Floor Statements

Mr. President, very briefly, I am the only former Capitol policeman here who is a Senator. I have such great respect for the work they do. When I was a Capitol policeman, I did not have near the responsibilities, not even close to what goes on now in this modern police force. We have what I think is, if not the best police force, one of the best. They are the ones who are really talking about first line responders; they are that.

The problem occurred with anthrax, or with this ricin; they are the first to go there. They do it with courage and determination. We see these men and women a lot of times standing at their duty stations and some people wonder

what they do. Well, every day they are working--for lack of a better way to say it, as happened in the Capitol just a few years ago, they take bullets for us. They are well trained in any aspect of law enforcement, as well trained as anyone in the country.

I underscore the remarks of the majority leader. We are very proud of our Capitol police force.

Mr. President, we want to make sure Senator Graham has all the time he needs for the remarks he wishes to make. He is going to be finished around 2 o'clock, and then time will be controlled by either Senator Daschle or his designee. You said all time would be controlled by the Senator from Florida.

I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Madam President, it is with a certain amount of sadness that I worked on this matter this weekend and looked over all the past history of the surface transportation legislation. The sadness comes because Pat Moynihan is not here. When we started working this bill last year, I asked Senator Moynihan to come visit with me and my staff. He did. He came with that smile. I always had the feeling with Senator Moynihan that no matter the subject he always knew more than I did. He had a lot of humility. Even though he knew that he knew more than most anyone he dealt with, he never flaunted that great mind that he had.

The legislation we have before us today is basically what Pat Moynihan envisioned for our country. Serving with him on the Environment and Public Works Committee--which I did for my tenure in the Senate--was like going to school and not having to take the test. Senator Moynihan was wonderful. He would talk about the great Robert Moses of New York and the planning that he did.

I hope that all of us as we proceed through this bill will understand the greatness of Pat Moynihan, and what he has done for our country.

Everywhere in the Nation's Capital there is evidence of Pat Moynihan. I worked in Washington, DC, as a Capitol policeman, going to law school. And when I worked here as a Capitol policeman, Pennsylvania Avenue was a slum. During the Kennedy inauguration, Pat Moynihan recognized that and said we should do something about it. He was just a bureaucrat at the time. But he proceeded from that time to help develop the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation. Now you can go up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House and it is one of the most beautiful streets in the world because of Pat Moynihan.

I hope we proceed through this legislation recognizing what a wonderful man Pat Moynihan was. One cannot stop but think of the things he did, including the Ronald Reagan Building. For 50 years that was a big hole in the ground. In the Nation's Capital we had this big nothing. Pat Moynihan said: We cannot spend enough money on that; we will build a building there. That is a building that Ronald Reagan, I am sure, in his own way, is proud of. There is not a more beautiful building in the Nation's Capital, with the exception of maybe the Library of Congress, than the Ronald Reagan Building. That is Pat Moynihan's. It is his.

I am happy to yield.

I appreciate very much the Senator from Oklahoma recognizing the goodness of this man. He is absolutely right. I am sure the Senator learned a great deal in those walks from the Russell Building over here.

I remember Senator Moynihan and I sat together on a bus going from the airport to the funeral of the great John Chafee. During the entire trip, he pointed out, as we traveled to Rhode Island--Providence, I think is where the funeral was--all the architecture, the history of the buildings, as we drove up to the beautiful church. And when we got to the church, he told me all about that church.

I wish I had the recall of Pat Moynihan. I wish I had 20 percent of the recall ability of Senator Moynihan. He had such an ability to communicate. As Senator Bumpers said, upon the publication of Senator Moynihan's 15th book--or whatever it was--you have written more books than I have read.

He was a great man. I have my heart full. Part of it is gratitude for knowing a man such as that, that there are great ones on this Earth. Pat Moynihan was a great one.

About 50 years ago, one of the really fine Presidents we have had, a Republican, President Dwight David Eisenhower, presided over the creation of the Interstate Highway System. On that occasion, he said:

The Nation badly needs new highways. The good of our

people, of our economy and of our defense, require that

construction of these highways be undertaken at once.

President Eisenhower continued:

We have fallen far behind in this task. . . . Today there

is hardly a city of any size without almost hopeless

congestion within its boundaries and stalled traffic blocking

roads leading beyond these boundaries.

President Eisenhower said what we needed to do in this legislation: If there was ever a time in the recent history of this body when we had to do something on a bipartisan basis, it is this bill. People stuck in traffic are Democrats and Republicans. It is equal opportunity, whether you are stuck in traffic in Las Vegas, Phoenix, St. Louis. There are people of both parties stuck in that traffic, losing valuable time. If they were not stuck in that traffic, they would make our country more productive.

Why did President Eisenhower feel so strongly about an interstate highway system? He felt that way because, as a young major, he was asked in the 1930s to bring a convoy of military vehicles across the country. It was at that time he realized there was no easy way to do it. The roads were hopeless. There was no way you could travel this country, even for military purposes, easily. At that time he realized something needed to be done, and when he became President, that was one of the first things he pushed.

People who are complaining about the cost of this bill, Republicans and Democrats, should understand that the highway bill President Eisenhower originally sponsored was also criticized as being too costly. This bill is not too costly. One of the compromises the Senator from Oklahoma worked out with Senator Jeffords and me is that it is as small as it is. If it were up to Senator Jeffords and this committee, it would be bigger. It is because of the chairman of the committee that it is as small as it is. I hope everyone who criticizes the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, understands he did yeoman's work.

As we speak, the House is talking about a bill bigger than ours. They criticized President Eisenhower for a bill being too big and they criticize us for a bill being too big. In my opinion, the bill is too small.

Part of the reason for President Eisenhower's bill, the Interstate Highway System, has been completed. We have many more different responsibilities now than we had then. In recent years, we have done some very good work with highway transportation.

Going back to 1982 when I first came to Washington, we had the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. This bill established the mass transit account, the highway trust fund. The reason that became important was, people came to the realization that for every vehicle we keep off our highway system, it saves money. It was determined that it would be good if we became partners with the mass transit folks and worked together on legislation. That was what we did in 1982 and that is what we are doing now. That is why it is such good news that the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, that handles mass transit, has agreed on a proposal.

Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, and I met today with the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, and they have agreed to that. That is really important. That started back in 1982. At that time, there was an 85 percent minimum return provision. That means for every dollar put into the highway trust fund in a State such as North Carolina, there was a guarantee they would get at least 85 percent of the money they put in. Some States got more than that, but 1982 was the first time there was a minimum return provision. One of the controversies in that bill was an increase in the Federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents per gallon. It was a good bill and passed.

In 1987, 5 years later, we had a bill called the Surface Transportation and Uniform Reallocation Assistance Act. It was not a very sexy name but it got the point across. It increased the speed limit, which was so important for States such as Nevada, from 55 miles per hour to a higher speed. It worked out well and we hope that continues to be OK. In a State such as Nevada--800 miles from the top to bottom, 500 miles across--you need to be able to travel in a safe manner on an interstate highway system faster than 55 miles per hour.

It also included a provision requiring States to spend a specified minimum amount for environmental purposes. That was the first time the highway bill had really taken that into consideration. So that was important.

Congress felt so strongly about this that President Reagan vetoed this bill. It was overridden by the House and the Senate. That does not happen very often, but the Presiding Officer, who was part of the administration during that time, recalls that.

In 1991, we had the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA. That is where the name comes from--ISTEA. This created the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, CMAQ, program, which has been a program that the environmentalists love, and some who are not as environmentally sensitive do not like it. But these programs were established then and dealt with air quality.

With the interstate system largely complete, as I indicated earlier, ISTEA shifted the Federal program from capital construction to focus on people and the movement of goods. This is where Senator Moynihan was so good. It also expanded the transportation decisionmaking process to include local officials, stakeholders, and citizens. And that passed.

It seems as if it was just a short time ago when, in June of 1988, we passed TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. This continued the basic policy structure established in ISTEA. It dramatically increased funding of the Federal Surface Transportation Program and established important budgetary protections or firewalls to guarantee highway and transportation spending. And, for the first time since 1982, we increased the minimum return to 90.5 percent, which was very important.

I also want to make sure the record is clear from this Senator's perspective of the contributions to highways and transit, and basically good government, that came from John Chafee. I have been so fortunate. I worked through all these bills that I have talked about, and I have had the very good fortune to work with Senator Stafford, as chairman of the committee, the great Senator from Vermont; Senator Moynihan for a short time; Senator Baucus; Senator Chafee; and these men set a high level that we who are now trying to move this bill must meet.

But Senator Chafee was such a good friend to me personally. He did so many things to help me in my political career. Even though he was a member of the other party, he went out of his way to always try to make me look good. I will always be indebted to him and his family, and that includes Lincoln, for all the good things that Senator Chafee did for me. Even though I

was closer to Senator Moynihan than I was to Senator Chafee, I felt such a kinship to Senator Chafee and cared a good deal about him, and his imprint is also on this legislation. Senator Moynihan could not have done much of what he did without Senator Chafee working with him.

This bill we have before the Senate is good legislation. It is imperfect. This legislation that is before this body is imperfect legislation, but it is the best we could do. For 50 States, having a formula that you put into a computer and do your computer run which comes out as good as this one says a lot for the great work of our staffs.

As Senator Inhofe has said, I would like to do different things in this bill. If I had been the person dictating what was in this bill, it would be different than what we have in it. But, frankly, I am down the totem pole. You have the chairman and ranking member and the subcommittee chairman and then me, but I did have some input in this measure. I think what we have come up with, as I indicated, is far from being perfect, but I think it is good legislation. And that is what legislation is all about.

Legislation is the art of compromise. I have been fortunate that a number of measures I have introduced are now law in this great country. I have never ever gotten everything I wanted. Everything that is now law that I introduced had to be changed. Anyone who is of the mind that they are going to get what they introduced is wrong because it just does not happen. I have never known it to happen.

This legislation we have been given by the two leaders we have 2 weeks to finish. If we do not finish it in 2 weeks, I am sorry to say what might happen. What might happen is this bill will be pulled, and we will have to extend the highway program for a year. That does not help any State. No State is helped with that program. Every State gets hurt. So we have to move and move quickly on this bill.

At the birth of the interstate system, safety and the efficient movement of people and goods framed the national transportation debate. Fifty years later, as President Eisenhower indicated, that is still the talk, the same speech. You could give the Eisenhower speech today on the floor of the Senate, and if we did not tell you it was 50 years old, you would think it was being given by someone who wrote it today. Fifty years after President Eisenhower's interstate highway system, safety and efficiency remain our foremost objectives.

This year, traffic congestion will cost Americans more than $67 billion in lost time and productivity--$67 billion in lost time and productivity--and it will waste almost 6 billion gallons of fuel. I cannot imagine 6 billion gallons of fuel. I do not know where you would put all that, but that is how much is wasted, which only increases our dependence on foreign oil.

As for safety, traffic accidents last year killed 42,000 people. We can reduce the toll of traffic congestion. We can save lives by making our highways safer. We have a responsibility to keep working on these problems and to find meaningful solutions.

The bill currently before this body represents a major commitment to maintain and improve our national transportation infrastructure. It also creates jobs.

Again, there has been controversy over there not being enough jobs created during the 3 years that President Bush has been President. Those people who are trying to damage this bill should understand this legislation will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, some say as many as 2 million jobs.

The majority leader of the Senate was here today, and he said for every $1 billion we spend in this highway bill, $2 billion will be created by other things, the offshoot of this legislation. We know for every $1 billion we spend on infrastructure development, 47,000 high- paying jobs are created. We know that. And these are well paid, skilled jobs for Americans.

This bill is also a referendum on improving our quality of life. No other measure will we debate in this Congress that has the potential to so dramatically impact every facet of our everyday lives.

I thank my colleagues, the entire committee, but especially Senator Jeffords, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Bond for working to craft a bipartisan package that continues the intermodal legacy of its predecessors, ISTEA and TEA-21.

Our proposal does not make dramatic changes to the core program structure because it does not need to. The groundwork has already been laid. During a year's worth of reauthorization hearings, the committee learned that the basic structure does work.

This package refines and improves the current program to ensure that our investments have the maximum impact on improving our surface transportation system.

Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Union and has been for more than a decade. Clark County--that is where Las Vegas is located-- has experienced the bulk of that growth. This growth represents unique challenges but also opportunities.

The bill before the Senate provides resources and programs that encourage the effective management and operation of our Nation's transportation system. The continued success of that system is essential to fast growing metropolitan areas such as Clark County, where traffic congestion and air quality are serious issues.

This legislation also places a renewed emphasis on safety by consolidating the various safety initiatives spread through the Federal highway program into new core safety programs. One of the aspects we have worked on includes something called the Safe Routes to School Initiative. It was felt that we wanted to do everything we could to have kids walk to school, ride bicycles to school. Why do they have to have a bus pick them up and drop them off at their door? One of the things we are doing is creating safer routes for children. If they want to use a bike or walk, we have bike paths and sidewalks.

This is important because, for example, in Clark County, we have opened, in the last 2 years, 18 schools a year, a total of 36 schools. By opening one new school a month we can't keep up with the growth in Clark County. We have high schools that are approaching 5,000 kids. So the safer routes to school program will help promote healthy living by making it safer for children to walk or ride to school on bikes, not cars and buses. I am pleased this package moves the Nation's surface transportation program forward without jeopardizing our natural environment.

One of the things we did in this bill, which was difficult, States have complained about. Originally back before 1982, some States were barely getting 80 percent of what they put into these trust funds. We moved it to 85, 90.5. And now with this bill, the formula now before the Senate, every State, by the end of this legislation, will get 95 percent of what they put in. That is very difficult. It goes without saying that some of the States who were getting more than a dollar in years past, a lot of them continue to get more than a dollar, but some of them don't. The State of Nevada, under this formula, gets less than a dollar. But in fairness, the formula is a formula. It wouldn't have been right for the formula to be any different for me than it is for others. So this is fair. We have made it so every State at the end of this bill will get at least 95 percent.

In this legislation every State will get a percentage increase. This legislation is not perfect, but it is about as fair as we could do. I have worked with my staff the last 4 or 5 days to say, could you come up with something. I had a few problems with the legislation. Come up with something. I will talk to Senator Inhofe because we might have a formula that may be better. We couldn't come up with one. I wish we could have, but we couldn't. But what we have done here is the best we could do. The vast majority of the States will do extremely well compared to what they did in the past.

As with any compromise, this is not perfect. It is inevitable that some States will not be completely satisfied with the results, but it is important to note every State benefits from the growth in this program.

We worked hard to create a funding mechanism that allows all 50 States plus the District of Columbia to benefit from program growth while addressing several competing fundraising priorities: Donor versus donee, old versus new, urban versus rural. These have all been put in this formula, and we have

come up with what is as fair as we think we can do. The bill before us accomplishes that goal.

Once more, let me emphasize, every State benefits from the growth in the program. So again, I extend my appreciation to my colleagues--the chairman of the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member--for the good work they have done. We are all going to have to be vigilant. I hope those who want to change the bill come here and offer amendments. I hope they do it as soon as possible. We hope to get to this bill tomorrow. We are hopeful and confident the motion to proceed should be overwhelmingly approved. I can't imagine anyone voting against this.

I was told by the person who asked me to object on their behalf on the motion to proceed that that Senator was concerned about the transit portion of the bill. That has been taken care of. The chairmen of the two committees have signed off on this. I hope we can move forward on this very quickly.

Again, I am glad we are here. What we do on this legislation will set a tone for the rest of this legislative year. I hope we can permit it. I should be more confident, like the players in the Super Bowl and the coaches: We are going to finish this legislation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding that the Senator from Florida is concerned about, for example, the bridges. Of all the bridges we have in America, about a third of them are in disrepair. The Senator is aware that some of these bridges are in such bad condition that school buses won't drive over them. They stop the bus and have the kids walk across and the bus comes across and they load it up again. The Senator, from the statements I have heard him make before the committee on which we serve together, statements I have heard him making over the years, and in his experience as the Governor of Florida, indicates to me that he thinks we should do something about these bridges, as an example.

The Senator may be aware that prior to 9/11, I introduced legislation called the American Marshall Plan. The resolution has been passed by the National Council of Mayors and other organizations in the States saying we need to

do something with our infrastructure separate and apart from the regular highway bill we do every 5 or 6 years.

Is the Senator in a position to say in addition to the work being done on this highway bill, we need to look at other parts of the infrastructure, including water, sewer, and bridges? Does the Senator acknowledge that?

I also ask this question to my friend. The Senator is aware that my legislation--after 9/11, other things got in the way and nothing happened with that. Is the Senator aware that the Banking Committee, which does mass transit--they have agreed on a mass transit bill. Is the Senator also aware that the Finance Committee has agreed-- in fact, they have probably done that by now because they were meeting this afternoon--to make sure that bill is funded properly, as is our highway bill? Is the Senator aware that that has taken place?

Let me ask a final question. The Senator is aware that the State of Florida, for example, in this highway bill, will wind up getting $3,138,589,000, which is a growth rate of some 40 percent, and that the fiscal year 2003 number the people of Florida got for a return on the dollar they put in was the minimum, 90.5 cents. At the end of this bill, Florida will go to 95 percent; that is, they will get 95 cents back for every dollar. I think the Senator would acknowledge that is an improvement over the last bill for the State of Florida.

What I hear the Senator saying is that the Senator has no question with the amount of money being spent in this bill, the Senator has some question how it is being financed?

Mr. President, I do say this to my friend, and I ask that he respond: We have programs that are funded in this bill that were the property of Senator Pat Moynihan, principally, that I think are certainly far from being perfect, but they are the best programs we have had during the lifetime of this legislation.

I say to my friend, with the fact that we have 2 weeks to complete this legislation--we bring it up now or the majority leader said we wouldn't be able to do it--I would think doing this highway bill is so much more important than not doing it, that it is easier to weigh that on the scale of legislative necessity.

Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, we have a vote scheduled at a quarter to 6. There are Senators who want to speak before the vote. I apologize to everyone for having taken the time with Senator Graham. We have 25 minutes remaining. I wonder if Senator Dodd can indicate how much time he wants.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dodd, Bond, and Thomas be recognized for 8 minutes in that order.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a citizen of the great western part of America, Monroe Sweetland.

Monroe lives in Oregon, where he has enjoyed a wonderful life of public service. He has been a State Senator, a national leader of teachers, a journalist, and the publisher of a number of small newspapers.

He served in the Pacific with the Red Cross during World War II. After returning home he became the political director for the National Education Association in the western States.

He was a confidant of Eleanor Roosevelt and an ally of President Harry Truman.

His home in Milwaukie, OR, which was built in 1878, is a historic landmark. That isn't just because it is an old house, but also because of the many important people who visited him there.

The most famous visitor was President John Kennedy. In fact, I have been told that Monroe's wife Lillie was the person who suggested to JFK that a rocking chair would ease the pain in his back.

Others who visited Monroe and Lillie included Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Ambassador John Kenneth Gailbraith, and Senators Wayne Morse, ``Scoop'' Jackson and Estes Kefauver.

Monroe recently turned 94 years old. Although he has been legally blind for several years, he is fond of saying that he has lost his sight, but not his vision. As a former newsman, he still enjoys having the paper read to him by visitors.

He has been called the father of the modern Democratic Party in Oregon, and a founding father of Portland State University.

He is also responsible, more than any other person, for a very important piece of Federal legislation--the Bilingual Education Act of 1968.

That law opened the doors of education and opportunity to young people in the West and other parts of the country who are native speakers of Spanish.

Up until then, these students were often placed in classes where they couldn't understand what was going on, with disastrous results. But in the early 1960s a number of innovative programs began to spring up, including a successful one at Pueblo High School in Tucson.

In 1966, Monroe organized a symposium on the education of Spanish speaking children. Prominent educators and elected officials from Western States came together, and a consensus emerged that bilingual education was a realistic approach to the needs of Spanish speaking students.

U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas credited Monroe for his decision to attend the symposium, which influenced him to sponsor the Bilingual Education Act of 1968.

Once the bill was introduced, Monroe Sweetland helped marshal support for it. He arranged witnesses for the hearings, and he persuaded the NEA to endorse it. Without his efforts, it would not have passed.

The Latino community in the United States has come a long way since 1968. But we are still fighting to provide better education opportunities for Latino students. As we continue to press onward, I hope we never forget the contributions of Monroe Sweetland and others who helped pass the Bilingual Education Act of 1968.

On a personal note, my long-time chief of staff Rey Martinez was nurtured in the ways of politics by Monroe. Rey would be the first to acknowledge Monroe's political acumen, and I would be the second. Oregon and our entire country are a better place because of this good man.

Mr. President, if my friend will yield, the opening statements have been pretty well completed. Senator Inhofe has given one, I have given one, Senator Jeffords has given one, and Senator Bond. We are the ones moving this bill through the Senate.

I hope everyone within the sound of our voices will understand, if people have statements that should be given on the bill, they should come forward and give them. Otherwise, I hope those with amendments can come forward and offer amendments.

I say to the Senate that we have a relatively short period of time to finish this bill. It is a very big bill, $255 billion, but the majority leader and the minority leader have indicated that we have only this week and next week to complete this most important legislation.

I say through the Chair to the distinguished acting majority leader, formerly Governor of one of the very big States population-wise in our country, Tennessee--a Governor understands more than anyone else, I believe, the importance of these highway moneys and what they mean to a State--if we don't finish this now and have to go to another year-long bill, it totally interferes with the ability of the highway planners to do their work.

I hope everyone understands that we have just a short period of time to complete this bill and that everyone will come forward if they have some problems with the bill, and if they want to change it some way, they can move on it as quickly as possible.

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

I see on the announcement of the schedule for this afternoon that there is an agreement that we will vote on another Federal judge. It is my understanding this will be the 170th judge we have approved in the Senate, and with President Bush having given an interim appointment for 1 year to Judge Pickering, the numbers are now 170 approved by the Senate during the term of President Bush and only 4 who have not gotten approval.

Does the Senator agree that those are the numbers?

If the Senator will yield for one final question, for those out there who are saying we are turning down President Bush's judicial nominations, the facts are that we have approved 170 who are now or shortly will be sitting as judges in the Federal system--they have been approved by the Senate--and we have turned down 4. The number then is 170 approved, 4 turned down. Those are pretty good numbers; does the Senator agree?

Reserving the right to object, we have objections from the majority and minority now on the Finance Committee and also from the majority on the HELP Committee. So based upon that, I object.

Is the Senate in a quorum call?

I suggest to my friend from Pennsylvania it appears as if there will be no one speaking in opposition of the argument. It has been argued several times before. We should move on. We have people who are calling both cloakrooms because of the prearranged vote 20 minutes ago. They have schedules--some downtown, some up here--and I wonder if the Senator could move forward on his final remarks.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, any time we have is yielded back.

Mr. President, if the Presiding Officer would yield, we have a unanimous consent request.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), would vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham of Florida, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just say that I am disappointed we are not going to move forward on the bill Monday. That is very valuable time. We are not going to have a lot of time to finish this bill. This is a bipartisan bill. This is my fourth highway bill, third or fourth highway bill, and this is a most fair bill. We have every State that will get at least 95 percent of the money they pay in. Every State gets an increase of what they have gotten in the last bill. It is fair.

In the past, some States did extremely well and some States did poorly. Take the States of California and Texas, for example. At the end of this bill they will get 95 percent of the money they pay in. That is very costly. Therefore, that being the case, and it certainly seems fair to me that they should get 95 percent of what they pay in, their 5 percent that they are not getting pays for a lot of the States that do not have many people. These are bridge States. They still have the interstate going through them and there is a lot for maintenance.

The bill is far from perfect. We have done the best we can to try to make it a better bill than those in the past. We need to get to it. This is an extremely important bill. This is not a bill for the Democrats or a bill for the Republicans. It is a bill that will allow the construction to go forward on highways and transit for the next 5 or 6 years.

The reason that is important, we can come back and do a 1-year bill like we did last year. But there is no way--and the Presiding Officer was a Governor of a very large and important State--there is no ability to plan with a 1-year program.

I hope we can get this done. It is important to every State in the Union. I know some people are not happy with what is in the bill. We have done the best we can; if everyone wants their dollars back, we cannot. We will find a lot of States that will not be very happy. If we want everyone to get the average, there is no average.

We are happy to work with every State and are doing better than we had done in the bill. But the allocation will not be changed. It was done with a computer. The information was fed into the computer. It would be extremely difficult to start all over again and come up with a new allocation, especially in a timeframe when we will have to work on this bill.

Will the distinguished leader yield?

I will make a suggestion. After the vote is completed, it will be approximately--let's see, what time are we going to vote?

So starting at 6:15 on Monday maybe the two subcommittee leaders and the two full committee leaders could begin their statements, and then we could go right to the meat of the bill on Tuesday. I would certainly recommend we try to get Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, and Reid to get their statements out of the way Monday night, and then go to the bill Tuesday. That way we will not have lost any time except a little time of the staff.

Mr. President, I wish to say very briefly that Senator Daschle's statement regarding the leaking of the name of the informant--someone who worked for the CIA--had nothing to do about whether there were or were not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Senator Daschle had to leave but he wanted to make sure I made the record clear. His statement had no reflection on whether there were or were not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His statement simply relates to the fact that there simply should be an investigation into who leaked the most sensitive information regarding someone who worked for the CIA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified so that if someone from the majority wishes to speak for an extra 5 minutes after Senator Baucus, they be allowed to do so.

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``yea.''

No objection.

Mr. President, if my friend from Iowa will yield, I express my appreciation, for the Senate and the staff, to the leader for getting us out of here as early as possible. The weather is treacherous. There was a meeting at the White House that prevented us from getting out earlier. For everyone, I express my appreciation to the leader for adjourning at this time.

Senator Inhofe and I just finished a very constructive conversation. I have spoken to Senator Jeffords and to Senator Bond. We feel very good about moving forward on the highway bill next week. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee is here. They are going to meet on Monday to work on a provision on taxes. We can't do the bill unless they do that. I have spoken to the Senators from Alabama and Maryland, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Shelby. They are going to mark their provision up on Tuesday as it deals with mass transit.

I hope this most important bill, creating hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs over the next 5 years can be completed before we go for our break in the middle of February.

Mr. President, March 24, 1955, was a significant date in the history of Las Vegas. That date marked the opening of Nevada's first racially integrated hotel--the Moulin Rouge Hotel and Casino.

At that time, the city of Las Vegas was already earning international recognition as an entertainment and resort mecca. However, black entertainers performing in Las Vegas were not allowed to stay in the hotels where they performed, nor were they allowed to enter the casinos or restaurants on the Las Vegas Strip. Instead, entertainers such as Sammy Davis Jr., Nat ``King'' Cole, and Lena Horne were forced to seek accommodations in local boarding houses.

The Moulin Rouge changed all that. When the Moulin Rouge opened, it immediately became the night spot for top stars such as Davis, Harry Belafonte, and Frank Sinatra. They were joined by Ella Fitzgerald, Lionel Hampton, Count Basie, Bob Hope, Tallulah Bankhead, Louis Armstrong, and many more.

When shows on the Strip ended, entertainers and their followers flocked to the Moulin Rouge where they would continue performing into the wee hours of the morning.

The hotel became home to black entertainers headlining on the Strip, and a venue where they performed, alongside their white peers, to audiences of all races.

The Moulin Rouge closed in October of 1955, just 6 months after its celebrated opening. However, its impact lived on. Other Las Vegas hotels began their own efforts at desegregation. And when the civil rights movement reached full swing in early 1960, the old Moulin Rouge became the site of an historic meeting between Governor Grant Sawyer, leaders in the African-American community, and Las Vegas

hotel operators. The meeting resulted in an agreement by resort operators to end their segregation practices, and to make their casinos, restaurants, and hotel rooms accessible to all people regardless of race.

The ``Moulin Rouge Agreement'' made national news, and the building has since been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is a living symbol and tribute to the struggle for equality and civil rights. Over the years, a number of owners tried to bring the Moulin Rouge back as a viable resort, but none was ultimately successful. Then, last year, a tragedy occurred. On May 29, 2003, one day before a new owner was scheduled to take over the property, an arsonist's fire ravaged the casino. The three-alarm blaze destroyed many irreplaceable historic photos and relics, including the famous Moulin Rouge wall mural and its unique mahogany bar.

Miraculously, the entire front facade and the historic Moulin Rouge neon sign survived the fire, along with the original tile-covered columns and the signature tower. These structures, along with the original hotel building which also survived, will provide the foundation from which a new Moulin Rouge will rise.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, so it seems fitting to announce that the Moulin Rouge, a symbol of civil rights change in Las Vegas, will rise from the ashes.

The Moulin Rouge Development Corporation, which was stymied in its efforts to purchase the hotel by the tragic fire, will soon finalize purchase of the property. This Thursday, January 29, the company will publicly announce its plans for the new Moulin Rouge.

These plans call for restoration of the original facade and the original hotel, along with construction of a new hotel, casino, and shopping mall. This new facility will include museum exhibits, provided by the Moulin Rouge Museum and Cultural Center, that celebrate the history of the property and the achievements of minority leaders, entertainers, and other pioneers of the civil rights era.

I congratulate Dale Scott, Rod Bickerstaff, Chauncey Moore, and other officials of the Moulin Rouge Development Corporation for their vision and hard work in bringing forth this proposal.

It has been a long road. But those of us who love history are delighted that the Moulin Rouge will be saved, and that its famous neon sign will shine once again. It will serve as a reminder of how far we have come, and how much remains to be done.

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

Mr. President, on December 10 I was in Las Vegas when my staff stepped into a meeting and said the Supreme Court had upheld the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform bill. I couldn't believe it. All of the political prognosticators said this very conservative Supreme Court would not uphold that law. They not only upheld the law but they completely repudiated what the intermediate court of appeals had done. They went past them and upheld the law.

I was so happy that after I got out of my meeting, when the press called me, I said that if Sandra Day O'Connor were available I would give her a big hug because the decision she wrote was tremendous. She broke from the pack to do what no one thought she would do. I have tremendous respect and admiration for her courage in doing that. I wrote her a letter and told her what I said publicly. What she did was tremendous.

Why did she do it? A lot of it is not only based upon her academic prowess but the fact that she served as an elected State legislator in Arizona. I am sure she remembers what fundraising is all about.

The bipartisan campaign finance reform law--I call it bipartisan because John McCain was one of the main sponsors, even though it was passed primarily by Democrats in the House and the Senate--and the December 10 ruling were the culmination of a remarkable 8-year effort by two outstanding public servants.

They first introduced this bill in September of 1995. Both of these men realized that since our campaign laws were revamped many years ago, those who wanted to get around the intent of the law had discovered some gaping holes and exploited them beyond what anybody could have imagined.

In the late 19th century and early part of the 20th century, corporate America basically owned Congress. As a result of that, in the early 20th century, Congress passed a law saying there could be no corporate funds used in Federal elections. That is the way it was during almost all of this past century. Slowly but surely that changed because the courts ruled that even though you could not give corporate or soft money directly to a Federal candidate, that candidate could go out and, in any way they wanted, raise money for the State party.

As we know, during the last 15 years or so, the largest amount of money spent in Federal elections was soft money, corporate money, because corporations would give huge amounts of money to the two State parties and they would run these mostly negative ads. The negative advertising taking place in America in recent years has come generally from soft money--so-called corporate money.

Mr. President, the same was developing in recent years that was in effect before 1900 and shortly after 1900 when corporate America was giving these huge amounts of money to Congress. Maybe Congress, prior to December 10, 2003, was not compromised. Maybe they were not corrupted. I am confident that is true, but what was going on was corrupting. It would only have been a matter of time until this got way out of hand, more so than it should have been.

So I appreciate very much the law having been drafted. I appreciate very much the fact that now we have a campaign practice in America which says if somebody is running for office, they can go ask an individual for money and individuals are the only ones who can give money. An individual Senator or Congressman cannot ask for corporate money in any fashion or form. That is the way it should be. There is nothing wrong with asking for campaign money. There is nothing wrong with giving campaign money, as long as there is full disclosure and it comes from individuals, not corporations.

The law that passed and was upheld by the Supreme Court is not a perfect law. I am sure people will manage to find ways around it. But public confidence had been eroding and now the political parties are not being allowed to accept large contributions, at least directed at individual Senators, who won't have as much money, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. I am sure we won't see all the negative ads that we have seen in the past.

These unlimited contributions damaged out political system by raising the stakes for those who wrote big checks. I am a strong supporter of business. Businesses create jobs and provide health insurance for many Americans. They generate the products and services we all enjoy. Most businesses play by the rules and play fair. They realize their short- term pursuit of profit is not the only thing that matters. They understand in the long run, America prospers best when we all share in the prosperity.

The influence of big money in politics created an environment in which special interests threatened to overwhelm the common good. Instead of seeking common ground and compromise, business and interest groups began to think in terms of a winner-take-all strategy, with the ability to influence the process going to the highest bidder.

This poisonous climate actually widened the gap between the interests of big business--which could contribute large sums of soft money--and the interests of ordinary Americans. Unfortunately, in most cases, ordinary Americans found themselves on the outside, looking in on a process that was dominated by big money.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone because it was happening on both sides. Senators Feingold and McCain realized that something was wrong, and they set out 8 years ago to make it right. It wasn't easy. It took years to get to a conclusive vote on the bill. I offered an amendment identical to their proposal, but a cloture vote failed and it died.

Finally, in 2002, the Senate passed the Campaign Finance Reform Act. A week later, it was signed by President Bush into law. A little over a month ago, that law was upheld by the highest court in the land. The saga of campaign finance reform is a useful lesson to those who study government. It illustrates the importance of tenacity and conviction.

I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans supported campaign finance reform from the very beginning. As indicated by the vote, the people in this body and in the House knew that people favored this. There may have been some individuals who didn't want to vote for the bill in their hearts, but they did so because they recognized that the overwhelming number of people in America supported it. Despite this support of the American people, the bill would never have become law if Senators McCain and Feingold had not kept pushing it because there were a lot of people who may have been outwardly supportive of this in Congress but simply weren't willing to push very hard to make sure it came to be.

Time and time again, Senators Feingold and McCain encountered all kinds of setbacks. Time and time again, they refused to give up. I don't know how many cloture votes failed in this matter--I would estimate at least 25 over the years. These two men kept fighting because they believed in their hearts that this was an issue of fundamental importance to our democracy.

Senators McCain and Feingold stayed the course because they were fighting not just for a piece of legislation, they were fighting to save our political system. The tenacity might have surprised their opponents, but those of us who followed their careers should not have been surprised. Is McCain-Feingold perfect? Of course not. Will people try to get around it? Of course they will. We will have to look at ways to plug those holes. But it is so much better that we don't have these large amounts of soft money coming into elections.

Just to be illustrative, in the State of Nevada, when I ran 6 years ago, Senator John Ensign and I spent, between us, $20 million. The vast majority of that was soft money that went through political parties. There were negative ads against me and negative ads against Senator Ensign. The system would have been better without that money. You can multiply this all over the country because it was the same. So what has happened here and what happened with the Supreme Court is good for the system. I have great respect and admiration for Senator Russ Feingold.

To show you what a man of conviction he is, 6 years ago when he was involved in his first reelection effort, he was behind in the polls. We knew that and we said to Russ Feingold: Let us give some money to the State party to help you. He said: Do not give money to the State party. In fact, if I recall correctly, money was given and he made us take it back. Even though he was behind at the time, losing the election was more acceptable to him than violating a principle--that is, corporate money being involved in his election. He wound up winning. I think one reason for that is that people know he is a man of conviction and that proved it.

He comes from the State of Wisconsin, which has a rich tradition of progressive reform. There is a statue in this Capitol of ``Fightin''' Bob LaFollette, a leader of the progressive movement in that State. Senator Feingold's father was involved in that movement, and he passed along his strong values to his son.

Russ Feingold graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is a Rhodes scholar. Then he went and graduated with honors from Harvard School of Law. He then served 8 years in the Wisconsin State Senate before coming to this body.

His trip to the Senate is a story in itself. Twelve years ago, the Senate race in Wisconsin was a race involving money. There were people there who had raised a lot of money and were spending a lot of money. Russ Feingold had almost no money. He was a State senator, but he had been walking door to door all over the State of Wisconsin.

Maybe a month before the election, a number of newspapers in Wisconsin said: We have had enough of this negative campaigning going on in this race, and we are going to support this young State senator from Wisconsin. We want people to focus on Russ Feingold, which was a name few people had heard of. Russ Feingold came from nowhere within a matter of weeks to win that election.

Here in the Senate he fights to help working people and farmers by improving health care, education, and creating jobs. I know Russ Feingold is a man who stands for good government, not only what he did on campaign finance reform, but also as a watchdog against wasteful spending.

Russ Feingold is a man who practices what he preaches. When he launched his effort to ban unregulated soft money, the naysayers said it couldn't be done. They said the political process had become so expensive that nobody could get elected without corporate money. Russ Feingold proved them wrong. He stuck to his principles, kept his promises to limit spending and reject the use of soft money in his own race, and he was reelected.

He is a man of strong principles, and he shows strong principles and successful politics are not mutually exclusive.

I have gotten to know Russ Feingold very well. I have gotten to know his lovely wife Mary, who is a friend of mine. I try to call her once in a while just to see how she is doing. She is perky and astute--a wonderful woman. I want the record to be spread with my admiration for Russ Feingold and his wife Mary, for the team they are, and I am certain the encouragement she gave him to stay the course.

Mr. President, the other member of this duo that was responsible for this legislation is John McCain. John McCain is an interesting person, to say the least. He is a true American hero. He has lived through things that most of us cannot comprehend.

More than 20 years ago, I went to a congressional prayer breakfast. John McCain and I served together in the House of Representatives. We were elected at the same time. The prayer breakfast in the House, as I recall, was every Thursday morning. I can't remember the exact day, but it was held in the morning. I wanted to go because John McCain--this person with whom I was elected in the same class--was going to make a presentation at the prayer breakfast. It was one of the most memorable 45 minutes I have ever spent.

John McCain recounted to us--there was no press around; it was a private meeting--what he had gone through in the state of being a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. His father was an outstanding military officer, as was his grandfather.

In October of 1967, John McCain was flying a mission over Vietnam when his plane was struck, and he was forced to eject from that jet airplane. He parachuted and landed in a lake, a short ways from the prison where he was going to be placed. He broke both of his arms, broke a leg, and sustained many other injuries. Not only that, but a mob dragged him out of the lake to the shore and then proceeded to beat on him, even though he was badly injured. He was taken a short distance to the famous Hanoi Hilton where he was tortured and held in solitary confinement.

He spent 6 years in prison, much of that in solitary confinement. Because his father was head of the Seventh Fleet--I think that's the proper designation; he took care of the theater of war in Vietnam--the Vietnamese said because your father is a military leader in this area, you can go home. John McCain said: No, I am not going home unless my fellow prisoners go with me. So they proceeded to break his shoulders again and cause him all kinds of physical pain, discomfort, anxiety, and emotional stress. It was brutal what they did to him.

He recounted this in some detail at the prayer breakfast. But a lot of it had to be put together because he is certainly not a boastful man and doesn't talk about his military experience very much and, I repeat, this was in a very private, prayerful meeting. I can remember his explaining the first time all these prisoners were able to get together for Christmas and how they found a way to sing Christmas songs.

It was, as I said, a remarkable experience to listen to John McCain. He is a man of integrity. To show his humility, if you look at his biography on his Web site, it is four very short paragraphs. He doesn't talk about most of the things he has accomplished in life. You have to read on, not on his Web site, because he is a man of some humility.

McCain and Feingold are a lot alike. They both have tenacity, perseverance. They both cause the Senate and myself, someone who is trying to move legislation along, a bit of heartburn on occasion. I have sometimes asked myself about these two guys--oh, why are they doing this? They are doing what they do, even though there is some short-term pain for me and others who are trying to move legislation on the floor, because they feel strongly about different issues.

There are times when I am anxious and concerned about the issue they raise, but I never ever question why they do it. I know why they do it. I work as much as I can to understand that these two watchdogs work together on a number of issues, and they also work separately. They have different interests in life.

I couldn't let any more time go by without talking about how important it is for the body politic to have passed McCain-Feingold and how important it is to the country that the Supreme Court of the United States upheld that law nearly as we had written it. It has changed our lives, but I think for the better. Even though some people are upset it passed, I am very glad, and it would never have happened but for the perseverance of these two men. It will renew the vitality of our political system and restore our faith in Government. It could not have happened but for these two fine Senators about whom the States of Wisconsin and Arizona should feel proud.

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

Reserving the right to object, the Parliamentarians have not had an opportunity to study this in detail. Therefore, they are not at this time ready to rule on whether or not this amendment is in order. A number of people have called our cloakroom, recognizing that as soon as the Parliamentarian makes a decision, that will answer the question itself. Based upon that, on behalf of a number of other Senators, I object to setting this amendment aside.