Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, going to the doctor for a checkup is hard enough these days between juggling family and work schedules. Few of us get all the checkups and screenings we need. Making matters worse, more and more doctors are closing their practices or limiting the services they offer.

They are doing so because they cannot afford the increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance which they are required to carry.

According to the American Medical Association, 19 States are in a full-blown medical liability crisis, including the home State of the occupant of the chair and mine.

In Missouri, physicians' average premium increases for 2002 was 61 percent on top of increases the previous year of 22 percent. What happens? Well, 31 percent of the physicians surveyed by the Missouri State Medical Association said they were thinking about leaving their practice altogether.

Almost one in three physicians in Missouri considered leaving their practice because they cannot afford the exorbitant medical malpractice insurance cost caused by the lawsuits brought--some frivolously, and many of them, I assume, against doctors. Doctors who have practiced for years in Missouri are closing their doors.

But this is not just a problem for doctors. They are well educated. They can move elsewhere and resume their practice, as difficult and unfair as that is. The real damage and pain is being felt by the patients.

Last summer we considered a comprehensive bill, S. 11, the Patients First Act. Unfortunately, the motion to proceed was not successful. Because this issue is so critical to the health care of all Americans and because the crisis continues to grow, inaction

should not be an option because the outcome of considering the same comprehensive reform bill again is clear.

Today we have narrowed our focus on the health care needs of women and babies.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists last year said:

An ailing civil justice system is severely jeopardizing

patient care for women and their newborns. Across the

country, liability insurance for OB/GYNs has become

prohibitively expensive. Premiums have tripled and quadrupled

practically overnight. In some areas, OB/GYNs can no longer

obtain liability insurance at all, as insurance companies

fold or abruptly stop ensuring doctors. When OB/GYNs cannot

find or afford liability insurance, they are forced to stop

delivering babies, curtail surgical services or close their

doors. The shortage of care affects hospitals, public health

clinics, and medical facilities in rural areas, inner cities

and communities across the country.

It is a real problem in Missouri. A survey conducted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in August of 2002 said 55 percent of their members from Missouri have been forced to change their practice, retire, relocate, decrease surgery, stop practicing obstetrics, decrease the number of deliveries, and decrease the number of high-risk obstetric care.

Last year, Missouri lost a total of 33 obstetricians. I want to share with you a few examples.

A St. Joseph, MO, practice, the only practice in Northeast Missouri to accept Medicaid, lost one-third of its doctors after the insurance company would no longer offer insurance to OB/GYNs. St. Joseph now has only seven OB/GYNs serving its population.

A Missouri doctor who has been in private practice for 3 years experienced a 400 percent increase in his liability premiums over the past 3 years and received a quote for $108,000 in 2004. This OB/GYN is considering quitting obstetrics in order to find affordable insurance.

A gynecological oncologist in Missouri left a group practice and eliminated a rural outreach clinic because of rising professional medical liability premiums. ``Women with gynecologic cancers in Ste. Genevieve, Carbondale, and Chester now have to drive over 100 miles to see a gynecologic oncologist and receive the care they deserve,'' said the doctor.

An OB/GYN in St. Ann, MO, was forced to close his practice last year because of medical liability costs that rose 100 percent. The practice had delivered about 400 babies a year.

Twelve doctors at the Kansas City Women's Clinic used to serve women in both Missouri and Kansas. But, because of rising medical liability insurance rates, the clinic could not find a single company that would offer them a medical malpractice insurance policy they need for their office in Missouri.

I should say parenthetically, I have been approached by some lawyers who practice medical malpractice plaintiff cases, and they said: The problem is the insurance companies are making too much money. It is not the lawyers. That is strange when the insurance companies can't even stay in business. They can't stay in business because of the lawyers.

As a result at the end of 2002 they closed their doors to their Missouri patients. There were over 6,600 visits a year in their Missouri office. Now, these women must either travel to Kansas to see their OB/GYN or find a new doctor elsewhere in Missouri.

Two Kansas City, inner city OB/GYNs who serve low-income, high-risk patients had to sell their practices to their hospital in order to continue to see patients in Missouri. Excessive litigation has created an environment that forced two doctors--committed to serving some of the most vulnerable women in Kansas City--out of business. They are no longer in independent practice.

One OB/GYN practice in Missouri had to take a $1.5 million loan to pay the malpractice insurance for this year. That does not even include the cost of the tail coverage.

Other doctors in Missouri are considering going without insurance for their tail coverage because they simply can't afford the premiums.

Women are having a hard time getting the care they need and communities are losing their trusted doctors. We have a health care system that is in crisis in Missouri.

The bill before us today, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act is narrowly crafted to protect access to prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care for women and babies by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the delivery of OB/GYN services.

This bill will protect the right of an injured patient to recover fair compensation while at the same time prevent clear lawsuit abuse.

The bill protects the right of injured patients to receive full economic damages that cover the out-of-pocket expenses that a victim might incur due to a doctor's negligence, such as hospital costs, doctor bills, long-term care, other medical expenses, and lost wages. This bill also includes a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, with deference to existing and future State caps.

This bill maximizes the amount of awards received by injured patients by limiting attorney's contingency fee to a reasonable, sliding scale.

Too often large percentages of an injured patient's award go to attorneys, leaving the patient with less money for their medical care and other needs. Injured patients are entitled to an overwhelming amount of their award after settling or winning a lawsuit.

Currently, lawyers in many States can take up to 40 percent of all awards and settlements, robbing the injured patients of their award. We think by protecting injured patients by limiting lawyers to 15 percent of any payment over $600,000 makes good sense.

These are just a few of the many vital reforms contained in this bill.

I urge my colleagues to protect access to quality health care for women and babies and support the Healthy Babies, Healthy Mothers Access to Care Act.

We cannot afford to have OB/GYNs to continue closing their practices, reducing the number of babies they deliver or eliminating care for high-risk patients, the uninsured, and the underinsured because of excessive frivolous lawsuits brought by plaintiff attorneys.

Mr. President, I thank the minority leader for his very solid views. Once again, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Jeffords and Senator Reid, for working in a bipartisan way to produce a bill that is extremely important for the long-term economic growth and well-being of our country.

Everybody agrees we need to put much more money into roads, highways, bridges, and mass transit. This bill does that. This bill also would create significant numbers of jobs right away if we get it passed. If this bill passes, 90,000 jobs will be created this year. For every billion dollars spent on highways, it creates 47,500 jobs.

There are some on our side of the aisle and some others who have said, well, this bill is too much. The President has recommended $256 billion in obligation limits. Obligation limits are what is spent under the bill. The contract authority is authorizing language that allows spending up to the higher amount. That is subject to the normal process in appropriations and subject to limits imposed by the budget on transportation.

This bill is at $290 billion. The President was at $256 billion. I believe clearly they have indicated there has to be negotiations. There have to be negotiations with the House. Whatever bill we pass is going to be changed because we have to negotiate with the House. Obviously we want to hear the concerns of the White House so we can develop a bill that will be signed by them. We did not go through this drill for over a year not to get something through. Make no mistake about it, this is the last and only chance to get started on the kind of major construction we need on highways, roads, and bridges this year, and to do what is needed for mass transit this year. If we do not invoke cloture and pass this bill this week, there will be no highway bill. We will be stuck at the old level at best, even if we get an extension, and that extension does not do us any good. That extension does not increase the building of roads and does not increase the assistance for mass transit that is so important.

There will be amendments. We look forward to having healthy debates. I am sure after people have rested up for almost 2 weeks they will have lots of good ideas. We look forward to having a busy day, but we cannot work on this bill unless we invoke cloture. Whatever the Senate decides, we will take that to conference. We need to pass this bill. I believe this is going to be the most important economic development bill and job-creating bill in this session of Congress.

Furthermore, it is, as its title says, a major contribution to safety on our highways. The administration has named it SAFETEA and we have included almost all of their safety proposals in this bill. Having traveled the roads of Missouri and traveled the two-lane highways that are marked with white crosses where somebody's family member, somebody's friend, somebody's spouse has died, because there is too much traffic on a two-lane road and somebody has taken a chance, fatalities result. They passed where they should not have. They had gotten out of their lane. That is why we have four-lane highways. We do not have them in Missouri.

There are many provisions that are going to be important for this Nation. I know the distinguished President pro tempore has a proposal to help connect communities in Alaska that have not been connected by roads. I believe that is a high-priority item. There are many other priority items that must be dealt with in this bill.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's invoke cloture; let's get about the business of voting on amendments. We are ready and open for business, but we will have to negotiate with the House and the White House before we bring back a final version, which I hope can be passed very shortly, perhaps by the end of the month, to get highway construction going, improve safety, and improve the job situation in the United States.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I echo what my good friend, the chairman of the committee, stated. The amendment does not keep the balance between donor and donee States. Our staff has run through many of these options, 300-plus runs from the Federal Highway Administration, to come up with a fair balance between donor and donee States.

When you take a look at what is fair, we have heard complaints about the increase, that they are not getting enough percentage increase, but when you look at the State of Texas, over the 6 years of the bill, it gets a 42-percent increase. That is $5.3 billion. If you look at the State of Arizona, it gets a 40.23-percent increase, or $1.11 billion over the 6 years. California has a 40.14-percent increase, or $6.1 billion. There are a couple of States that even get 40-percent increases. This amendment purports to increase fairness by giving an even greater share to some of the States that have the largest share of the increase already. That does not have much to do with fairness.

This is a very ill-advised amendment. As the chairman has pointed out, there is not money in the bill. This would add approximately $7 billion to the cost of the bill. I find it passing strange that some of the cosponsors of this bill were ones who opposed the Bond-Reid amendment to set the figure at $255 billion, and they have been very vocal in saying this bill spends too much. They would add about $7 billion to the bill.

We are going in the wrong direction. We are being asked to reward those States that are already doing better than almost any other State in terms of the increase in the money that is coming back. This bill followed the formula as best we could. We did get all States to increase by at least 10 percent. We got all donor States up to 95 cents on the dollar. But nobody, other than about two States, has made it up to a 40-percent increase.

To say certain States who are already in the 40-percent increase need more is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Pursuant to section 904, I move to waive all Budget Act points of order for consideration of the pending substitute in its current status and the underlying bill as amended by the substitute.

Mr. President, I wish to debate the measure, waiving the Budget Act point of order. I would point out the chairman of the Commerce Committee, who has just spoken, is talking about the reckless fiscal insanity in this 1,300-page bill. A good portion of that is the Commerce Committee title, his committee's title. We don't know what is in that title.

We have laid out our bill. We have taken it through the committee. Our committee voted on it. We brought that bill to the floor. We have had it out here. We are still trying to find out what is in the Commerce Committee bill. We are told it is very different than what was passed out of the Commerce Committee. We have just tried to make an analysis of it and, as best we can tell, the budget resolution authorized the Commerce Committee to spend $4 billion and it appears the Commerce title before us spends about $6.5 billion. So we hope we could help the Commerce Committee by waiving the Budget Act point of order.

Let me talk a minute about why this vote is so important. The vote is on two very important issues. The first is the size of the highway bill--$255 billion for highways, $56 billion for transit. The second is firewalls ensure highway trust fund dollars are spent on this Nation's transportation needs. Last year, during consideration of the budget resolution, the Senate voted 79 to 21 in favor of funding the highway bill at $255 billion, and mass transit at $57 billion. That vote seemed to me to be a resounding victory for adequate funding levels for these two very important subjects.

The administration's proposed bill would fund highways at under $200 billion over the next 6 years, and to cut that would cut $4.5 billion. Furthermore, the highway funding would not reach the level included in the 2004 Omnibus bill until 2008, the second-to-last year of the bill. This would result in a net loss of 850,000 jobs compared to the CBO baseline, because that is how far the level would fall under that which the House-Senate budget resolution authorized.

The funding levels in this Senate transportation bill are responsible. When the budget was adopted there was a provision in there saying the level for highways would be $231 billion unless other funds could be put into the highway trust fund.

I commend the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Baucus, who have taken steps to ensure that they have closed loopholes; they have directed into the highway fund new highway fund measures, and as a result, according to the Finance Committee, this bill will not add to the deficit. Now, in fact, not only will this bill not add to the deficit, it will be a huge economic stimulus. Everyone knows $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 new jobs.

In addition, in the last year for which we have statistics available, over 42,000 Americans lost their lives on our Nation's roadways in motor vehicle accidents. Roughly 35 percent, or 14,000, of these are a result of road conditions. It is likely our State may be higher than 35 percent because we have many narrow, two-lane roads, with far more traffic than we have highway to accommodate. In other words, if you have 15,000 cars a day using a two-lane, two-way road, people try to pass at times that are not appropriate, and many other risks are taken by drivers with a result that there are head-on collisions and traffic fatalities.

This is a safety measure. The figures we have are figures that match the initial representations, the initial 79-Member vote in this body. The additional funding above the House-Senate joint resolution is achieved because the Finance Committee put additional funds into the highway trust fund. That is a very sound way of going about it. I urge my colleagues to support the Budget Act waiver.

The Senator from Arizona also raised questions about why we are going to write it in the conference. We have been in touch with the White House and just learned after the bill had been brought to the Senate they were reluctant to accept the figure we had. At this point we need to work with the House and the White House to come up with a final figure.

I cannot imagine anyone thinking a bill we pass out of here, which has so many different interests, will not be changed when it comes back from the conference with the House. We are not the only body. I have worked on a lot of conference reports and if it comes back looking very much like what we pass out of the Senate we have done a good day's work. I have never seen it come back looking exactly the way it left the Senate. That is how this place works. We have to have compromise when we go to the conference committee between the House and the Senate. When the White House feels strongly about it, they have a great say because they have the final say. They have the final say whether it is signed or vetoed.

We have worked too long and too hard to get a good bill. The chairman, the Senator from Oklahoma, the distinguished ranking members, the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Nevada and the members of the committee, worked on the EPW portion. The other portions have been worked on in their committees. We will do the best we can to follow the outlines we have and come up with our proposal.

We should remind those who criticize this measure, who say they want to know more about it, that we marked up our bill before Congress recessed for Christmas and have used the base text throughout this entire process. For the past 2 weeks, we have consistently urged our colleagues to come to the Senate and offer amendments. Our staff, my staff, the other principal staffs, have been here late every night. We announced last week that the staff was available to discuss amendments throughout the week. Many Members took advantage of it. We tried hard to be open and accommodating to every Senator. That is why it is extremely frustrating to be criticized by Members who have never come to the floor to offer an amendment, let alone send their staff to meet with the EPW Committee staff to discuss changes or to offer amendments for consideration.

Even more frustrating, the fact that rather than offering suggestions or amendments, we are criticized for deficit spending. I remind my colleagues, the point of order was raised by a colleague who cosponsored an amendment we defeated this morning that would add $7 billion to the cost of the bill. It would add more to his State and several other States. It is beyond what is paid for in the bill. It is beyond what is available in the bill.

There has to be some consistency. People say consistency is the bugaboo of small minds, but when we take a look at budget numbers, we ought to be making adjustments in the numbers based on what is available.

Second, when we are criticized for not being open with our bill, I urge the chairman of the Commerce Committee to bring his substitute for the committee bill to the floor to discuss it, to let us know what is in it so we might make meaningful suggestions and directions.

As I said, we have not been able to review it in detail. It is not the same

title as reported out of the Commerce Committee. That Commerce Committee bill which had allocated $4 billion under the budget resolution came in at over $6 billion.

I will yield in a moment. I want to conclude my comments.

I urge my colleagues to waive the provisions of the Budget Act as outlined in the motion to waive previously submitted.

I yield the floor.

Certainly.

The original proposal in the bill agreed on by the budget conference committee between the House and the Senate was below the Senate number. It came in at $231 billion.

The Finance Committee has fulfilled its obligation to raise enough funds in the highway trust fund to enable us to reach the level of $255 billion, the amount originally adopted by a 79-to-21 vote in the Senate. Rather than argue about that detail and the other details, I want to put the measure to waive that and we can debate the Finance Committee and other questions as they arise.

I suggest that my colleague ask the Commerce Committee chairman by how much his title exceeds the budget resolution. I believe our number is at $255 billion. I want to help out the Commerce Committee by getting a waiver for what I understand--I cannot be sure-- is a 50-percent increase over the budget allowed to the Commerce Committee.

Mr. President, to answer my colleague, it appears that the Commerce Committee is over the limit and we are going to have this vote at some point. This is a good time to have it. There will be questions raised about the Budget Act. My understanding is that the Commerce Committee is over its $4 billion allocation.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

All right.

Mr. President, to answer the question once more, he said how much was it over the budget. As to the original budget passed by this body, it is right at the budget, 255. How much is it over the joint House-Senate budget? It is $24 billion over, but that Budget Act specifically said additional money put in the highway trust fund can be used for trust fund purposes. That is what we have done. The reason we asked to waive the Budget Act points of order is so we can stop the dilatory tactics that have dragged this out without getting a vote for almost 2 weeks.

I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire if he intends to continue to delay, to attempt to prevent votes on the substantive amendments which may be brought to the bill. If he could give us some assurance that he will not continue to use dilatory tactics and raise points of order, should we not waive the budget?

Mr. President, we object. It is not a germane amendment. That was the problem.

Mr. President, I believe many questions were raised about financing. I see the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, in the Chamber. I will just note that he could answer those questions, if he is recognized.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I have at the desk amendment No. 2502. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment to S. 1072 preserves the basic expansion of eligibility for storm water mitigation projects but removes a mandatory 2 percent set-aside for storm water which was added in committee. While I protect storm water mitigation project eligibility for funding from highway programs, I oppose sending another Federal Government mandate to the States, telling States they must set aside 2 percent of their surface transportation programs for

storm water activities regardless of the actual need in the State.

There are few greater champions of Federal funding for water quality and drinking water in the Senate than myself and my colleague from the State of Maryland with whom I chair and serve as ranking member-- depending upon who is in control--of the appropriations subcommittee which funds water projects and programs in the EPA budget. Senator Mikulski and I year after year have squeezed the rest of the budget to put badly needed funding for clean water and safe drinking water measures into our bill because we know there are great needs. Every year we have to restore hundreds of millions of dollars that OMB, on a bipartisan basis, always takes out of the State revolving fund.

Last year we appropriated $1.35 billion to States for the clean water funds and $850 million to States for their drinking water funds. Every year we appropriate millions of dollars to protect, sustain, and restore the health of our Nation's water habitat and ecosystems.

We spend millions of dollars funding water programs 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 member States for targeted investments in their 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.

In this highway bill, I was also proud to join my colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid, in expanding the eligibility for storm water mitigation projects. Current law allows States to spend surface transportation program funds on storm water mitigation needs. In S. 1072, section 1601, we expand storm water eligibility to allow States to spend National Highway System funds on storm water mitigation needs. States can spend up to 20 percent of a project's cost on environmental restoration or pollution abatement such as storm water mitigation. However, that amount will be left up to the State and the individual conditions at the site of each project. We should not set an arbitrary number in Washington and force States to set aside that amount.

We are not talking about a small amount of money. A mandatory 2 percent set-aside equals almost $1 billion over 6 years. That is $1 billion States must divert from their surface transportation programs regardless of need. By now, many of you have heard from State DOTs that they oppose a mandatory set-aside. Almost none of them, and nobody who is running highway programs, likes to have mandatory set-asides. Our States certainly do not appreciate mandatory set-asides from Washington.

We also must remember that not every State has the same environmental conditions or needs. A State's need to spend highway funds on storm water will differ depending on the individual conditions in each State or each part of the State. States in the upper Midwest, States in the West, States in the Great Plains will not see the same rainfall nor storm conditions as States in the East. Nonetheless, all States will be forced to set aside 2 percent of their STP funds for storm water unless this section is struck.

What sense does it make for a State which has tremendous highway needs but relatively few storm water needs to set aside 2 percent? Let me repeat, with my amendment, storm water mitigation projects are still eligible for funding from highway programs. We preserve and expand storm water funding eligibility. States will be free to spend the amount of money they believe necessary to address storm water needs in their State. There may be years in which Missouri spends more than 2 percent on storm water needs. But our State has heavy rainfalls.

This vote is about whether we want to impose another mandate on our States. I urge my colleagues to turn back this Federal Government mandate to say what the needs of every State are. There may be many States for which this is not appropriate. I urge my colleagues to let States decide how best to spend their highway dollars, and I urge support of my amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my cohort on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. We have worked together over the years. I raise this point for the entire Senate so they know we are going to have to address it in the Congress, because there are many States that I am sure we will hear from that do not need this. In order to move the bill along and to avoid causing our colleagues to have another vote--perhaps those who need to get away--I withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. President, earlier today the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee was here on the floor charging Chairman Inhofe and our EPW Committee with inserting Amtrak legislation into our highway bill. Shortly thereafter, I was glad to see that same Senator rise to apologize for this incorrect statement. Because the truth is, that the provisions the Senator was talking about are actually in his own committee's title of this bill.

So now that it is established not even the Chairman of the Commerce Committee knows what is in his title, I think it is only appropriate to address some of the problems in that title.

Earlier today I discussed a few of the problems I have seen in that title. At that time, I pointed out that we still have not heard from the Commerce Committee Chairman what is in his title. Well, we still haven't had an explanation . . . and if that committee's chairman didn't know that the Amtrak provisions were actually in his own title, it makes me wonder if anyone actually knows what is in the Commerce Committee title of this bill.

That said, I am back here again to briefly address a few more problems with the Safety Title of this bill. And in an effort to safe time, I will not call up amendments to fix these problems, but I hope that these concerns can be addressed in Conference.

I am concerned that certain provisions in the Commerce Committee's Title go a little too far in specifically directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to publish final rules on a wide variety of new vehicle safety requirements. I am all for highway safety, but to assume that today, we know enough to tell NHTSA exactly when it must promulgate over a dozen rules, covering many elements of vehicle design to crash testing, over the next few years, seems disruptive to NHTSA's safety priorities. I am not an expert in this area, but let me read what the administration thinks of this amendment. I remind my colleagues that earlier today we were told by the Commerce Committee Chairman that none of the statements in the SAp were in relation to his committee's title. Well, this if from the statement of administration position on this provision issued February 11.

``The administration strongly opposes mandate rulemakings for NHTSA and the FMCSA. These provisions predetermine timetables and outcomes without adequate grounding in science, engineering and proof of net safety benefits. By prescribing specific requirements and mandating priorities, these provisions will delay or interfere with ongoing safety initiatives and may have the unintended consequence of redirecting agency resources away from programs that will do more overall good for safety.''

My main concern is that these mandates disrupt NHTSA's safety priorities and might not be the best use of its resources. We have passed laws that govern the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards requiring NHTSA to consider all available safety data when setting new standards and that those new standards must meet the need for highway safety, as well as be reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the vehicles to which they apply. This amendment, by telling NHTSA it must promulgate certain standards, is inconsistent with existing law and has the potential to require NHTSA to publish standards that might not be in the best interest of highway safety. I hope that the sponsor of the amendment will agree to work with me, and others, to ensure that we actually improve highway safety and not do harm by requiring the experts at DOT to divert valuable and limited resources from their true safety mission.

Mr. President, this debate is not personal. But I cannot stand idly by and have one Member or a handful of Members tell us all that the EPW Committee is a budget buster, or is the only part of this package that carries a veto threat, or that Amtrak provisions are in our title, or on and on.

The truth, Mr. President, is that this bill is paid for, is budget neutral based on the Finance Committee title which pays for increases over the budget resolution. For the Record, of all the titles above the budget resolution (though paid for), it's the Commerce Committee title that is the highest increase over their allocation. In fact, that title is a 50-percent increase over the budget allocation.

Mr. President, it is also true that the Commerce Committee title is new. It is

not what was reported out of Committee, and it was not altered by the amendment process here on the floor. Instead, it was changed by the Commerce Committee staff, and apparently not even the Chairman knows what is in it.

I want a good highway bill. There are some real problems with this title, and I urge my colleagues to take a close look at it. And I hope we can address some of these harmful mandates in Conference.

We had thorough discussions when other safety provisions had come forward. This one has been slipped into the commerce title. There are some real problems. Earlier today, we were told by the Commerce Committee that none of the statements in the Statement of Administration Policy were in relation to the committee title. Let me read from the Statement of Administration Policy on this provision issued February 11:

The administration strongly opposes the numerous mandated

rulemakings for NHTSA and the FMCSA. These provisions

predetermine timetables and outcomes without adequate

grounding in science, engineering, and proof of net safety

benefits. By prescribing specific requirements and mandating

priorities, these provisions will delay or interfere with

ongoing safety initiatives and may have the unintended

consequence of redirecting agency resources away from

programs that will do more overall good for safety.

I think this provision disrupts NHTSA's safety priorities. We passed laws that govern the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards. Unfortunately, they are not going to be able to use the full scientific and engineering information they wish to if they are forced to take the provisions in this amendment.

This is inconsistent with existing law. I hope in the conference we will work to change these so we do not foul up the efforts of NHTSA to use the best safety and engineering to achieve goals that have not been discussed or debated on this floor. I hope we can change that part.

Finally, the truth is, this bill is paid for. It is budget neutral based on the Finance Committee title. For the record, all of the titles in the budget resolution are paid for. It is the Commerce Committee title that is the highest increase over the allocation. It is 50 percent over the allocation. These are problems we are going to have to deal with in the conference. I assure my colleagues we need to address all of these issues.

I close my comments by thanking the chairman, Senator Inhofe, the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and my good friend and colleague, Senator Reid of Nevada, for the cooperative way we have worked through this bill. There is a long way to go before we get to a conference agreement with the House that we hope will be able to include concerns by the administration so we will be able to move quickly to get a good highway bill which will deal with our tremendous overwhelming transportation safety problems in the United States and put people to work sooner rather than later.

Finally, as I said, I support the proposal raised by my colleague from Missouri, and I hope that can be included in the conference.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill to move the highway and transportation bill forward and get a good bill that can make a great deal of difference for the economy, for jobs, long-term economic growth and, most of all, for the safety of transportation in the United States.

I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment for Senator Murkowski relating to Denali and a second-degree amendment of Senator Shelby, No. 2532. I ask unanimous consent to call these up, as modified, and ask they be accepted. The modifications are on the amendments.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I join in the commendations particularly to Chairman Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and my cohort on the Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Reid, who also had the double pleasure of being the floor manager and probably deserves a day off before he sees his new granddaughter.

I join also in thanking all of the staff, and I will submit their names for the Record. I want my colleagues to know I had a tremendous staff working with me, Trevor Blackann, Ellen Stein, Heideh Shahmoradi, Kent Van Landuyt, and John Stoody. It was a major effort. I think we have crafted a good bill. This was a group effort. I thank each for their very hard work and dedication.

Senator Inhofe's staff: Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keefe, Gregory Murrill, Andy Wheeler, Nathan Richmond, Mitch Surrett, Angie Giancarlo, Marty Hall, Michelle Nellenbach, Laura Berry, Brydon Ross, Cori Lucero, and John Shananhan.

Senator Jeffords' and Senator Reid's staff: Ed Barron, J.C. Sandberg, Jeff Squires, Erik Steavens, Elizabeth Ryan, Ken Connolly, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Chris Miller, and Alison Taylor.

There are many provisions in this bill that make me proud to have been a part of drafting SAFETEA. Some of which include:

Safety. For the first time in our recent transportation legislation history, safety is given a prominent position, being elevated to a core program. We have accomplished this by providing much needed funding to reduce highway injuries and fatalities. I am pleased to say we have accomplished this without the use of mandates.

We have heard numerous testimony from the administration that nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last 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.

Equity. Our bill moves to carefully balance the needs of the donor States while also recognizing the needs of donee States. While many people did not think it was possible to achieve, all donor States will receive a 95 cent rate of return at least by 2009. I am anxious to return to my home State of Missouri and report that we will now receive 95 cents back on every dollar, each year of this Act.

Like many of the donor States, Missouri has some of the worst roads in the Nation and the second worst bridges in the Nation. This bill will allow Missouri, as well as the other States, to address many of the Nation's major transportation infrastructure needs.

Furthermore, I am proud to announce that all States will grow at not less than 10 percent over TEA-21.

I am very pleased to report that this bill follows the Bond/Reid amendment by providing a 31 percent increase in funding over TEA-21.

This bill also addresses several environmental issues by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review stage. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured environmental review process more efficiently and with fewer delays.

And most importantly, our comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion will sustain over 2 million new jobs. These funds will support the much-needed jobs and economic stimulus that our nation currently needs.

In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid for their leadership and support in moving this vital piece of legislation that is focused on the needs of our Nation's transportation system. I also want to thank the other Members of the Senate for their overwhelming bipartisan support and helping move this bill forward.

Mr. President, I rise to today to discuss some disturbing news. According to a preliminary report released by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, infant mortality in the U.S. increased from 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 to a rate of 7.0 in 2002. This is the first time that the infant mortality rate has increased since 1958. Birth defects, preterm birth and low birthweight, and maternal complications of pregnancy were the major factors contributing to this increase.

During the last session of Congress we passed legislation that I introduced with Senator Dodd to renew the Federal commitment to finding the causes of birth defects and preventing those for which we know the causes. I am very proud of the important work being conducted by the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the CDC in this area.

Congress has not yet addressed the problem of premature birth and low birthweight. In 2002, more than 480,000 babies were born prematurely in the U.S 1 in 8 births. In my own State of Missouri, 12.7 percent of births are preterm, an increase of more than 11 percent over the last decade. Preterm labor can happen to any pregnant woman and the causes of nearly half of all preterm births are unknown.

In January of 2003, the March of Dimes launched a 5-year, $75 million

campaign to prevent preterm birth. Also supporting the campaign are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and 28 other national organizations. I cannot think of a better group of organizations to take on this serious public health problem. As significant as the March of Dimes campaign will be, success in reducing the incidence of prematurity requires a commitment from the Federal Government as well.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of vital legislation aimed at reducing the rates of preterm birth. The ``PREEMIE Act'' authorizes expansion of research into the causes and prevention of prematurity and increases Federal support of public and health professional education as well as support services related to prematurity.

I would like to conclude by telling you the story of Jacqueline Reineri. Born 4 months premature, at just 24 weeks gestation, Jacqueline was given a very slim chance for survival. She was the size of a small doll, weighing just 1 lb., 10 ounces. Jacqueline had a grade-three brain bleed among many other complications and spent 96 days in the neonatal intensive care unit, NICU.

Today, Jacqueline has Spastic Quadriplegia Cerebral Palsy and gets around in a power wheelchair. She has endured four major surgeries and will continue to experience many long-term effects of prematurity. While her family worries about her future, they feel blessed that she is a very intelligent second grader in a typical classroom and a very active advocate for prematurity and children with special needs, serving as the Missouri March of Dimes Ambassador.

As inspiring as Jacqueline's story is many premature babies aren't as lucky. The recent increase in the rate of infant mortality underscores the importance of a comprehensive public-private effort to find the causes and ultimately prevent premature birth.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in pledging to do all we can to ensure a day when all children are born healthy.

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

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I rise to discuss a second-degree amendment that I intend to offer. It deals with a very important problem in the national interest--assuring that rental and leasing car operations can be performed in all 50 States.

Right now there are several States which have something called unlimited bicarious liability. Under this, if a leasing company leases a car or a vehicle to a person who appears to be a reasonable and responsible driver who meets all of the requirements, and that person goes out and has a horrendous accident, in a few States the victims and the personal injury lawyers are enabled to sue the leasing company which had no control over the car or truck or van and had no evidence of negligence or shortcomings in their procedures in leasing that vehicle. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars of judgments.

We have seen in a small number of States liability being imposed on rental and leasing companies without fault. It has cost car and truck renting and leasing companies more than $100 million annually. The problem is these costs don't just come out of the pockets of those in that State; they are paid nationally.

When any of us go to rent or lease a car, we are paying far more than we otherwise would because they have had to cover the costs of outrageously high judgments imposed by a few States which allow this bicarious liability language and bicarious notion to apply.

In other words, if you are in New York, for example, and you have leased a car, if you go out and hit somebody, it doesn't matter whether the leasing company is at fault. The leasing company is the one that is sued. If there is $100 million judgment against that company, guess who pays for it. Not the people who lease the car in New York but all of us as consumers who may go out to lease a car in all of the 50 States.

Therefore, the amendment I am proposing says provided there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner of a motor vehicle, no such owner engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles may be held liable under State law for harm caused by a person to himself or herself, another person, or to property which results or arises from that person's use, operation, or possession of a rented or leased motor vehicle by reason of being the owner of such motor vehicle.

In other words, if the owner of the vehicle hasn't done anything wrong--there has been no negligence, no criminal wrongdoing--but the person who leases that car goes out and has a horrendous wreck, the person who has leased the car is the one who ought to be held responsible.

We should not have to finance jackpot judgments against leasing companies that pass those costs on to all of us across the Nation whenever we go to lease or rent a car or a van. Consumers nationwide are being hurt by these higher rates--not just consumers in the bicarious liability States.

These laws apply where the accident occurs. It does not matter whether the car or truck was rented or leased. Since companies cannot prevent their vehicles from being driven to a bicarious liability State, they cannot prevent their exposure to these laws, and they have to raise their rates for all of us accordingly.

In addition, we have also seen that these higher costs drive many small companies out of business. Actually, a small company trying to engage in the business of renting or leasing may find itself caught in one of these bicarious liability States and wind up with a judgment that puts them out of business. This is a death knell for small

businesses in the leasing and rental business. That is why we have to do something about it.

Accident victims in bicarious liability States would not be left out in the cold. They would be compensated according to the same standard used by the vast majority of States which do not have bicarious liability laws.

More importantly, accident victims in the same bicarious liability State would no longer be treated differently based solely on whether a vehicle involved was rented or leased instead of individually owned. In other words, if you are hit by a negligent driver in any State, file suit against that driver and collect a judgment against that driver logically to be paid by the insurance company of that driver, or if it is self-insured then that driver would have to pay out of his pocket.

That same standard still applies. What we are saying is you can't reach out and bring in somebody who had nothing to do with the accident and was not at fault. When we do that, we are going to provide relief for small businesses. We are going to provide relief to the people who lease cars and rent cars and vans across the Nation.

This provision would not allow a company to escape liability if they were at fault or negligent in an accident in any way.

I ask that it be supported by my colleagues.

Amendment No. 2327 To Amendment No. 2311

Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the Senator made a very good point about the need to move this bill. He raised the question about a 1-year extension. Is it the understanding of my colleague that the major projects that would generate the kind of work that is needed to improve our Nation's infrastructure, the major highway and bridge projects, cannot be undertaken on a 1-year extension because these are multiyear projects and they need a multiyear extension?

If the Senator would further yield, I know the Senator is from a Western State in the north, and the time during which significant highway construction can go forward is limited by the weather.

What is the timeframe for summer construction in your State?

Mr. President, I ask that question because some people talked about a 3- or 4-month extension. I wonder if my colleague agrees that that simply would miss an entire season, even in Missouri, where our weather may not be quite as harsh but we would not be able to really undertake any construction projects. Is that similar to the condition in the Senator's State?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, very briefly, this is a difficult bill, as the distinguished Senator from Nevada has said. There is a lot of work that goes into it. If anybody was completely 100 percent happy with it, we would not have done our job, because there are too many interests. The only way to accommodate them is to work on a bipartisan basis.

I want to say this while the Senator from Nevada is here. The Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Vermont and, obviously, my good friend from Wyoming, on both sides of the aisle, with Senator Inhofe as chairman of the committee, have worked well together, including the occupant of the chair. This is probably one of the most important economic stimulus infrastructure bills we are going to act on this year, or maybe for quite a few years. I hope we can get a solid vote to move forward tomorrow. There is a lot more work to be done, as I believe several have already said. We are waiting for the House to act. When the House acts, we will take it and work with them and we will take into consideration what the White House has said to

see if we can--and we must--craft a good bill that takes care of the crying needs of infrastructure.

I have said before on this floor so many times that it is not just a question of convenience, of cutting down on idling time, it is a question of long-term economic growth as well as immediate jobs. In Missouri, it is a question of saving lives by having adequate highways. When we have two-lane highways carrying 15,000 or 20,000 cars a day, that is too many. We should have divided highways. The fact that we don't means that wherever you travel in Missouri on heavily traveled two-lane roads, you see little white crosses where grieving families and friends have indicated the place where a loved one was lost.

This bill isn't going to solve all the problems in Missouri. If we pass this bill, many of the problems in Missouri and around the country will be solved. I urge my colleagues to work together and move forward on the bill. Our staffs are working now on a cooperative basis with a very large number of amendments that have been filed to see how many we can accept, how we can move it along.

Tomorrow is going to be a very busy day. We will try to accept as many amendments as we can on a bipartisan basis. If you want more money, please tell us where you are going to find it because we are strapped for money and major new spending sources without revenue are going to be difficult to accommodate.

Within those parameters, I urge everybody to work together. The filing deadline for first-degree amendments is past. I know what we have in front of us. I hope we can resolve as many as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I came to the Chamber to speak about the highway bill, and obviously we hope to be talking about that later on today, but having taken the responsibility of serving on the Intelligence Committee, I thought I might add a few comments to the discussions begun by my colleague from Wisconsin.

Let's be clear; the Senate Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis has launched a massive effort to determine whether our intelligence was accurate, where it had holes in it, where are our assessments and our estimates.

In intelligence, they are all estimates. The only time there is absolute confirmation that something has happened is when the World Trade Center comes down or when the Pentagon is hit. Then one knows that terrorists have planned something and have executed it.

We were dealing with an intelligence system that provided estimates throughout the 1990s and no action was taken. The intelligence service provided estimates about the danger of Osama bin Laden. We considered all kinds of actions, and then September 11 happens.

Now, the September 11 commission goes in to try to determine why we did not act on the intelligence we had. The big charge there is that something should have been done about Osama bin Laden. Well, there are now published reports on the intelligence, and I would refer my colleagues to Richard Miniter's book ``Losing bin Laden.'' There were many instances where it was clear that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States. In several instances, it appeared that in the 1990s we might have had an opportunity to deal with Osama bin Laden in one way or another and we chose not to do it. So right after September 11 we are looking backwards and saying, Why did we not act? Now my colleagues, primarily on the other side of the aisle, are saying, Why did we act in Iraq?

Let's be perfectly clear. When people start talking about imminent threat, seeming to imply that the President said there was an imminent threat, I distinctly remember the State of the Union message in which the President said: We cannot wait until there is an imminent threat. In essence, he was saying we cannot wait until we see the second airplane heading for the second tower of the World Trade Center.

Why were we suspicious of Saddam Hussein? The same reason President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Secretary Cohen, Security Council Chief Sandy Berger had? They said Saddam Hussein was a real and great threat. He was in flagrant violation of all the U.N. resolutions which followed on the cease-fire in the first gulf war.

He kicked the inspectors out in 1998. We know he was the only despot alive, the only tyrant ruling a country, who used weapons of mass destruction, and he kicked the inspectors out without ever saying what he had done with them.

Sure, there will be things we can find out about what we should have done differently in intelligence. There has already been public discussion about the lack of human intelligence resources. We may find that. We may find other things when we complete our work in the Intelligence Committee and submit a report to be fully declassified and discussed.

We need to make our intelligence system better. I think we have gone a long way. The PATRIOT Act broke down the walls between the CIA and the FBI, which legislatively prohibited them sharing information. That was a mistake. We have changed that.

Some of my colleagues say we ought to look at the use, look at what people said about that. You don't need to have a commission to do that. You have a Lexis-Nexis search to find out what people said. Are some people making charges? Yes, everybody has a right to make their comments about whether they believed the intelligence. A lot of that intelligence has been laid out in the public.

I was astounded at the degree to which Secretary Powell's discussion before the United Nations in February of 2003 went into so much of the intelligence we had at the time. That was out on the table. That was the best intelligence Secretary Powell had. Published reports indicate he went through that intelligence himself and asked questions and only used those things about which he was personally satisfied the intelligence estimates were accurate.

So, yes, use--we did use it. We did act. Saddam Hussein is no longer ruling a country, murdering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. We pulled him out of a spider hole. He said he was a great ruler of the Iraqi people. He wanted to negotiate. Well, he is in jail.

You know something, Muammar Qadhafi in Libya took a look at what happened to Saddam Hussein and said: ``Oh, I don't think I want to wind up like Saddam Hussein did.'' That is what he told Italian President Berlesconi. ``I don't want to see happen to me what happened to Saddam Hussein.'' So he is coming clean based on the information we had gathered about his weaponry, his participation with Dr. Kahn of Pakistan. We knew he had weapons and was working on a weapons program and he came clean. I think that makes a great deal of sense.

There has been a tremendous change in the Middle East. There has been a change because Saddam Hussein no longer rules. It is a tragedy when we lose American lives. It is a tragedy when Iraqi lives are lost. But the Iraqis are slowly but steadily taking back control of their country.

Let's talk about what David Kay found. David Kay said when all the facts are known, it will appear, I believe, that Saddam Hussein was a far greater danger than our intelligence even knew. Our intelligence was not adequate before the first gulf war. We didn't know how far along he was at that time with his nuclear program. We did not know, apparently, according to Dr. Kay, how far along he was with his long- range missile program. It was a country, Dr. Kay said, which was attracting terrorists like ants to honey, to come to a country busily engaged in pursuing means of getting at the infidels. That means anybody who doesn't agree with them.

It is clear Ansar al-Islam had a ricin factory manufacturing that potent chemical, attempting to weaponize it, in northeast Iraq. It was under the direction of al Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam is part of the brotherhood with al-Qaida.

By the way, you probably read in the New York Times about what we learned about the memo, from al Zarqawi. He was totally frustrated because he thinks the infidel, i.e., the coalition, our coalition, seems to be winning. We are making progress. We are turning Iraq back to the Iraqis and we have not cut and run. Their effort to conduct jihad is getting more and more difficult as we get more and more Iraqis engaged as police, as soldiers.

Danger still exists, but the danger that Saddam Hussein or the terrorist groups operating out of Iraq will be able to do so with impunity and continue to pursue their weapons of mass destruction programs is much less now that Saddam Hussein is in captivity.

You can talk about what the President said, what the President did, but I believe what we are seeing in the Middle East, what we have heard publicly from Dr. Kay, indicates we have taken a major step toward lessening the likelihood of terrorist attacks on the United States and toward stabilizing the Middle East so it will no longer be a hotbed and a haven for terrorists.

I thank the Chair.

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, I rise today to talk about a truly bad idea that has been proposed on this floor. I believe an amendment was discussed yesterday when I was not here--I didn't have an opportunity to hear it--to provide stiff sanctions on States which do not have primary seatbelt laws. The goal is to move every State up to 90 percent seatbelt use. It specifically says States would be sanctioned if they did not meet one of the following two conditions within 3 years of the enactment of this bill: Either have a primary seatbelt law which would allow law enforcement to pull over a driver if that officer sees the driver is not wearing a seatbelt without having to arrest them for any other infraction, or the State does not get up to a 90 percent seatbelt use rate.

In other words, it would require a State to achieve a 90 percent seatbelt use, and it left it up to the individual States on how to get there.

The objective of getting to 90 percent seatbelt use is a worthwhile one. As Governor of Missouri, I talked often about the need for seatbelts.

When I was young, the primary entertainment when we weren't listening to Cardinal baseball was to crawl under the fence and go out and watch the stock car races. I watched stock car races every Friday night. Sometimes I paid to get in but not often. There were horrendous wrecks every night. Yet the drivers wore harnesses and seatbelts. I saw one driver taken off. He had severe alcohol poisoning because of fuel he had taken internally. But I never saw anybody hurt.

I have been in two serious crashes in my life. Both times I had on a seatbelt. I was shaken up and scared. In the first one, the other driver was taken to the hospital unconscious. I did not find out until the next day whether he had survived.

I am a believer in seatbelt use. I have sponsored and pushed for seatbelts and for safety seats for infants. I tried to get them on airplanes. But I don't believe taking money away from the 36 States that don't have primary seatbelt laws is a way to get there.

If the State fails to meet either of the conditions--either the 90- percent seatbelt use rate or enactment of a primary seatbelt law--the State would lose 2 percent of its general highway safety funds, and the sanction increases to 4 percent for each successive year. The sanctions approach would decrease the amount of funding available to make the necessary investment in safety for their transportation system.

States that do not enact a primary seatbelt law or do not achieve a 90-percent use rate will get less funding and fall behind other States in safety. That is not the way to encourage States to increase safety. That is a way to make some States fall further behind.

I know more lives can be saved with seatbelts. Good friends of mine who are troopers have said they have never unbuckled a dead driver from a seatbelt, although they have taken a lot of dead people out of cars in car accidents. I do not believe, however, the Federal Government should sanction States, trying to get people to use seatbelts. The Federal Government would force enactment of primary seatbelt laws. This approach is essentially Federal blackmail by Congress. It is telling the States we are not going to return the money you pay into the Federal highway trust fund because some of us in Washington, DC, think your State legislature and your Governor need to enact this law. Well, that is the purpose of the folks we elect at the State level to represent us in our general assemblies and to represent us in our Governors' offices.

I held the office of Governor at one point. I spent an awful lot of time looking at federally imposed mandates, many of which did not make any sense. They told us, for example, we had to use our clean water funds to clean up water from our major cities going back into the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, putting in water that was higher quality than was already in the river. We wanted to use it on the pristine Ozark streams where small communities and septic tanks were seriously downgrading streams which had been fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. The priority did not make sense for Missouri.

I came up here to try to work with the States, not to tell States that we are not going to send back money you send to Washington unless you adopt our idea.

Only 20 States have decided to enact a primary seatbelt law. Other States have decided a primary seatbelt law is not the way to increase seatbelt usage.

Missouri has made great strides in seatbelt use, and this has been done without a primary seatbelt law. As you can see on this chart, the States which have primary seatbelt laws have the bold numbers. You start out with Alabama, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia--everybody in the District of Columbia knows you get pulled over if you are not wearing a seatbelt--Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, and Michigan, to name the lefthand side.

You can see what progress they have made. Alabama has a primary seatbelt law. In 2002, they had 79 percent usage, and it fell back to 77 percent in 2003. They went down. Other States are nowhere near that. Virginia, for example, has no primary seatbelt law, apparently, according to this chart. In 2003 it only had 75 percent seatbelt usage. The good news is, reduction in non-use, from 30 percent to 25 percent, was a 17-percent reduction.

The State of Missouri has gone from 31-percent non-use to 27-percent non-use without the seatbelt law. Why should this body say we are going to take money away from the State of Missouri because we don't like the way you are reducing non-usage of seatbelts?

I think public statements--and I certainly have made them, and will continue to make them--educational campaigns and incentives are the way to go to improve usage.

When you look at this chart, you see a lot of States with seatbelt usage that is definitely below 90 percent. For most of them, the usage is 70 and 80 percent. We are making progress. We ought to continue to do that with incentives. If you give States incentives, they have the flexibility to use their own solutions to increase seatbelt use. That flexibility would be lost. States would be limited in their ability to educate the public with regard to the importance of highway safety. They would lose safety money. That makes no sense.

The enforcement of primary seatbelt laws costs the State a lot of money, from increased law enforcement personnel, hours of work for clerical representation, and prosecutions. Is that the best way to use their law enforcement people? I think that is something that is better left to the authorities in the individual States.

We have to stop this sanctions approach and, I believe, use incentives. Under title I, under the Commerce Committee report, NHTSA would be authorized to use over $3.5 billion in grant funding and approximately $800 million for vehicle safety-related rules. The NHTSA programs would pay strong attention to driver safety and seatbelt use.

Under the National Highway Safety Program, section 104 grants would be administered by NHTSA in three high-visibility areas of safety: to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, drug-impaired driving, and increase seatbelt usage. I

believe that is the appropriate way to go.

The amendment that was described yesterday represents a double penalty for States that do not enact primary seatbelt laws. In fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, 10 percent of section 148 funds--those are funds for highway safety improvement--would be transferred to the section 402 program unless the State has a primary safety belt law or has achieved at least a 90-percent safety belt use rate.

Beginning in 2007, 2 percent of the interstate maintenance, surface transportation, and bridge programs would be withheld from States that do not have a primary seatbelt law or a 90-percent usage rate. The percentage withheld would rise to 4 percent in fiscal year 2008 and thereafter. If Congress enacts these sanctions, we are not likely to authorize incentives. The States have used section 157 safety belt incentive grant funding to support national safety belt mobilization and other safety belt enforcement activities. Without the incentives, the States would have drastically reduced resources for those purposes.

I believe enactment of a primary safety belt penalty mandate, forced upon the States, is premature and unwarranted. There has never been a sufficient program to convince the States to enact primary seatbelt laws or to find other means of increasing usage and decreasing nonusage of seatbelts.

Under the Senate Commerce bill, the new safety belt incentive grant program would provide the States with a grant of five times their apportionment if they enact a primary seatbelt law. We need to see if this program works and see if it is effective.

Many Governors and State legislatures oppose penalties and sanctions. There are currently 18 penalties and sanctions, 7 of which are highway safety related. Increasingly, Congress has relied on punishing the States if they do not meet safety performance objectives. As a result, I think there is an understandable revolt and reaction growing to this approach. The ``Mother May I'' coming to Washington is bad enough, but when ``Mama Federal Government'' tells us: ``You have to do it this way or you don't get your supper,'' particularly when your voters, your constituents, your taxpayers have been the ones who have paid for that supper, that is, I think, a real problem. Typically, State legislatures being forced to do this are going to rebel, and I think it is very inappropriate.

We have a letter from the executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association; the president and chief executive officer of the American Highway Users Alliance; the executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the executive director of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; the chief executive officer of the Associated General Contractors of America; the executive director of the American Traffic Safety Services Association; the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures; the executive director of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association; the president of the American Council of Engineering Companies; the vice president of Public Affairs of AAA, and the executive director of the National Governors Association, all saying:

. . . we oppose the use of penalties and sanctions.

Our organization supports the underlying safety goals. We

believe the use of sanctions and penalties reflect an all-or-

nothing approach that forces absolute and unconditional

compliance with Federal safety requirements or goals while

stifling innovation and redirecting funds from highway

construction and maintenance projects with tangible safety

benefits.

That makes the case very well.

I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.

I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to mandate primary laws or arbitrary usage of seatbelts on the States.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, after conferring with both sides of the aisle, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, I understand there is an amendment of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from New York pending. Is that the pending business?

Mr. President, I spoke about this amendment this morning. For those who may not have been fortunate enough to hear it, let me reiterate just a few of the important points.

This is a mandate. This is very clearly a mandate with a very severe penalty on any State that doesn't either have 90-percent usage of seatbelts or a primary seatbelt law.

I came to this body as a former Governor who has seen so much of the big brother influence telling State Governors and State legislators what they have to do, and I said we need to find a better way of doing things. I also said I happen to be a strong believer in seatbelts. I have been in a couple of serious accidents. Because I had a seatbelt on and the shoulder harness, I came away with only a good fright, and, fortunately, with no serious injuries. I have seen many other people who were not so fortunate. I believe in encouraging seatbelt usage. I believe the proper way to do it is through incentives and encouragement.

Under this proposed amendment, in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, 10 percent of the funds under the Highway Safety Improvement Program would be transferred to the section 402 program, and beginning in 2007, 2 percent of the Interstate Maintenance, Surface Transportation and Bridge Programs would be withheld from States that didn't have a primary seatbelt law or achieve at least a 90-percent safety belt use rate. The percentage withheld would rise to 4 percent in fiscal year 2008 and thereafter.

Why do I object to that? That is telling the people who pay the money into the Federal highway trust fund through their taxes on the fuel they buy that their legislature has to do what we say they should or we are going to withhold the money from them. I believe we cannot continue to usurp the activities and the roles of State legislatures and State chief executive officers.

I introduced a letter from a number of organizations saying:

Currently States face 8 highway safety-related sanctions

and penalties that are designed to force compliance with

various Federal highway safety mandates or goals, including

enactment, by specified deadlines, of various types of State

safety legislation. While our organizations support the

underlying safety goals, we oppose the use of penalties and

sanctions.

They go on to say:

Fewer resources to invest means delays in roadway and

intersection improvements, fewer dollars for upgrading

signage and markings, and less funding available for

investment and safety research.

Also signing this letter are the executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, the president and chief executive officer of the American Highway Users Alliance, the executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the executive director of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislators, the president of the American Council of Engineering Companies, and the vice president of Public Affairs of the AAA, as well, I might say not surprisingly, as the executive director of the National Governors Association.

I hope we may be able to have a vote on that very shortly. But I would defer to the principal sponsor of the amendment to speak in opposition to the arguments I have made.

Mr. President, I rise today with the distinct privilege of recognizing one of St. Louis's most outstanding citizens, Mrs. Annie Lee Cooney on the occasion of her 100th birthday February 25, 2004.

Mrs. Cooney was born in Indianola, MS, as the third youngest of seven girls and two brothers. As the granddaughter of slaves and the daughter of active participants in the African-American community, Annie Lee was instilled at an early age with values and character that remain strong to this day. Her parents, Indiana and Oliver Jarman were active in the African-American community in her home town. Her father, Oliver Jarman, was a high ranking official in the Prince Hall Masons in Mississippi and was also instrumental in founding a Penny Bank in Greenville, MS.

In 1922, after attending the Tuskeegee Institute, in Tuskeegee, AL, Annie Lee moved to St. Louis to live with her sister and helped with her new baby. But it was in St. Louis where Annie Lee's life changed when she met and fell in love with Roy Cooney. The young couple were married in 1924 and Roy and Annie Lee Cooney soon became the loving parents to thirteen children--seven girls and six boys, all of whom went on to attend college.

Mrs. Cooney has been very active in the Black Catholic Community in St. Louis since the early 1930s. Some of Mrs. Cooney's professional achievements include being named President of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament alumni in the 1960s and Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority Mother of the Year in 1980. Mrs. Cooney has been an active member of the National Council of Negro Women, the Council of Catholic Women, the Legion of Mary, the Catholic Knights of America, the Cairo Social Club, charitable works and scholarships to Black youth, and the Seminarians Club, spiritual and financial

aid to Black Catholic Seminarians. She was also a member of the Cook Avenue Block Unit Association, and a strong force in her neighborhood-- with her home often serving as a gathering place for youth and young adults. Perhaps Mrs. Cooney's greatest display of goodwill was in her frequent visits to Homer G. Phillips Hospital with the Helpers of the Holy Souls. For over forty years Mrs. Cooney visited the sick and hospitalized and would provide them with candy, toiletries, and prayer.

Mrs. Cooney has traveled the world extensively, and has brought goodwill to wherever she has been. She has remained true to her motto: ``If I can help somebody as I travel on, then my living will not be in vain.'' On behalf of the people of St. Louis and the State of Missouri, I extend my most sincere gratitude to Mrs. Annie Lee Cooney for her years of dedicated community service and the goodwill. I wish her all the best on this most important occasion, her one-hundredth birthday.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the exemplary career of Ellen Kay York, who retired in January after 28 years of public service and returning to her home in St. Robert, MO.

Since November 2000, Ellen has served as the executive secretary to the Army's Chief of Engineers and Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As the senior office manager for the Executive Office, Ellen has been a valuable member of the Corps' team. In addition to her outstanding management of the Chief of Engineers' schedule, correspondence, and daily office operations, Ellen responded to a variety of requests for information from the public and the Congress, providing answers and information on behalf of the Chief of Engineers. Her skill and sensitivity have gained the respect, gratitude, and confidence of the senior leaders throughout the worldwide, 36,000- person organization.

Throughout her tenure with the Corps, Ellen Kay York has been a mentor to junior employees, spending countless hours and personal time to advise and counsel them. She has been active as well with Toastmasters International, as the Area 13 governor and as the president of the Corps' chapter, the Castle Toastmasters.

I know that the team at the Corps will miss her, particularly the so- called superior officers. I am sure that she managed and protected on too many occasions to site. But we are delighted that she is returning to God's country were she will be rewarded for and liberated from her dedicated public service. Today I congratulate this outstanding public servant for her many years of selfless and faithful service to the Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today with friends and family to recognize the efforts and dedication of CDR Russell H. Phelps III, an outstanding American. Commander Phelps began his military career in 1908 as an Arabic linguist assigned in Athens, Greece. Working in a national airborne reconnaissance program, he supported U.S. military missions to Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Honorably discharged in 1985, he graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Northern Iowa in 1988 with a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations.

He earned a Naval commission as a Special Duty Officer (Cryptology) upon completion of the Officer Candidate School in September 1988, whereupon he was assigned to the Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA) Rota, Spain. During that tour, he was assigned to the staff of the Commander, Middle East Force, Bahrain, and aboard USS O'Bannon (DD-987) and USS Aubrey Fitch (FFG-34) in support of Operation Earnest Will, the escort of re-flagged Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Arabian Gulf. Between 1989 and 1991, Commander Phelps was additionally assigned to the USS Wainwright (CG-28), USS Baton Rouge (SSN-689), USS Silversides (SSN- 679), USS Providence (SSN-719), and to the USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720) during combat support operations throughout Operation Desert Storm.

Commander Phelps next assignment was to the USS Oldendorf, where he served as the Cryptologic Officer, Tactical Action Officer, and for 6 months as the Operations Officer, culminating in his qualifications as a Surface Warfare Officer. Detaching in 1994, he reported to Menwith Hill Station, Harrogate, England, and served as a Deputy Division Chief and member of the Regional Security Operations Center (RSOC) transition team. A plank owner of NSGA Menwith Hill, he simultaneously served in operations and as its first Executive Officer from 1995 to 1996. Commander Phelps next served at the Tactical Training Group Pacific, San Diego, CA, where he provided training to Battle group and warfare commanders in Cryptology, Information Warfare, and space systems operations. From 1999 to 2001, Commander Phelps served on the Staff of Commander, Carrier Group Seven as the

Flag Cryptologist and deployed to the Middle East as the Cryptologic Resources Coordinator for John C. Stennis Battle Group and Bon Homme Richard Amphibious Ready Group.

Commander Phelps' most recent assignment was at U.S. Naval War College, Newport, RI, where he earned a Master of Arts (with Distinction) in Strategy and National Security Decision Making.

Military decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal (4 oak clusters in lieu of 5th award), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (two gold stars in lieu of third award), Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (gold star in lieu of second award), as well as several unit and campaign awards.

Commander Phelps is married to the former Ms. Diana Weetman, of North Yorkshire, England.

Mr. President, I stand with all those whose lives are richer for having known Commander Phelps to commemorate and recognize his efforts and dedication on this Sixth day of February, Two-thousand and Four.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I congratulate him and the ranking member for moving forward. I found the comments of my neighbor in Iowa to be particularly appropriate about the need to build the barn. Again, I express my thanks to our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, Senator Reid, and the others, for moving forward.

Right now we are asking that Chairman Inhofe return. He has an important meeting right now and he is going to come out to assure we can get more of this bill moving. We have a very short time window today. I know that on both sides of the aisle we would like to have people come down, offer relevant amendments, try to get as much of this bill moving as possible, and begin the voting process.

As I said, we have much work going on just off of the Senate floor as we try to move this legislation forward. We have several more pieces of SAFETEA to be brought forward. We are working with the other committees involved to make sure they come forward. I believe Chairman Shelby from the Banking Committee will arrive shortly to bring forth a mass transit bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for two quick questions?

Well, the most important question and I know this is a very important debate--the Senator from Maine was hoping to speak on the bill and I wondered how much longer the Senator from North Dakota was going to speak.

If the Senator will yield for one additional question.

Does the Senator realize all the rest of the Intelligence Committee is in S-407 receiving a 300-page report compiled over 8 months by the entire staff of the Intelligence Committee, after over a couple of hundred interviews and reviewing tens of thousands of documents, which goes right to this question and which we in the committee will be working on and trying to present either in classified or we hope mostly unclassified material so we can carry on this debate? Is the Senator aware that the reason there are not members of the Intelligence Committee here is that they are getting that information right now? Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. President, I will take less than 1 minute, because I do not want to excite my friend any further, to say that all of us on the Intelligence Committee not only share the commitment to getting to the bottom of what went on, but we also know that David Kay said it was absolutely right and prudent to go into Iraq because it was more dangerous than we knew in certain areas. I hope the report we issue will answer questions that I and the other members of the Intelligence Committee have raised and that all Members of this body ought to be raising, and that we will provide some recommendations for curing the problems we find.

I hope now we can turn back to the SAFETEA bill, S. 1072, which is very important. I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 10 a.m., in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building to consider judicial nominations.

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.

Mr. President, I withdraw amendment 2265.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nick Karellas of my staff be granted floor privileges during the remaining consideration of S. 1072.