Floor Statements

I am happy to. And let me say that I agree with the Senator from California that there is a serious problem with grade crossings in this country, and I commend her for her leadership on this issue.

Yes, this program would allow California--and all States-- to use 2 percent of its National Highway System funding for three purposes, one of which is to eliminate grade crossings.

Yes, up to 50 percent of this funding could be used for grants specifically for grade separations.

I will be happy to continue working with the Senator from California.

I thank Senators Lott and Inouye for their commitments to address this issue in conference. I also raise my concerns with the amendment offered by Senator Pryor to define the term ``household goods motor carrier.'' Definitions matter, and in this case, meeting the definition of a ``household goods carrier'' subjects the carrier to certain existing and new regulations that others who do not meet that definition do not have to provide. At the same time, I support excluding express delivery and parcel delivery carriers from the definition of ``household goods carrier.'' As currently drafted, however, I am concerned that the amendment would make it substantially more difficult for an established moving company to enter one of these new markets in which consumers are provided a trailer or container which they pack themselves and which the company then transports for them. The definition, as now offered by Senator Pryor, would mean that an existing moving company would be subject to these new regulations while others who offer these services, but do not provide traditional moving services, would not be. As this bill moves to conference with the House, I am committed to working with the managers of this title to find a definition that is accurate and fair and that covers the universe of services that are being offered to consumers who are planning interstate moves of household goods.

I appreciate the Senator's commitment, and I also offer to work with you and Senator Lott and Inouye in conference on the amendment regarding procedures for allowing State attorneys general to pursue enforcement actions against interstate household goods movers in federal court. This amendment, which I have worked out with the managers and is being offered by Senator Lott, establishes an approval process for actions taken by State attorneys general by the Secretary of Transportation before the AGs proceed in court. The amendment is critical because it establishes a responsible framework with a delineation of responsibilities to the States. The efforts of State governments should be focused on investigating and prosecuting those carriers that are too small or cases of fraud that are too isolated to cause a Federal response. At the same time, Federal agencies should be pursuing complaints of fraudulent activities by large and established carriers. By focusing our enforcement efforts along these lines, we will leverage our resources which will improve the effectiveness of the response to fraud and abuse in the household goods moving industry and ensure that no carrier slips through the cracks. The amendment also will ensure that State cases are legitimate and properly prepared. In addition, the amendment provides intervention and substitution authority for the Secretary if the Secretary believes that Federal Government would be in a better position to prosecute the case.

Mr. President, after working 2\1/2\ years on this bill, we have a bill that brings the environmental considerations into the planning early on so they can be dealt with without wasting money, time, and resources.

No State gets as much as they would like, but thanks to the Finance Committee, the donor States get up to 92 cents. All States go up by at least 15 percent. Given the constraints under which we operated, I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill.

I commend the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Jim Inhofe, along with Senators Baucus and Jeffords for a job well done. It has been a pleasure working with them.

I also think it is appropriate to recognize the staff members that have put in many countless hours of their time to assist in drafting this legislation.

I want to especially recognize my staff: Ellen Stein, John Stoody and Heideh Shahmoradi.

Staff with Senator Inhofe: Ruth Van Mark, James Q'Keeffe, Andrew Wheeler, Nathan Richmond, Greg Murrill, Alex Herrgott, John Shanahan, Angie Giancarlo, and Rudy Kapichak.

Senator Jefford's staff: JC Sandberg, Allison Taylor, Malia Somerville, JoEllen Darcy, and Chris Miller.

And Kathy Ruffalo with Senator Baucus.

This bill faced great challenges within these past 2\1/2\ years. The committee worked hard through many meetings, hearings, a failed conference, and all to repeat the process again this year in order to get where we are today.

Interestingly enough, while on the floor both last year and this year, the Senate was sidetracked by ricin last year which had the Senate office buildings shut down for a couple of days. And just last week, a general aviation aircraft entered our air space causing us all to run out of the Senate Chamber. I can honestly say, I will be relieved when this bill is finally passed.

Some of the highlights that I am proud of in this bill include the emphasis on safety. Safety, for the first time in our recent transportation legislation, is given a prominent position and elevated to a core program.

This bill mirrors the administration's proposal by continuing our commitment to our motoring public's safety.

Nearly 43,000 lives are taken on our roads and highways each year. I am glad that the bill reflects the continued commitment to making not only investments in our infrastructure, but also to the general safety and welfare of our constituents.

Another highlight of this bill moves to carefully balance the needs of the donor States while also recognizing the needs of donee States.

My home State of Missouri, like many of the donor States mentioned, has some of the worst roads in the Nation. The condition of many of the roads and bridges in Missouri require immediate repair or reconstruction.

I am pleased to say that we did make progress in achieving a 92 cent rate of return by the end of the authorization. I am hopeful that donor States will see a dollar for dollar rate of return in the future.

Further, I am proud to announce that all States will grow at not less than 15 percent over TEA-21.

The bill also addresses several environmental issues that provide the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review process.

Transportation projects can be built more quickly by allowing environmental stakeholders to weigh in at the early stages.

Mr. President, we are facing an expiration of May 31. I am confident that if conferees are named shortly, we will only require a short-term extension and can move this bill through conference quickly.

Our States need a multi-year bill. We cannot delay contracts anymore. The economy needs this boost and people need the jobs that this bill will provide.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues as we go to conference.

Mr. President, currently, more than 3,700 children and youth under the age of 13 are living with HIV or AIDS in the United States and of the more than 40,000 Americans newly infected with HIV each year, half are young people under the age of 25 years old. When we think about this devastating virus we do not often associate it with children, especially infants or newborn babies, but the fact is this disease does not discriminate on the basis of age. It affects children in very specific and very different ways than adults.

For instance, the medical experience of children with HIV/AIDS can differ significantly from that of adults. Because children's immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly in children than in adults and can have different manifestations. For example, the majorities of children with HIV have neurological abnormalities and are more susceptible to certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to walk.

Medication for young children living with HIV/AIDS can also be very different than that of an adult living with HIV/AIDS. For example, children of certain ages cannot swallow pills and require liquid formulations of life-saving HIV/AIDS drugs that are not always readily available. In addition, dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs are often strikingly different for children and adults, and for younger children, this information is typically completely missing. This lack of information puts children at risk by requiring health care providers to estimate correct dosing. Too much medication can be toxic, and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, underdosing can lead to drug resistance.

Children are not just small adults and their growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Early awareness that a child has HIV infection, combined with good care and support, can enhance survival and quality of life, which is why I am introducing, with my colleague Senator Dodd, The Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act.

This legislation will address those needs of children and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS by reauthorizing Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act and expanding its focus on reaching and caring for adolescents with HIV/AIDS. Moreover, this legislation will continue to work to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV, by promoting routine, voluntary prenatal HIV testing and intensive care management for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, because children are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective HIV vaccine, the bill will require federal agencies funding and regulating HIV vaccine research to develop plans and guidelines for including pediatric populations in clinical trials as quickly as is medically and ethically appropriate. This legislation will also encourage research on key remaining pediatric research questions, including how to provide safer and more effective treatment options for children with HIV/AIDS.

For a young person living with HIV or AIDS there is no cure and there is no remission. It is with them at home, on the playground, in the classroom, and at a Friday night sleepover. It will be with them as they enter high school, go to college and get their first job. For a person born with this virus it is a permanent part of their life. This bill will help to ensure that the needs of infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS are not overlooked.

Mr. President, currently, more than 3,700 children and youth under the age of 13 are living with HIV or AIDS in the United States and of the more than 40,000 Americans newly infected with HIV each year, half are young people under the age of 25 years old. When we think about this devastating virus we do not often associate it with children, especially infants or newborn babies, but the fact is this disease does not discriminate on the basis of age. It affects children in very specific and very different ways than adults.

For instance, the medical experience of children with HIV/AIDS can differ significantly from that of adults. Because children's immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly in children than in adults and can have different manifestations. For example, the majorities of children with HIV have neurological abnormalities and are more susceptible to certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to walk.

Medication for young children living with HIV/AIDS can also be very different than that of an adult living with HIV/AIDS. For example, children of certain ages cannot swallow pills and require liquid formulations of life-saving HIV/AIDS drugs that are not always readily available. In addition, dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs are often strikingly different for children and adults, and for younger children, this information is typically completely missing. This lack of information puts children at risk by requiring health care providers to estimate correct dosing. Too much medication can be toxic, and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, underdosing can lead to drug resistance.

Children are not just small adults and their growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Early awareness that a child has HIV infection, combined with good care and support, can enhance survival and quality of life, which is why I am introducing, with my colleague Senator Dodd, The Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act.

This legislation will address those needs of children and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS by reauthorizing Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act and expanding its focus on reaching and caring for adolescents with HIV/AIDS. Moreover, this legislation will continue to work to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV, by promoting routine, voluntary prenatal HIV testing and intensive care management for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, because children are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective HIV vaccine, the bill will require federal agencies funding and regulating HIV vaccine research to develop plans and guidelines for including pediatric populations in clinical trials as quickly as is medically and ethically appropriate. This legislation will also encourage research on key remaining pediatric research questions, including how to provide safer and more effective treatment options for children with HIV/AIDS.

For a young person living with HIV or AIDS there is no cure and there is no remission. It is with them at home, on the playground, in the classroom, and at a Friday night sleepover. It will be with them as they enter high school, go to college and get their first job. For a person born with this virus it is a permanent part of their life. This bill will help to ensure that the needs of infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS are not overlooked.

No.

Mr. President, my thanks to the chairman and also to my colleague on the Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee, the Senator from Montana. As I say, it helps to have a cousin in the business. It helps to have a ranking member who is also ranking on Finance with Senator Grassley. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have done a great job. It is a pleasure to work with him, with Senator Grassley, Senator Jeffords and, of course, our chairman, Senator Inhofe.

I hope everybody has been having as enjoyable a time as those of us who have been trying to lead this bill from the various committees-- EPW, Commerce, Finance. I know this is a very pleasurable experience. But the time has come for it to end. It is time for us to invoke cloture. That is why we are asking our colleagues to put an end to this. All good things have to come to a close. If we are to get this bill done, we need to invoke cloture and give it a timeframe. We have already limited the number of amendments.

The simple fact is we have to get this bill to conference. We have to go to work with the House to come up with a very important surface transportation bill, known as SAFETEA, this year. The extension expires in May. We are operating on our sixth extension. The original bill, the last bill, ran out on September 30, 2003. We have had extensions. We have missed the deadline. We absolutely have to get this bill passed.

If the extension expires and we do not do anything, not only does the U.S. Department of Transportation shut down but States would not be able to issue new contracts for summer construction programs on Federal aid highways. We would have a significant economic blow to our country as well as a delay in the building of our necessary roads.

Cloture will enable us to get to conference. It is going to be a very different conference. The House has a measure that is essentially project oriented. As has been stated by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here, we have attempted to achieve equity by a very complex formula. The Senator from Montana made a very important point. When we came to the floor, we added $11 billion. Why did we do this? The administration's own Department of Transportation puts out annually a conditions and performance report. Even with the $11 billion we added to the base number of $284 billion, according to the administration's own report, it still is not enough money even to maintain our current system. That is why money was added. That is why the Finance Committee was given the authority under the Talent-Stabenow amendment to add money. That is why we waived the point of order--because this money is important.

We heard my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, complaining about adding money, implying it was adding to the deficit. You have already heard that is pure nonsense. There is, as a matter of fact, a positive impact because the Finance Committee has not only added money to the highway trust

fund, but to make sure there was no shortfall in the general revenue sections, they added more general revenue. There is more general revenue coming in than before as a result of this amendment we adopted, and there is more money in the highway trust fund.

Regarding the point made by the Senator from Arizona, if the situation were not so serious, it would be funny. There is nothing like a good joke like having a Senator complaining he is not getting enough money and complaining we added money when adding that money brings the State of Arizona increase from last year's bill to 40.6 percent. They do fantastically well. They are one of the top three winners in the whole bill--top four, and he is complaining we added money.

You know the old story about the boy who kills his parents and when charged with murder he throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. You can either complain about not getting enough money or you can complain about having more money added to the bill; you cannot do both at the same time. You have to pick one side of the fence or the other.

This bill does have very important aspects. First and foremost, the economic impact--47,500 jobs are created for every $1 billion spent. That is immediate economic impact. The longer term economic impact of a good transportation bill, as I have pointed out on the floor before--as a former Governor of my State, I know if you want to know where economic growth is going to occur, where jobs are going to grow, you take a look at the transportation system. You have to have good transportation to create good jobs and to have a strong economy.

There are also aspects of this bill, of course, that improve our environment, because we are reducing congestion. We are putting environmental planning at the start of the planning process so we can take care of environmental concerns sooner.

But the real name of this bill is the SAFETEA bill, and safety is probably the most important part of this bill as far as my State is concerned. I have told this body several times of the number of friends I have lost on highways in Missouri. You can travel many national highways, Federal aid highways in Missouri, that are two-lane roads with traffic that merits having four lanes. Do you know what happens when you have a slow-moving livestock truck or piece of equipment, construction equipment or farm equipment, on a narrow two-lane road? Traffic backs up and backs up and somebody--very often a stranger to the area--tries to pull out and pass, with tragic results. We see white crosses marking our highways where people have lost their lives. Unfortunately, the number of those white crosses grows.

The Senator from Arizona has complained about the criteria used in the formula for money going to States that have greater than 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. That is Missouri and it is 17 other States. Actually it is Arizona as well.

If this is a SAFETEA bill, shouldn't you consider safety? I certainly think so. Some of the border State people say we need more money because we are on the borders. I will have a chart this afternoon that shows an interesting point of information. Some of the heaviest traffic--some of the heaviest tie-ups, the bottlenecks--is in the middle of America where East and West, North and South, Southwest and Northeast traffic all come together. When you look at the traffic in trucks on our highways on a U.S. Department of Transportation map, there is a great big artery clog right in the heart of America, in Missouri, in Oklahoma, in Illinois. That is where the traffic is the heaviest. We need a crossroads factor in the formula.

It is not the border States alone that have needs. We in the middle of Nation need that formula. Missouri has the fifth worst roads in the Nation; 65 percent of its roads are in fair to poor condition, requiring immediate repair. Missouri also ranks fourth from the bottom in number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges.

I say that humbly, knowing that my colleague's--the chairman of the committee--home State of Oklahoma ranks below Missouri.

Yet for all the complaining about how well our States do, we grow at the average rate of 30.40 percent. We grow in that neighborhood. Yet we are at the bottom of the list of worst roads and worst bridges in dangerous condition.

That is why this bill is so important. I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture, and I reserve the remaining time on this side.

How much time do we have remaining?

I ask that I be given 4 minutes of that, allowing 2 minutes for my colleague on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. President, we are once again asking for the support of our colleagues to raise the contract authority or budget authority in the highway bill. We said we were going to do this when we brought it to the floor. Eighty of our Members voted in the Budget Act to allow the Finance Committee to come in with additional resources, which they have done. There has been discussion about the legitimacy of the offsets and the Finance Committee actions. The Joint Tax Committee has scored it. That is the authoritative view. It does not add to the budget. The comments about this being a budget buster are absolutely wrong. These funds are paying for the money we add.

I will explain a little bit of complicated budgetary process. There are two things called the obligation limit, which is the amount that can be spent, the guaranteed amount. Traditionally, we have put a higher number into the bill for what we call budget authority, or what is called contract authority. That is because the highway departments cannot spend all of the money that they contract, and to enable them to spend the $283.9 billion guaranteed spending proposed by the President we have to have a higher contract or budget authority number.

This measure, which was added by the Finance Committee and which is now subject to the point of order, was designed to raise, with a fully offset amount, the spending so that we could provide additional funds for badly needed State roads.

Let me be clear. This amount that was added will enable us to bring all donor States up to 92 cents on the dollar by the end of the period. It will also guarantee those States which are at the bottom of the list in terms of increases to get at least a 15-percent increase. It is imperative that those who joined with us in the 80-vote majority to add the provision allowing the Finance Committee now reaffirm that they believe this money is necessary.

The additional money, contract or budget authority, will not be spent, the obligation limit will increase slightly, but we cannot spend the money the President said we should spend, the $283.9 billion, unless we increase the contract authority. Obviously, that's lots of confusion but that is where we are.

I urge my colleagues who understand, as the chairman and ranking member of the committee and my colleague Senator Baucus on the committee understand, we have to have this money for safety, for economic development, for continued growth and the health of our economy.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time for use by my colleague.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I would amend that request to say, when I am finished speaking, Senator Lautenberg may speak.

Mr. President, there are a number of things that need to be cleared up as we consider this amendment. First, the Senator from New Jersey has mentioned that several States have their own pay-to-play restrictions. But according to the Federal Highway Administration, those States are ones that are restricting contributions where there are not competitive bids. They are talking about no-bid contracts.

I do not doubt that New Jersey has had problems with no-bid contracts. I will leave it to my colleagues to discuss some of those problems. What we are talking about is changing the competitive bid system so that one State

can opt out of a mandate that the Federal Government has imposed. That mandate is, when using Federal aid to highway dollars, you have to bid it competitively because when we as national taxpayers are funding projects, then we have a right to see that they are done on a competitive-bid basis, to make sure that the Federal taxpayers get the best bargain for their money.

The name of my colleague, the other Senator from New Jersey, is attached to the amendment. I find it interesting that his reputation is one of sanctioning and penalizing States that do not conform to Federal laws, so it was alarming to me to see this amendment from the New Jersey Senators that will exempt them from complying with Federal regulations. In my State there are a lot of things our chosen Representatives, the people who serve Missouri in the Missouri General Assembly, choose not to do. There are various mandates that impose burdens on our State that will limit its ability to get funds. If we are going down the road of exempting our States from mandates of the Federal Government on Federal highway aid dollars, I think the Missouri General Assembly and the Missouri Governor would pass along to me quite a number of mandates they wish to have taken off of their backs.

We just passed another mandate to take $900 million out of the highway trust fund to pay for storm water improvements for local governments. I think that is an unfortunate mandate; it was adopted by a very close vote. I hope we will be able to revisit it. But when you start exempting a State from the competitive bid contracts to allow them to impose their own campaign finance laws through the Federal highway aid system, that, to me, does not seem to be a proper use of the Federal highway tax dollars. We have a right to expect that we get the best bargain for the money and that is through competitive bids.

This amendment, as I read it, limits competition and changes the current Federal process. Political contributions have absolutely no effect on the selection of Federal aid highway projects because, unless otherwise approved by the Secretary, construction projects are awarded only on the basis of the lowest responsive bid that meets the established criteria, based on the State's department of transportation engineering estimates.

Very simply put, unless the Secretary of Transportation waives it, you have to take what the State Department of transportation has put together in its request for bids, and make the best bid complying with that, that is responsive, at the lowest price.

That does not offer opportunities for corruption. There may be people in New Jersey and other States who find other ways to corrupt the system. I do not deny that. I think they should be punished. But there is no reason, in my view, to repeal the competitive bid standards. If States want to regulate their State projects by limiting competition, by all means, they should be free to do it.

If it is a State contract, States can put in anything they want. There are other States, as I mentioned earlier, that currently have pay-to-play laws in place, but there are four States that have pay-to- play laws, two of which--Ohio and South Carolina--only apply to no-bid contracts having no effect on highway and transit projects because these are let under the competitive low-bid method.

I believe the Senators from New Jersey think they are being singled out by the Federal Highway Administration as Kentucky and West Virginia have similar pay-to-play laws--but both Kentucky and West Virginia have exceptions to their provisions. Kentucky excludes contracts awarded competitively on the basis of the lowest and best bid, while West Virginia's exception is the restriction that only applies during negotiation and performance of the contract.

These provisions are clearly different from what the Senators from New Jersey seek for their State. To open the process in other States, we do not need to have Federal aid highway dollars used as a means of changing campaign finance laws or changing the competitive bid process which gives us the best bid on the projects that are funded with Federal dollars.

I don't want to see State laws preempting Federal laws, but if we are going to go down that road, as I said, I have a number of amendments, and I would certainly ask support for all the areas that Missouri wants to exempt from some of the mandates, many of which I think are unnecessary from the Federal Highway Administration laws.

At this point, I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment because it provides a very different standard which New Jersey is attempting to use in its award of competitive-bid contracts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as noted by the Senator from Iowa, this bill incorporates more for bicycles and pedestrians than most highway users can support. We have been very generous. The activities are eligible under the core programs for the National Highway System, STP, CMAQ, highway bridge funding. They are eligible under scenic byways, Federal lands, rails and trails.

Do not get me wrong. I like bikes. I used to be a big bike rider. I am a big walker. But this is a highway bill. This is not a bill for bicycles and pedestrians. I would urge everyone to get exercise. The proposal we have before us would require my State department of transportation to plan for bicycles, completing Highway 63 from Macon to the Iowa line. Most of my good friends along there are not going to ride a bicycle from Macon to the Iowa line, to the wonderful farm fields in north Missouri or along the hilly mountain paths of Highway 60 in southern Missouri in the Ozark Mountains or Highway 13 or Highway 71.

We have plenty of programs. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways are under here. It provides grants of $2 million. They want a bicycle clearinghouse like a Publishers Clearinghouse.

The proponent of this amendment says he needs it for the metropolitan planning organizations. Well, if my colleagues will look at section 134(a)(3) contents, the plans and programs for each metropolitan area shall provide for development and operation facilities, including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation. Metropolitan planning organizations already are mandated to do that.

Section 1823 has enhancement projects approved. They are eligible for facilities for pedestrians and bicycle activities, preservation for abandoned railway corridors. Similar to the administration's proposed SAFETEA, we elevated SAFETEA to a core program. This part, known as HSIP, there is a mandatory set-aside specifically for bicycle and pedestrian activities. We set it up as $717 million, and since the overall level of the bill has been raised by $8 billion, this level has gone up.

There is also the Safe Routes to School Program. If you want people to be safe going to school, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said 24 people die a year on average from school bus transportation, but it is far and away the safest way for children to go to and from school. That is by schoolbus.

A number of my colleagues have amendments regarding bicycle and pedestrian activities. It seems that they have some different priorities than the mayors and the community leaders and the State departments of transportation I see in my State. They want to make sure we have roads. If the department of transportation in Iowa and

Missouri want it, they can plan for it, as can the metropolitan planning organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to make a unanimous consent request on an amendment passed?

I ask unanimous consent that the Talent amendment at the desk, which is identical to the amendment agreed to previously, be conformed to the pending amendment--the amendment which is identical to the amendment agreed to, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This provides tremendous resources for bicycles and pedestrians, more than $717 million in a mandatory set-aside for bike and pedestrian activities. Metropolitan planning organizations are already required under existing law to plan for bike and pedestrian facilities. What this amendment says is: If you are planning a highway from Leftover Shoes to Podunk Junction in the middle of a State with nobody around, you would have to plan for a bike path. We have a lot of roads through our Ozark hills and farmland where the danger is inadequate two-lane highways. People are not going to ride bicycles along those highways. They need the lanes to drive their cars. Putting an additional planning burden on agencies that don't want or need bike paths is another unwarranted mandate. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to the Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association. I am very pleased to recognize this organization for its 25 years of superior service to the Missouri business community.

The Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association was formed in 1980. With hard work and untiring commitment, the MMMA has grown into a strong, well respected voice in the legislative process representing over 5,000 small and mid-sized businesses across the State of Missouri. It is actively involved in educating MMMA members and serving as an advocate on State legislative issues impacting businesses.

While Governor of Missouri, I found that the MMMA's active involvement in State legislative issues provided a vital resource. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I highly value the insights they have shared on numerous issues of great importance to America's business. MMMA is a vital link in spearheading the causes of small business.

Over the past 25 years the MMMA has been instrumental in repealing the Merchants and Manufacturers Inventory Tax. The association has assisted in the passage of more than 35 bills in addition to winning three lawsuits before the Missouri Supreme Court. Collectively the MMMA's achievements have saved small and medium sized businesses more than $400 million.

The quality individuals that comprise the MMMA epitomize the kind of dedication, work ethic and ideals necessary to meet the ongoing challenges and demands of the business community. Their leadership has influenced passage of important legislation and provided dependable resources in many court cases to benefit employers. The Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association celebrated its 25th anniversary on January 7, 2005. It is my great pleasure to congratulate the MMMA for this significant accomplishment.

Mr. President, will the chairman yield? Mr. Chairman, we are ready. We are open to do business. There have been a great many discussions about the highway title. We have people ready to take those amendments who are ready to discuss those with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to see which ones we can accept. Is it my understanding that we only have 3\1/2\ days to complete work on this very complex bill that covers not only the EPW section but commerce, finance, and the other sections? Is that correct?

I thank the chairman. I hope we can get on with it while our colleague is speaking. I hope other Members and staff will come to the floor and share their amendments and begin the discussion that is going to have to move very quickly if we are to finish this bill this week and stay on schedule to try to avoid another extension.

Mr. President, I was going to do what the chairman of the full committee said, but I see our friend from Hawaii is here. We have already had a discussion of the commerce title. I am happy to defer to my colleague from Hawaii.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii. I am hoping we can get started on this bill as quickly as possible because this time during this week has been set aside for the bill with all of the titles--EPW, commerce, finance--and we have a very complex bill. We need to work on these amendments right away.

There is discussion about holds on both sides. I hope if anybody has a problem with the bill they will come down and work with us and not hold up the bill because we cannot do our job and get this measure passed if we are blocked from bringing it up by people phoning in their holds.

I would like to have any Member who has a problem to talk to our staffs, realize there are lots of things that many people want to change, but that is what this whole process is about. We are trying to craft a bill that has been reported out of several different committees. Our highway title has been out there for 10 days, and everyone has had a chance to work on it. We have cleared numerous amendments on both sides of the aisle to take care of needs that various Members have. We cannot get this bill completed if people phone in holds and say: No, we are not going to let you go to the floor. It is very important that Members come down. This is going to be a very difficult bill.

I am happy to yield.

My understanding from the cloakrooms is there are Members who have phoned in their concerns about moving to it.

I certainly hope the Senator from Mississippi feels better. I feel better because he has expressed my sentiments very clearly. We have been waiting 2\1/3\ years to have this bill in the Senate, and we have plenty to work on. I hope we are ready to move forward.

I will add to what the chairman of the EPW committee, my colleague from Oklahoma, has said. Recognize that last year during the consideration of the Transportation bill, the Senate voted 76 to 21 in favor of funding the highway bill at $255 billion, mass transit at $56 billion. This vote was a strong signal that the Members of the Senate believe we need to spend more dollars for safety, for our economy, for jobs, for our long-term growth and future on highways.

We did adopt in this budget resolution the provision presented by my colleague, Senator Talent, and the Senator from Michigan, to give the Finance Committee the opportunity to increase funding for the bill as long as it was properly offset, and 80 Senators voted in support of it. That is exactly what the chairman and the ranking member, Senators Grassley and Baucus, have done in their amendment.

I urge we support this amendment because we are still going to be short of where we were last time. No one is going to be able to get, for their particular areas of interest, their particular priorities, the same amount of money that would have been available under $318 billion. This measure does increase the funding somewhat over the figure written into the budget, but it is in pursuant to the provision included in the transportation section of the highway bill that there could be an add-on.

I hope people will see this is a critical time to move forward on this measure. If there are people who have amendments, I hope they will be ready to come forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the effort that my colleague from Missouri is making. When the Senator from Missouri was in the House, he was chairman of the House Small Business Committee when I was chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. We took great pride in the tremendous contribution that small business made to our State, both in terms of the jobs they produced as well as the tremendous boost that the small businesses were able to provide to our productive sector.

Again, I commend the Senator from Missouri for the action he took last year to make sure that these minority small business contractors could be qualified. This will go a long way toward easing the procedure to make sure that minority small business operations have a chance to get in on the work of the highway bill. It is very important that we move forward with our highway construction, and having the minority small businesses providing jobs in their community and representing the communities that will be served is a very worthy goal.

This small measure would have a big impact. So I urge the adoption of this amendment.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, finally, after much laboring, this massive new substitute, or managers' amendment, is before us.

This reflects the tremendous amount of work our staffs have done over the recess as well as the many long weeks and months our committees worked on it. It is not what anybody would say is a perfect bill. Everybody would like more money, and many would like more money in different places. But given the constraints under which we operated, this is the best we have been able to produce. Obviously, we hope that after the Senate may complete action on the supplemental, which I understand may be coming up, we would like to move as quickly as we can on this bill.

The leadership on both sides has told us they want to finish the bill by this week. That is an ambitious schedule but, frankly, the current extension of the highway transportation bill runs out at the end of this month. The only hope we have of meeting that deadline and getting a bill to the President is to get it to conference this week. The conference is going to be difficult because of the different approach taken by the House than the approach we have taken.

The approach we have taken, and the EPW Committee, on highway funds is one of bipartisan cooperation, to use formulas to assure that the highway money goes to States on the various indicators of need built into the formulas. I happen to think the formulas undercut the crossroads of the United States. I will be showing, when people talk about needs in other areas, a map by the U.S. Department of Transportation showing the level of heavy traffic on the roads in America. It is no surprise that that heavy traffic goes right through the middle of America, through Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana. We are the crossroads States. We are not doing as well in our States as many of the other States that are asking for more money.

When people say they want more money, my response is: I do, too. But we have attempted to follow the pattern established in previous formulas. And if people want to change it, I have some changes I would like to make as well and include the crossroads where the traffic is the heaviest and where, in my State and in Oklahoma, we now recognize the fact that deaths caused by inadequate highways is a legitimate concern for a bill called SAFETEA.

I am delighted, through the leadership of Senator Inhofe and the cooperation and leadership of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Jeffords, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, who worked very closely with me on the last highway bill, we brought our section to the floor as well as the sections from the other committees. We look forward as soon as we can to going back to work on it. We would ask any of our colleagues who have amendments, particularly to our section, you have had a chance to look at it, we have had a chance to work on it. I hope we can move quickly because the time will be short and the bill is important.

With that, I thank the chairman of our committee and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment unties the hands of States which were handcuffed by a provision added in committee last year and is still in the bill, a provision on which debate was cut short last year, but now we can finish the job, and I hope we will. This provision will cost the States nearly $900 million in highway, bridge, and transit construction or rehabilitation funding unless we adopt the amendment.

The provision binding our States, section 1620 of the bill, mandates that every State, regardless of whether it needs it or not, set aside 2 percent, or nearly $900 million, for use for the life of the bill only on storm water mitigation activities. My amendment strikes this mandatory set-aside.

Without the amendment, States will be directed to set aside over $740 million from their Surface Transportation Program funds, funds that otherwise could construct or rehabilitate highways, bridges, or transit systems. Without this amendment, States would be forced to set aside over $125 million from the Equity Bonus Program set up by this bill to help States receive more highway dollars. Without this amendment, the States will be forced to use nearly $900 million only on storm water mitigation, regardless of the need of such activities.

Every State will lose highway dollars under this set-aside. We have tables available. Alabama, the set-aside would cost it $19 million; Alaska, $10 million; Arizona, $17 million; Arkansas, $12 million. I ask Members to look at how much the Federal Government would dictate how their highway funds would have to be spent.

Every office will receive a list, and we will have copies available. I urge every Member to look to see how it affects their State. We are fighting extremely hard on the Senate floor to

provide States with more transportation funds. This is something the chairman and the ranking member, my subcommittee ranking member, Senator Baucus, and I have done.

We are working with the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, to get the money. I know we will be inundated by Members wanting transportation projects in this bill. I know in my new role as chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee I will be inundated with requests for projects in their State, but a Member voting to take funding from highways, bridges, and transit and set it aside for storm water would seem to indicate that their State has more than enough funding that they can afford to divert highway funds to storm water so the State may not need more highway funds.

Now, do not get me wrong. I support States having the ability to address their storm water needs if they must do so, and if they choose to do so. With my amendment, the States will remain fully authorized to use their highway funds to mitigate storm water problems. Indeed, this bill preserves and actually expands the ability of States to spend highway dollars on storm water mitigation, on a highway project if that is what is needed in their State.

Current law allows States to spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost using STP funds on storm water mitigation. That is unchanged. The bill also expands storm water eligibility by allowing States to spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost under the National Highway System funds on storm water mitigation. That is unchanged by this amendment.

I seek only to strike the mandatory set-aside; the Federal Government big daddy knows better than the States how to spend their funds to assure adequate transportation and protection of the environment.

There is no one in this body who has fought longer and harder than I have, my former colleague, my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for Federal funding for water quality and drinking water. When we served as head of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funded EPA, we restored hundreds of millions of dollars in proposed cuts to the clean water and safe drinking water funds. Every year we appropriated millions of dollars to protect, sustain, and restore the health of our Nation's water habitats and ecosystems. We spent millions funding water projects for the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, and the Great Lakes. Last year, we sent hundreds of millions of dollars more to Members' States for targeted investments and water infrastructure. We do that every year for our colleagues because we believe so much in providing clean and safe drinking water for our families and local communities.

Forcing another arbitrary mandate on States, taking precious highway and transit construction dollars and diverting them for another purpose does not make sense. Decisions should be made by each State on a case- by-case, project-by-project basis, not as a result of another one-size- fits-all Federal mandate sent down from Washington.

Let me repeat, this amendment strikes only the set-aside mandate and leaves fully intact storm water funding eligibility. I urge my colleagues to let States keep $900 million for highway bridge and transit construction and to turn back this new Federal mandate on States. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this amendment from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the Transportation Construction Coalition, a coalition of builders and union representatives; the Associated General Contractors of America; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; and a list of other organizations and unions supporting this amendment be printed in the Record after my remarks.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am happy to work with the Senator from Colorado on the needs of his particular State. This measure before us would enable his State to spend more on bridges if that is the need but to require States to spend 5 percent more where in our State for various reasons we only spend a minimum of 15 percent, and other States may be in our same situation, I am very much concerned about a mandate because we have bad bridges, but we kill people on our highways. We kill people on our highways because we have two-lane highways that are carrying heavy truck traffic and passenger traffic that warrant four lanes. Rebuilding bridges is not going to solve that problem. So for our State, this would be a real problem.

As chairman of the subcommittee, I would be happy to work with the Senator to see if we can reach an accommodation, but I am very much concerned about what I think the gist of his amendment is.

I believe the Senator from South Carolina has a brief statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, obviously, my good friend, the Senator from Virginia, and I view this very differently. I will outline some of the differences we have.

Let me clarify. The Senator from Virginia noted that the bill passed last year in the Senate with the storm water provision included. I ask my colleagues to recall that we did so only with the agreement that I would not raise it in the Senate in order to get it to conference, and we would address it in conference. I did so out of deference to my colleagues to get the bill off the floor and to conference in what turned out to be the vain hope we could get a conference agreement on the bill which we badly needed last year.

I did not want to hold up progress on the bill last year. We did not have time to debate it fully. But this year, we have time to debate it fully. It is appropriate we do so.

First, let me address the concept that this is a modest amendment, a small amendment.

Back home, $900 million is not a small amount. I live in a State where $900 million means a whole lot. Do you know to whom it means a lot? It means a lot to the mayors. The mayors want safety for their citizens. These are community leaders who come to Washington to talk to me about how badly they need the money for their roads.

I don't think $900 million is small. I don't think we should take $900 million from the highway, bridge, transit construction budget.

But if Senators think their State has more than enough highway dollars and can afford to give money away for storm water, I would be glad to know that as we move forward on appropriations matters and other matters dealing with transportation.

With respect to what this underlying bill will do, section 1620, which was sponsored by the Senator from Virginia, mandates States set aside 2 percent of the funds in their main highway accounts--nearly $900 million total over the life of the bill--to be used only, regardless of need, on storm water mitigation activities.

If allowed to remain in the bill, the mandatory set-aside would force all States to divert $740 million from their Surface Transportation Program funds. The mandatory set-aside would also force States to divert over $125 million from the Equity Bonus Program set up to help almost every State receive more transportation. That is where I get the $900 million figure.

However, if this figure is struck, if the State of Virginia or any other State wants to use it, storm water mitigation activities are already eligible for funding. States can spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost using STP funds on storm water mitigation if they choose. The underlying bill also expanded funding eligibility for storm water mitigation by adding it to the eligible activities. The National Highway System program states they will be able to spend up to 20 percent of a project's costs using NHS on storm water mitigation if they choose.

I have already listed what the impact of the mandatory set-aside would be. The occupant of the chair is from Minnesota. That would be a $17.7 million hit on Minnesota. In addition, the State of Virginia would have to set aside $23 million. But I guess they would want to use that money on storm water anyhow.

I would like to respond and finish my presentation. Then we can get into a discussion.

You have no conscience.

I didn't support that.

I didn't vote for that. I will address that at some point.

I thought I had the floor.

All good things come to an end. I appreciate the comments. I was going to address the need for clean water, but my good friend from Virginia is saying we need to make this into a water bill. He said we need to fund local water projects for Governors.

I thought this was a transportation bill. I have already pointed out that the States can use up to 20 percent of STP in the national highway funds on storm water mitigation. But there are lots of unfunded mandates that this body has put, in the past, on our local governments to clean up local water.

Do you know something. For the last dozen years, I have fought as chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee, with my colleague and very good friend, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, to provide the funds we need to try to help States and local governments meet their obligations.

There is something called the State revolving funds, and every year the Office of Management and Budget--it does not matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat--cuts it. Those are the most important funds we can provide. We put in over $2 billion each year. It gets cut. We put it back in the next year to go into the State revolving funds. Senator Mikulski and I have funded hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of water cleanup projects in various States--including Virginia, I am proud to say, a State of which I am very fond--and helping them deal with their clean water needs.

This is a transportation bill. I hear a lot from mayors and local government officials. They need transportation. There are waters needs, yes, but these water needs are about $200 billion--$200 to $250 billion--and unfunded. We could take the entire transportation budget, dump it into water, and still not meet the needs.

He has talked about how important safe drinking water is for health. And I agree. Really, it is one of the best environmental investments we could make. But when you are talking about public health, let's talk about the slaughter on the highways. The whole purpose of this bill is called SAFETEA. The administration says, and I believe, we need to make our highways safer. We kill three people a day or more on Missouri highways. Over 365 of those people die every year because our highways are inadequate. We have narrow two-lane roads that really should be divided four-lane highways, and people get killed on them. Jobs do not come to town when we do not have adequate roads. We contribute to pollution when we tie up traffic on these roads. We need to put these dollars to work.

As I said, the good Senator from Virginia mentioned the mayors support it. Well, my mayors support money for highways and bridges and transportation. But I can tell you, the States strongly support my amendment. They do not want their hands tied by a new Federal mandate. We have too many mandates in this bill, and I would be willing to take a look at some of the others.

But the State departments of transportation want and need the flexibility to spend their own highway dollars. That is why the organization of State highway directors, AASHTO, said: ``We need your immediate help.'' They absolutely want the help of every person in this body to support the Bond amendment to strike section 1620. They say:

Section 1620 mandates that States set-aside 2%. . . . This

will divert $867 million from a core program that provides

funding for highway, bridge and transit construction,

rehabilitation and repair. If this provision is removed, any

State can continue to spend up to 20% of a project's cost on

storm water activities--but at the discretion of the State.

So here we are asking this body to be, again, a ``daddy knows best.'' We are going to tell States they have to spend $900 million--which is not much in ``Washington speak,'' but it is an awful lot in my ``home State speak''--for storm waters.

I have already submitted the letters of support. Let me give you some more of the organizations, in addition to AASHTO: the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Laborers- International Union of North America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Council of Engineering Companies--and the list goes on. These people understand how badly we need these highway dollars. Anybody who thinks the $284 billion that we were able to get to bring this bill to the floor is adequate has not gone home and listened to the people.

I am happy to yield.

Do you want 2?

Go ahead, please.

Yes.

To conclude my opening comments, I would note that the administration, in its statement of policy, says: The inclusion of a mandatory 2-percent set-aside from the STP program to support a highway storm water mitigation program is opposed. Storm water discharge mitigation costs are already eligible under STP.

I very much appreciate the assistance of the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe, who supports my amendment and spoke eloquently earlier on it.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and now turn the floor over to----

April 26, 2005.

You may find it at the top of page 2.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.

This particular mandate of the good Senator from Virginia is one that I don't like. He put in another mandate to increase funding for metropolitan planning organizations. If we could pass a Clear Skies bill, we wouldn't need to waste all that time on planning activities because we would clean up our air with a heavy restriction on utilities. That is a debate for another time. But just because there are too many mandates in this bill already does not justify keeping $900 million in State budgets out of transportation needs and putting it into storm water.

Don't forget, as we have said, the States now can spend up to 20 percent of their STP and the National Highway System money on storm water cleanups. Granted, there are tremendous needs for cleaning up the water, wastewater and drinking water. We need to address those. I wish we could address them more generously in the water cleanup bills. But this is taking money away from the lifeblood of transportation lifesaving highway construction that we need in our States.

Our mayors--in Missouri, the ones I have talked to--and community leaders are very strongly in favor of it. I guess the good Senator and I will have dueling charts showing how much money is set aside from the State budgets. We know the amounts set aside in the State budgets pale by comparison to the water needs, but the needs for highways go far beyond that in our States. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to table because we need better, safer transportation to meet the goals of SAFETEA.

Mr. President, all of the labor organizations, the State highway officials, all of the groups that provide those funds strongly support my amendment and would oppose the motion to table of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, my sincere thanks to the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe; to the ranking member, Senator Jeffords; and my colleague, the ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Baucus. This is a job well done under the constraints we face. We have worked long and hard to get to this point, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of proceeding.

The bill, S. 732, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, is long overdue, 2 years past due. Our roads are deteriorating and safety is deteriorating unless and until we can get this bill up. My thanks to the leader for allowing us to call up the bill. It has a lot of moving parts. Every time you move one part, you make somebody slightly happy and several more very unhappy. But I believe it is a good step forward in attempting to meet our goal of completion prior to expiration of the current extension of the authorization on May 31. If we do not proceed to move to this debate, Senators should be aware we may not be able to pass a seventh extension, and our States may cease to let additional contracts, and thousands of jobs may be at stake.

We called up S. 1072 a little over a year ago, and final passage of that bill last year was 76 to 21. Today's bill, S. 732, is nearly identical to last year's bill, with one major problem: To comply with the President's budget request of $284 billion, we have taken a proportional cut across the board of approximately 10.7 percent.

During conference last year, we were presented with $299 billion in contract authority and $284 billion in guaranteed spending. Today, our obligation limit and contract authority numbers are both the same, at $284 billion. I do not think that will work.

Last year, $284 billion was not sufficient to meet the transportation and safety needs in my State and, I think, many other States. I thought then, and continue to believe, more money is necessary. I understand the Finance Committee will be offering an amendment which we on the Environment and Public Works Committee will be supporting. During the budget resolution debate, my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent, along with the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, offered an amendment that any revenue that does not add to the deficit should be spent. It passed with more than 80 Senators supporting it. I think the Senate will have a similar position when we provide for additional revenues with defendable efforts.

The bill we are bringing to the floor has several major goals.

First, equity. While previous authorizations have talked about equity, our bill carefully balances the needs of the donor States, while also recognizing the needs of the donee States. There are many sections of the bill I am proud of supporting, such as the fact that all donor States will receive, at the minimum, a 92-percent rate of return by the end of the authorization.

My State of Missouri is a donor State which essentially means that for every dollar we spend on transportation, we receive less than a dollar in return. In 2004, it was 92 cents.

There are many States that fall under the $1 rate of return-- unfortunately, only about 20 of them, which means there were 30 votes for the donee States that got back more than a dollar, and that is where our problem was.

Last year, with the more robust funding, we were able to get all States up to 95 cents, but we were unable to achieve this rate of return as a result of going from $318 billion down to $284 billion.

Donor States that support additional revenue above $284 billion can expect an increase in their rate of return to bring the bill more in line with last year's bill, but I do not think anybody is talking about $318 billion anymore.

I worked diligently with Chairman Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Baucus to ensure the bill remains as fair and equitable as possible among all States. I am aware some of the donor States, which we commonly refer to as superdonors--it is nice when you get to select the epithet by which you are called. I wish I had thought of being called a superdonor or a deserving donor. Senator Inhofe and I come from deserving donor States. We will add Senator Thune into the deserving donor States. But superdonors are concerned they hit the growth caps and do not achieve a 92-cent return right away. But the average rate of growth from the highway trust fund for all States is about 24.38 percent. The average rate of growth of Texas and Arizona is 31.79 percent. Senators from States that are growing below average are the ones who, it seems to me, should be complaining. We were unable to bring up donor States as early as we might have wished due to budget constraints, as well as balancing the needs of the donor States with the needs of the donee States.

For this reason, as most donor States grow, the donee States see a gradual decline to bring greater equity between the States. Nevertheless, all States will grow at not less than 10 percent over the previous bill, TEA-21. We are hopeful that with additional revenue, we will be able to raise that floor.

Safety is another key feature. We will go a long way toward saving lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous locations, sections, and elements.

Safety in this authorization is, for the first time, being elevated to a core program. Our bill mirrors the administration's proposal, continuing our commitment to our motoring public's safety. This is accomplished by providing much needed funding to reduce highway injuries and fatalities, all without the use of mandates.

In my State of Missouri, we know inadequate roads not only lead to congestion, pollution, lack of economic growth, and they delay, deny, and derail economic opportunity, but they also kill people. We have averaged more than three deaths a day on Missouri highways and probably close to 40 percent, if not more, can be attributable to inadequate roads.

I have driven all the Federal highways and all the State highways and a lot of the county roads in Missouri, and I can tell you we have Federal highways which are two-lane highways which have traffic that everybody agrees should be on four lanes. What happens? We have rear- end collisions, passing on blind curves and hills, and we have fatalities.

My home State of Missouri, as many other donor States, has some of the worst roads in the Nation. We are among, unfortunately, that distinguished group that has the highest fatalities per million miles driven on the roads.

That is a distinction we do not like. Recent reports say we have the fifth worst roads in the Nation, with 65 percent of our major roads in fair to poor condition requiring immediate attention. We also rank fourth from the bottom in deficient bridges in the Nation.

Our committee has heard voluminous testimony from the administration that nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last year alone. I am glad this bill reflects a continued commitment making not only investments in infrastructure but for the general safety and welfare of our constituents.

The bill addresses several environmental issues, such as easing the transition under new air quality standards. The conformity process is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as streamlining the project delivery process by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during environmental reviews.

Another accomplishment of our package will ensure transportation projects are built more quickly because environmental stakeholders will be brought to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape projects.

Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured environmental review process, more efficiently, with fewer delays. The bill also ensures that transportation projects will not make air worse in areas with poor air quality while giving local transportation planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air quality responsibilities.

The bill will put transportation planning on a regular 4-year cycle, require air quality checks with projects large enough to be regionally significant, and reduce current barriers that local officials face in adopting projects that improve air quality.

The final goal is jobs. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates 47,500 jobs. To the Associated General Contractors, the same $1 billion investment yields half of that in new orders from manufacturing and half of that spread through other sectors of the economy. Construction pay averages $19 per hour, 23 percent higher than the private sector average.

This comprehensive package is a good step forward to creating jobs, but as a Governor of the State where we placed a high emphasis on economic development, it is not only the jobs that are created in construction, it is the jobs that are created by the existence of adequate, safe transportation that assures continued growth.

We have spent a lot of time in this body talking about how we get our economy to grow, how we create jobs. Passing this bill to create jobs now and facilitate the creation of jobs in the future is the best thing we can do. I am hopeful our colleagues in the Senate will agree to move this bill quickly in order to pass this legislation prior to the current May 31 expiration date.

I thank the Chair and I reserve the remainder of the time for the leader on this side.

Mr. President, there have been some new factors that have come out. In the interest of full disclosure, Missouri has moved up to fifth worst in roads and fourth worst in bridges. As I understand, Oklahoma still occupies a place of dishonor with even worse roads and bridges.

I was hoping those new studies would not come out that we are still right at the bottom. As two States that are in the heart of the Nation with major interstates crossing our States and traffic going east, west, southwest, and northeast through our States we are essential arteries for transportation for the Nation.

Well, the States are absolutely frustrated beyond all means that we have not been able to reauthorize the bill. Merely extending the bill does not enable us to go forward with major planning. The extensions keep existing projects in line and allow the Department of Transportation to continue to operate, but if we have another extension it means the money that this bill would make available will now not be made available until the construction season. For most of the United States, the construction season is spring, summer, and fall. Not a lot of work can be done in the winter.

So with the necessary contract times, 90 days to let contracts, if we do not make the May 31 deadline with new authorization, we are going to lose a tremendous amount of road construction necessary for economic development and safety.

Will the minority leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, I would like to ask the minority leader--I came down here to talk about the highway bill. Is it his understanding that we are on the highway bill?

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Roberts. As we all know, this February, President Bush nominated Ambassador John Negroponte to serve as the Nation's first Director of National Intelligence. I rise today in strong support of his confirmation for this demanding position. I agree with the chairman and vice chairman; I can think of few people as well suited by experience, intelligence, and dedication to tackle this assignment. I heard the remarks of the vice chairman, and I wish to associate myself with those very fine remarks-- particularly his remarks about General Hayden who is nominated to be the Principal Deputy. We are not talking about his nomination today, but I associate myself with the high commendation that has been made of this gentleman, who also deserves prompt confirmation, so that we can get about the critically important work of providing intelligence. Ambassador Negroponte's wealth of experience and outstanding track record should be well known to all of us. A proven leader and manager in our national security establishment, he served five tours as chief of mission in U.S. Embassies. He has worked closely not only with frontline intelligence officers but himself served as Deputy National Security Adviser. He has solid experience working with the U.S. military, as well as representatives of Cabinet departments. Most telling, his recent experience as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and the United Nations provide him with a unique view into the spectrum of national security challenges we now face and how best to construct an intelligence apparatus to meet those challenges. He understands that while collecting, analyzing, and disseminating good intelligence are not only requirements of a sound foreign policy and a secure homeland, they are key elements. Most important, these are processes in dire need of repair. The Ambassador is the right choice at the right time to take on these challenges.

As we continue our war on terror against those who would do us harm, our intelligence community must also work to stem the proliferation and prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, maintain a watchful eye on global competitors and adversaries, be alert to emerging threats, and provide guidance to policymakers on how best to positively influence global change. Most importantly, they must be able to provide policymakers with timely, accurate, and authoritative intelligence to manage, instead of reacting to looming threats. In short, the Ambassador has his work cut out for him.

He will have to invigorate human intelligence capabilities. Our spies and agents must not only collect better intelligence, they must work to penetrate the governments of rogue states, terrorist and insurgent organizations, and closed societies where some of the most devious plots to attack America and its people and interests, as well as our allies, are hatched. We know we have fallen short in our human intelligence--or HUMINT--capabilities leading up to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are going to have to correct that and we look for the DNI's leadership to do that.

As DNI, the Ambassador will have to work diligently to ensure that signals intelligence and other technical collection means are continuously updated, expanded, and modified to not only provide strategic intelligence but also actionable information for our war fighters--something in which I am personally most interested.

Our intelligence community is home to some of the world's finest minds which have averted disaster and provided the highest quality information to consumers from the President down to the privates on the front line. However, inferential analysis and ``group think'' are practices against which the DNI must guard. The DNI must ensure that rigorously competitive analysis models and improved analytics tradecraft be implemented.

The problem of inaccurate information sharing amongst agencies has been a recurring theme during the review of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of our recent intelligence failures leading to 9/11 and U.S. assessments of Iraq WMD programs. We have seen, unfortunately, even since 9/11, far too recent incidents where agencies working on common problems did not share that information and those sources. In this day, that is totally unacceptable. The DNI will not only face the challenge of ensuring that information is passed up and down the chain of command, but that colleagues working for different agencies within the intelligence community can and do regularly share and exchange information and ideas.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, under the wise, compassionate guidance of Chairman Roberts, has espoused the idea of not merely information sharing but of information access. It is a difficult task. Sensitive information must be protected from disclosure, and too often protecting it from disclosure means not sharing it with people who are working on the same project. Nonetheless, the Ambassador has assured me that an analyst with a need to know will have access to the information, regardless of who collects it and who is working on it.

In the end, no matter what means is used to collect intelligence, it is the fine, brave, and dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who will make it work on any given day on the ground. It will be not only a responsibility but a duty of the DNI to ensure that these men and women receive the proper education and training to discharge their duties. While substantive expertise and technical prowess are essential, leadership and management training, along with mentorship programs are key elements that will ensure that we attract, as well as retain, the talented, motivated, and dedicated personnel we need.

The men and women of the intelligence community are our first tripwire to help stave off disaster. They can advise us on prudent courses of action to advance our national security interests. They willingly take great risks and make great sacrifices daily. Accordingly, it is the solemn obligation of the DNI to ensure their ranks continue to be filled with competent visionaries, managers, and innovators who are willing to lead and care for them.

Over the years, this body has seen and even drafted recommendations to establish a DNI and/or a more accountable and powerful chief of our intelligence community. While the establishment of a DNI is historic, it was not established to the degree of budgetary and other powers that I, along with several of my colleagues, would have liked and thought would be very necessary. So the Ambassador will face challenges as he asserts his authority over the 15 intelligence agencies he will supervise. I hope he will use the implied powers of this position and the positive enforcement and support of the President to make sure the work that needs to be done is done and the DNI will have the power that, unfortunately, he was not given in the legislation but we believe he must exercise.

Reflecting on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and the WMD Commission, as well as many pre-9/11 studies, and the work that has gone on in the Select Committee on Intelligence, I fully endorse and call on my colleagues to support Ambassador Negroponte as he establishes these powers to make sure our homeland is protected and our policymakers and warfighters on the ground are well informed.

Having met with Ambassador Negroponte at length and being well aware of his qualifications, I am confident he will not only meet these high standards but will set a fine precedent for all succeeding DNIs to follow.

I ask my colleagues to act quickly to confirm Ambassador Negroponte to lead our intelligence community so he may begin in earnest to make the difficult changes we believe are sorely needed.

I thank the Chair, I thank the managers of this nomination, and I urge prompt confirmation.