, and mass 
transit systems. They are critical to our social and economic 
vitality--moving products quickly to market; moving people swiftly, 
smoothly, and safely to jobs, schools, and family activities, and then 
back home again. These are critical investments in the future of our 
country. They are termed capital investments, which means they are 
projects which themselves generate future wealth.
  People say we ought to operate Government more like a business, and I 
agree. They should recognize that successful businesses regularly go 
into debt to finance their capital projects. Building new plants, 
expanding or modernizing existing facilities are good and necessary 
reasons to incur debt.
  Most State and local governments also issue debt--public bonds to 
finance their capital projects. They use current receipts for ongoing 
operations or consumption. In the Federal Government, we are doing the 
opposite. We are going seriously into debt to pay for current programs 
and consumption and treating our capital improvement budget, such as 
this transportation bill, as if it were the same program spending. It 
is not.
  Bankers and brokers understand that difference. Homeowners, farmers, 
and business owners understand that difference. State government 
officials understand that difference. Why can't this administration and 
Congress understand that difference?
  That understanding is important because this is a bill where we need 
to think bigger, not smaller. Unless my colleagues' States are in very 
different conditions, and their highways, bridges, rail lines, mass 
transit systems are in much better shape than my State of Minnesota's, 
then they have the same critical shortage of funding as Minnesota.
  In my State, the conditions and capacities of our highways and other 
public infrastructure have been declining over the last decade, and 
they are going to continue to do so without this additional infusion of 
Federal money. Our State and local governments simply do not have, and 
they are not going to have in the future, the increasing amounts of 
funding necessary to keep up with or catch up with growing populations 
and increased usage. It is only here in the Federal Government that we 
have the resources--at least we did until a couple years ago, before 
the budget surpluses were turned into deficits. But even now, we still 
have the resources, though not to do everything. It comes down to what 
are our priorities. What and who do we consider most important?
  The President has made his priorities very clear. He has made making 
the 2001 and 2003 tax rates permanent the centerpiece of his budget and 
his economic recovery strategy. If so, we are going to be waiting quite 
a while for that recovery because the President's proposal won't even 
take effect until the expiration dates for the change now already in 
place; and for the 2001 tax bill items, that will be the year 2010. For 
the 2003 items, most of those won't be extended until the years 2006, 
2007, and beyond.
  This bill before us today is the best economic stimulus bill and jobs 
creation bill possible for right now--not 2006 or 2010, but right now--
in Minnesota and across America, which is why the funding level for 
this bill ought to be increased, not decreased.
  I had an amendment I would like to offer--although it flies in the 
face of reality--to double the amount of Federal funding that was 
provided 6 years ago, which was $218 billion, to increase that to $436 
billion. That contrasts with the Senate bill now of $311 billion and 
the House bill of $375 billion, although I would not increase the 
amount by increasing the gasoline tax as is being proposed in the 
House. I would fund mine through the general fund, dedicate the 
revenues from the highway trust fund into the purposes they are being 
used for, but not use that as a ceiling for funding the necessary 
public infrastructure. That would be a business such as Target 
Corporation deciding the number of new

[[Page 1715]]

stores it is going to build in the next few years is going to be a 
function of some formula, such as the percentage or revenues from socks 
or shorts that are being sold; and if somebody, for fashion reasons, 
decides they are going to go sockless for a year, that number goes down 
and so does the investment in new stores go down. No sensible business 
would make future investment decisions based on this kind of formula 
and be dictated by that result.
  In this case, as well, we should be deciding as a body, with the 
House and the administration, what level of public investment we need 
to make in highways and mass transit systems over the next 6 years--
make that decision based on the needs and then decide how we are going 
to fund it.
  Again, we do these things backward here and, as a result, we don't 
make the commitment that will pay off for this Nation if we do it, and 
we will sacrifice the future of our highways and airports and rail 
lines if we don't do it.
  While recognizing it is unlikely to be adopted by this Senate, 
especially in the face of the President's insistence that even the 
Senate number be reduced further--again, I salute Senator Inhofe and 
Senator Jeffords for standing resolutely in favor of this and being the 
fiscal conservatives they are. They recognize these are public 
investments that are vital, and to fail to make them would be--at least 
for Minnesota--virtually catastrophic. I thank the Chairman and ranking 
member for their steadfastness in supporting this and the level of 
commitment it makes.
  I also am proud to be a cosponsor of the Build America Bonds Act, 
which is being sponsored by Senator Talent of Missouri and Senator 
Wyden of Oregon, because if we are not going to use public dollars 
directly for these projects, then another way to finance them would be 
for the Federal Government to issue bonds and provide tax credits to 
those who purchase the bonds.
  The proposal made by Senators Talent and Wyden would issue another 
$50 billion of Federal bonds that would be then used throughout the 
States to advance these projects. If we are not going to use general 
revenue dollars or highway trust fund dollars sufficiently to meet the 
needs, then we ought to incorporate bonding in addition to what is 
being funded elsewhere.
  I also thank Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee, for his initiative in the legislation for correcting what is 
essentially a penalty to those States, such as Iowa and Minnesota, that 
have been using ethanol as part of their fuel.
  In Minnesota, we have had for the last 8 years a requirement that 10 
percent of every gallon of gasoline sold in our State be comprised of 
ethanol. Right now, nationwide it is less than 2-percent ethanol in 
proportion to gasoline. If you listen to some of my colleagues, they 
would have you believe the use of ethanol is going to drive prices for 
gasoline or its substitute through the roof when, in fact, the opposite 
is true.
  I use in my car in Minnesota with a slight engine modification made 
by the manufacturer, a Ford Explorer, a fuel that consists of 85-
percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline. That is 20 cents a gallon 
cheaper in southern Minnesota than regular unleaded. It runs just as 
well. The vehicle performs just as well.
  If we want to reduce the $115 billion a year we send overseas to pay 
for the foreign oil we import, there is no more readily available way 
to do that than to increase the use of ethanol. I regret, because of 
some of the opposition to that, that Senator Frist's and Senator 
Daschle's amendment to increase the use of ethanol over the next decade 
in this country by a very modest amount is not going to be offered as 
an amendment to this legislation. Hopefully, it can be considered by 
the Senate and passed as a separate measure in the very near future.
  The use of ethanol in the current formula penalizes States for that 
consumption. Again, I thank Senator Grassley and also the ranking 
member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for their 
initiative. It is going to be vital from my standpoint that the measure 
passing the Senate and the conference report include that correction.
  I also will have two amendments I hope I will have the opportunity to 
offer. One is a rural roads safety amendment which I developed with the 
support of the National Association of Counties. It will provide 
additional funding. The amendment itself calls for $1 billion a year 
over the 6-year lifespan of this bill. This would be additional funding 
to provide for programs to improve the safety of our rural roads across 
the country.
  More than 25,000 people die each year on our rural roads system. It 
is a fatality rate that is 2\1/2\ times greater than that for urban 
highways. In fact, it is the highest rate of fatalities per vehicle 
mile for any type of transportation in this country.
  Despite this need on some 840,000 miles of rural two-lane roads, 
funding directed from this bill in the past has provided very little 
direct assistance to rural communities which, in my State at least, 
have the least capacity to undertake these expensive projects.
  This funding would provide for improving roadway alignments, 
eliminating wheel way rutting, including skid resistance, widening 
lanes and shoulders, installing dedicated turn lanes--whatever the 
State and particularly the county and local units of government decide 
are in their best interest.
  It is also being introduced in the House by Representative Bob Ney 
who is the chairman of the House Administration Committee. I hope it 
will receive favorable consideration in the next few hours.
  The other amendment I would like to offer is a mandate for the 
Federal vehicle fleet to use either 10-percent ethanol-blended gasoline 
or biodiesel fuel, 2 percent or more where it is available and where it 
is at a generally competitive price. The amendment would apply to some 
650,000 Federal vehicles everywhere except for the Department of 
Defense and the military, and it provides the opportunity for the 
Federal Government to take the leadership in encouraging the use of 
ethanol and biodiesel fuels by its own practices.
  These are, as I said earlier, fuels that will add to our rural 
economic recovery to increase the prices of commodities, such as corn 
and soybeans, in the marketplace which raises profits for farmers and 
lowers subsidy costs for taxpayers. They are cleaner burning fuels than 
oil-derived fuels, and they put money in the pockets of Americans 
rather than foreigners.
  This amendment, as well, I hope, will be considered favorably by this 
body. It is not going to increase costs. In fact, if anything, based on 
my experience with ethanol, it is going to lower costs, and it is going 
to provide a real boost to the rural economy of America.
  In closing, I wish to say again that this legislation is crucial for 
Minnesota. It is crucial for our Nation. That is why tomorrow I am 
going to vote in favor of the cloture motion to proceed to this measure 
and move to pass it in the Senate. Hopefully, the House will follow 
suit as well so we can get this bill passed and signed by the President 
and into effect and get this money to the States where it can be well 
used and be an economic stimulus and provide jobs.
  I hope during the course of that consideration I will have an 
opportunity to offer these amendments.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to take an opportunity to respond to 
some of the statements made by the distinguished junior Senator from 
Arizona, my friend Mr. Kyl. I have the greatest respect for him. He is 
a neighbor of the State of Nevada. We have worked well together in many 
different areas, but his statement regarding this highway bill is 
simply off base.
  I respectfully suggest that maybe we should understand that there are 
three separate but equal branches of Government. We have a 
responsibility in the legislative branch of Government to do what we 
think is right for the people of our respective States. I think we have 
done as well as we can do for the people of this country.
  The Presiding Officer has been a Governor of 1 of our 50 sovereign 
States. I

[[Page 1716]]

think he would--I have not spoken with him--have recognized during his 
tenure as Governor how very important the highway programs were in the 
State of Tennessee.
  In this legislation that is now before this body, the State of 
Tennessee is going to do extremely well with this bill. The State of 
Tennessee, which has been a State that has given far more than it has 
taken in--that is, in the State of Tennessee, for every dollar paid 
into that fund, the people of Tennessee have contributed 10 cents out 
of every dollar to the rest of the country. The people of Tennessee 
have not gotten what some think is a fair shake in this legislation.
  There was an effort to bring every State, including the State of 
Tennessee, to 95 cents in this bill. The State of Tennessee, rather 
than getting the 90 cents on the dollar previous to this bill being 
enacted, will get an average of 94.25 cents for every year this bill is 
in effect, and, in the final year, it will get 95 percent. That is a 
tremendous boon to the State of Tennessee.
  We have done that for every State in the Union that in the past was 
paying into the trust fund far more than they were getting.
  The State of Arizona also gets 95 cents on the dollar. My friend, the 
Senator from the State of Arizona, is complaining because we don't do 
it fast enough.
  I want everyone to know how very difficult it was to get a formula 
that would bring every State up to 95 percent at the end of this sixth 
year. It was extremely difficult. So I would respectfully suggest to my 
friend from Arizona he should be complimenting us rather than saying he 
does not like what we have. In years past, we would not worry about the 
State of Arizona and the State of Tennessee. What we would do was see 
if we had the votes and just roll over everybody. That was how we used 
to do this. This is my fourth bill. That was how we used to do things, 
but we are not doing that this year. We are trying to be fair.
  Rather than being critical of what we have done to bring everyone up 
to 95 percent by saying we did not do it soon enough, we should be 
complimented. Frankly, we could do this bill without the States of 
Arizona and Tennessee. We could do without those four votes. But we 
decided to be fair and to do everything we could to allow a minimum at 
the end of this year.
  So I repeat for the third time, rather than being castigated for not 
bringing up the 95 percent sooner, I think the people of the State of 
Arizona--I know the people in the Department of Transportation--are 
happy with what they have. This is going to be a wonderful thing for 
the State of Arizona.
  I really do not recognize tears shed by a State that is growing 
rapidly. The State of Nevada beats all States. We have grown more 
rapidly in the last 14 years than any State in the Union. We hold the 
record. We are the fastest growing State in the Union. So when someone 
says they are a rapidly growing State and should be treated 
differently, we also understand what it means to grow fast. We believe 
we have treated Arizona very fairly.
  This is probably more difficult for someone in the majority to say 
but it is not hard for me to say: I dare the President to veto this 
bill. He is not going to veto this bill. This letter we have, this 
statement of administration policy, comes to us all kinds of times on 
various types of legislation. President Clinton sent us threats. 
President Bush sends us threats. That is what they are. The President 
will not veto the biggest jobs bill during his entire 4 years in 
office. He is not going to do it. I do not care if it is the number we 
have in this bill or the one Chairman Young from the House wants. He 
wants $270 billion. Ours is $255 billion. This bill will not be vetoed 
by President Bush, and my colleagues can take that to the bank.
  My friend from Arizona also says he is disturbed that because we got 
the money for this bill, he wants to make sure the World Trade 
Organization does not punish us. I wish they would punish us and kick 
us out of the World Trade Organization. I do not want to be part of the 
World Trade Organization. So that does not sell too well with me.
  So I repeat, States have been treated very fairly in this bill. We 
are going to be able to invoke cloture on this bill because it is the 
right thing to do.
  I understand the legislative process. We are going to pass a bill; 
the House, in their wisdom, will pass a bill; and it will go to 
conference. We will try to prevail in what we want. The House will try 
to prevail in what they want. When they are invited, which I am sure 
will be often, the administration will be expressing their views at the 
conference. Then we will have a bill and it will be sent to the 
President's desk. That is how the process works.
  It is way too early to be threatening a veto. This is done lots of 
times. I do not think anyone should be quaking in their boots over a 
statement of administration policy. They probably have a stack of these 
statements of administration policy left over from the Clinton 
Presidency that is that high. They just peel these out on probably two-
thirds of the bills we have.
  I have been around for awhile. I am not impressed with this statement 
of administration policy because the administration knows, everybody in 
this body knows, that this is one step, but an extremely important 
step, in a very long effort to get this bill to the President's desk. 
We will get it to the President's desk. It will not be easy, but what 
has been accomplished has been very important to the process.
  As I said earlier, this bill should be a picture for the American 
people. We are working in the Senate in a bipartisan fashion to produce 
a bill that is good for the American people. It is a bill that I have 
said before is imperfect. It is not perfect. It is difficult to do.
  This is the bill. I can hardly lift it. I guess that shows how weak I 
am, but it is still a pile of paper. This stack of it is the highway 
portion of it. Another stack of it is the transit portion of the bill, 
and then the finance portion. This has been a year in the making. It 
has been extremely difficult to do.
  For someone to come to the floor and say what we need to do now is 
have a 1-year extension--I do not think so. In the process, we would 
lose hundreds of thousands of jobs by extending this a year. The 
Presiding Officer knows that the planning department and the 
departments of transportation for every State in the Union have to do 
multiyear planning. There cannot be a transportation system in a State 
on a year-to-year basis. Some of these projects take years to complete, 
and if we stall for another year, it is going to make the projects more 
expensive. They will cost more money, not less money.
  So I understand that my friend from Arizona comes here all the time 
as a spokesperson for the administration. He does it on lots of issues. 
I respect his being someone who answers the beck and call of the 
administration. He is here on so many different issues spouting what 
the administration wants, but we are legislators and we will get to the 
White House, the administration, in due time to work this out.
  I repeat, we are a separate but equal branch of Government and this 
is not the time for the President--rather, the President's people; I 
should not use his name--to be waving all of these threats.
  My friend from Arizona talks about these deficits. Well, my 
colleagues have heard us on this side talk about why we think the 
deficits are there, but in this legislation we have not talked about 
all the bad things and all the negative things that we believe the 
majority party is doing and the majority has not talked about all the 
bad things they think we are doing. This has been a bipartisan rush to 
score a touchdown and take this bill to the House and see what they do 
to respond.
  I hope they can do it quickly, and I am confident they will. They can 
usually move things much more quickly than we can and then we work out 
a process to work out the differences between the House and the Senate 
and move this thing to the White House. It can be done and it really 
has to be done; we have no choice. This transportation bill is 
important for the American people. As the Senator from Mississippi, the 
distinguished former majority leader and minority leader, Mr.

[[Page 1717]]

Lott, said on this floor this week, there will not be more important 
legislation we deal with this entire year than this legislation. This 
is the most important thing we are going to deal with, and I agree with 
the junior Senator from Mississippi, this is the most important 
legislation we have to deal with.
  I compliment and applaud the chairman of the committee, the ranking 
member of the committee, my counterpart, the chairman of the 
subcommittee. We have worked well together. I think we have set an 
example for what the Senate should be, could be, and I hope will be in 
the future.
  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. GRAHAM of Florida. 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. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, in response to the threat to 
end the debate on the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act of 2003--the acronym is SAFETEA--I rise in 
opposition to cloture on this legislation. I do so for several reasons.
  First, I believe strongly that increasing investment in our Nation's 
infrastructure--our transportation system, our water and sewer systems, 
our electric grids, our crumbling schools--is critical to our Nation's 
future well-being. Today, we are debating one of the keystones of that 
investment--transportation, highways, public transit, and rail.
  Transportation is an integral part of everyone's daily life. It is an 
integral part of America's current and future economic well-being. 
Federal investments in transportation infrastructure increase our 
economic vitality and our international competitiveness.
  I believe the key question for the foreseeable future of America is 
how we maintain America's standard of living while at the same time 
competing in a global marketplace where lowest unit cost of production 
is the holy grail. That is going to be a significant challenge to our 
generation and to future generations of Americans.
  I don't think there is any easy answer, but I believe the answer 
begins with an investment in three things:
  No. 1 is innovation. America must continue to be the leading edge on 
whatever the next wave of technological progress will be in this world.
  No. 2, we must have the best educated citizenry in the world so that 
they in turn can be the most efficient.
  No. 3, we must invest in our infrastructure, not just because it 
contributes to our daily quality of life but because it is a critical 
factor in our productivity and ability to compete in the world.
  We are having a big controversy now over what the elements of 
America's long-term economic future are. We have people saying 
outsourcing jobs is going to be the key to our economic success. We 
have others who say various forms of tax policy. They, in my opinion, 
miss the point. We have to invest in those things that will make us 
more productive, and infrastructure is one of the keys to that 
progress.
  I think there are three factors by which you evaluate the legislation 
that is before us:
  No. 1, increasing Federal investment in infrastructure to avoid a 
further decline in the highway network and to reduce congestion.
  No. 2, assuring that users pay for the highway system to avoid 
additions to America's burgeoning deficit.
  No. 3, greater fairness among the States.
  I am concerned that SAFETEA will shortchange the American people on 
all three factors.
  First, what should be the goal of transportation funding? From a 
number of the speeches I have heard on the Senate floor and in 
committees, it appears as if the debate is over numbers. The President 
said he will veto any bill that exceeds his proposal of $206 billion 
for highways over the next 6 years. Senator Inhofe, chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, said cutting funding below the 
$255 billion level for highways would place the allocation of funds 
among the States in jeopardy. Congressman Don Young, chairman of the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is advocating a 
level of $300 billion over the next 6 years for highways.
  What I think is missing in all of these pronouncements is an 
evaluation of what these numbers mean to the condition of America's 
highways over the 6-year life of this legislation.
  When the Transportation Act for the 21st Century--TEA-21--was 
approved in 1998, I stood on this floor and predicted that when the 
bill expired in 2003, our Nation's transportation system would be in 
worse physical condition and with a higher level of congestion than on 
the day we passed the bill. That prediction has, unfortunately, come to 
pass.
  According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Conditions and 
Performance Report, capital investment by all levels of government 
between 1997 and 2000 remained below the cost to even maintain the 
system we currently have. The result? Overall performance of the system 
declined.
  Since the passage of TEA-21, the highway system has degraded by 6 
percent. Twenty-three percent of the highways in the Nation's urban 
areas are now considered ``unacceptable'' by the standards of U.S. 
Department of Transportation. Twenty-nine percent of the Nation's 
bridges are considered structurally deficient or in a deteriorating 
condition.
  Additionally, according to the annual congestion study by the Texas 
Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University, the agency to which 
the U.S. Department of Transportation looks for the evaluation of 
congestion, the average commute delay in urban areas has increased by 
14.3 percent since 1998. This means the commute that used to take 25 
minutes in 1998 will now add an extra 2 hours per month to the commute 
of the average American.
  I will make the same prediction today that I made in 1998; that is, 
if the Senate adopts the funding levels currently in this bill, our 
Nation's highways will be in worse physical condition, with increased 
congestion, by the end of this authorization in the year 2009 than it 
is today, February 11, 2004.
  The failure to address these conditions in the past has created the 
situation we must address in the future. By the U.S. Department of 
Transportation estimate, by the year 2009 we will face an additional 
$400 billion in infrastructure backlog and congestion costs will 
balloon to over $90 billion. We are not even able to maintain the 
current quality of our roads under the SAFETEA authorization level.
  In order to maintain the highway system in its current level of 
fiscal condition and without increasing congestion, the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates 
that investment of $92 billion a year by Federal, State, and local 
governments, close to $300 billion of that Federal, will be required 
over each of the next 6 years. In addition, our problem is compounded 
by the distinguished majority leader's statement yesterday that 
SAFETEA, already inadequate, must be trimmed to avoid a Presidential 
veto.
  We are now at a point of decision. Are we prepared to tell the 
American people we are willing to accept a further deterioration of our 
highways and bridges and increased congestion? If we have the same 
experience over the next 6 years that our highway system has 
experienced in the last 6 years, we will see a degradation from 1998 to 
2009 of approximately 12 percent and a commute delay will increase 30 
percent.
  Is this an acceptable result for the safety, the quality of life, and 
the economic expectations of the American people? In my judgment, the 
answer is clear. The answer is no.
  The President supports an even more accelerated rate of decline in 
the conditions and congestions of our highway system than SAFETEA. He 
has insisted that the highway portion of SAFETEA be funded at $206 
billion, roughly 65 percent of what is required just to maintain our 
highway systems at their current levels. We must do more. We

[[Page 1718]]

cannot continue to ignore the problem and allow a critical component in 
our quality of life and our economic future to deteriorate.
  I have a second concern. As I stated, a fundamental principle is 
users should pay for the use they get of our transportation system. 
That has been a principle throughout our Nation's history, particularly 
when we launched the Interstate Highway System. President Eisenhower 
increased the Federal motor fuels tax in order to be able to finance 
the Interstate Highway System, not leave it as a burden for our 
children and grandchildren and we, this generation of Americans, are 
the beneficiary of that wise judgment.
  During the Finance Committee consideration of SAFETEA last week, I 
discussed the option of raising the Federal motor fuel user fees to 
fund the bill at the level needed to maintain current conditions. Many 
of my colleagues were not comfortable with the idea of increased fees, 
raising the Federal user fee just 3.7 cents per gallon. That is what we 
would be required if it were indexed for inflation to fully fund a 
Federal program of the $300 billion over the next 6 years, which is 
required to at least maintain the status quo in the quality of our 
highways.
  Again, President Bush has made it very clear he will not support any 
highway bill that is financed by an increase in user fees, by bonding, 
or by funding from the general fund. I am sorry to hear the President 
neither supports funding the Nation's infrastructure at the levels 
recommended by his own Department of Transportation, nor does he 
support the principle that the users of the system should support the 
levels of investment needed to maintain and improve our highways.
  If we are not willing to fund the SAFETEA bill at the appropriate 
level to maintain their current condition and reduce or maintain the 
current levels of congestion--to do as the first principle of a 
physician ``do no harm,'' to the system--if we are unwilling to do 
that, maybe we should not be considering a 6-year bill at all. Instead, 
the Senate should work on a 1-year extension of the current program 
with a commitment to work on a more substantial long-term bill next 
year after the Presidential elections.
  We are not willing to raise fees on those who use our highways but 
instead have approved ``offsets'' for the spending in SAFETEA. But many 
questions about how the deficit will be affected as a result of these 
offsets remain. Last week, the Finance Committee equalized losses to 
the general fund by using offsets from what already had been used. For 
example, $22.3 billion worth of already committed tax changes. One 
offset used is a crackdown on corporate tax shelters, a policy that I 
have long supported. However, this offset has already been used in two 
other pieces of legislation approved by the committee and awaiting 
final action by the Congress--the charitable giving or CARE Act and the 
JOBS Act, which is our response to the WTO abolition of our current 
means of financing international transactions and other tax provisions, 
such as ending the tax bills that come with incorporating in other 
countries to avoid paying taxes, eliminating tax benefits for 
individuals who expatriate for tax reasons, and closing tax loopholes 
uncovered as a result of the Enron scandal again. But, again, these 
were the provisions that have already been used to fund other 
legislation.
  The fiscal imprudence does not end with using offsets that have 
already been previously used. The bill also employs a gimmick of 
requiring corporations to pay their 2009 taxes in order to make it 
appear in the year 2008 we have raised a sufficient amount of revenue 
over the 6-year period of the bill. Obviously, the consequences are we 
will start the next 6 years in the hole because we used money through 
an accounting gimmick to make it appear as if it were revenue within 
this 6-year cycle.
  These overpaid corporate taxes will ultimately be refunded, however, 
meaning we do not really offset the cost of the bill over the period 
that the highway spending occurs. This is shady bookkeeping, 
reminiscent of the procedures that this body worked so hard in the 
recent past to reform in the private sector.
  Is it fair to offset the spending in this bill with already used 
revenue raisers or accounting gimmicks? It is duplicative at least, 
irresponsible at worst. We must legitimately pay for this bill.
  Third, I have fought for many years to create a funding structure 
that is based on equity, on providing States that face the highest 
level of need with their fair share of Federal funds. This bill has a 
fatal flaw. It creates a formula for highway funding that has 
absolutely no solid basis in rationale public policy.
  In my State of Florida, traffic delays cost the average motorist in 
our eight largest cities $485 per year in lost time and fuel. By the 
year 2020, Florida will add about 6 million new residents, doubling its 
international trade, and welcome more than 100 million tourists per 
year. This additional growth will multiply congestion and delay 
tremendously.
  This is only a snapshot of the growing problems in my State and not 
an uncommon story for many States in the South and West.
  Over the past 15 years, America's population has grown by 18 percent. 
Florida's population has grown at twice that rate, 39 percent. Vehicle 
miles traveled, a good measure of the use of our highway system, has 
grown by 48 percent nationally but 90 percent in Florida. Lane miles, a 
measure of the extent of the system, have grown less than 10 percent 
nationally over the last decade, and only 11 percent in Florida in the 
face of a 90-percent growth in the use of our highway system.
  High growth States all face similar circumstances. In 1982, just 10 
of the 25 most congested areas pursuant to the Telecommunications 
Transportation Institute study were located in high-growth areas such 
as Maryland, Colorado, Texas, Arizona, California, and Florida. Today, 
15 of the most congested areas in the Nation are in those States. But 
the funding formula we are considering has failed to catch up with this 
reality.
  Under SAFETEA, these growth States are continuing to receive the 
lowest level of return on contributions to the highway fund, despite 
their obvious and growing needs.
  This bill attempts to get these States to 95 percent by providing 
what is referred to as an equity bonus. But the equity bonus, 
unfortunately, does not cover all the funds available for distribution. 
And it will keep our State at the TEA-21 level return of 90.5 cents for 
every dollar sent to the Federal motor fuels trust fund until the year 
2009.
  Most important, however, is this entire concept assures that an 
unfair scheme will remain in place. All States should be guaranteed 
equal treatment with a formula that incorporates a yearly increase in 
the rate of return or the glidepath to get all States to a 95-percent 
return on the amount of funds they send to the motor fuel tax by 2009.
  The bill we voted out of committee was significantly different from 
the bill we will vote on here on the Senate floor. The pending 
committee amendment exceeds 1,300 pages and includes significant 
changes from the status of the bill as it left the committees. This 
means the formulas which have been circulated by the committees of 
jurisdiction at the start of the debate no longer reflect the state of 
the bill.
  For example, what effect will the Finance Committee's actions have on 
State-by-State allocations? A provision approved by the Finance 
Committee to change the way gasohol is taxed will change each State's 
contribution levels to the highway trust fund.
  Will any of the amendments accepted by the managers of the bill 
affect the equity bonus, diluting the rate of return to our States?
  This seems to be part of a disturbing trend in this body. Whether it 
is the energy bill, the prescription drug bill, or now it seems the 
transportation bill, there is a tendency to pass things now and ask the 
tough questions later. That practice is unacceptable in the world's 
greatest deliberative body.

[[Page 1719]]

  Before the vote on cloture on SAFETEA, the Senate should be honest 
about what SAFETEA will do. One, it will guarantee our roads, bridges, 
and transit systems will be in worse shape in 2009 than they are today. 
Is that acceptable? It will increase the size of the Federal deficit. 
Is that acceptable? It will ensure that States will not receive their 
fair share of Federal highway funding. Is that acceptable? The answer 
is no.
  Are Members of the Senate comfortable moving forward and approving a 
bill this week with open questions about how the formulas work, at what 
level the bill will be funded, and how any changes made here on the 
Senate floor will affect the ``delicate balance'' as described by the 
chairman? I am not satisfied. For these reasons, I will oppose cloture.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 2311

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of 
Senators Cantwell and Kennedy's amendment to reinstate and extend the 
Federal unemployment insurance program. This measure would provide 6 
additional months of financial assistance to thousands of West 
Virginians and millions of Americans who have exhausted their regular 
state-funded benefits. This support is desperately needed and deserves 
immediate attention.
  The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program 
expired on December 31, 2003. In response to a slowdown in the American 
economy, Congress created this program in March 2002 to provide 
federally-funded unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed who 
want to work, and who are looking for work, but are unable to find 
employment in the current economic climate. As all of my colleagues are 
aware, Congress extended the program twice, in January and May of 2003 
respectively, because jobs remained scarce and new ones were not being 
created. Now, with millions of our constituents still looking for work 
and with 90,000 workers exhausting their State-funded benefits each 
week millions of Americans need our help once again.
  Over the past two years our economy has suffered through a difficult 
recession. Recently, however, according to some economic indicators, it 
does appear to be turning the corner. At least the data indicates we 
are poised to return to better and improved economic output from years 
past. This is some encouraging news, but it is long overdue. Despite 
strong economic growth over the last two quarters of 2003 and a surge 
in the financial markets, jobs continue to be hard to find. At this 
time, there is merely one job opening for every three out of work 
Americans. This is totally unacceptable. We cannot merely continue to 
muddle through a ``jobless recovery''--we must get the unemployed the 
relief they need.
  Those who oppose extending emergency unemployment insurance have also 
argued that recent improvements in the economy and the labor market 
demonstrate that the program is no longer needed. How can the 
administration tout upward trends as a major economic turnaround when 
so many Americans are still struggling so hard just to make ends meet? 
The White House claims that jobs are one of the administration's 
primary concerns. Yet, I am troubled that the White House has been 
conspicuously silent about unemployment insurance, which has been 
proven to boost economic output. It has been reported that continuing 
the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program would 
be the single best mechanism to boost the economy, giving the economy a 
$1.73 jolt for each $1 of Federal benefits. Unemployment insurance 
benefits are excellent stimulus because they aid people who are likely 
to spend additional resources immediately.
  Opponents to the extension cite a drop in the national unemployment 
rate, among other improvements in the economy, to justify phasing out 
this program that serves as the final safety net for workers across the 
country. It is true that the Nation's unemployment rate has dropped, 
albeit minimally, over the past few months. But it is clear that these 
numbers are misleading. A closer look at the numbers reveals that 
thousands of Americans are so frustrated they actually gave up looking 
for work altogether and dropped out of the labor market. Nearly 15 
million Americans are out of work and the number of long-term 
unemployed remains enormously high, at almost 2 million. Constituents 
in my home State of West Virginia have been particularly vocal about 
the seriousness of this situation. In January, nearly 1,200 West 
Virginians exhausted their State-funded benefits. That number will jump 
to nearly 7,000 over the next 6 months. If we pass this amendment, more 
than 8,000 of my constituents would get the help they need and deserve.
  My offices are taking calls from West Virginians who need such help. 
One example is a woman who lost her job due to company layoffs. She 
decided to return to school so that she could learn new skills and 
reenter the workforce better prepared for an uncertain future. My 
constituent was depending on the TUEC benefit to help finance her 
education. Without extending these benefits, how will she make ends 
meet until she finishes her training? I believe that it's a matter of 
this administration's priorities. And I very much worry we do not have 
our priorities straight.
  Lack of jobs is the primary culprit. But what is equally troubling is 
that there is a clear shift of jobs from high-paying industries to 
lower-paying sectors. This fundamental change in the job market was 
precipitated by a variety of factors. But simply replacing a good, 
secure, and well-paying position that includes health insurance and 
pension benefits with a minimum wage job just doesn't cut it. And 
sadly, it appears as if this administration is content to tout the 
creation of new low-paying jobs as stimulus, comparable to the 2.6 
million manufacturing jobs that were lost since this President took 
office. West Virginia alone has lost about 9,800 manufacturing jobs 
over the last few years.
  Congress must recognize the urgency of this problem. We must move 
quickly to reinstate this program, not only to assist the unemployed, 
but also because in doing so we will provide our home states with 
additional resources that will immediately infuse economies across the 
country with more spending power.
  We can afford to help our fellow Americans. Every worker contributes 
to the Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds so that in times of need 
benefits are available. Failure to act would send a very negative 
message to the large number of Americans struggling to make their way 
in this difficult job climate. Not extending benefits is harsh on the 
unemployed and their families.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, for working families in the State of 
Connecticut and across the country, these are hard economic times. 
Millions have lost their jobs, and millions more fear they might lose 
theirs soon. Outsourcing American service jobs overseas, as the 
President's economic advisors suggest, would only add to the 
unemployment rolls and to growing anxieties. What American needs is not 
a plan for creating jobs abroad, but a plan for creating jobs here at 
home.
  Nearly all sectors have been affected by the national economy's 
sluggish performance during the past 3 years, with job losses across 
the board. The manufacturing sectors has been hit particularly hard. In 
the State of Connecticut, nearly 26,400 manufacturing jobs have been 
cut in the past 38 months, and 33,500 since January 2001. Most of these 
jobs have gone overseas.
  In addition to manufacturing job loss, services and high-tech jobs 
are also being sourced outside the United States--to lower cost, lower 
wage countries. The employment trends in this sector are harder to 
quantify, but the impact is no less real. They threaten to put U.S. 
technological competitiveness and future economic growth at risk.
  The Bush administration has done next to nothing to stop this 
hemorrhaging--relying instead on factory photo-ops, toothless trade 
missions and new organizational charts. The latest comment from 
President Bush's top economic advisers that the outsourcing of U.S. 
service jobs to workers overseas

[[Page 1720]]

is good for the Nation's economy only underscores the administration's 
lack of understanding and leadership on this issue.
  Instead of policies that shift jobs overseas, we need to create jobs 
in this country. We need to strengthen enforcement of trade agreements; 
provide tax credits to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States; 
promote innovation through Federal research and development policy; 
leverage Federal purchasing power; create tax incentives for investment 
in manufacturing modernization and expansion; and strengthen 
manufacturing and service workers' skills.
  Today I join my Senate colleagues in sponsoring a resolution that 
tells President Bush--loudly and clearly--we will oppose efforts to 
encourage the outsourcing of American jobs overseas and instead provide 
a manufacturing tax incentive to encourage job creation in the United 
States.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support for S. 1072, 
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act, the Senate version of the highway bill, also known as SAFETEA.
  Few things that we in Congress do this year will have as great of an 
impact on our fellow citizens as enacting a 6-year successor to the 
1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. Simply 
put, enacting a highway bill this year will create jobs, reduce 
congestion and cut down on highway fatalities in every city and town 
across the country.
  Debate on this bill is long overdue, as TEA-21 originally expired on 
September 30, 2003, and thus it has been necessary to extend these 
programs until the end of February. The primary reason for this delay 
was that the Senate was unable to come to an agreement on how to raise 
the necessary revenue to provide the $311 billion in funding for 
highways and transit over 6 years that 79 Senators--myself included--
voted for as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.
  As such, I was pleased to have been able to support, as a member of 
the Senate Finance Committee, a revenue package that I feel will break 
the logjam on this issue and allow us to move forward on enacting a 
comprehensive, 6 year surface transportation bill this year. The 
Finance Committee bill, which was adopted on February 2 by a vote of 17 
to 4, generates the Senate 6-year funding level without raising the 
Federal gasoline tax, resorting to tax-credit bonds or negatively 
impacting the general fund.
  Like many of my colleagues, I would have serious concerns about any 
financing proposals that would raise taxes on American consumers and 
small businesses, or that would require massive general fund transfers 
for transportation programs. I commend Chairman Grassley and Senator 
Baucus for navigating through these challenges on highway financing and 
increasing the likelihood that Congress will get the job done this 
year.
  We have a big job to do in a small amount of time. It is critically 
important to our State Departments of Transportation that we enact a 6-
year bill as soon as possible. States are clamoring for a comprehensive 
highway bill because, in addition to the funding they stand to get, a 
full reauthorization allows them to plan for the future. Without such a 
long-term bill, major projects--including many in my home State--simply 
cannot go forward. It is regrettable that Congress did not complete its 
work in 2003 by reauthorizing these programs. Thus, we must seize this 
opportunity and fulfill our duty now--another 6-month delay is simply 
not acceptable.
  As we debate the appropriate level of spending in this bill, let us 
not lose sight of the fact that our country's transportation funding 
needs are simply staggering. If we want to start improving--let alone 
maintaining--the current system of highways, bridges, and transit 
infrastructure in this country, overall Federal surface transportation 
spending must reach at least $75 billion annually by fiscal year 2009, 
according to a 2002 Department of Transportation's, DOT, Conditions and 
Performance report. The bill before us today provides $255 billion for 
highways and $56.5 billion transit over six years. To put those numbers 
into context, they translate into an average annual Federal investment 
of $51.8 billion per year through 2009 under SAFETEA--still far short 
of the figured cited by DOT needed to improve our country's 
transportation infrastructure.
  While the DOT's 2002 report gives us an idea of the funding levels 
needed nationwide to enhance our transportation system, I wanted to 
speak for a moment on the funding needs of my home State of Maine. The 
Maine highway system is the most important facet of a transportation 
network that serves the largest State in the northeastern United 
States, and totals 22,612 road miles, which includes 367 miles of 
interstate highways. And as a State with an abundance of islands, 
rivers, lakes and streams, the State of Maine maintains an 
extraordinary number of bridges, including 3,564 highway bridges with 
at least a 10-foot span.
  Today, Maine's highway system is carrying an ever-growing volume of 
vehicles. Highway use has increased from about 7.5 billion vehicle 
miles in 1980 to more than 13 billion vehicle miles traveled, VMT, in 
2000. The Maine Department of Transportation's, MDOT, Twenty Year 
Transportation Plan projects that VMT will grow by 18 percent, to about 
16 billion VMT, by the year 2020.
  Put simply, the most pressing issue facing this extensive 
transportation system is its age. As MDOT's Twenty Year Plan puts it:

       Our most dramatic challenge is that our infrastructure is 
     aging. Roads, bridges . . . and other facilities that were 
     built decades ago are now reaching, or have surpassed, their 
     life expectancies. In many cases, this translates into the 
     reality that repairs and rehabilitation are no longer 
     appropriate; the time has come for many replacement and 
     reconstruction projects. This is especially true for a 
     significant number of major bridges around the State, some of 
     which offer the only practical and cost-effective method for 
     crossing rivers and other bodies of water.

  Given the challenges facing the State in maintaining its 
transportation infrastructure, and given that a good road system is 
absolutely critical to economic development and job creation in both 
rural and urban areas of Maine, I am pleased with the projected funding 
for Maine in the formula section of S. 1072. Over the 6-year life of 
the Senate bill, Maine will receive $1.169 billion in highway funding, 
an increase of $292 million, or 33.4 percent, from Maine's 1998 TEA-21 
funding. This funding increase is particularly critical when 
considering that during the last reauthorization in 1998, when the 
average State increase was 40 percent, Maine received only a 17 percent 
increase.
  I commend Chairmen Inhofe and Bond, and Senators Jeffords and Reid 
for their careful consideration and hard work on these formulas. In 
doing so, they have recognized that Maine, as the largest State in New 
England in terms of landmass, but with a relatively low population 
density, simply needs all the help it can get from the Federal 
Government with the costs of maintaining the national highway system.
  While I am certainly optimistic about the funding Maine will receive 
under the EPW Committee's proposed formulas, I also intend to fight for 
``high priority project'' funding for several Maine road and bridge 
projects that are in dire need of Federal support. These important 
projects include the replacement of the 72-year-old Waldo-Hancock 
Bridge over the Penobscot River; the Aroostook North-South Highway 
project to connect the northern part of my State with the terminus of 
I-95 at Houlton; an East-West Highway running from Calais, ME, to the 
New Hampshire border that will address the woeful state of east-west 
connectivity in Maine; and the Gorham bypass, a vital congestion 
mitigation project in southern Maine.
  While first-class roads are important for economic development, safe 
roads are just as essential to the quality of life of our citizens. As 
such, during the reauthorization process I intend to raise an issue of 
utmost importance to Maine: that of keeping heavy trucks off of our 
local roads. Safety must be the No. 1 priority on our roads and 
highways, and I have long been concerned

[[Page 1721]]

that the existing interstate weight limits in my State have the 
perverse impact of forcing trucks onto State and local secondary roads 
that were never designed to handle heavy commercial trucks safely. 
These State and local routes are narrow roads with narrow lanes, and 
rotaries, with frequent pedestrian crossings and school zones.
  Federal law attempts to provide uniform truck weight limits--80,000 
pounds--on the interstate system, but the fact is there are a myriad of 
exemptions and grandfathering provisions. Furthermore, interstate 
highways have safety features specifically designed for heavy truck 
traffic, whereas the narrow, winding State and local roads do not.
  Because of these long-standing safety concerns, MDOT has spent the 
last several years studying the potential impacts of waiving the 
Federal weight limits throughout the State. The preliminary results of 
their study clearly show the wisdom of allowing heavy trucks to travel 
on the interstate system rather than local roads. Specifically, MDOT 
estimates that waiving Federal weight limits would result in three 
fewer truck crashes in Maine every year. In addition to the safety 
benefits, waiving weight limits would save MDOT between $1 million and 
$1.65 million every year on pavement costs, and approximately $300,000 
per year on bridge rehabilitation costs. Overall, when considering 
safety and road construction costs, the economic benefit to the State 
and Maine citizens would be between $1.6 million and $2.3 million 
annually.
  The safety and economic benefits of getting heavy trucks off of Maine 
local roads and onto the interstate are enormous. As such, I have filed 
an amendment to the highway bill that would simply direct the Secretary 
of Transportation to establish a 3-year pilot program to improve 
commercial motor vehicle safety in the State of Maine. Specifically, 
the measure would direct the Secretary, during this period, to waive 
Federal vehicle weight limitations on certain commercial vehicles 
weighing over 80,000 pounds using the interstate system within Maine, 
permitting the State to set the weight limit. In addition, it would 
provide for the waiver to become permanent unless the Secretary 
determines it has resulted in an adverse impact on highway safety. I 
believe this is a measured, responsible approach to a very serious 
public safety issue.
  I am aware that the current truck weight limit impacts different 
States in different ways, but for Maine, at the heart of the issue is a 
simple question: Do we want heavy trucks on the highway, where they 
belong, or on local roads running right through the heart of our 
communities? I hope to work with the chair and ranking member of the 
EPW Committee to address this issue as we consider the highway bill.
  Another priority of mine during TEA-21 reauthorization process, as a 
member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 
is the issue of our country's intercity passenger rail system. Until 
December 2001, Maine was one of only a handful of States in the 
continental United States not served by passenger rail service. I am 
proud that after a decade of hard work and negotiations, Maine has 
become a member of the Amtrak family--with service from Boston to 
Portland, Maine. The State of Maine is also working on plans to upgrade 
the Boston-Portland line to a high-speed rail service, and also may 
extend the line even further north in the future.
  In June 2003, the Commerce Committee--with my support--voted to 
consider Amtrak reauthorization and TEA-21 reauthorization together. 
Since then, I have been working with a bipartisan coalition of Senators 
to make that proposition a reality, including Senators Hutchison, 
Hollings, and Carper. Rail is a part of our surface transportation 
system, and I will fight to make sure that a rail title is included in 
the final highway legislation sent to the President. Simply put, 
including a passenger and freight rail title in this bill will build on 
the existing foundation of passenger rail in Maine and further connect 
my State to the Nation's transportation system--a prospect about which 
I am very excited.
  I conclude by saying that another reason I support the legislation we 
are considering today is because it is not just a roads bill, or a 
transit bill, or a safety bill, it is also a jobs bill. The Department 
of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal 
investment creates more than 47,500 jobs. The funding in the Senate EPW 
comprehensive 6-year bill of $255 billion will create approximately 2 
million new jobs nationwide, and will create or sustain almost 57,000 
highway-related jobs in my home State of Maine. The economic stimulus 
this bill will provide is reason alone to enact it as soon as possible.
  I am pleased that the Senate is poised to complete consideration of 
this legislation. I look forward to working my colleagues with a sense 
of urgency over the next few days on enacting a comprehensive 6-year 
surface transportation bill this year.


                         Budget Process Reform

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment contains provisions that 
are within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, on which I serve 
as ranking member. Specifically, it amends the Budget Enforcement Act, 
establishing spending levels for highways and mass transit for fiscal 
years 2004 through 2009. It also expresses the sense of the Senate that 
comprehensive budget enforcement measures should be enacted this year, 
addressing discretionary spending, mandatory spending, revenues, and 
all areas of the Federal budget.
  This bill is not the proper vehicle for considering budget process 
reform. All of the members of the Budget Committee--including those who 
will not be conferees on the bill pending before us--deserve the 
opportunity to weigh in on discretionary spending caps, pay-as-you-go, 
and other budget enforcement. Those issues should not be presented to 
the Senate without having been considered by the Budget Committee. They 
therefore have no place on this bill.
  Mr. NICKLES. I agree that the pending transportation bill is not the 
place to consider budget enforcement provisions within the Budget 
Committee's jurisdiction. Even though the budget enforcement provisions 
in this bill are meaningless in the absence of other process measures, 
I did not support their inclusion. Enacting statutory budget 
enforcement this year will require bipartisan cooperation, and the most 
appropriate way to ensure that is to consider these issues through the 
regular order. I will work closely with the Senator from North Dakota 
to make sure all Senate Budget Committee members have an opportunity to 
provide input on these issues.
  Mr. FRIST. I concur with the chairman of the Budget Committee and 
agree with the sentiments expressed by the Committee's Ranking Member. 
Indeed the provisions in this legislation establishing transportation 
spending categories are somewhat meaningless unless we enact broader 
enforcement tools. Those broader enforcement tools should be addressed 
separate and apart from this legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________