Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2003

Will my friend from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. President, I appreciate very much my distinguished copartner on the Transportation Subcommittee talking about the need to get this bill through quickly. He was discussing the difference between the bill we have now and the original bill.

I was wondering if it is correct that the original highway bill really didn't have any formulas; it was what one would have to call pork because it had various projects in it. It was an effort by the Congress to outline where money is needed. Is that not basically the form of the original highway bill?

Mr. President, if the Senator from Nevada will yield for another question, isn't it true that the scope of this bill, the size of it, reflects programs that Congresses in previous years decided are good for the national transportation policy? In other words, we are not creating a new formula; we have taken the formula, the apportionment that existed. Is it not true that we have attempted to construct this bill so that, working with the formula, every State gets up to 95 cents?

My State of Missouri was one of those States, when I got here in 1987, that was only getting back 77 cents. Every State will get up to 95 cents on the dollar. Every State, at a minimum, will get a 10- percent increase. Some States that would be getting much more money will only get a 40-percent or 40-plus-percent increase, which some may object to and say is not enough. But in this day and age, with a tight budget, it seems to me a 40-percent increase is not bad to take home from a compromise bill. Is that a fair assessment?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask my colleague to yield about a matter.

We have a number of technical amendments. There is a question about whether we want to move to that. We are preparing a technical amendment. I have discussed this with both sides. Basically, this is a technical amendment that accomplishes a number of things. In essence, it achieves the original goal of an amendment offered by Senator Warner, which was to increase the metropolitan planning share or takedown from 1 percent to 1.5 percent. We are getting a technical amendment copied, and as soon as we get the copies, if there is no objection from the managers, I thought we would do that.

Mr. President, might we inquire of the managers on the Democratic side if they are ready to take this up?

I will be happy to withhold on that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to announce there is an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid. This is one small step for mankind toward a highway bill.

There had been some concern about offering amendments. This is a technical amendment. This changes a number of items that, when crafting the bill, were erroneous. Normally we would adopt these technical amendments without objection. But there may be some discussion on it. I wish to explain the one perhaps significant change in this technical amendment so everybody knows what we are doing.

In the previous bill, TEA-21, the metropolitan planning organizations received 1 percent from the Surface Transportation Program to do the work that these agencies are required to do in approving transportation plans, conforming them to air quality plans. This 1 percent takedown, as it is called, amounted to about $1.7 billion over the life of the bill.

In drafting the underlying bill, we increased spending on planning for metropolitan planning organizations by $800 million, almost a 50 percent increase.

When Senator Warner proposed making the takedown of the share for the metropolitan planning organizations 1.5 percent rather than 1 percent,

it was on the assumption that the total of the previous amount plus what we did in committee would amount to 1.5 percent. But as it was drafted and printed in the committee report, it wound up adding what we had previously put in the equity bonus on top of the 1.5 percent.

I believe this amendment restores the MPO portion to that originally proposed and adopted, i.e., a 1.5 percent share, which is what we have all agreed is needed for metropolitan planning organizations.

We have a letter that I will submit, signed by the executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the president and chief executive officer of the American Highway Users Alliance, the chief executive officer of Associated General Contractors of America, the executive director of American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The letter says, in substance--and I will submit the full letter-- that we write on behalf of the organizations to express concerns over the size of the total, the 1.5 percent-plus, the additional equity bonus. Their point is that the large increase results from a combination of adjustments, growth in the overall highway program, an increase in the percentage set-aside, and broadening of the program base subject to the metropolitan planning set-aside.

They believed that adding an additional $2.2 billion for planning would make that much less available for improving, constructing, maintaining, and operating a safe and efficient highway system.

They come out strongly in support--as we all are--of increasing the metropolitan planning funds. The number of MPOs has increased 340 to 378, and many more are looking at the prospect of being designated as nonattainment for the new ozone and fine particulate standards. They recommend an increase more comparable to the growth in MPOs, but they do not think tripling it is wise. So they have asked us to reconsider.

The purpose of this technical amendment, among other things, is to bring it back to the 1.5 percent increase, upon which we have previously agreed.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see the majority leader is in the Chamber. We will not act on this amendment at this time. If somebody wishes to object to it after the majority leader speaks, we would ask that they come to the floor and make an objection. Otherwise, I propose that at 3 o'clock we ask that the amendment be adopted or, if we need a recorded vote, we will be happy to do that. One way or another, I hope we can have action on this by 3 o'clock.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from New Hampshire what his substitute does?

Mr. President, this obviously is a very important issue the Senator has raised. Having this as an amendment to a technical amendment raises questions that I think perhaps should be answered.

First, I point out to my friends who are concerned about it that the number we have chosen for the highway portion of the bill was a number adopted by a 79-21 vote on the floor of this body. In addition, we understand the need to provide funding for highways. The Finance Committee has worked very hard to come up with the funding measures. I don't serve on the Finance Committee, but they have adopted fuel tax compliance measures. They have reformed the provisions for the ethanol exemption. It is a very valuable agricultural fuel that improves the environment. They will not charge the highway trust fund with that. They will pay down the existing interest owed to the highway trust fund and spend down the balance. They will clarify mobile machinery exemptions and transportation taxes, and discontinue refunds going from the trust fund into the general revenue fund for fuel tax exemptions. These are generally related to the highway trust fund.

Further, I will point out for those of us who said we want the trust fund used for highways, the trust fund right now is being used for other things that are not highway related, such as automobile, bus, and truck drivers. Some $36 billion will go to mass transit, a very valuable adjunct to the transportation system but not something that

people who pay highway trust fund taxes are using because they are putting the gas and diesel in their own vehicles.

There are also valuable environmental benefits in there such as CMAQ--congestion mitigation for air quality. There are also rails and trails and other easements in there that are a significant diversion of highway trust fund dollars from the direct highway trust fund purposes.

I hope my colleagues who have problems with strict application of highway funds being raised on highway uses deal with that in an amendment that is directly related to the highway bill transportation which is before us.

Obviously, one of the things one can do in the Senate is to offer amendments that are more properly the jurisdiction of other committees, which certainly collective bargaining is, I would say, such an effort. But this bill is so important to the United States, to our economy, and the safety and well-being of the people who use our highways and use our bridges in the United States that I hope we can get back to the main purpose of this measure, which is to continue the highway program, which builds better roads, better bridges, and provides jobs--47,000 jobs for each $1 billion of highway contracts--and provides the future for economic growth in our States.

As I have said on many occasions on this floor, I can tell you jobs are going to be located in the States where they have good transportation systems, and good highways are essential for that.

Finally, in my State it is a matter of saving lives. So I hope we can get back to dealing with the important measures in this bill. I hope we can deal with the specific needs, make the technical amendments that are normally permitted on such a bill, and debate the major provisions.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, picking up with the description of this bill, which we think is extremely important, I am going to share some other views. But I want to continue with this description of the bill.

Under the current law, there is a general prohibition against placing commercial establishments in recreation and safety rest areas on interstate rights-of-way. This bill creates a small exception to this prohibition by allowing States to place either electrification or other idling facilities that can be used for heating, air-conditioning, electricity, and communication. This will enable truck operators to receive services without continuing to run their engines, thereby reducing vehicle emissions. States, other public agencies, and private entities are already allowed to operate on the interstate system and may charge for the services provided under this new authority.

Why is this important? This is tremendously important. If you travel in your State along an interstate, you will find now that the new hours-of-service regulations require truckers to take more frequent breaks. There are rest areas in my State which are crowded with trucks. There are entrances to and exits from interstate highways where significant numbers of trucks are parked. This is to make sure that the drivers get the rest they need. There has been some controversy over it, but this is the rule and they are abiding by that rule. But when they are shut down and idling, particularly in bitter cold weather so they can get heat in their cab while they get the necessary rest, No. 1, it is causing dangerous situations along the roadway, on the exit and entrance ramps to interstate highways, and they are needlessly burning fuel, polluting the atmosphere, and causing excessive use of imported petroleum at a time when we face a real energy crisis.

So while this is a small part of the bill, it is one which responds to very significant needs to maintain safety for the traveling public, especially the truckers, and also to eliminate air pollution that comes from idling trucks.

Another program that I think is vitally important to empower the improvements in tolling, section 1609, deals with tools for toll programs. One of the effective things that has been used in many highway locations for raising revenue and regulating the flow of traffic is tolling. This bill modifies the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program, the ISRRP, and establishes a new variable toll pricing program. This variable pricing program replaces the pilot program which was authorized in the previous TEA-21.

The new variable toll pricing program enables the use of variable toll pricing on congested facilities in order to increase mobility and improve air quality. This says that the Secretary can permit a State or public authority to toll any highway, bridge, or tunnel, including facilities on the interstate system, to manage high levels of congestion or reduce emissions in a nonattainment area or maintenance area.

This is extremely important when you look at the kinds of congestion we have in many areas during high traffic time. If there are tolls imposed when there would otherwise be heavy congestion, then those who must necessarily travel at that time can continue to do so by paying a toll. This is the ultimate market-based system for assuring that people who do not have to travel at high congestion times will not. Obviously, this means better traffic flow, this means less congestion, and therefore less pollution. So I think this is extremely important.

The Secretary may permit a State or public authority to manage the levels. The States must provide the Secretary with a description of the congestion and air quality problems, and the goals. Any State or public authority already operating under a cooperative agreement under the existing pricing pilot program of TEA-21 can continue under the existing laws.

We also have included some changes in the tolling requirements because in some States there are interstates which are badly out of date and in need of substantial rehabilitation. In the current laws, the provision for establishing tolls on existing interstates has been limited to replacement. If you have ever traveled I-70 in the State of Missouri, which is the lifeline for our State and for much of the Nation for east-west traffic going from coast to coast, certainly traveling between Kansas City and St. Louis, you will find that there are tremendous delays occasioned because the roads are inadequate. They are two-lane roads that are like driving in city traffic, they are so filled with cars and congestion.

In addition, when there are accidents on these roads, it is not uncommon for us to experience an hour or 2-hour delay. In one instance, I managed to miss a 7-hour delay by taking some back roads which I knew about to get around a major disaster.

This measure expands the ability to say if it is substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction, the State, if it chooses, could use tolls to improve an interstate.

Right now, Interstate 70 has the distinction of being the first toll road in the United States. But it also means it is a half a century old and it is at least 20 years out of date. The total cost for repairing it and replacing it is about $3 billion.

Some of my colleagues will be surprised to know that I have not asked in this bill for $3 billion to replace this vital national link. But I do believe we need to provide options for States to deal with problems such as this one. Whether they do it is going to be up to them. In the State of Missouri, there would have to be a vote of the people.

They would have to authorize the issuance of bonds and a tolling authority. This does not by any means say we are going to put tolls on it. It provides an option for the legislature, the Governor, the Department of Transportation to consider as they look at how they want to deal with one of these very significant highway corridors, which has become far too often a parking lot rather than a means of facilitating transportation between our two major cities and for people traveling from far beyond, going east to west through the heartland of the Nation, through the State of Missouri.

I think this is a very important provision and one which will provide States reasonable flexibility, not allowing them, willy-nilly, to take roads already financed through the interstate program, to impose tolls on them to finance other activities, but to make sure that we continue to realize the dream of those who initially formulated the interstate highway program to make sure that we can see traffic continue to proceed.

Let me move to another provision in the bill. It is section 1610, which merely directs the EPA to study the ability to monitor differentiation between fine and coarse particulate matter.

As we find out more about the dangers of pollutants, we find they are greater risks in the fine particulates in many instances which can cause far more significant harm than a coarse particulate because of the impact on the lungs.

Section 1611 adds particulate matter areas to the Congestion, Mitigation, and Air Quality Program. The funds under this provision are apportioned on the basis of a ratio of total weighted population of a State's nonattainment or maintenance areas to the total weighted population of all nonattainment or maintenance areas in the Nation.

If you didn't follow me on that, if a State has air quality problems in an area which is one-twentieth of all of the areas in the Nation, then they would get one-twentieth of the total funds available.

It sounds convoluted, but it really targets the CMAQ funds to the areas with greatest needs. Since many areas will need assistance to meet the new 8-hour ozone standard and the new fine particulate matter standard, the CMAQ formula is modified to include those areas. Adjustment factors are used to account for the number of pollutants for areas in nonattainment or maintenance. Section 1611 says CMAQ funds can be used for alternative fuel infrastructure under TEA-21. This bill goes further and encourages the use of CMAQ funds by listing the purchase of alternative fuel and the purchase of biodiesel fuel as eligible activities under CMAQ.

Due to some confusion in some DOT and EPA field and regional offices, we have also clarified that projects to control the extended idling of vehicles are indeed eligible for funding under the CMAQ program.

The bill also fixes oversight under current law that prevents States that do not have any nonattainment or maintenance areas from using CMAQ funds for CMAQ projects. Frankly, this allows us to get more homegrown clean fuels used with the assistance of CMAQ funds.

I happen to know something about soy diesel and about biodiesel. I am a great champion of it, because if you have followed a bus or a truck down the road that is burning straight diesel, you know what an unpleasant smell that can cause and what damage that can do to the environment. Biodiesel is a soybean-based or other biomass-based fuel which operates in a much cleaner burning environment. Several years ago we started a pilot project at the great training facility at Fort Leonard Wood, MO that needed to train soldiers to fight in smoke conditions on the battlefield. They had been burning diesel to provide that smoke. We felt that was not necessarily a good idea to be burning diesel and exposing our finest troops to the diesel pollution and the smoke that was caused. We worked with the Department of Defense to switch that to soy diesel. There was smoke. I asked them after they implemented what the byproducts were. They said, Obviously, we are not polluting the environment with petroleum-based diesel. We are burning a much cleaner soy-based fuel. It is much less harmful to the soldiers. The only problem is it smells like French fries and they get hungry. But given the alternative, that seems to be a good idea.

To the extent we get more buses and trucks using biodiesel, we are going to have greater benefits.

Let me give you two areas where soy diesel or any biodiesel can be a great improvement.

No. 1, firehouses: The fire men and women who live and stay in firehouses have complained for years. When they fire up the firetrucks, they get the diesel fumes coming up into the rest area. Sometimes, our valiant firefighters have to live and sleep in heavily polluted diesel- fuel-soaked areas. This is not only unhealthy, but it is very unpleasant. Fire stations have been some of the first places where we have used biodiesel. It has been extremely popular. Certainly when we are trying to talk about taking care of our first responders and the valiant firefighters who are on the line making sure the engines and the firetrucks below them are burning a clean-burning feel, it is a step in the right direction.

Another important area we have talked a lot about is school bus safety. When you have kids on school buses, the fumes from petroleum- based diesel come into that school bus. Do you know where they are the most dangerous? They are most dangerous when they are at low levels-- where the small children are. The smallest children are likely to be exposed to petroleum-based diesel fumes.

We are working to encourage more and more school buses to use soy diesel, and put aside the fact that kids are going to get hungry when they smell something that smells like french fries. But it is vitally important that we lessen the danger to our schoolchildren as well as lessening the use of diesel fuel and providing a significant benefit to those who produce soybean and other biomass.

I see a couple of our colleagues are here. Senator Thomas wishes to speak. We have lots more to talk about, but I will discontinue at this point and thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for coming to the floor.

Mr. President, we are checking with our colleagues on the possibility of setting a judicial nomination. As soon as we find out whether that is acceptable, we will ask consent.

Mr. President, we have heard lots of reasons why this bill is not a good bill, why we don't want to go to this bill, why we shouldn't be moving a highway bill. I have talked about some of those reasons, but let me share with you some information that indicates how the people of America think.

The Zogby International Survey Group did a broad-based survey of American voters. Nearly 70 percent of the voters contacted, in February 2003, said they believe America is facing a transportation capacity crisis, that our Nation's roads, airports, and mass transit systems are struggling to handle a growing population and economy.

Fifty-six percent overall and 79 percent of young women with children said traffic congestion is depriving them of more time with their families or for leisure activities today than just 5 years ago.

I don't think these answers should surprise any of us.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown by almost 19 percent, the number of registered motor vehicles has increased by 36 percent, and the vehicle miles traveled has ballooned by 72 percent. And--surprise-- over the past 20 years we have added less than 5 percent to road capacity, and even less than that to public transit.

What are the conditions of roads in local communities?

Forty-eight percent of those surveyed by Zogby said they were either fair or poor. When you move to Hispanic Americans, 75 percent said their communities have either fair or poor road conditions.

This is a problem in communities. This is a problem particularly for citizens who are maybe at a disadvantage in their community.

This survey's results come from a poll of over 1,000 voters nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.

I think some of the other findings are pretty important.

Eighty percent of the people polled think the Nation's highways and public transit networks are extremely important or very important to the U.S. economy. That is why we are here. Eighty percent of our constituents think highways and transportation networks are important. That is what this bill is all about. That is why we want to get everybody together to move this bill.

I urge my colleagues, if you have problems with particular portions of the bill, offer amendments. That is how this body functions. We would like to have good-faith amendments that seek to make changes which are necessary so we can move forward in a reasonable manner.

I think the people of America, particularly the 80 percent who say it is important, deserve to see us vote on issues that are of importance to them.

Eight in 10 of the people surveyed agree that an investment in highways, bridges, and public transit should be considered an important element in homeland security and national defense.

Ninety percent believe it is important that their representatives in Congress fight to ensure sufficient Federal

funding for transportation improvement projects in their local areas. I think some States must be lower than that because I think in my State it is higher than 90 percent. So some may have only 80 percent who think it is important.

Two-thirds of Americans say roads and public transit play a vitally important role in their life.

These are scientific surveys that merely confirm what I and many of my colleagues already know: If you go back to your home State and have a meeting about highway and transportation funding, you better get a big hall. I have had people come out to fill any hall that I have scheduled a meeting in to talk about it because they want to know more. They know it is important. I think this is vitally important.

I know there are some who may take a different view. Some people claim building more roads just causes more traffic. They even say you can't build your way out of traffic congestion. They are the zero sum game people, the ones who say there will just be more congestion.

Well, congestion is getting worse at a frightening pace in America. I believe the primary reason is a lack of adequate highway and public transportation capacity, not only in our major urban and suburban areas but in rural areas as well. As I have said several times, that is why we are killing people in Missouri. We don't have adequate highway transportation, particularly in rural areas.

Even as we spend more wasted time sitting in gridlocked traffic, many well-intentioned Americans, spurred on by the rhetoric of some of the extreme advocacy groups who want us all to ride bicycles--and I love to ride bicycles, but those won't get me to work and back, particularly when we have icy roads, as we do here, or when we have to take more people with us--are convinced that adding road capacity only causes more traffic congestion, more air pollution, more waste of precious fuels.

I think the answer to that is very clear: Research data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Texas Transportation Institute and common sense, if you and I just sit back and think about it, proves just about the opposite. The real problem is our lack of resolve to provide meaningful solutions to traffic congestion through new capital and operational investments. The failure to do so actually results in tons of unnecessary air pollution and billions of gallons of wasted motor fuel.

The Zogby poll found that 70 percent of America is facing a transportation capacity crisis, and all of these people realize we need, as a nation, the investment in transportation.

Talk about a drag on the economy, according to the Texas Transportation Urban Mobility Report, absent substantial new investments in highway and public transportation capacity, transportation operations across the Nation, the economic cost of traffic congestion in the Nation, lost productivity, wasted motor fuel will grow from about $67.5 billion in 2000 to almost $100 billion by 2009. That is one of the reasons we seek to have the investment. Yes, $255 billion is a large amount. It is not all going to highways. It comes from highway user taxes, but it goes to mass transit; it goes to congestion mitigation; it goes to scenic easements, to other things that improve the environment in which we live.

If we don't make these investments, the Texas Transportation Institute forecasts that over this period the average road speed in America's 675 largest urban communities will fall from about 42.3 miles per hour to 40.3 miles per hour. If you believe, as I do, that time is money, that reduction will continue to grow what is really a hidden tax levied on American consumers as transportation labor productivity decreases and costs increase.

Another one of the problems we have with congestion is pollution. The good news, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, is that motor vehicle emissions have declined dramatically since the 1970s, thanks in part to the developments in new automotive and motor fuels technology. Emissions of carbon monoxide are down 45 percent since 1970, volatile organic compound emissions are down 60 percent, particulate matter emissions are down 47 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions are down 5 percent, and lead emissions have been eliminated.

The bad stuff is being reduced. We are getting the bad stuff out. This remarkable environmental achievement, which is responsible for most of the air quality improvement in the United States over the past three decades, was accomplished at the same time the number of licensed motor vehicles in the United States grew 87 percent and total vehicle miles traveled soared by 125 percent. Unfortunately, traffic congestion is retarding clean air progress just as it is retarding American productivity and economic growth.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:55 today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 457, the nomination of Mark Filip to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

I further ask unanimous consent that following 5 minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination; further, that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Reserving the right to object, there is some question on this side about the amendment being an amendment to the commerce title, and at this point we are not prepared to give consent to that. We want to work with the Senator who has been working in good faith, but I have been asked, since this is a matter that relates to a different section of the bill, to hold off. We can work through this if we can go with the original consent.

Mr. President, on this side I am not authorized to enter into that type of UC. I assure the Senator and my colleagues on the other side we will work with them. There is a concern about moving into the commerce title. We will work with him if we can move forward on the consent for the judge vote; then we will work on this, if we can get consent for that.

I believe at this point it is necessary to revise the unanimous consent. First, I say to my friend from North Dakota that the title he wants to amend has not been offered. That is a problem on which we are going to have to work. We have only offered the EPW portion.

I asked unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member and, thereafter, there be a vote on the nomination of Mark R. Filip, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

I renew my request. Following the 5 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation and, following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate return to legislative session.

Yesterday, we had several occasions where we were trying to stay on the bill, and we kept saying: All right, one more person, one more person, one more person.

As manager of the bill, I am going to do everything I can parliamentarily to stay on the bill and not get into other subjects.

At 2:30.

To do everything to accommodate the Senator from Florida, what I would like to do is stay on the bill until later on this afternoon, and at that time I am sure we are going to come to a point where, because of other things that are happening, there are not going to be Senators who want to speak on the bill, and then we could go to this so the Senator would have the time he requested.

I have no objection if he changes his 3:30 to 5 o'clock. There are some things happening that affect every Senator in here tonight having to do with the National Prayer Breakfast, and I would like to accommodate them as well.

The majority leader will have to get in on this, but I would say even earlier than that. We are going to have amendments. In fact, we have some amendments that will be ready today. We need to get to those and get this bill moving.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Yes. I have a letter I read yesterday. It is dated February 2, 2004. I have not heard anything either way about whether or not they are supporting this legislation. But they outlined a set of principles yesterday to which our bill complies. I think the minority leader covered the three criteria that were used that would keep them from opposing the bill, and I believe they have been met. We talked about it yesterday. One is to not increase gas taxes. Second, it would not have any kind of bonding arrangement. Third, that it would not get in the general fund.

The third one is where there is some debate. I trust the Senate Finance Committee. I talked to both sides, Democrats and Republicans, and they came up with something I think meets the criteria. I am satisfied it does.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, let me make an observation. We talked about this bill for several hours. Almost everyone who came down was objecting to what their State would get from this formula. When you compare this, starting with the same basic structure of a formula as we did in TEA-21--and remember, in TEA-21, we had the minimum guarantee.

What that did was take arbitrary political percentages and apply them in order to get votes. We have done far more. This takes into consideration the streamlining provisions about which we haven't even talked. We spent months on this in the committee, as our committee members know.

Safety and freight areas have not really been addressed before. This is something of which we can be proud. I have to say, when we put together the charts of all 50 States, there isn't one State that is not treated fairly, doesn't have an increase and doesn't have some kind of logic balancing the donee-donor, balancing the fast-growing States and the low-population States.

All these points are considered, and I think it is a very good bill. I agree with all on the committee.

Mr. President, yesterday we started through this bill. It is a rather lengthy bill. It covers a lot of provisions that haven't even been discussed, and I think a lot of Members are not really aware of some parts of this bill.

As the chairman of the committee, I thought it an obligation to go through this section by section, and I did go through sections 1104 through 1204, where we talked about how this was put together, how the formulas were put together. I also spent about an hour talking about the environmental improvements that are made in this bill.

I confess there are many things in this bill that I would rather have done in a different way, and I am sure Senator Reid and Senator Jeffords would say the same thing. In fact, they have said the same thing. Since we will have to get through this today at some point, I would like to go ahead and start with section 1205 and finish what we started yesterday. I hope any Members who are interested in making comments or offering amendments will come and do so, because I will be doing this in order to get through the bill.

Section 1205 is one in which I was particularly interested. Senator Reid yesterday talked about Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the contributions he made over the years. I felt compelled to stand up and remind him that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a Tulsa boy. He was from Tulsa, OK, and was one of my very favorite people.

I think it is very appropriate that section 1205 is the designation of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway as a part of the bill. Interstate Highway 86 in the State of New York is specifically designated as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway in memory of our late colleague.

There are several others who have said good things about him. In fact, in the years I have been in the Senate, Senator Moynihan is the only Senator

about whom I have never heard one negative thing.

Section 1301 is the Federal share section. It continues the statutory provisions that lay out what the Federal share for the highway project will be for different States based on the amount of Federal land within their State. The Federal share provisions of current law use a sliding scale. This scale permits States with large portions of Federal land to match Federal funds with fewer State dollars. That is only reasonable because they are not collecting taxes off of these lands and they should not have to pay the same match.

Due to the decreased taxing ability of the States with a higher percentage of Federal lands, these States are given access to a higher Federal contribution for highway projects within their State. The bill before us today modifies this provision slightly to simplify the calculation used to determine the Federal share rates that apply to each individual State.

I might add that in this bill there are certain things my colleagues will see consistently throughout. One is simplification. One is to put it in language that we can all understand, that the public can understand, that our people back home can understand, and so that the departments of transportation in the various States will have a clear understanding as well, and they will take all of these complicated interpretations.

Another thing my colleagues will find all the way through is a streamlining effort to try to get more roads for the dollar. I think we have successfully done that, reaching a lot of compromises. So this is what my colleagues will see as we go through the bill section by section.

Section 1302 is the transfer of highway and transit funds. There is a technical fix that was requested by the Federal Highway Administration that clarifies that title 23 funds, that is the highway dollars, can be transferred to the transit administration from State to State or from State to another Federal agency as long as the project to be funded is eligible under title 23. I think that is a very reasonable approach.

An example of when this authority could be used is a State that has a congestion problem at or near a border crossing. They may determine that the problem is caused in part by inadequate parking facilities for the Customs Service to conduct truck inspections. To solve their larger congestion problem, it makes sense to provide money to the Customs Service to build parking lot facilities for truck inspections. This has been done administratively in the past, but section 1302 provides very clear guidance so they do not have to sit around and guess what in fact is going to come up.

Section 1303, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which is referred to as TIFIA, was established for the first time in TEA-21 to provide Federal credit assistance to major transportation investments. The TIFIA program has proven to be an innovative and successful addition to the conventional grant and reimbursement highway program.

After watching the TIFIA program succeed as a funding device for a few large projects during TEA-21 and after receiving input from stakeholders and recommendations from the administration, the committee bill has made a few changes to the TIFIA program to expand its scope and increase its usability.

The amount of the Federal credit assistance cannot exceed 33 percent of a total project cost. TIFIA offers three different types of financial assistance to the large projects: One, direct loans; two, loan guarantees; and, three, standby lines of credit. The bill also lowers the threshold cost for eligible projects from the TEA-21 level of $100 million down to $50 million to make it available to more people and more projects, making TIFIA accessible to a greater number of large highway projects.

Projects are also eligible for TIFIA assistance when costs are anticipated to equal or exceed 20 percent of Federal highway funds apportioned to that particular State. With the increased emphasis this bill places on freight mobility, the definition of eligible freight- related projects is expanded.

I think the Senator was out of the Chamber when I said I eventually wanted to get through this section by section, but I can do this at any time. As soon as the Senator has anything ready, certainly I am interested in taking that up.

Reclaiming my time, I think he had stated he was not prepared to do that right now, but perhaps one will be coming along in a short while.

I have no objection to that. I think it is a good idea, and we will so inform Senator Bond.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have been trying to get through the explanation of this bill section by section. We have done so now all the way up to section 1304. It seems most people were concerned yesterday about the formula. Now we are addressing another problem. But we have not gotten into the full explanation of the bill. We have gone from section 1104 through section 1303.

I am going to go ahead and proceed. If anyone either has an amendment or wants to be heard on the bill, of course, I will give them that opportunity.

Section 1304 is in regard to the facilitation of international registration plans and international fuel tax agreements.

In response to issues surrounding commerce from Mexico, S. 1072 gives the Secretary of Transportation discretion to provide financial assistance to States participating in the International Registration Plan and the International Fuel Tax Agreement. These States incur certain administrative costs resulting from their service as a home jurisdiction for motor carriers from Mexico.

The International Fuel Tax Agreement and the International Regional Plan are agreements among various U.S. States and Canadian Provinces that facilitate the efficient collection and distribution of fuel taxes and apportioned registration fees among each member jurisdiction.

Under both programs, each motor carrier designates its home State or Province as the jurisdiction responsible for collecting fuel use taxes and fees. Since the implementation of NAFTA, the Mexican Government imposes and collects fuel taxes and registration fees differently from the United States and Canada. The National Governors Association is currently evaluating Mexico and its participation in the IFTA and IRP programs. In the interim, Mexican motor carriers may use individual U.S. States or Canadian Provinces as their home jurisdiction. So we are talking about something that is in the interim until the problem is resolved but is necessary.

Section 1305 is in regard to the National Commission on Future Revenue Sources to Support the Highway Trust Fund and finance the needs of the surface transportation system.

As many of you know, I am personally not one to support expansions of bureaucracy or the creation of innumerable review boards, committees, and commissions. However, this bill creates, and I have found good reason to support, a new temporary--temporary--national commission on future revenue sources to support the highway trust fund and finance the needs of the surface transportation system.

Funding the highway program has already become increasingly more challenging. Even as we debate the funding of this bill, we are confronted with the task of finding innovative and efficient funding methods to capture user fees lost to the fuel tax evasion and a host of other issues that the Finance Committee has done a great job in addressing.

However, one issue that has not been addressed, but must be before the next reauthorization cycle, is Federal incentives for the purchase of hybrid and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Fuel efficiency is a goal I support, but I do not believe it should come at the expense of the highway trust fund. So we have these exemptions, which has the result of reducing the revenues that would otherwise come in, even though the goal or the policy we are trying to establish is, perhaps, an inevitable policy.

We run the risk of making economic and environmental advances at the cost of jeopardizing our primary funding source for the highway trust fund--gas taxes. In recent years, the highway trust fund has seen a decrease in revenues. Constant changes in the automotive industry and the economy as a whole impact user fee revenues. We must continue to identify new and reliable revenue sources to sustain the program.

Most recently, we have seen the increase in the cost of fuel and the spiking that has been going on. That has a direct effect on the amount of revenues that are generated from fuel taxes.

In response to these changing and growing challenges, the new commission created in this bill is established to conduct a comprehensive study of the alternatives available to replace or supplement the existing fuel tax as the principal source of supporting the highway trust fund. We may find that this is going to still remain the principal source, but we do not know because we have never had any central place where we were trying to put together something this creative to replace it.

Specific factors which the commission will examine include, one, the effects of each major tax that goes into the highway trust fund; two, the ability to increase taxes if there are future revenue shortfalls; and, three, potential new sources of revenue to support highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs.

In regard to the scope of the study, the commission is charged with suggesting new or alternative revenue sources to fund the needs of the surface transportation system over the next 30 years or the next 40 years--the next long period of time. It is something we should have done before. This bill might have been easier if we had addressed this in TEA-21.

Now we have, in section 1306, the State infrastructure banks. TEA-21 established a State infrastructure bank pilot program that authorized participation among the States of Missouri, Rhode Island, California, and Florida. This bill reauthorizes the program to allow all States to enter into cooperative agreements with the Secretary of Transportation to set up infrastructure-revolving funds eligible for capitalization with Federal transportation dollars.

The SIB program gives States the capacity to increase the efficiency of their transportation investment and to significantly leverage Federal resources by attracting non-Federal public and private investment.

The program provides greater flexibility to the States by allowing other types of project assistance in addition to the traditional reimbursement grant. States utilizing SIBs are able to provide various forms of nongrant assistance to eligible projects, including at or below market rate subordinate

loans, interest rate buydowns on third party loans, and guarantees and other forms of credit enhancements. Any debt that the SIB issues or guarantees must be of investment grade caliber. The SIB program represents one more innovative financing option. We believe, after having done this with three or four States, that it is something that should be expanded to other States. This is a very positive thing.

Section 1401 is the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Along with the new equity bonus program, the bill's new core Safety program is one of the crowning pillars of this legislation. It is both devastating and deplorable that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among American's between the age of 1 and 34-years-old. In 2002 alone, nearly 43,000 people died on our Nation's highways. Although the fatality rate has decreased when compared to the growing number of vehicle miles traveled, the total number of fatal crashes has gradually increased over the life of TEA-21. Through a reorganization of existing safety programs and a significantly increased Federal investment, S. 1072, appropriately referred to as SAFETEA, strives to combat one of the greatest threats faced on our roads today. Not only is the loss of life to unsafe roads and conditions tragic, but vehicle crashes have a huge economic effect manifested in medical costs, property damage, insurance, and the effects of congestion.

In response to the need for safer roads and road conditions, this bill gives heightened attention to improving traffic safety by creating a new core Highway Safety Improvement Program. Under TEA-21 States were required to set-aside 10 percent of their funds apportioned under the Surface Transportation Program for safety projects to eliminate hazardous locations and improve safety at highway-railway crossings. The new Highway Safety Improvement Program preserves the ability of States to continue funding these important projects, while giving the States even greater flexibility to identify and address other traffic safety issues such as work zone safety, traffic enforcement activities, lane and shoulder widening, use of safety warning devices, safety- conscious planning, and improved traffic data collection.

This is just one more effort to recognize that the States are all different. The same shoe does not fit all. We are giving them an expanded role to determine the best way to handle the problems in Vermont as opposed to Oklahoma or any other State.

Recognizing the various and changing safety needs in each State, the bill provides significant flexibility to the States in order to determine how the Federal safety dollars can best be spent to address the areas of greatest need. These are not always the same in each State.

Section 1402 is Operation Lifesaver. Among the existing safety programs that this bill reauthorizes is Operation Lifesaver. This program has proven effective as a national education and awareness campaign dedicated to reducing fatalities and injuries at highway- railway crossings. Operation Lifesaver has utilized various means to educate both drivers and pedestrians about making safe decisions at railroad crossings and has encouraged better engineering to improve safety at rail crossings. Due to the valuable service this program renders and the cost-benefit effectiveness it has sustained, this bill increases funding for the program from $500,000 per year to $600,000 per year and moves the source of funding for Operation Lifesaver from the Surface Transportation Program, STP, to the new Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Section 1403 is license suspension. Another area of concern in regards to highway safety is the intoxicated driver and especial repeat offenders. Current law imposes penalties on States that have not enacted statutes punishing repeat intoxicated drivers with a hard one- year driver's license suspension. However, as the States have reviewed data and adapted their sentencing structures for repeat offenders in this area, they have found that habitual drunk drivers whose license has already been suspended frequently choose to drive without a license, minimizing the effectiveness of the current State of the law. In the interest of public safety, some States have actually accepted the consequences of the Federal sanction and foregoing available Federal funding in order to impose more effective sentencing of these repeat offenders. This bill recognizes the reality of repeat drunk drivers driving on roads with a suspended license and the wisdom of more effective alternative sentencing schemes. Thus, the bill updates the ``repeat offender'' sanction in title 23 of the code to allow States to incorporate ignition interlock or similar devices when sentencing repeat intoxicated drivers.

At this point we have come through all the way to section 1404. I would like to see if the minority leader of the committee, who has been so great to work with, the ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, has any comments to make about these sections.

First, I agree with the ranking member of the committee. We have come a long way. We are ready shortly and will be prepared to deal with some amendments. In the meantime, let's wade through this thing a little bit more.

Section 1404. Bus axle weight exemption. SAFETEA holds over-the-road buses and intrastate public transit buses to the same standards that inner-city transit buses must meet with regard to axle weight, air quality, and requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, the bill exempts any over-the-road buses or intrastate public transit bus from the maximum gross weight limitations imposed by the State.

Section 1405 is the Safe Routes to School Act. This was a provision that handled a number of compromises. It is one we are all concerned about. It has a continuing emphasis on safety. The bill introduces a new program that directly deals with safe routes to school, a safety improvement program established in SAFETEA. Projects eligible under the Safe Routes to School Program are already eligible under the larger Highway Safety Improvement Program.

However, Safe Routes to School provides a dedicated and protected funding source for pedestrian and bicycle safety projects near schools. The program is limited to projects and activities that will impose safety within 2 miles of primary and secondary schools. It sets aside $70 million per year for infrastructure and behavioral activities, such as sidewalk improvements, traffic-calming measures, speed reduction,

bicycle facilities, pedestrian crossings, traffic signal improvements, public awareness campaigns, and traffic education and enforcement.

I think that is significant. We have noticed, between the time we have been dealing with ISTEA and TEA-21, there have been increased fatalities in our young kids. We expanded this program during the course of our committee consideration. I think it was a good compromise to make on the purchase of equipment.

When conducting projects under the Federal program's authorization under this bill, some States will occasionally find the equipment necessary to complete the project may be cheaper to purchase than it would be to rent for the duration of the project. In such cases, this bill instructs them to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the purchase of expensive equipment above specified levels in order to evaluate the savings associated with purchasing the equipment compared to renting the equipment for the duration of the project.

Everything we are doing here is trying to get the very most out of the dollars we are spending in terms of safety and equipment and road construction and the other things we are dealing with in S. 1072.

Section 1407 is work zone safety. Over a thousand deaths occurred in work zones during 2002 due to traffic crashes alone. There has been a lot of awareness in the public about this fact and States are trying to deal with it. We felt it appropriate to have some language in this bill. Although work zones represent a critical component of infrastructure development, they also pose a unique safety challenge for those on the road, and to road workers in particular.

S. 1072 attempts to minimize the injuries and fatalities in work zones by imposing insurance requirements, requiring the use of ITS technologies and safety budgeting in construction and contracting. The Secretary of Transportation is directed to encourage States to choose contractors that carry general liability insurance of at least $15 million. Transportation projects costing more than $15 million are encouraged to include continuously monitored work zone intelligent transportation systems, or ITS systems.

Section 1408. Worker injury prevention and free flow of vehicular traffic. In addition to the provision relating to the safety of workers in work zones just mentioned, SAFETEA also directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations requiring road workers to wear high-visibility clothing, with the goal of decreasing worker injury and maintaining a free flow of traffic.

In section 1501, regarding the integration of natural resource concerns into State and metropolitan transportation planning, my counterpart, the ranking minority member, was very interested in a lot of the parts of the bill that deal with natural resource concerns and State and metropolitan transportation planning. If the Senator from Vermont would like to go over some of these sections, starting with section 1501, it might be appropriate since he had a lot to do with these particular areas.

(Mr. SUNUNU assumed the Chair.)

I thank the chairman. As has been pointed out already by one of our members, the bill we are talking about is rather extensive. But it was not done quickly or without the tremendous work of staff and many people who have contributed outside of the staff in listening to people from all over the country before we put the final touch on the bill.

The highway bill provides us with an opportunity every 6 years to give our communities, our businesses and our citizens a real boost by renewing our commitment to the world's most extensive transportation system. I am proud to be a leader in that effort this year.

Through the bill before us today, we will improve the condition and the performance of our roads and bridges, thousands and millions of them. That means both safer travel today and lower maintenance costs tomorrow.

I am particularly pleased that our work continues the transportation partnership established under President Eisenhower during the Interstate period and expanded with passage of ISTEA 12 years ago. That means that local leaders, stakeholders and citizens will continue to work with State and Federal officials to set spending priorities and define project scope.

I am also proud that we have maintained the linkage between transportation and the environment in our bill. Investments in transportation must build strong, healthy communities. Through advanced planning and early coordination we can ensure better results.

I urge my colleagues to work with those of us responsible for this bill so that we may complete our work in a timely way. America's communities are relying on us. The States are relying upon us. All people using the transportation system are depending upon us. I am sure we will produce this document in a way that will make us all very proud.

Mr. President, I am most pleased to assist in this regard.

The environmental provisions contained in this bill reflect a bipartisan compromise reached among the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Although there are a number of additional changes I would like to have made in these provisions, I believe the bill deals fairly in regard to these sections, given the variety of strong opinions on environmental subjects.

Several stakeholders have argued any early identification of potential environmental concerns may help reduce or avoid delays during the environmental review. Therefore, this bill specifies factors that may be considered during the transportation planning process.

Current law already requires transportation planners to consider projects and strategies that will protect and enhance the environment and improve quality of life.

The items added by this bill simply provide more direction as to what these concepts mean. These items do not constitute a checklist of items, whereby every item listed must be considered by each State and metropolitan planning organization, or MPO.

Section 1502. As another means of providing for early consideration of environmental concerns, this bill requires transportation planners to consult with appropriate resource agencies.

Interagency consultation should facilitate comparison of transportation plans to conservation plans or maps and inventories of natural or historic resources, where those plans or maps and inventories already exist and are in use.

The long-range transportation plan will also include a discussion of potential mitigation activities and sites that may help compensation for issues due to the transportation plan. This requirement is intended to get States to think strategically about mitigation. It is not to add new mitigation requirements or to require a level of detail better handled at the individual project review stage.

Section 1503. Integration of natural resource concerns into transportation project planning. Additionally, the highway bill contains provisions to incorporate the principles of context-sensitive design into current design standards. These principles involve consideration of the environmental context of a project and encouragement of design that minimizes impact on the project's surroundings. These provisions aim to integrate natural resource concerns into the transportation project planning process.

Section 1504. Public investment in transportation planning and projects. Current law provides an opportunity for the public to be involved to some degree in the development of transportation plans. This bill includes specific ideas for making public involvement opportunities more meaningful, such as making publicly available documents available on the Internet.

Section 1506. Federal and State laws often require habitat, stream, or wetland mitigation to compensate for direct adverse environmental impact caused by transportation projects. To provide additional flexibility and certainty in meeting these requirements, this bill authorizes the establishment of State mitigation funds, using moneys received from the Surface Transportation Program and National Highway System programs.

The State mitigation fund operates as a planning and project management tool available to the States. States can even use the mitigation funds to undertake larger mitigation efforts based on the total impact of a multitude of projects combined rather than project- by-project mitigation. This enables the States to more effectively plan for and provide the mitigation that is or likely will be required for transportation projects under other environmental laws.

The next section, 1511, transportation project development process. TEA-21 directed the Department of Transportation, DOT to ``develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for highway construction and mass transit projects.'' Unfortunately, this was never achieved. It took almost 2 years for DOT to even propose rules, and those proposed rules were roundly criticized by many interested stakeholders and many in this Chamber.

That proposal has since been withdrawn. So it was necessary for us, obviously, to take the next step legislatively.

This bill sets up a process for complying with current environmental laws. In establishing a process for compliance, the bill does not venture to amend any current environmental laws. It does not venture to amend any current environmental laws.

Under this process, DOT is the lead agency with authority to set work plans and schedules, determine the purpose and need for a project, and determine which alternatives must be considered. This process also includes more public participation than currently required and continues to authorize DOT to provide funds to resource agencies to assist them in expediting project environmental reviews.

Section 1512. Assumption of responsibility for categorical exclusions. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, some types of projects can be categorically excluded from lengthy analysis. Qualifying projects are those projects that ``do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment.''

Approximately 90 percent of all surface transportation projects are processed as categorical exclusions, or CEs, under NEPA. Since this is such an overwhelming percentage of the projects, even a small improvement in processing time for each CE can result in a large improvement systemwide.

The bill before us today attempts to make that improvement by allowing States to assume the Secretary's responsibility for completing the environmental review process for projects classified as CE under current regulations.

This assumption of responsibility will be limited to those States that have adequate capabilities and would remain subject to Federal oversight to maintain proper accountability.

Section 1513. Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program. Often a State will do much of the work involved with the preparing and environmental review of a surface transportation project. Then the Federal Department of Transportation must review and approve the State's work, the applicable documentation. Some stakeholders have argued that allowing States to complete the NEPA review, regardless of whether the project requires a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or even an environmental impact statement, could result in significant time savings and speed up project delivery.

The highway bill sets out to explore this idea by establishing a pilot program that allows up to five States to assume the Secretary's responsibility for the environmental review of a transportation project.

Under this pilot program, States will have to meet several criteria before and after selection to participate. These requirements include soliciting public comment prior to applying for participation, verifying adequate capabilities to carry out the responsibilities to be assumed, entering into a written agreement with the Secretary, submitting to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, submitting to periodic compliance audits, and complying with the same procedural and subsequent requirements under Federal environmental law as would apply if the Secretary were conducting reviews.

Section 1514. In keeping with the new environmental changes, the bill directs the Department of Transportation to promulgate new regulations within 1 year to implement the planning and project delivery sections of the bill.

Section 1521. Critical real property acquisition. The committee bill enables States to use Federal funds to expeditiously acquire a limited number of parcels of land that may be needed for future transportation development but are threatened by imminent economic development.

The early acquisition of property keeps future transportation options open and provides States with an important opportunity to reserve future alignment alternatives while allowing timely and cost-saving acquisitions.

In limited circumstances and with the Secretary's approval, States can use the Federal funds to cover the cost incurred in acquiring parcels of land that are considered to be critical for any transportation project under title 23. Federal land may be used to acquire property prior to the completion of the environmental reviews for proper acquisition. Environmental reviews and approvals are still required before physical construction, demolition, or clearing is commenced. If a parcel is later sold or leased, States cannot retain the Federal share of the proceeds.

Section 1522. Planning capacity building initiative. Focusing on the importance of comprehensive and integrated planning, S. 1072 establishes a planning capacity building initiative to strengthen metropolitan and statewide transportation planning and to enhance tribal capacity to conduct joint transportation planning.

The bill gives priority to planning practices that support the transportation elements of homeland security planning, performance- based planning, safety planning, operations planning, freight planning, and the integration of environment and planning. The planning capacity building initiative will be administered by the DOT's Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration.

Section 1601. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement control of invasive plant species and establishment of native species. Storm water runoff from highways has a direct impact on the Nation's waterways, carrying with it pollutions such as brake linings, oils, heavy metals, road salts, nutrients, et cetera. To address these waterborne pollutants, current law already allows States to use STP funds to address water pollution or environmental degradation caused or contributed to by transportation facilities currently undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration so long as the environmental project does not exceed 20 percent of the overall project cost.

This bill extends eligibility for those types of mitigation projects from the States' STP funds to include their funds under the NHS program as well. It further allows the funds to be used for environmental restoration projects not associated with an active construction project.

The stormwater project must address runoff from an existing Federal- aid highway but not necessarily one undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration.

Invasive species are a growing problem both economically and environmentally. These harmful plants plague thousands of areas of rangelands and croplands and have been cited as a staggering problem by such organizations such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation. By making both NHS and STP funds available to mitigate invasive species along roadways, we provide States with the flexibility to minimize the impact of vehicles as vectors of these problematic plants.

Section 1602 relates to the National Scenic Byways Program. TEA-21 continues the National Scenic Byways Program authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to designate roads that have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and architectural qualities as all-American roads, or national scenic highways.

This bill amends the current program to recognize that the Secretary already is promoting the collection of ``national scenic byways'' and ``all-American roads'' under the designation of ``America's byways.'' If State and Federal representatives reach consensus on establishing a single designation category, then these amendments will provide the Secretary with the authority to use any of the three terms, national scenic byways, all-American roads, or America's byways, as the single designation.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary for the first time to form public/private partnerships to carry out technical assistance, marketing, market research, and promotion with respect to national scenic byways.

Section 1603 is the Recreational Trails Program. This bill continues the Recreational Trails Program allowing Federal funds to be used to provide and maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized recreational trail uses. New eligible uses of funds permit trail assessment for accessibility and maintenance, and to hire trail crews or youth conservation or service corps to perform recreational trails activities. Current activities eligible under the program educational funding already include nonlaw enforcement trail safety, trail use monitoring patrols, and trail-related training.

Since projects under the Recreational Trails Program are much smaller than typical highway projects, this program is relieved of several normal requirements which, although appropriate for large highway projects, would be excessively burdensome for small trail projects.

Section 1604 covers exemption of interstate systems. SAFETEA establishes an exemption for the interstate system from consideration as a ``historic site'' regardless of whether the interstate system or portions of the interstate system may be eligible for listing on the National Registry of Historic Places. However, a portion of the interstate system that possesses an independent feature of historic significance, such as a bridge or a uniquely significant architectural feature, may still be considered a historic site individually.

Section 1605 of this bill changes current law to place greater emphasis on the need to consider the preservation of human and natural resources in the

decisionmaking process of developing highway projects. Consideration of a variety of highway project impacts has been part of the design process for many years. However, the transportation community has demanded improvements in project delivery and in the makeup of the product that is delivered. Compatibility with the surrounding environment and improved safety for the motorist and the pedestrian are critical.

The bill also directs the Secretary to ensure that the plans and specifications for proposed highway projects have considered preservation, historic, scenic, natural environment, and community values. However, States can use existing processes for demonstrating that they have considered these subject factors.

Section 1606 covers use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes which has been a topic of great interest to both States and stakeholders. This reauthorization bill clarifies existing law and provides more flexibility to State and local agencies for effective management of high-occupancy vehicle, or HOV, facilities. Certain types of vehicles are exempt from meeting the general occupancy requirements for HOV facilities. The bill further identifies the possible operational strategies that responsible agencies may select from to maximize the use of HOV facilities, manage highway capacity, mitigate congestion, and reduce fuel consumption.

Motorcycles continue to be allowed use of HOV facilities. Responsible Government agencies choosing to meet additional requirements may also allow low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid vehicles, to use HOV facilities. These agencies are also given the authority to toll the use of an HOV facility by vehicles that do not otherwise meet the normal minimum capacity or other exemption requirements.

Section 1607 relates to bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways. The highway authorization bill makes minor changes regarding pedestrian walkways, specifically allowing the use of the Surface Transportation Program, STP, funds and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement programs, CMAQs, funds for the nonconstruction pedestrian safety programs where current law only mentions bicycle safety.

We also explicitly mention the pedestrian use on bridges, whereas current law only mentions safety programs for bicycle use. The practice of charging user fees for shared-use paths is also permitted so long as the fees collected by a State are used for maintaining and operating the shared-use paths within the State.

User fees may not be collected on shared-use paths that are not within a highway right-of-way nor make user fees be charged for the use of sidewalks or bicycle paths.

I would like to stop at this point and pass the description to my good friend, Senator Bond. Thank you.

Mr. President, if we have an impasse about scheduling this afternoon, I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask consent that we have morning business tomorrow immediately after we commence Senate business to accommodate the request made by the distinguished Senator from Florida and the Senator from California. Could we do that?

That is a matter to be determined by the majority leader, but I would suggest that normally we have Senate business in the morning. We could either come in a little bit earlier or figure out our schedule. But it would not then interfere with the understandable desire on the part of the manager to stay on the bill once we are on the bill. Technically we are on the highway bill right now. Tomorrow morning we could certainly accommodate the Senator's request with the time allotted for his comments and those of the Senator from California.

That would be up to the majority leader.

Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Florida that I will talk to the majority leader. I would be surprised if he would have any difficulty coming in prior to 9:30.

I will use my leader time prior to the time we move to the bill itself. I wish to comment on a couple of things this afternoon.

The majority leader had made a unanimous consent request. On his behalf, I make it again. I don't think there will be an objection.

Mr. President, I was criticized by some Members of the House yesterday or today with regard to the pension bill. Their criticism was that I was holding the bill. Let me make sure people understand: I have not held the bill. I have no desire to hold the pension bill. I would like to get on with it. I would like to complete our work on the pension bill.

It is, of course, the prerogative of the majority leader and the majority to send the bill to the House once we have completed our work. That has not been done. They are certainly within their rights to make decisions with regard to the disposition of the bill, but it would be in error to say that in any way I am holding the bill.

I am withholding our consent to go to conference on the bill, which is a different matter. I will talk about that in a moment. Obviously, Senator Frist and I have had some conversations about how we proceed with regard to conferences this year.

We are unwilling to commit to a process that brought about the unacceptable circumstances in conference last year, especially on the energy bill as well as the Medicare bill. But there are three approaches.

First, of course, on any bill, we are certainly within our rights to ask for a conference with the House. What we have simply asked is that if there is a conference, all the conferees be present when deliberations take place. That isn't too much to ask. That is all we are asking--our presence at conference meetings once those conference meetings have been called. We don't think a conference can truly be a conference if only one party is represented. That is my simple request. Until I have the assurance that that request is be granted, we are unable to provide consent to go to conference.

We are not asking for any predetermined outcome. We are not asking for a certain set of expectations with regard to the legislation itself. We are simply saying: If you are going to have a conference, don't call it a conference unless you have the conferees present.

There are two other approaches. I have just alluded to the second approach, which is to send the bill to the House. We have done that on a number of occasions. There is nothing that precludes us from sending the pension bill to the House, allowing them to work their will. Perhaps they will accept the changes made by the Senate. That certainly is within their right.

There is a third option. This is a tested, tried and true option that I can say with some authority has happened on countless occasions in past years and conferences. Last year we preconferenced the forest health bill. And once successfully preconferenced,

we agreed in conference to the provisions and the bill passed almost unanimously. In the 108th Congress, we passed 19 bills by preconferencing them first, including the AIDS Assistance Act, the Military Family Relief Act, the Veterans Benefits Act. And in the 107th Congress, we passed 51 bills by preconferencing the agreements: Railroad Retirement Survivors Improvement Act, the Veterans Benefit Act, Nurses Reinvestment Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Native American Settlements and Indian Financing Act Amendments. Those and 40- plus more bills were preconferenced.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of bills preconferenced and agreed to successfully in the 108th Congress to date and the 107th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we have three options. First, whether it is the pension bill or any bill, we can go to conference and do what the institution requires, and that is have Members of the Senate and House, Republicans and Democrats, present at conferences and resolve our differences in the traditional manner.

Second, we can certainly pass the bill over to the House, send it over to the House at any time. We can do that on the pension bill this afternoon.

The third thing we can do is what I have just suggested has been done successfully on 19 occasions so far in the 108th Congress and 51 occasions in the 107th Congress; that is, to preconference and ultimately then to confirm our agreements in a formal conference once the negotiations have been completed.

We stand ready, once again, to do whatever it takes to pass the pension bill and ultimately put it on the President's desk. There is an urgency to this legislation. We will not, on any legislation this year, tolerate the unacceptable experience we had on several occasions in the first session of this Congress.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to talk further about the transportation bill. As I said yesterday, getting this bill to the floor has been too long a process. I won't dwell on that other than to say the Congress and the administration have not been successful in bringing this bill to conclusion, and because of that we have already lost 90,000 jobs.

For too long our economy has been slowed by outdated and inadequate transportation infrastructure. Nothing expresses the urgency of this bill better than the fact that we have lost 3 million private sector jobs over the last 3 years. It is time to get this bill done.

Make no mistake, not only will this bill create jobs all across the country but it will address our Nation's infrastructure deficit as well.

If passed, this bill will improve the more than 30 percent of our roads and highways that are in poor and substandard condition today. It will help improve the more than 30 percent of our Nation's bridges that are functionally obsolete or structurally deficient.

As I said yesterday, the managers of the bill, Chairman Inhofe and Senators Jeffords, Bond, and Reid, have done a remarkable job in bringing us a fine product to the Senate floor. This is a difficult, complicated issue, with an extraordinary number of different interests to balance.

The Finance Committee, led by Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, has also done a fine job of ensuring that there is symmetry in how we deal with highways and transit.

Senator Frist and I met on Monday to discuss the bill and we had a very productive conversation. In essence, we both agreed that now the Senate has begun debate on the transportation bill, we need to ensure it goes forward in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion. That is how the Environment and Public Works Committee has approached this bill, and we have a fine work product because of that bipartisan, cooperative approach. That is how the Finance Committee has approached this bill, and we have a fine work product because of the bipartisan, cooperative approach there as well.

That is how the Banking Committee has approached the bill as it relates to transit issues, and this morning the Banking Committee reported, by a voice vote, a fine work product because of the work Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes have demonstrated in their cooperative approach.

That is why I find it so troubling that the administration appears to be lagging behind--why they seem to be putting up roadblocks to the highway bill instead of paving the way for improved infrastructure and more jobs.

As I said, the Finance Committee reported a bill on Monday. Then Tuesday, yesterday, Transportation Secretary Mineta and Treasury Secretary Snow sent a letter about those very same financing provisions.

First of all, it would have been helpful to have had such a letter before the Finance Committee met, not a day

after. Second, based on the letter, many have claimed the Finance Committee does not meet the administration's test with regard to the financing provision and have suggested the President may even veto the bill.

Now some of my colleagues disagree. They say the Finance Committee bill does meet the administration's test, and I hope they are correct. But at this point, we simply don't know the administration's position on the bill we are now considering on the floor.

It is important that the administration make its position clear. This bill deserves their unequivocal support. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus and the other committee members put together an excellent and balanced package and showed courage in taking on corporate tax loopholes. Most importantly, this bill makes real investments in our future in a fiscally responsible way. Every dollar in this bill is paid for with a crackdown on corporate tax shelters, which has been a bipartisan priority in the Senate for years.

The package is a rare accomplishment--a bipartisan, fiscally responsible one that invests in our future and creates jobs today. It is a win for highways, a win for transit, a win for fiscal responsibility, and a win for honest taxpayers. The only losers are tax cheaters.

It is inexplicable to me why there is even discussion about the administration threatening to veto this bipartisan package. Opposing the financing provisions would raise troubling questions about the administration's priorities.

Would they rather protect corporate tax cheaters than repair our roads and bridges and provide jobs?

Would they rather help wealthy people renounce their citizenship and avoid paying their fair share of taxes than cut down on the traffic and congestion that puts a drag on our economy and inconveniences our citizens?

Would they rather protect corporations that engage in shady manipulations than create a modern transportation system for America's future?

I hope those who say yesterday's administration letter is a veto threat are wrong. The Finance Committee has done an exceptional job of providing for the needs of our economy, while cracking down on tax cheats.

With a $521 billion deficit this year, we cannot afford to let corporate tax cheaters continue to pass along their bills to the rest of us. We have an opportunity to bring new life to our economy, and old-fashioned accountability to our Tax Code. I urge the President to make their position clear on this bill soon.

If we do what the Environment and Public Works Committee has done, if we do what the Finance Committee has done, if we do what the Banking Committee has done, if we do what Leader Frist and I have agreed to do and go forward in a bipartisan, cooperative fashion, if we go forward as soon as possible to get this long overdue bill done, we will make progress not only for our Nation's infrastructure, but for our Nation as a whole.

This legislation will impact people all across our country every day. It will provide jobs. It will make us more competitive in the world. Let's get on with passing the bill, and let's do it as thoroughly, as completely, but as much in keeping with the bipartisan spirit already established in three committees, as has been demonstrated thus far.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his report and for the announcement regarding the opening of offices. He also ought to be commended for his work and leadership in expediting the opening of the offices themselves. This has been a difficult matter because his office has been directly affected, but this is a very good piece of news that we should be back and up and running with all cylinders by the early part of next week.

I share, as well, his expressions of gratitude for all of those who have been involved in this effort to date, having recalled very vividly the nightmares of 2 years ago. It is fair to say we have come a long way in our ability to deal effectively with matters such as these. While this one is different, it is also indicative of the progress we have made in allowing the institution to respond more quickly and successfully and, hopefully, that will be in evidence as we continue our work.

Again, I thank the majority leader for his report. I know this will be good news for all Members.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in June 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank and its companion case, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid. The Court ruled in these cases that States and their institutions cannot be held liable for damages for patent infringement and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even though they can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves.

Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.

I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.

First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual property system get legal

protection but need not adhere to the law themselves. If we truly believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate a situation where one class of market participants have to play by the rules and others do not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a floor statement that was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid decisions, they ``leave us with an absurd and untenable state of affairs,'' where ``States will enjoy an enormous advantage over their private sector competitors.''

The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to- four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of the Constitution.

Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away at the legitimate constitutional authority of the federal government. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We are faced with a choice. We can respond--in a careful and measured way--by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that is crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.

About four months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by states. I have continued to refine this legislation over the years, and in February 2002, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held the Committee's first hearing on the issue of sovereign immunity and the protection of intellectual property.

Today, I am pleased to be introducing the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003, which builds on my earlier proposals and on the helpful comments I have received on those proposals from legal experts across the country. I am proud to have the House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Smith and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill.

This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re- engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.

In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. States that choose not to waive their immunity within two years after enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.

This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of federal funds under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach conditions to the federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full protection for your federal intellectual property rights, you must respect those of others.

I am encouraged by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which, although very narrow, suggests that certain Justices may be starting to realize that the Court has gone too far in sacrificing ordinary people's rights at the altar of sovereign immunity. By upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act as applied to the States, the Hibbs case also suggests that a very carefully crafted law, which simply does what is necessary to protect important rights, will be upheld.

I hope we can all agree on the need to protect the rights of intellectual property owners. A recent GAO study confirmed that, as the law now stands, owners of intellectual property have few or no alternatives or remedies available against State infringers--just a series of dead ends.

We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the international ramifications here. American trading interests have been well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has created.

Senator Brownback made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing on February 27, 2002. He said, ``When states assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and biotechnology.''

The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping legislation in the early 1990s, but were thwarted by the Supreme Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation without further delay.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have joined today with Senators DeWine, Grassley, Cantwell, and Domenici to introduce legislation that will help State and local governments reduce crime by providing more effective treatment for the mentally ill. All too often, people with mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor offenses. Law enforcement officers' ever scarcer time is being occupied by these offenders, who divert them from their more urgent responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill give State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public's safety, and mentally ill offenders.

I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that

hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health systems, prisons and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. As this legislation's findings detail, more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. This is a serious problem that I hear about often when I talk with law enforcement officials and others in Vermont.

Under this bill, State and local governments can apply for funding to a. create or expand mental health courts or other court-based programs, which can divert qualified offenders from prison to receive treatment; b. create or expand programs to provide specialized training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel; c. create or expand local treatment programs that serve individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; and d. promote and provide mental health treatment for those incarcerated in or released from a penal or correctional institution.

This legislation brings together law enforcement, corrections, and mental health professionals--indeed, officials from each of these fields in Vermont have offered their advice and support in drafting this bill. They know that the States have been dealing with the unique problems created by mentally ill offenders for many years, and that a Federal response is overdue. I look forward to working with them, and with Senator DeWine, Representative Ted Strickland, and other Members, to see this bill enacted this Congress.