[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5848-5859]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      HIGHWAY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume the motion to proceed to H.R. 1195, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 608, a 
     bill (H.R. 1195) to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
     Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to 
     make technical corrections, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  Who yields time? The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. That means I would have how much time now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am glad you are in the chair. As a 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, you have been 
very involved in everything we have done so far and we will do in the 
future, in terms of rebuilding the infrastructure of this Nation, 
building a transit infrastructure, and some of the other things that we 
do.
  I am very pleased the majority leader has called for a motion to 
proceed to H.R. 1195, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008. 
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed into law the SAFETEA-LU Act, 
which authorized our Nation's highways, transit, and highway safety 
programs through the end of 2009.
  We all know a country cannot be great if it does not have the 
physical infrastructure to move people and to move goods and to be 
efficient. The funding provided in SAFETEA-LU is currently being used 
on highway and transit projects that clearly increase our economic 
productivity, create thousands and thousands of new jobs, and improve 
America's quality of life.
  It has been several years since SAFETEA-LU was signed into law, and 
we on the committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and on 
the Banking Committee and on the Commerce Committee, have worked across 
party lines to identify the technical corrections that need to be made. 
These include updating of project descriptions, adjustments to some of 
the legislative language, and in some cases where projects could not 
move forward Members have said we have other projects that are ready to 
move forward. That is why this bill is so important.
  If we do not do this bill, we are simply going to languish until the 
next highway bill in a couple of years, and we are going to waste time. 
We do not have time to waste. The issues need to be addressed to ensure 
that various programs authorized in SAFETEA-LU are being carried out 
according to congressional intent and are not bogged down in unintended 
consequences.
  In an effort to address the issues identified since the passage of 
SAFETEA-LU, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 1195 in March of 
2007 by a voice vote. The legislation was subsequently amended and 
approved by voice vote in the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works in June of 2007. That is the committee I chair, and my 
ranking member, Senator Inhofe, and I have worked very closely on this 
and other infrastructure matters.
  My remarks today are on the Technical Corrections Act of 2008, which 
has been filed as an amendment in the nature of a complete substitute 
to H.R. 1195. This amendment mirrors the earlier technical corrections 
legislation approved by the Senate and House committees but has been 
updated for the fiscal year, and it addresses additional issues which 
have been discovered since H.R. 1195 was first approved by the House 
and considered by our committee.
  I truly believe this is a straightforward, noncontroversial bill that 
corrects technical issues, confirms congressional intent, and moves us 
forward. It is foolish for us to ignore this bill or to try to stop 
this bill because it doesn't cost an additional penny. The

[[Page 5849]]

funding comes through the highway trust fund, and that funding is 
there. If we do not make these technical corrections, a lot of projects 
simply will be stalled. At a time when our economy is in trouble, we 
should be moving ahead.
  Senator Inhofe and I have worked very closely with the bipartisan 
leadership of the House Committee on Transportation Infrastructure to 
craft this legislation that we bring to the floor as a substitute. We 
have also worked closely with Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby 
of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and Chairman 
Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens of the Committee on Commerce, Science 
and Transportation because we wanted to ensure that corrections to 
SAFETEA-LU that fell within their jurisdiction were all included in 
this legislation.
  I say to my friends who may be listening to this debate, this is 
truly a bipartisan bill. It is more than a bipartisan bill, it involves 
three different committees and all of us want to see this move ahead. 
Again, the legislation does not increase overall spending by the 
Federal Government. It works within the confines of the existing 
SAFETEA-LU authorization. Changes which restore funding left out of 
SAFETEA-LU are paid for through the use of existing funds. If anybody 
says to colleagues we are spending more, we are not. We are simply 
making it possible for us to fulfill our promises we made to the 
American people several years ago when we told them we were funding a 
highway and transit bill.
  Project changes are usually made because of State and local 
authorities who have told us that changes are necessary. This 
legislation emanates in many ways from the people back home. Let me 
give an idea of one of the issues that is very important in this 
legislation. It will fix an oversight in SAFETEA-LU that resulted in 
the Surface Transportation Research, Development and Deployment Account 
being oversubscribed. This means funding is not available for the 
Federal Highway Administration to conduct its legacy research programs 
and research activities. This legislation corrects the issue by 
removing the Future Strategic Highway Research Program from the Surface 
Transportation Research Development and Deployment Account and, 
instead, funds it through funds already allocated for core highway 
programs. This will free up about $50 million per year, enough funding 
to finance the remaining programs and projects in the Surface 
Transportation Research Development and Deployment Account and will 
allow DOT, the Department of Transportation, to continue its important 
legacy research programs and activities, including the biennial 
Conditions and Performance Report.
  What is the Conditions and Performance Report? It is a report that 
provides an appraisal of highway, bridge, and transit finance, the 
physical condition of roads and bridges and their operational 
performance, and estimates of future investment requirements. That will 
provide crucial information on the current conditions and future needs 
of our national transportation system as we develop the next transit 
and highway safety bill. We will need this information. It will be 
crucial to setting priorities in the next highway bill.
  Remember, we have seen bridges in our Nation collapsing. We have seen 
bad problems in our infrastructure. We need to make sure we have a very 
fair appraisal of the condition of our roads, the condition of our 
bridges, what it is going to cost to fix them before we go into our 
next funding cycle, our full funding cycle which will occur in 2009.
  The legislation also fixes and modifies descriptions for highway and 
transit projects that were included in SAFETEA-LU but have not yet been 
completed. Without the changes included in this legislation, many of 
these projects are stuck at a red light. Until that light turns green, 
the benefits to the transportation system will not be realized.
  This technical corrections legislation provides a green light that 
could unleash up to $1 billion into the economy. Remember, this is not 
new spending. This is freeing up the dollars we already voted to spend 
on transportation projects, transit projects, highway projects. This is 
funding that has already been provided through SAFETEA-LU. It is not 
new money, but if we do not act, simply speaking, $1 billion of 
important highway and transportation programs will simply not be spent.
  Given the current slowdown in our economy, we can't afford to let 
these funds remain unused due to technical matters. Just last month, 
President Bush acknowledged that we must respond decisively to the 
economic downturn we are going through. Investing in infrastructure is 
one of the best ways to stimulate our economy. Infrastructure 
investments provide immediate economic stimulus through job creation 
and long-term economic benefits through reduced transportation costs.
  In the past, the Department of Transportation has told us that for 
every $1 billion in Federal spending on transportation infrastructure, 
47,500 jobs are created. It may be that the number is slightly smaller 
now due to inflation, but in any event we know it is tens of thousands 
of good-paying jobs.
  The benefits of infrastructure investment stay in America. 
Infrastructure investment creates American jobs and helps American 
businesses that produce most of the construction materials and 
equipment used in our Nation.
  Finally, I would like to point out again--again--that this 
legislation will not increase spending. I have to say that over and 
over again, and it complies with earmark disclosure requirements of 
rule XLIV even though it only addresses changes to previously 
authorized projects.
  I thank Senator DeMint for giving me a call this morning and saying 
that he was very pleased with the way our committee handled this 
disclosure. I was very pleased with that call, and I thank him for it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the technical corrections that have 
been included in this legislation so we can make the final changes 
needed to complete SAFETEA-LU and then turn our Nation to the next 
highway transit and highway safety authorization bill to be completed 
in the next Congress.
  What I want to do is have put into the Record, if I might, Mr. 
President, without objection, a very important letter that comes from 
some very important constituents of all of ours.
  I am going to show who sent this letter. I ask unanimous consent to 
have the letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    April 1, 2008.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairwoman, Environment & Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington DC.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Chairman, Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Chairman, Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Ranking Member, Environment & Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Ranking Member, Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Ranking Member, Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: We are writing to urge you to schedule a 
     vote on HR 1195 making technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU 
     (Public Law 109-59) as soon as possible.
       Since enactment of SAFETEA-LU in August of 2005, Congress 
     has worked diligently to pass into law corrections to 
     SAFETEA-LU so that full implementation of important 
     transportation programs and policies is possible. To address 
     our Nation's transportation needs and challenges the full 
     benefit of our transportation programs and policies in 
     SAFETEA-LU is needed.
       Congress' commitment to improving our transportation 
     systems through the programs and policies it provided in 
     SAFETEA-LU can be enhanced. We stand ready to continue to 
     support this commitment.
           Sincerely,
       American Association of Highway and Transportation 
     Officials.
       American Highways Users Alliance.

[[Page 5850]]

       American Public Transit Association.
       American Road and Transportation Builders Associations.
       Associated General Contractors.
       Council of University Transportation Centers.
       National Sand, Stone and Gravel Association.
       National Asphalt and Pavement Association.

  Mrs. BOXER. This is the group who sent the letter. I want to say who 
it is, who signed this letter: No. 1, the American Association of 
Highway and Transportation Officials; that is departments of 
transportation in all 50 States--red States, blue States, purple 
States--50 States signed this letter. They want us to move forward. No. 
2, the American Highway Users Alliance; that is millions of highway 
users throughout this Nation of ours; the American Public Transit 
Association, which is transit systems from across the country, in all 
of our States; the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Associations, more than 5,000 members of the transportation 
construction industry. We know our construction industry in the housing 
sector is hurting. That means the jobs are decreasing. This is a moment 
in time where we can give a little boost to our transportation workers; 
the Associated General Contractors, more than 32,000 of them, service 
providers and suppliers; Council of University Transportation Centers, 
more than 30 university transportation centers from across the country; 
the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, companies that produce 
more than 92 percent of crushed stone and 75 percent of sand and gravel 
used in the U.S. annually; and the National Asphalt and Pavement 
Association, more than 1,100 companies that produce and pave with 
asphalt.
  Mr. President, I say to Senators who might hear my voice, this a 
moment for us to come together across party lines such as Senator 
Inhofe and I have done, just as Senators Dodd and Shelby have done and 
just as Senators Inouye and Stevens have done in our respective 
committees. This is a simple bill. This bill simply says we have about 
$1 billion that is stuck because there have been some technical 
problems with the language. Some projects were not able to move 
forward. We substitute some others within the same funding cap. Some 
have legislative language which was confusing, and we are dealing with 
that. We feel very good about this bill.
  We have listened very carefully to the ethics in the Senate. We know 
we needed to act to put all these projects on the Web site. We have 
identified who has asked for them, and we really do believe this 
technical corrections bill is ready for action. I can only hope that we 
will not see anybody try to hold up this bill for no reason at all.
  If you have amendments, please let us know. We would be happy to give 
you as much time as you want. Today is the motion to proceed to the 
bill. We urge everyone to vote for that, and that vote will occur, as I 
understand it, at 5:30; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will withhold the remainder of my time. How much time 
do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will withhold. I say that I expect that Senator Inhofe 
will be here. I would ask my colleague from North Carolina, are you 
here to speak on this bill?
  Mrs. DOLE. No, I am not.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will speak in morning business.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent if we can please go into morning 
business to accommodate my colleagues. But I would say, Senator Inhofe 
may well have a statement. I ask unanimous consent that my two 
colleagues have 5 minutes each to speak and then the remainder of the 
time be reserved for Senator Inhofe, minus my 7 minutes, then go to a 
vote at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina.


                      Tribute to Senator Bob Dole

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 
remarkable accomplishments of a former Member of the Senate who 
delivered his first speech in this Chamber exactly 39 years ago. It was 
April 14, 1969, when that Senator stood, not far from here, to address 
his Senate colleagues for the first time.
  The Senator used his speech to call attention to a group of Americans 
who were very close to his heart and who, up until that time, had been 
largely ignored. It was a group of Americans he had joined on April 14, 
1945, when, as a soldier in the famed 10th Mountain Division, he was 
severely wounded as he led his troops into battle in the hills of 
Italy.
  As a result of his wounds, the soldier would spend 39 months in 
various hospitals, and doctors would operate on him eight times. 
Eventually, the soldier would be left without the use of his right arm.
  So it was that Bob Dole rose on April 14, 1969, not just to speak as 
a Senator, he also spoke as one of the millions upon millions of 
Americans who happened to have a disability.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the speech 
delivered by Senator Bob Dole on April 14, 1969, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Congressional Record, Apr. 14, 1969]

      Proceedings and Debates of the 91st Congress, First Session

                         Handicapped Americans

       Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, my remarks today concern an 
     exceptional group which I joined on another April 14, twenty-
     four years ago, during World War II.
       It is a minority group whose existence affects every person 
     in our society and the very fiber of our Nation.
       It is a group which no one joins by personal choice--a 
     group whose requirements for membership are not based on age, 
     sex, wealth, education, skin color, religious beliefs, 
     political party, power, or prestige.
       As a minority, it has always known exclusion--maybe not 
     exclusion from the front of the bus, but perhaps from even 
     climbing aboard it; maybe not exclusion from pursuing 
     advanced education, but perhaps from experiencing any formal 
     education; maybe not exclusion from day-to-day life itself, 
     but perhaps from an adequate opportunity to develop and 
     contribute to his or her fullest capacity.
       It is a minority, yet a group to which at least one out of 
     every five Americans belongs.
       Mr. President, I speak today about 42 million citizens of 
     our Nation who are physically, mentally, or emotionally 
     handicapped.


                        WHO ARE THE HANDICAPPED?

       Who are the handicapped?
       They are persons--men, women, and children--who cannot 
     achieve full physical, mental, and social potential because 
     of disability.
       Although some live in institutions, many more live in the 
     community. Some are so severely disabled as to be home-bound, 
     or even bed-bound. Still others are able to take part in 
     community activities when they have access and facilities.
       They include amputees, paraplegics, polio victims. Causes 
     of disability include arthritis, cardio-vascular diseases, 
     multiple sclerosis, and muscular dystrophy.
       While you may have good vision and hearing, many persons 
     live each day with limited eyesight or hearing, or with none 
     at all.
       While you may enjoy full muscle strength and coordination 
     in your legs, there are those who must rely on braces or 
     crutches, or perhaps a walker or wheelchair.
       While you perform daily millions of tasks with your hands 
     and arms, there are many who live with limited or total 
     disability in theirs.
       And in contrast to most people, thousands of adults and 
     children suffer mental or emotional disorders which hinder 
     their abilities to learn and apply what is learned and to 
     cope adequately with their families, jobs, and communities.
       Then there are those who are afflicted with combination or 
     multiple handicaps.


                         NOT JUST THE HANDICAP

       For our nation's 42 million handicapped persons and their 
     families, yesterday, today, and tomorrow are not filled with 
     ``everyday'' kinds of problems which can be solved or soothed 
     by ``everyday'' kinds of answers. their daily challenge is: 
     accepting and working with a disability so that the 
     handicapped person can become as active and useful, as 
     independent, secure, and dignified as his ability will allow.
       Too many handicapped persons lead lives of loneliness and 
     despair; too many feel and too many are out off from our 
     work-oriented

[[Page 5851]]

     society; too many cannot fill empty hours in a satisfying, 
     constructive manner. The leisure most of us crave can and has 
     become a curse to many of our Nation's handicapped.
       Often when a handicapped person is able to work full or 
     part time, there are few jobs or inadequate training programs 
     in his locale. Although progress is being made, many 
     employers are hesitant to hire a handicapped person, ignoring 
     statistics that show he is often a better and more dependable 
     worker.
       The result is that abilities of a person are overlooked 
     because of disabilities which may bear little or no true 
     relation to the job at hand. The result to the taxpayer may 
     be to support one more person at a cost of as much as $3,500 
     per person a year. To the handicapped person himself, it 
     means more dependency.


                               STATISTICS

       Consider these statistics: Only one-third of America's 
     blind and less than half of the paraplegics of working age 
     are employed, while only a handful of about 200,000 persons 
     with cerebral palsy who are of working age are employed.
       Beyond this, far too many handicapped persons and their 
     families bear serious economic problems--despite token 
     Government pensions and income tax deductions for a few, and 
     other financial aids. I recall a portion of a letter received 
     recently from the mother of a cerebral palsy child in a 
     Midwestern urban area:

       There are the never-ending surgeries, braces, orthopedic 
     shoes, wheelchairs, walkers, standing tables, bath tables and 
     so on . . . we parents follow up on every hopeful lead in 
     clinics and with specialists; we go up and down paths blindly 
     and always expensively . . . I have talked with four major 
     insurance companies who do not insure or infrequently insure 
     CP children . . . although our daughter is included in her 
     father's group hospitalization plan, many families are not as 
     fortunate. These are just a few of the problems, compounded 
     by the fact we must try to adequately meet the needs of our 
     other ``normal'' children. In many cases, some kind of 
     financial assistance would enable us and others like us to 
     provide for our children in our homes, avoiding overcrowding 
     of already overcrowded facilities and further adding to the 
     taxpayer's burden costs for complete care.

       There are other problems--availability and access of health 
     care personnel and facilities at the time and place the 
     individual with handicaps needs them. In my own largely rural 
     State of Kansas, many handicapped persons travel 300 miles or 
     more to receive the basic health services they require.
       Education presents difficulties for many parents of 
     handicapped children. Although a child may be educable, there 
     may be few, if any, opportunities in the community for him to 
     receive an education. Private tutoring, if available, is 
     often too expensive. Sadly, to date, the Council for 
     Exceptional Children estimates less than one-third of the 
     Nation's children requiring special education are receiving 
     it.
       In rehabilitation, the Department of Health, Education, and 
     Welfare said recently 25 percent of America's disabled have 
     not received rehabilitation services and do not know where to 
     seek such help. They estimate that at least 5 million 
     disabled persons may be eligible for assistance.
       Other problems the handicapped person faces each day 
     include availability and access of recreation and 
     transportation facilities, architectural barriers in 
     residences and other buildings, and many, many more.


                       still a promising outlook

       We in America are still far from the half-way point of 
     assuring that every handicapped person can become as active 
     and useful as his capacities will allow. The outlook for the 
     handicapped person in 1969, however, is not altogether bleak. 
     Unparalleled achievements in medicine, science, education, 
     technology as well as in public attitudes have cemented a 
     framework in which the handicapped person today has more 
     opportunities available to him than ever before. Consider 
     first what government is doing.


                          the government story

       The story of what the Federal Government, hand in hand with 
     State governments, is doing to help meet the needs of the 
     handicapped is not one that draws the biggest and boldest 
     headlines. Broadly, the story is a ``good'' one, consisting 
     of achievements in financial assistance, rehabilitation, 
     research, education, and training of the handicapped--a 
     massive effort to help many disabled Americans live as 
     normal, as full and rich lives as possible.
       It is, in part, the story of a man who, at age 21, became a 
     paraplegic after sustaining injuries to his spinal cord and 
     head in an accident while on the job.
       In 1968, he joined over 2,300,000 other disabled men and 
     women who have been restored to more productive, useful lives 
     since the State-Federal vocational rehabilitation program 
     began 48 years ago.
       In 1964, the young man--a high school dropout with a wife 
     and child--was referred to his State's division of vocational 
     rehabilitation where a thorough program of total 
     rehabilitation began. In addition, he was enrolled in a 
     training school and was graduated as a fully licensed 
     insurance agent.
       Today--4 years later--he has his own successful insurance 
     business. He and his wife have built a new home and adopted a 
     baby.
       It is a measure of America's concern for its handicapped 
     citizens that even 50 years ago, this story could not have 
     been told.
       It takes place now because the Congress and the Federal 
     Government initiated and guided a vital, vigorous program of 
     vocational rehabilitation.
       Mr. President, vocational rehabilitation is one of many 
     ways the Federal Government works to aid the handicapped. But 
     none of the Federal programs necessarily reaches or helps 
     every handicapped person.
       Nevertheless, the role of the Government has been basically 
     successful in terms of numbers assisted, basic research 
     performed, and the movement of increasingly large numbers of 
     persons into more productive, satisfying channels. It 
     demonstrates what Congress and Federal and State governments 
     are doing to help America's handicapped better participate 
     and achieve.
       Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to 
     have printed in the Record, at the close of my remarks, a 
     brief summary of Federal programs for the handicapped.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
       (See exhibit 1.)


                           the private sector

       Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is in the American tradition 
     and spirit that parallel to Government effort there has 
     developed the vital and growing effort for the handicapped by 
     individuals, business and industry, churches and private, 
     voluntary organizations. It is a herculean task to properly 
     assess the many, far-reaching effects of the private sector--
     in health care, education, employment; in research, 
     rehabilitation, by fundraising drives and through 
     professional organizations and groups for the handicapped 
     themselves. But it is here in the private sector--with its 
     emphasis on the creativity, concern, and energies of our 
     people--that America has become the envy of the world. Our 
     private economy and the resources of our people have combined 
     to improve the quality of life in America in ways and for 
     persons the Government could not begin to match or reach.
       For the handicapped, their achievements have been no less. 
     I shall not today, detail or single out the achievements of 
     the voluntary groups and private enterprise involved in 
     aiding the handicapped. But let the record show that without 
     the sincerity, scope, and success of their efforts--in public 
     information, employment and training, in upgrading health 
     care and education personnel and facilities, in fundraising 
     and in supporting research to conquer or at least minimize 
     the effects of handicapping conditions--the prospects for the 
     handicapped individuals would not be as hopeful as they are 
     today.


                       where do we go from here?

       Mr. President, as new public and private programs are 
     developed, as old ones are strengthened and some, perhaps 
     eliminated, as we in Congress allocate comparatively limited 
     funds to help the handicapped, the responsibilities and 
     opportunities loom large before us.
       We must insure our efforts and money are not misplaced or 
     misdirected--that they do not just promise, but really do the 
     job.
       Are we all doing our best to see that all the knowledge, 
     information, money, and other help is consolidated and 
     available to the handicapped person in the form he can use 
     and at the time and place he most needs it?
       Is there sufficient coordination and planning between and 
     among the private groups and the Government agencies to avoid 
     multiplicity and duplication so that we best serve America's 
     handicapped?
       Are we sometimes engaged in a numbers race--attending to 
     cases that respond more quickly in order to show results to 
     donors, members, and taxpayers, thus sacrificing some 
     attention which should be focused on the really tough 
     problems?
       Many handicapped persons of our Nation are no longer 
     helpless or hopeless because of private and public efforts 
     which have helped them to better help and be themselves.
       But the fact remains that some of our Nation's handicapped 
     and their families are attacking the very programs and 
     projects created to help them.
       Some are disillusioned and disaffected by the programs.
       Too often, the information, the services, the human help 
     and encouragement are not reaching the person for whom they 
     were intended and at the time and place he needs them.
       Some sincerely believe there may be better ways we can 
     demonstrate our concern and thereby better achieve for the 
     person with handicaps the independence, security, and dignity 
     to which he is entitled.
       I am reminded of a statement given recently by the 1968 
     president of the National Rehabilitation Association:

       It is the person, not the program that is of overwhelming 
     importance. It is not the disability that claims our 
     attention, it is the person with handicaps. It is not the 
     maintenance of prestige of a particular profession that 
     matters. It is the contribution of the profession to solving 
     the complex problems of the individual who has handicaps.


[[Page 5852]]


       When more of this emphasis on the individual better 
     influences the agencies and professions dealing with the 
     handicapped, I believe we can begin to open new, more 
     meaningful vistas for more persons with handicaps.
       We have been involved in efforts which have been creditable 
     to date. Of this, there is no doubt.
       But are we doing our best?
       A highly respected official of the U.S. Department of 
     Health, Education, and Welfare summed up the problem this 
     way:

       I do not feel we are spending our dollars--public or 
     voluntary--as effectively as we could. We need to take a 
     whole new look at what is going on, where the service is 
     given. We need to try to design new methods and clearer 
     purposes for our efforts. We need to relate our efforts more 
     closely to the needs of a community, to the needs of its 
     individuals. And we need to try to measure, as concretely and 
     specifically as possible what is actually achieved by our 
     expenditures.

       Our handicapped citizens are one of our Nation's greatest 
     unmet responsibilities and untapped resources. We must do 
     better.


                        PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE

       With this in mind, I suggest the creation of a Presidential 
     task force or commission to review what the public and 
     private sectors are doing and to recommend how we can do 
     better.
       Composed of representatives of the public and private 
     sectors, this task force or commission could provide an 
     overview of how to provide the handicapped more help and 
     hope.
       Such a task force or commission could provide valuable 
     assistance to Congress and the administration as we develop 
     programs and allocate comparatively limited funds for the 
     handicapped.
       It could also help private organizations and voluntary 
     groups conduct their efforts more efficiently and 
     effectively.
       The goal of a task force or commission, to achieve maximum 
     independence, security, and dignity for the individual with 
     handicaps, should encompass the total needs of the 
     handicapped, not just employment or education or any other * 
     * *
       Rather the task force or commission should concern itself 
     with the whole broad spectrum of needs and services, because 
     as I have pointed out the problems of the handicapped do not 
     begin and end with the handicap itself.
       Although there are hundreds of areas a task force or 
     commission could review, I am hopeful, if created, it would 
     include the following subjects:
       First. Expansion of employment, transportation, and 
     recreation opportunities for the handicapped.
       Second. A directory or central clearinghouse to help inform 
     the handicapped person and his family of available public and 
     private assistance.
       There are many helpful handbooks and information sources 
     available. But most are not comprehensive and are more 
     accessible to professionals in the field than to the 
     handicapped who really need the guidance and information.
       Third. Removal of architectural barriers.
       Many persons cannot secure employment or fill their leisure 
     hours because their disabilities bar use of the facilities. 
     It is just as easy to build and equip buildings so that the 
     handicapped and unhandicapped can use them. The Federal 
     Government is doing this now for federally financed 
     structures.
       Fourth. More development of health care on a regional or 
     community basis.
       This is a tough, but priority matter and one which cannot 
     be accomplished quickly or inexpensively. But we must begin 
     to move toward more adequate health care facilities and 
     personnel which serve each person at the time and place he 
     needs them.
       Fifth. Better serving the special educational needs of the 
     handicapped.
       Both the person and the Nation suffer when any educatable 
     child--handicapped or unhandicapped--does not receive an 
     education.
       Sixth. Income tax deductions and/or other financial 
     assistance to extend relief to more handicapped persons and 
     their families.
       Seventh. More attention on the family of the handicapped 
     person.
       These are the people who often need a degree of 
     encouragement, counseling, and ``rehabilitation'' themselves. 
     Are there services we should provide to family members whose 
     own lives and resources are deeply affected by the presence 
     of a handicapped person?
       Eighth. Increased dialog and coordination between private 
     and voluntary groups and Government agencies to avoid 
     multiplicity and duplication.
       What is at stake is not the agency, group, or program. What 
     is at stake is the future of the handicapped person with his 
     own abilities and potentialities.


                               conclusion

       This, then, Mr. President, is the sum and substance of my 
     first speech in the Senate.
       I know of no more important subject matter, not solely 
     because of my personal interest, but because in our great 
     country some 42 million Americans suffer from a physical, 
     mental, or emotional handicap. Progress has been and will 
     continue to be made by Federal and State governments, by 
     private agencies, and individual Americans; but nonetheless 
     there is still much to be done, if the handicapped American: 
     young, old, black, white, rich, or poor is to share in the 
     joys experienced by others. The task ahead is monumental, but 
     I am confident that there are forces in America ready and 
     willing to meet the challenge--including, of course, many of 
     my distinguished colleagues who by their acts and deeds have 
     demonstrated their great interest.

                               Exhibit 1

         Federal Programs for the Handicapped Disabled Veterans

       The program of services for disabled veterans as we know it 
     today began with enactment of the Soldier Rehabilitation Act, 
     which was passed unanimously by Congress June 27, 1918 (P.L. 
     178, 65th Congress). Under the law, the Federal Board for 
     Vocational Education, created by legislation the year before, 
     was authorized to organize and offer vocational 
     rehabilitation programs for disabled veterans.
       The program was finally closed out July 2, 1928. In the 
     program's 10-year existence, about 675,000 veterans applied 
     for training. About 330,000 completed their courses 
     satisfactorily and were considered rehabilitated, and about 
     98 percent of them were employed at the time their training 
     was completed or terminated.
       Soon after the U.S. entered World War II, planning began 
     for vocational rehabilitation programs for disabled 
     servicemen returning from that war.
       On March 13, 1943, after much discussion over whether the 
     veterans program should be allied with the civilian 
     vocational rehabilitation program, the House passed a bill 
     authorizing a separate veterans' program. It was signed into 
     law 11 days later as P.L. 16, 78th Congress, and covered 
     veterans who served in the armed services between Pearl 
     Harbor Day, December 7, 1941, and the declared end of the 
     war. This legislation set into motion an effort which, before 
     termination, benefitted several hundred thousand disabled 
     veterans.
       When the U.S. entered the Korean conflict, the Congress 
     enacted legislation to insure that the men who fought there 
     could receive the same services as World War II veterans. By 
     1955, about 36,000 Korean veterans had received vocational 
     rehabilitation training for service-connected disabilities.
       Later legislation made it possible for veterans disabled 
     after the conclusion of the Korean conflict to receive 
     rehabilitation and other services of the Veterans' 
     Administration. This includes peace-time veterans and the 
     veterans of the Vietnam war. In 1968 alone, 5,192 veterans 
     participated in vocational rehabilitation training, bringing 
     the total number since the program began to 721,000.
       Disabled veterans who need prosthetic and sensory aids can 
     obtain them from the Veterans Administration. In 1968 
     prosthetic appliances and services were furnished to about 
     465,000 disabled veterans, including 5,400 Vietnam veterans. 
     Approximately $10.2 million was spent in 1968 for the 
     procurement and repair of prosthetic and other related 
     appliances.
       Last year, too, requests for grants were approved to help 
     pay for special automobiles for 2,850 veterans because of 
     loss of hands or feet or severe eye impairment. Expenditures 
     for this benefit in 1968 totalled almost $3.5 million, 
     bringing the total cost to $83.6 million since this program 
     was enacted in 1946.
       Another special benefit for disabled veterans is the grant 
     program for acquiring specially-adapted housing for those who 
     need braces, crutches, canes, or wheelchairs. Grants totaling 
     $4.4 million were made to 460 veterans in 1968. Since the 
     program began in 1948, 9,705 grants at a cost of $92.7 
     million have been awarded.
       With the creation of a new Department of Medicine and 
     Surgery December 31, 1945, the Veterans Administration set in 
     motion a new pattern of care and rehabilitation service for 
     sick, injured and disabled veterans entering VA hospitals. A 
     special rehabilitation service was developed; selected 
     hospitals were specially staffed and equipped for certain 
     disabilities such as spinal cord injury, blindness, epilepsy, 
     amputation and other conditions.


                    programs for disabled civilians

       A rehabilitation program for disabled civilians was not 
     enacted simultaneously with the veterans' program because of 
     opposition that it was not practicable and also not the 
     responsibility of the Federal Government.
       Two years later--June 2, 1920--President Wilson signed into 
     law the Civilian Vocational Rehabilitation Act (P.L. 236, 
     66th Congress). The bill, known as the Smith-Fess Act, is one 
     of the oldest grant-in-aid programs for providing services 
     for individuals. At that time, services under the act were 
     confined to counseling, job training, artificial limbs and 
     other prosthetic appliances, and job placement. It provided 
     for an appropriation of $750,000 for fiscal year 1921 and $1 
     million for fiscal years 1922 to 1924 and for payments to 
     States cooperating in vocational rehabilitation of persons 
     disabled in industry. Federal funds were to be matched by the 
     States and were not to be used for institutions for 
     handicapped persons except when individuals entitled to 
     benefits of the act, required special training.

[[Page 5853]]

       In its first year, the vocational rehabilitation program 
     helped rehabilitate 523 disabled persons. Authorization for 
     the program was renewed by Congress several times until 1935, 
     when the Social Security Act included permanent 
     authorization. This action demonstrated the consensus of 
     congressional thought that vocational rehabilitation should 
     be a permanent program in the United States. Continuing to 
     grow, the program rehabilitated 11,890 persons in 1940.
       The entry of the United States into World War II caused a 
     manpower shortage which gave disabled persons who had been 
     rehabilitated an opportunity to show the nation that the 
     disabled could be productive, capable workers. Many employers 
     began calling for more rehabilitated workers than the 
     vocational rehabilitation program, despite its success, was 
     prepared to provide. For more than 20 years since its 
     enactment, the program had been limited in scope and 
     uncertainly financed. Some States had excellent programs, but 
     many did not. Development on a national scale had been 
     uneven.
       Legislation in 1943 helped solve some of these problems, 
     and other legislation in later years helped to shape it into 
     the more meaningful and effective program it is today.
       In 1943 after an attempt to combine the Veterans' and 
     civilian vocational programs was defeated, the Vocational 
     Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1943 (P.L. 113, 78th 
     Congress) were signed into law. the 1943 law superseded the 
     1920 legislation and broadened the vocational rehabilitation 
     program--more liberal financing, increased State services, 
     and broadened the concept of rehabilitation.
       Rehabilitation services were extended to the mentally 
     handicapped and the mentally ill. Separate State agencies for 
     the blind were incorporated into the Federal-State 
     rehabilitation program. In addition, the now 50 States, and 
     Puerto Rico were all placed on the same footing with respect 
     to Federal grants. An improved provision of the 1943 law was 
     coverage for specified corrective surgery or therapeutic 
     treatment necessary to reduce or eliminate a disability. 
     Administration of the program was transferred from the 
     Commissioner of Education to the Federal Security Agency. In 
     1950, 59,597 persons were rehabilitated.
       There were problems, however. Partly because the financial 
     system was becoming inadequate and because there was no 
     provision for research, professional training, and other 
     features, essential progress was not being made.
       Legislation in 1954, supported by President Eisenhower, was 
     an effort to remedy these problems. While retaining the basic 
     pattern of services, the 1954 amendments (P.L. 565, 83rd 
     Congress) made sweeping improvements. They included 
     provisions for research, demonstration, and training 
     activities. The Federal share was increased on a formula 
     basis, to give greater support to States with relatively 
     large populations and relatively small per capita income. It 
     initiated a new system of project grants for improvement and 
     extension of services. For the first time, the use of Federal 
     grants to expand, modernize and equip rehabilitation 
     facilities and workshops was also authorized.
       In 1954, congress also amended the Hill-Burton hospital 
     survey and construction act to provide Federal grants to help 
     construct rehabilitation facilities.
       While in 1960, 88,275 persons were rehabilitated under the 
     vocational rehabilitation program, by 1965 it had mushroomed 
     to over 135,000 persons.
       The 1965 amendments to the vocational rehabilitation act 
     (P.L. 89-333) were designed to bring the public and voluntary 
     agencies into a closer working alliance. It expanded and 
     enlarged the program by broadening its legal and financial 
     base. Services to the severely disabled, the mentally 
     retarded, the deaf, and other handicapped individuals were 
     increased. A national commission on architectural barriers to 
     rehabilitation of the handicapped was established. Federal 
     financial support was extended to local areas for funding 
     more vocational rehabilitation programs. In a drive to build 
     more rehabilitation facilities and workshops, funds were 
     authorized for a comprehensive program to improve the 
     workshops and to construct more vocationally-oriented 
     rehabilitation facilities. Grants to States to conduct 
     comprehensive State-wide planning by agencies designated by 
     the Governors were also provided.
       In 1967 Congress took further steps to improve 
     rehabilitation programs for the Nation's disabled. The 1967 
     amendments (P.L. 90-99) extended and expanded grant 
     authorizations to States for rehabilitation services. 
     Provisions were made to establish a national center for deaf-
     blind youth and adults and to extend services to disabled 
     migrants, and their families. In addition, the 1967 
     amendments required State agencies to provide services to the 
     handicapped without regard to their residence locations.
       Finally, just this past year, Congress passed another bill 
     amending the vocational rehabilitation program. The bill 
     increased the Federal share for basic support of State 
     programs from 75 to 80 percent, beginning in fiscal 1970, and 
     established a minimum allotment of $1 million for each State 
     to increase efficiency, expand services, and reach more 
     clients. The 1968 amendments (P.L. 90-391) also extended 
     programs of grants for innovation, for special projects and 
     for rehabilitation facilities construction and staffing.
       The bill established a new vocational evaluation and work 
     adjustment program to serve those who are disadvantaged by 
     such reasons as physical or mental disability, youth, 
     advanced age, low educational attainment, ethnic or cultural 
     factors, or prison or delinquency records, especially in 
     association with poverty.
       Evaluation may include preliminary diagnostic studies to 
     determine whether the individual is disadvantaged, has or 
     will have an employment handicap, and needs rehabilitation 
     services. Work adjustment services include appraisal of the 
     individual's pattern of work behavior and development of work 
     habits, work tolerance, and social and behavior patterns 
     suitable for successful job performance.
       Establishment of the social and rehabilitation service in 
     1967 also brought about an expansion of the Federal 
     Vocational Rehabilitation Agency, and its transfer to the 
     Division of Mental Retardation, under the newly-named 
     Rehabilitation Services Administration. In 1961, President 
     Kennedy appointed the President's Panel on Mental Retardation 
     and gave them a mandate to recommend a national plan to 
     combat mental retardation.
       The Maternal and Child Health and Mental Retardation 
     Planning Amendments of 1963 (P.L. 88-156) carried out several 
     recommendations of the panel. This act provided funds to 
     assist the States in planning comprehensive State and 
     community programs for the mentally retarded. The Social 
     Security Amendments of 1965 (P.L. 89-97) extended 
     comprehensive planning grants to the States, enabling 
     implementation of their comprehensive plans to combat mental 
     retardation.
       The Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental 
     Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 (P.L. 88-164) 
     authorized grants to States to construct facilities to serve 
     the mentally retarded. It also provided grants to assist in 
     construction of university-affiliated facilities to provide 
     an interdisciplinary approach for clinical training of 
     specialized personnel and for demonstration of new service 
     techniques.
       The Mental Retardation Amendment of 1967 (P.L. 90-170) 
     extended these two programs and established a new grant 
     program to pay part of the compensation of professional and 
     technical personnel in community facilities for the retarded, 
     for initial operation of new facilities, or of new services 
     in a facility. Projects have been approved for construction 
     of 242 community facilities to serve over 63,000 retardates.
       In 1963, Congress authorized the hospital improvement 
     program to support projects to improve services in State 
     mental retardation institutions. This program is assisting 
     about 100 of the 169 existing facilities.
       The Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 90-
     391) authorized projects for rehabilitation of mentally 
     retarded persons not eligible for vocational rehabilitation 
     due to age, severity of handicap, or other reasons. The first 
     appropriation for this program is being requested for 1970.
       Today, there are 90 rehabilitation agencies with 800 
     offices operating nationwide and in four territories. They 
     serve nearly 700,000 handicapped persons each year at a 
     State-Federal cost of over a half-billion dollars.


                         programs for the blind

       One of the first pieces of legislation providing Federal 
     aid for handicapped persons was approved March 3, 1879, under 
     the title ``An Act To Promote the Education of the Blind.'' 
     This law set up a perpetual trust fund of United States 
     Bonds, the income from which, in the amount of $10,000 a 
     year, would go to the American Printing House For the Blind 
     in Louisville, Kentucky, so that books and other materials 
     could be distributed among the schools for the blind 
     throughout the country. Subsequent amendments gradually 
     increased the authorization for this program. In 1956, it was 
     $410,000 a year. Then in 1961, Congress removed the ceiling 
     from the annual appropriation and made it an amount to be 
     determined by Congress. In fiscal year 1968, the printing 
     house served some 19,000 blind children with books and other 
     teaching materials at a cost of $1.5 million.
       The printing house was originally designed to serve blind 
     children. In 1931, Congress enacted the so-called Pratt-Smoot 
     Act (P.L. 787, 71st Congress) to ``Provide Books for the Use 
     of the Adult Blind Residents of the United States.'' This 
     legislation formed the basis for the Federally-supported 
     library service to the blind vested in the division for the 
     blind and physically handicapped in the Library of Congress.
       In 1933, an amendment to the act made available for 
     distribution talking books, or phonograph records, in 
     addition to the Braille books already used.
       As commercial firms became interested in producing talking 
     book records, a 1939 amendment gave preference to 
     ``nonprofit-making institutions or agencies whose activities 
     are primarily concerned with the blind.'' A 1942 amendment 
     provided maintenance and replacement of talking book machines 
     as well as the talking books.
       Then in 1952 Congress enacted an amendment removing the 
     word ``adult'' from the act, clearing the way for blind 
     children to also benefit from the program. In 1966, another 
     amendment extended the program to

[[Page 5854]]

     include other physically handicapped persons. In 1968, 
     140,000 handicapped readers received catalogs from which to 
     select reading matter and circulation of the containers, and 
     reels, and volumes, was over 5,265,000. The expenditure for 
     the program in 1968 was $5.6 million.
       One aspect of the vocational rehabilitation program is the 
     emphasis given to adjustment, training, and placement of 
     blind persons in competitive employment. Attention was first 
     focused on this severely disabled group as a result of the 
     passage of P.L. 113 in 1943.
       The amendments to the vocational rehabilitation act in 1954 
     made a limited amount of training and research money 
     available, so employment opportunities for blind workers have 
     been greatly expanded. In 1968, 6,800 blind and 12,000 
     visually-limited persons were placed in a variety of 
     occupations. In addition, special workshops for the blind now 
     employ approximately 5,000.
       Another phase of employment for the blind was made 
     available through the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act 
     (P.L. 732) in 1936 which gave preference for operation of 
     snack bars, vending stands, and other facilities of Federal 
     properties to qualified blind persons. Installation of 
     facilities, training, and supervision of blind operators are 
     responsibilities of the State licensing agencies. In 1968, 
     3,259 blind persons earned $16.6 million, an average of 
     $5,580 per operator.


                      education of THE HANDICAPPED

       In 1864 President Abraham Lincoln signed into law a bill 
     establishing a national college for the deaf later to be 
     known as Gallaudet College, and in 1879, Congress enacted 
     legislation giving federal financial aid to the American 
     Printing House for the Blind. Unfortunately, these two 
     programs were the extent of Federal aid for education of 
     handicapped children for the next three quarters of a 
     Century.
       In 1954 Congress enacted the cooperative Research Act (P.L. 
     83-531) for research grants in education. In 1957, $675,000 
     of the $1 million appropriated under the Act was earmarked to 
     be spent on research on education of the mentally retarded.
       In 1958 Congress passed the captioned films for the Deaf 
     Program (P.L. 85-905). Originally aimed at cultural 
     enrichment and recreation, amendments in 1962 and 1965 
     broadened the program into a flexible, comprehensive 
     instructional program for the deaf, including teacher 
     training. 1967 legislation extended the program to include 
     all handicapped children requiring special education.
       Legislation in 1958 (P.L. 85-926) authorized grants to 
     educational institutions to help train professional personnel 
     to train teachers of mentally retarded children. In 1961, 
     Congress enacted legislation authorizing support for training 
     classroom teachers of the deaf (P.L. 87-276).
       In 1963, these programs for training personnel to work with 
     handicapped children were expanded to include teachers of 
     children who are ``hard of hearing, speech impaired, visually 
     handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, crippled, or 
     other health impaired,'' as well as mentally retarded and 
     deaf. The same legislation (P.L. 88-164) authorized grants 
     for research and demonstration projects in education of 
     handicapped children. A 1965 amendment to this program 
     authorized construction, equipping, and operation of 
     facilities for research and related purposes.
       The year 1965 saw enactment of a great body of legislation 
     to aid in the education of handicapped youngsters. The 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P.L. 89-10) provided 
     programs through local education agencies to reach 
     handicapped children in low income areas. It also provided 
     support for supplemental services including special 
     instruction for the handicapped and for innovative programs. 
     A 1965 amendment to this act (P.L. 89-313) provided grants to 
     State agencies directly responsible for educating handicapped 
     children. This brought assistance to State-operated or State-
     supported schools for the deaf, retarded, etc., not eligible 
     under the original act.
       Also in 1965 Congress enacted the National Technical 
     Institute for the Deaf Act (P.L. 89-36) authorizing 
     establishment and operation of a postsecondary technical 
     training facility for young adults who are deaf. This 
     institute, which is being established at the Rochester 
     Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, complements 
     Gallaudet College, which provides a liberal arts program.
       1966 saw more legislation for education of the handicapped. 
     There was the Model Secondary School for the Deaf Act (P.L. 
     89-694) which created a model high school as part of 
     Gallaudet College to serve deaf children of the Washington, 
     D.C. area. Planned to offer a full curriculum and the normal 
     extracurricular activities of high schools, this model high 
     school for deaf children may lead to formation of other 
     similar schools throughout the country.
       Also in 1966, Congress passed further amendments (P.L. 89-
     750) to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which 
     authorized funds to assist the States in improvement of 
     programs and projects for the education of handicapped 
     children at preschool, elementary, and secondary levels. The 
     1966 amendment also required establishment of a National 
     Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children to make 
     recommendations concerning programs carried on for 
     handicapped children by the Office of Education.
       In addition, the Congress undertook a bold precedent, 
     establishing the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped to 
     administer all Office of Education programs for the  
     handicapped. The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped has 
     made major strides in stimulating a local, State and Federal 
     partnership for improvement of education for handicapped 
     children.
       The 1967 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act further broadened and extended the program of 
     services to the handicapped. Regional resource centers were 
     authorized to determine special education needs of 
     handicapped children referred to them, develop educational 
     programs to meet these needs, and assist, schools in 
     providing such programs. The 1967 legislation also authorized 
     establishment and operation of centers for deaf-blind 
     children, programs designed to improve recruiting of 
     educational personnel and to improve dissemination of 
     information on educational opportunities for the handicapped.
       The 1967 Mental Retardation amendments (P.L. 90-170) 
     provided support for training professional personnel and for 
     research and demonstration activities in physical education 
     and recreation for mentally retarded and other handicapped 
     children.
       The most recent piece of legislation for education of 
     handicapped children was enacted in the Handicapped 
     Children's Early Education Assistance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-
     538). It authorizes grants to public and private agencies and 
     organizations for establishment of experimental preschool and 
      early education programs which show promise of developing 
     comprehensive and innovative approaches for meeting special 
     problems of handicapped children. This legislation recognizes 
     that the most rapid learning period comes in the years before 
     school traditionally begins. The programs engendered by this 
     legislation should do much to identify handicapped children 
     early and to help give them a better start toward full, 
     productive lives.


                     EMPLOYMENT OF THE HANDICAPPED 

       Once a handicapped person is rehabilitated and able to 
     support himself, he often encounters tremendous difficulties 
     in securing meaningful employment. A case is not considered 
     closed, in the vocational rehabilitation program, until the 
     disabled person is on the job, and has satisfactorily 
     adjusted in the eyes of both the disabled person and his 
     employer.
       For many reasons, employers are reluctant to hire the 
     handicapped. The Federal Government is trying to change this 
     attitude among employers and the public and has met with some 
     success. 
       In addition to the placement program of the vocational 
     rehabilitation program, the Bureau of Employment security, 
     through state and local employment services, provides direct 
     employment counseling and assistance to physically and 
     mentally handicapped persons seeking work. Public information 
     and educational activities directed toward employers and 
     labor organizations are part of the effort made under these 
     programs. Selective placement techniques are also used to 
     help match the physical demands of a job to the physical 
     capacities of a worker.
       The President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, 
     a voluntary group of about 600 men and women, has made great 
     accomplishments in the past 20 years to promote greater 
     employment opportunity for qualified handicapped men and 
     women. Operating within the Department of Labor and within a 
     budget that until last year had a ceiling of only a half 
     million dollars, the Committee maintains working 
     relationships with the 53 cooperating governor's committees, 
     and with the various Federal Departments, Agencies, and 
     Commissions. The Committee works to help assure that the 
     handicapped are considered for their abilities, and to help 
     facilitate development of maximum employment opportunities 
     for them. The peak of its activity, although it goes full 
     steam throughout each year, is in the first full week of 
     October, National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week.
       The Department of Labor is also involved in training the 
     handicapped. Enactment of the Manpower Development and 
     Training Act in 1962 widened the opportunity for the 
     Department to develop meaningful training programs for 
     handicapped workers. It was estimated that by the summer of 
     1966, well over 25,000 handicapped persons had received 
     training under MDTA and over 20,000 of those had already 
     obtained jobs.


                      HOUSING FOR THE HANDICAPPED

       The Federal Government is involved in several programs 
     concerned with housing for the handicapped or disabled. The 
     Housing Assistance Administration of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development provides loans and 
     contributions to local housing authorities which, in turn, 
     provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for low-income 
     families at rent they can afford. Handicapped persons of 
     limited income are among those eligible for benefits under 
     this program, established by the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 
     (P.L. 75-412).

[[Page 5855]]

       The Housing Assistance Administration also provides low-
     interest, long-term loans to private nonprofit corporations, 
     consumer cooperatives, and public agencies for new and 
     renovated rental housing, dining facilities, community rooms, 
     and workshops for the elderly and the handicapped whose 
     incomes are above the levels set for admission to public 
     housing projects, but below that needed to pay rents for 
     available private housing. This program was enacted by the 
     Housing Act of 1959 (P.L. 86-372).
       The Housing Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-70) established a grant 
     program for public and private groups to develop new or 
     improved means of providing housing for low-income persons, 
     the physically handicapped, and families. Demonstration of 
     means to provide housing is specifically authorized by this 
     legislation.
       The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-117) 
     authorized rent supplement payments to help assure privately-
     owned housing is available to low-income individuals or 
     families of low income. The handicapped are among those 
     eligible for this program if their income does not exceed the 
     maximum amount established in the area for occupancy of 
     federally-aided, low-rent public housing.


                         ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS

       Related to housing, Congress in 1968, passed legislation to 
     insure that certain buildings financed with Federal funds are 
     designed and constructed to be accessible to the physically 
     handicapped (P.L. 90-480). This legislation applies to any 
     public buildings constructed in whole or part with Federal 
     funds. The only exceptions are privately-owned residences and 
     buildings or facilities on military installations intended 
     primarily for use by able-bodied military personnel.
       This legislation was passed after recommendations were made 
     by the National Commission of Architectural Barriers to 
     Rehabilitation of the Handicapped, authorized by the 
     Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1965 and appointed by 
     the President in 1966.
       The legislation should spur States and local governments to 
     enact legislation and regulations so that all public 
     buildings, not only those built with Federal funds, will be 
     so constructed that the disabled will be able to fully 
     utilize them. Some 45 States have laws or resolutions 
     already, but many of them are not strong enough to have much 
     effect. Only a few municipalities thus far have taken similar 
     action.


          ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEEDY BLIND AND TOTALLY DISABLED

       The Federal Government is involved in programs of support 
     for needy blind persons and for permanently and totally 
     disabled persons through social security legislation enacted 
     in 1935 and 1950. Under these public assistance programs, the 
     Government provides grants to States and the States, in turn, 
     provide three forms of assistance: cash payments for food, 
     clothing, shelter, and other basic needs; medical or remedial 
     care recognized under State law, through payments directly to 
     hospitals, physicians, dentists, and other providers of care; 
     and social services, such as counseling on personal problems, 
     help in finding better housing, referral to community 
     resources, and homemaker services.
       These programs are available to needy blind persons so that 
     they may attain or retain their self-support or self-care 
     capability and to people over age 18 who cannot support 
     themselves because they have a permanent and total physical 
     or mental impairment.
       In 1967 the number of persons receiving aid to the blind in 
     the States and territories with programs in operation totaled 
     over 82,000. Combined, total expenditure of local, State, and 
     Federal funds for this purpose was over $86.9 million, and 
     the average payment for all individuals participating 
     nationwide was $90.45 per month. Under the program for the 
     permanently and totally disabled, there were 646,000 
     recipients receiving a total of $573.5 million, averaging 
     $80.60 per monthly payment.


                  SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE

       The basic social security program which provides benefits 
     to the worker when he retires also provides cash benefits to 
     covered disabled workers under age 65 and to their dependents 
     for as long as the worker is unable to engage in 
     ``substantial gainful activity.'' In 1967, over two million 
     disabled workers and dependents received social security cash 
     benefits totalling over $147.8 million. Under the 1965 social 
     security amendments, use of trust funds was authorized to pay 
     the cost of rehabilitation services provided by the State 
     vocational rehabilitation agencies to certain disability 
     insurance beneficiaries.
       The ``Medicare'' Act passed in 1965 included a little-
     publicized but valuable new arrangement for restoring more 
     disabled people: It authorized the Social Security 
     Administration to transfer from trust funds for retirement 
     and disability benefits certain amounts for vocational 
     rehabilitation services to disabled workers receiving social 
     security benefits. A limit of one percent of the total 
     benefits being received placed a control on how many funds 
     could be transferred each year. These funds are used by the 
     Federal-State Vocational Rehabilitation Program to pay for 
     services to disabled beneficiaries, most of whom can be 
     restored to activity and work, thereby resuming their 
     payments into the trust funds. For this year, $18,077,000 was 
     transferred for this work.


                                SUMMARY

       The above Federal programs have been described briefly and 
     quite possibly some programs may have been unintentionally 
     overlooked in our research.
       At any rate, the summary may be of assistance to those 
     interested in the problems and programs concerning 
     handicapped Americans.

       Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I should like to express great 
     pride in, and ask to be associated with this most excellent 
     statement just made by my distinguished colleague. He speaks 
     of a problem which, in his own words, affects every person in 
     our society and every fiber of our Nation.
       Here is, then, a definition coupled with a solution and, 
     treated with sympathy and yet with reason, an approach, I am 
     sure, that will yield to progress.
       I think that one point he so clearly set forth is the 
     challenge. That is when he asked all of us:

       Are we doing our best to see that all the knowledge, the 
     information, and money, and other help is consolidated and 
     available to the handicapped person in the form he can best 
     use and in the time and place he needs it most?

       I think he answered that question by saying a little later 
     on that we must do better. He makes a proposal which is 
     specific in its recommendations, and is an enormous 
     contribution, I think, to a very great problem.
       I look forward to the other proposal that he shall be 
     making in the days ahead in regard to what is, really, one of 
     the great problems facing this country in the last third of 
     the 20th century.
       I congratulate my distinguished colleague. I am very much 
     pleased to be here today when he makes his first speech in 
     the Senate.
       Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas 
     yield?
       Mr. DOLE. I yield.
       Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I should like to join my friend, 
     the other distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. Pearson), in 
     commending the distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dole) 
     for his contribution this afternoon.
       I have served in this body many years. I do not know that I 
     have ever heard a new Senator make a greater contribution in 
     what he characterizes as his first speech in this body.
       He talked on a subject which is close to the hearts of all 
     Americans. This country has grown so fast, with over 200 
     million people in it, with a huge Government requiring 
     complicated machinery, that it is a supertask for us to try 
     to see that some of the less fortunate people in this country 
     are not ground under the wheels of the massive instrument 
     that we have played our part in creating.
       I predict for the junior Senator from Kansas a long and 
     distinguished career. I venture to say that although his 
     contributions, I am sure, will be great, he can always 
     remember with pride the fact that his first contribution was 
     on a subject which is so important to all Americans.
       As a Member of the Senate, I join in congratulating the 
     distinguished Senator from Kansas on the masterly speech he 
     has just delivered.
       Mr. MATHIAS, Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas 
     yield?
       Mr. DOLE. I yield.
       Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I should like to join the 
     senior Senator from Kansas (Mr. Pearson) and the Senator from 
     New Hampshire (Mr. Cotton) in commenting on the speech which 
     the junior Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dole) has just 
     completed--a speech which addresses itself to a problem which 
     is becoming increasingly felt as one of the serious problems 
     in America today. The subject has a humanitarian impact 
     because it deals with the problems of the individual, but it 
     also has a social and economic impact because it affects the 
     way in which we, as a nation, deal with problems that touch 
     the lives of so many of our citizens.
       The Senator has treated the subject in great depth, with 
     thoroughness, and with understanding. I can only say that 
     this is typical of him. He and I entered the other body on 
     the same day. We came to the Senate on the same day. I have 
     known him very well in the intervening years.
       The remarks of the junior Senator from Kansas today are 
     evidence of the promise of the enormously valuable service 
     which he will render in this body as the years pass by.
       I wish to express my appreciation to him for his valuable 
     contribution.
       Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished 
     colleagues for their patience and their kind remarks.
       Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Kansas 
     is to be commended for his statement today on problems faced 
     by the handicapped. This statement, in many ways, typifies 
     the man who made it. It is well prepared, thoughtful, and 
     above all, it is a warm and human examination of the problem.
       The Senator from Kansas, during his four terms in the House 
     of Representatives, established himself as a man who truly 
     cares about people and does his best to aid them. His 
     emphasis is not on statistics, but on the

[[Page 5856]]

     people involved. This is as it must be. The dollars spent, 
     the programs generated, mean nothing unless they benefit 
     those in need.
       The problem of aiding the physically, mentally, or 
     emotionally handicapped is not one to be solved by government 
     alone. In the end it is people who must help. People will 
     provide jobs, training, and dignity. A partnership of 
     government, local and national, and the private sector of our 
     economy is the wise way of approaching the question of 
     assistance to the handicapped. It is the way highlighted by 
     the able Senator from Kansas.
       There is one final point I wish to make, Mr. President. In 
     mentioning specific causes of disability, there is one the 
     Senator from Kansas left out--service to our Nation. A great 
     number of our citizens have made the sacrifice of health and 
     well-being for the cause of peace. The distinguished Senator 
     knows well the problems of which he speaks today. He knows 
     the vitality that remains in the human soul despite injury to 
     the body. He has demonstrated how well a man can serve his 
     country despite a handicap.
       Mr. President, I congratulate the junior Senator from 
     Kansas on his fine remarks to the Senate.
       Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read the speech 
because it is as compelling and timely today as it was 39 years ago. It 
offers a comprehensive analysis of the challenges facing those with 
disabilities and the steps that need to be taken to fulfill their 
dreams of full participation in our society. Thanks to the leadership 
and perseverance of Bob Dole and the work of other Senators such as 
Senator Domenici, Senator Harkin, and Senator Kennedy, those dreams 
became a reality with the passage in 1990 of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act.
  Bob has described July 26, 1990, the day President George Herbert 
Walker Bush signed the ADA into law, as one of the most rewarding days 
of his life. He once said:

       I suppose there were some that day who saw only a White 
     House lawn covered with wheelchairs and guide dogs. But that 
     just goes to show who in our society is truly limited.
       My own perspective was very different. As I looked around, 
     I saw Americans with amazing gifts; Americans who could 
     finally contribute to a Nation much in need of their skills 
     and insights.

  Bob Dole not only devoted much of his public life to serve as an 
advocate for Americans with disabilities, he devoted much of his 
private life as well. He began the Dole Foundation and worked to raise 
millions, which were used to fund job training and placement programs 
for disabled workers. Bob also established a scholarship fund for law 
students with disabilities at the Washburn University School of Law. 
The funds provide assistance to students with disabilities for tuition, 
books, and other special needs.
  Throughout his career, Bob Dole has never wavered in his special 
commitment to the veterans who were disabled in service to our country. 
As my colleagues know, last year President Bush appointed Bob and 
former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala to serve as 
cochairs of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returned 
Wounded Warriors.
  The Commission was asked to provide a comprehensive review of the 
care provided to service men and women wounded in the global war on 
terrorism and to recommend needed improvements to that care. In the 
course of their work, the Commission visited DOD facilities, VA 
hospitals, and other care sites across the country. They met with 
injured servicemembers, their families, professionals who provide 
medical and rehabilitative services, program administrators, and many 
others.
  Last July, the Commission issued a final report with important 
recommendations that would serve and support our veterans while 
simplifying an overly complex system. As Senators Roberts and Brownback 
know, the State motto of Kansas is: ``To the stars through 
difficulties.''
  Quite simply, I can think of no American who has done more in his 
life and career to ensure that individuals with disabilities have the 
opportunity to fly as high and soar as far as their skills and talent 
can take them than Bob Dole.
  In doing so, he has earned more than the pride and admiration of a 
loving wife. He has earned the respect of a grateful nation and the 
enduring thanks of millions of individuals he has never met but whose 
lives are immeasurably better and richer and more productive because of 
him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I have been listening to Senator Dole speak of her 
husband, a great American. I would like to tell the Senator that as a 
member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we are now examining the 
Dole-Shalala proposal that the Senator referenced, which is a quantum 
leap in good advice and sound understanding of the needs of America's 
veterans. We thank you. More importantly, we thank Senator Dole for 
that great effort.


                            Tax Code Reform

  Mr. CRAIG. I rise today, on the eve of Tax Day, 2008, to discuss the 
State of our Nation's Tax Code. Only a few weeks ago, we debated the 
fiscal year 2009 budget resolution and some recurring themes very 
quickly emerged.
  Over and over again, both sides of the aisle were speaking of the 
problems they heard about, the death tax and problems with the 
alternative minimum tax and the unfair tax advantage of the wealthy and 
the burden on the middle class and other problems that are systemic 
within America's Tax Code.
  You know what we did about these problems? We only offered temporary 
solutions like we have offered for the last decade. Here is what is 
wrong with that type of thinking: There are not temporary problems that 
can be fixed with temporary solutions, they are fundamental problems 
that require fundamental changes in America's Tax Code.
  Our current Tax Code is broken, and you saw Democrats and Republicans 
alike opining on the floor of the Senate during the debate over the 
budget resolution about taxes. We tried to fix it with a temporary 
measure, but we have served only to make things worse. There is exactly 
what we have done over the last good number of years.
  Today's Tax Code is over 67,000 pages long, and it is growing. 
According to IRS estimates, taxpayers spend 6 billion hours annually 
trying to fit themselves into the Tax Code and over $265 billion in 
related compliance costs.
  Ladies and gentlemen, fellow Americans, it is only going to get 
worse. Since the last major overhaul of the Tax Code in 1986, we have 
made 15,000 changes. That is right, since 1986, we have made 15,000 
changes. That equates to a couple of changes to our Tax Code every day.
  This nonstop tinkering has created a tax system that is overly 
complex, incredibly inefficient, and extremely unfair. We cannot 
continue down this unsustainable path of temporary fixes. We need to do 
fundamental reform to our Tax Code. We need a system that is simple and 
transparent and fair. We need to wipe the slate clean and start all 
over.
  I am amazed we have not done the very fundamental aspects of what we 
need to do to fix the Tax Code. Our broken code does more than cost us 
money in compliance costs and a waste of time, it hurts us both 
socially and economically. Socially our Tax Code tells us when is the 
best time to marry, how many children we ought to have, how much to 
save, how much to invest, where to live, and even, to a degree, what 
time we should die in our lives that is the most economically 
advantaged to our estate.
  That is what our Tax Code does. Economically, we waste billions of 
dollars that could have been reinvested in the economy. Instead, we 
employ some of America's brightest minds on innovation, while we waste 
them on finding ways to navigate through this phenomenally complex 
67,000-page code. Moreover, our complex Tax Code and high corporate tax 
rate are putting Americans out of business as we compete in a world 
around us, not just here in America but all over the world. Companies 
today are locating where they have a greater tax advantage.
  I spent several years examining several different tax systems, and 
after examining the facts, I believe the best alternative to a broken 
Tax Code has been the very tax idea I introduced

[[Page 5857]]

some years ago. That was a flat tax--no games, no gimmicks, a 
straightforward approach.
  Our Tax Code is the workhorse pulling our economy, as I stated 
earlier, pulling us in the wrong direction. This horse that pulls our 
economy, the American Tax Code, has grown very lame. I grew up farming 
and ranching. Let me tell you, when the horse got lame, you took it out 
of the harness and put it in the barn. Sometimes, if it could not get 
well, you would simply have to dispose of it. How tragic that was.
  But today's tragedy is the lame horse that is still in the harness, 
attempting to pull the Tax Code and the American people and the economy 
in the right direction when it is headed in the wrong direction.
  So now as Americans file their taxes responsibly and dutifully, after 
they have navigated their way through a maze, and they have taken them 
to their accountant, and their accountant puts his or her final seal on 
it, and they send it in, if they were to ask an IRS agent: Did I do it 
right, there is no IRS agent today, no matter how schooled and how 
learned and how long-serving in the IRS, who can say: Yes, you have 
done it right. And that is not appropriate. The best they can tell you 
is that they think, in fact they guess, that you did it right.
  That ought to be an embarrassment to our country, and more 
importantly it ought to be an embarrassment to America's policymakers. 
That is us, those who write the Tax Code of our country that drives our 
economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me use some of the time for the issue at hand. First 
of all, I wish to talk about the technical corrections bill that is 
going to be voted on in about 15 minutes--not the bill but the motion 
to proceed to the bill.
  The Transportation bill that we are involved in, that Senator Boxer 
and I were involved in back in 2005, that we passed August 10 of 2005, 
authorized $286 billion in transportation and infrastructure spending 
for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
  Now, let me say that as a conservative standing here, that is a huge 
number. I think that may have been the largest nondefense spending bill 
at the time up to that time. But it is interesting that if we spend all 
of that, it is not going to even maintain what we have today.
  That is why we put into the bill a committee to look into new ways of 
funding infrastructure, new ways of funding transportation. We have 
been doing it the same way since President Eisenhower, and it is time 
we tried something different.
  I think there is a resistance to continuing to increase taxes as the 
only way of funding our infrastructure. Included in the bill are 
recommended technical changes from the Department of Transportation 
that address functional problems in implementing the bill, technical 
changes to safety products which will continue to be delayed from 
breaking ground due to simple drafting errors and descriptions.
  Furthermore, universities and other transportation research entities 
will not receive their fully intended funding, and the States will be 
unable to use millions of dollars in transportation funds that were 
authorized 3 years ago.
  Something that is interesting, the bill does not increase the overall 
size of SAFETEA. I have heard a lot of people say: Well, this is a big 
spending bill. First of all, it is not a spending bill, it is an 
authorizing bill. But the technical corrections are also an 
authorization.
  Now, it is my understanding, and I believe it is true, that the total 
amount of authorization that was in the bill itself is not changed by 
the technical corrections bill.
  A lot of people are implying it is. I do not believe it is. We have 
had staff and ourselves looking at it. It may change some of the 
priorities in the authorization, but the overall figure, the top line, 
is going to be the same.
  Several of my colleagues have approached me recently with additional 
project fixes. In some cases, I have had to say no to their requests 
because they either submitted them too late to be considered in our 
negotiations with the House--the request went beyond the scope of a 
technical fix--or because the proposed fix was to a House project which 
the House objected to. Let's keep in mind, we have two Houses working 
on this. We have the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is a 
difficult type of legislation to get passed. But one thing you can't do 
is start making changes and anticipate that the House is going to go 
along with those changes, because I can tell my colleagues, they will 
not do it. Our House colleagues have passed this bill several times, 
but each time it comes over to the Senate it has been held up.
  The bill before us, along with the manager's substitute amendment, is 
the commutation of negotiations between the House and the Senate. Any 
changes to the bill at this point will require the concurrence of the 
House or the bill will not proceed. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to 
understand that if they are planning on filing an amendment before the 
chairman and I can agree to it, we need to determine if our 
counterparts in the House would find it to be agreeable. I suggest they 
probably will not.
  I heard about an hour ago, when I arrived in Washington, that it 
might be that the administration could have some objections. I am 
having a hard time understanding how that could be. First, they 
supported the bill. They signed the bill when it first passed in August 
of 2005. Technical corrections is a common thing. It does not have a 
net increase in authorizations. I can't see why it would be. I 
understand there would be one provision having to do with rapid transit 
that would not be in our committee. It was not in the committee chaired 
by Senator Boxer and formerly chaired by me. It is in the Banking 
Committee. So we want to look at that. If that is the objection, I 
certainly believe we can talk to the administration and keep them from 
opposing it.
  We have some amendments that have been discussed. I have not been 
here long enough to find out this week if people are going to come 
forward with their amendments. My junior Senator, Mr. Coburn, makes a 
very good point on a project down in Florida called Coconut Road, that 
there have been some problems. Apparently, all those have been 
corrected. The only thing I wish to talk to my junior Senator about is 
if he wants to examine this, investigate this, that is a good idea. It 
is already being done. However, we have enough committees and 
commissions around this place, thousands of them. I am not sure we need 
another one. That is something we might want to debate. I know Senator 
Bond has an amendment that he has discussed. I look forward to visiting 
with him. Any of these amendments, yes, we want to talk about them. But 
keep in mind, we do have this commitment that we have a technical 
corrections bill that has to pass or we cannot implement those 
provisions that otherwise are going to allow us to correct some of the 
problems we have.
  Again, here I am, a conservative, saying this is not adequate, what 
we have done today. We have another one that should be coming up next 
year. Hopefully, it will. Sometimes it doesn't happen like it should. 
But in the meantime, I want that committee that is supposed to be 
examining the way we have historically funded roads and highways and 
infrastructure to come up with some ideas. There are experiments in 
different States right now. But we will have to recognize the fact that 
this country has got to have infrastructure for it to survive.
  In conclusion, I assure my colleagues that I appreciate their 
responsiveness to our numerous requests to advise the committee of 
their requests, thereby assisting us to help them. If we were unable to 
satisfactorily address their concerns in this bill, there will be 
additional opportunities do so when we reauthorize SAFETEA, and that 
reauthorization should be under way next year.
  With that, I hope those who object to this will at least let us 
proceed to this bill. Then we can look at it and see if

[[Page 5858]]

there are any of the amendments that we feel would not violate the 
agreement between the Senate and House and would have the effect of 
killing the whole bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my ranking member. He and I, 
when we are on the same page, have had very good results. I think our 
colleagues trust that when we can come together on something, it has 
gone through all the hoops and all the ``I's'' have been dotted and the 
``T's'' have been crossed. I want to assure colleagues that on this 
particular piece of legislation, we have worked closely together, as 
have Senators Dodd and Shelby over at Banking, as have Senators Inouye 
and Stevens. This is one of those moments which doesn't come that often 
around here--not often enough for me--where we do have a lot of us 
working together across party lines, across committee jurisdictions.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I neglected to mention that when we went through this 
long and arduous legislation initially, there are probably not two 
Members of the Senate who are more opposed to each other 
philosophically than the two of us, Senator Boxer and myself. But we 
recognize that the process we used is one that is fair. We developed 
criteria. There are projects in here that met the criteria. Some of 
them I would oppose personally, but nonetheless, you have to come up 
with a bill if you are going to have roads to travel and infrastructure 
to serve this great Nation.
  I compliment Senator Boxer in working with me on some of the problems 
I had initially with this bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am pleased we can work so well 
together. I want to thank our staffs also. We have developed very 
trusting relationships with our senior staff, and it reflects the 
relationship we have developed to be able, even if we disagree, to be 
completely honest with each other. This is helpful for the Senate as a 
whole.
  I wanted to share with the Senate this amazing group who came 
together to support us in our efforts on this technical corrections 
bill which will unleash some funding that is rather stuck right now, at 
a time when we could use some construction activity. I think it is 
important to see. We have the American Association of Highway and 
Transportation Officials--those are Departments of Transportation from 
all 50 States--American Highway Users Alliance, millions of highway 
users throughout the country; American Public Transit Association, 
transit systems from across the country; American Road and 
Transportation Builders Associations, more than 5,000 members of the 
transportation construction industry--these people have all written to 
us and have said: Get this bill going--Associated General Contractors, 
more than 32,000 contractors, service providers and suppliers; the 
Council of University Transportation Centers, more than 30 university 
transportation centers from across the country; National Stone, Sand 
and Gravel Association, companies in America that produce more than 92 
percent of crushed stone and 75 percent of sand and gravel used in the 
United States annually; and the National Asphalt and Pavement 
Association, more than 1,100 companies that produce and pave with 
asphalt. These are the folks who are saying to all of us: Please bring 
this bill to the floor, please work together.
  I personally have a very good feeling about this bill. Senator 
DeMint, who sometimes has trouble with these bills, was complimentary 
to both of us and the work we have done. He has a couple of amendments, 
maybe only one amendment. He said he did not intend to hold up our 
bill. So I think we are moving in a good direction. But I want to 
reiterate what Senator Inhofe said: Please, if you do have an 
amendment, talk to us, because we are not going to have this bill go 
through unless the House signs off. So we would hope we could keep this 
bill pretty clean. We hope we can work out our differences with a 
couple of Senators who have some problems. If we can't work it out, we 
will have to see what the body wants to do. This is sort of a very mini 
stimulus package, frankly, and one that doesn't mean one dollar of new 
spending that hasn't already been authorized. It is a good moment for 
the Senate.
  I thank Senator Reid, working with Senator McConnell, for getting 
this bill before us. A lot of our communities will be very happy when 
they see that projects that were stalled, because there were some 
technical problems, can now go forward.
  Some of our colleagues who said: Look, leg one of this project can go 
forward but not leg two. Can you change the wording?
  We are allowing colleagues this kind of latitude. Of course, we put a 
freeze on all of that because we had to cut off at some point. I think 
this bill is a good bill. It is a technical corrections bill. It is not 
breaking any new ground. We look forward to an ``aye'' vote from as 
many of our colleagues whom we can convince this is a good idea. I 
understand we are about to go into the vote. I look forward to a solid 
vote. Then Senator Inhofe and I will be in the well, and we will talk 
to all our colleagues who may want to talk about their amendments.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 608, H.R. 1195, an act to amend the 
     Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act: A Legacy for Users, to make technical corrections, and 
     for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Frank R. Lautenberg, Jon 
           Tester, Mark L. Pryor, Bernard Sanders, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, John D. 
           Rockefeller IV, Jack Reed.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 1195, a bill to amend the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to 
make technical corrections, and for other purposes, shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn

[[Page 5859]]


     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Bond
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clinton
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Menendez
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 93, the nays are 1. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I just need 30 seconds. On behalf of my 
ranking member, Jim Inhofe, and myself, I thank colleagues for giving 
us this go-ahead to go to the technical corrections bill. It is not the 
most exciting of bills, but it will be a bit of an economic stimulus to 
our Nation. It doesn't add a dollar of new spending; it just makes 
corrections to a bill that is a very popular bill--SAFETEA-LU--and it 
will allow a lot of highway construction and transit projects to 
proceed. We are very pleased with this vote.
  Before giving up the floor so Senator Inhofe can say a couple of 
words, if my colleagues have any amendments--we know that amendments do 
threaten this bill--we will be delighted to speak with our colleagues 
about them and try to figure out a way to either work them out so that 
the House agrees and we agree we can move forward or figure out a way 
to get an early vote so we can get on with consideration and then on to 
something else.
  At this point, I yield the floor and again say thank you very much to 
our colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me say I do agree with what Senator 
Boxer says, although it is a little bit more than that. Not only does 
it not spend more, it doesn't authorize more. I think that is very 
important for people to understand. There is some confusion from some 
things I have read in different publications that make it appear that 
we have increased the authorization. Some things have been moved 
around, but the bottom line is it has remained unchanged.
  The other thing that is important to repeat is that as big as this 
bill was, the 2005 bill we are scheduled to get into again next year, 
in 2009, it still doesn't take care of the problem. We have a problem 
in this country with the $286 billion figure; it doesn't even maintain 
what we have today. That is critical. I am hoping the committee that 
was established for the purpose of exploring new ways of funding 
transportation will come up with something a little more creative than 
they have so far because we are not going to be able to do it just by 
redoing and expanding what Eisenhower started many years ago. So we 
need to have this bill in order to go ahead and finish the projects 
that we have authorized and that are paid for at this time, and we 
won't do it unless we can pass this bill.
  So I hope anyone--I would agree with Senator Boxer--anyone with 
amendments, let's bring them down and talk about them, and I am 
available to talk, and I am doing that as we speak. I have spoken with 
a couple of Members who have talked about an amendment. So if you have 
any amendments, bring them down so Senator Boxer and I can visit with 
you about the amendments.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________