Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, by request, President Bush's proposed ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003,'' SAFETEA, which reauthorizes the Federal-aid surface transportation program. Joining me are Senators Jeffords and Bond.

Although I am not in complete agreement with the President on this proposal, I believe the President deserves the courtesy of getting his proposal introduced.

I do agree with the President's desire to build upon the achievements of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, TEA-21, of 1998 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, of 1991. In the hearings conducted by the Environment and Public Works Committee over the last 12 months, we consistently heard that TEA-21 works.

SAFETEA focuses on reducing highway fatalities and injuries, reducing congestion, protecting the environment, increasing funding flexibility for State and local governments, and providing economic stimulus to the Nation's economy. All very worthy goals. Unfortunately, the funding proposed in the President's bill is woefully inadequate.

As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am looking forward to working with the President and my Congressional colleagues to develop a Senate bill that strengthens the national transportation system.

Mr. President, over the next few days, the Senate will consider legislation that will become the fuels title of comprehensive energy legislation to be enacted by the Congress later this year. As I have stated on other occasions, I firmly believe that the Nation needs comprehensive energy legislation and needs it quickly. One of our largest national security problems is our current energy dependence on foreign countries. I strongly agree with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who has called our energy dependence ``a serious strategic issue.''

I think that most Members of the Senate would agree that expeditious action is needed to address our energy dependence concerns. There is much less agreement, however, on the specific fuels provisions that are best suited to respond to those concerns. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have worked

closely with the issue surrounding this amendment and the impact they will have on our environment, as well as the economy. I understand the valid concerns on all sides of the debate.

This amendment represents a compromise on a number of contentious issues. I want to thank the members and their staffs for their respective roles in shaping this compromise, particularly the majority and minority leaders, and Senator Voinovich, the Chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this amendment.

This amendment has numerous environmental protection provisions, and, with the repeal of the oxygenate mandate, positive steps in removing barriers to allow refineries to make clean burning and affordable gasoline.

As with all compromises, there are provisions in the document that are opposed by various committee members, including myself. Despite that, I hope we can move the proposal out of the Senate with a minimum of controversy. To that end, I intend to support the proposal against amendments even in circumstances where I might agree with the substance of the amendment. I urge others to do the same.

This is something that has been of great concern for this country. I became involved with this issue of our energy dependence way back in the early 1980s when then-Secretary of Interior, Don Hodel, and I traveled and talked about the national security ramifications of our dependence on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. Certainly, I felt after the 1991 war and after the most recent conflict in Iraq that people would be sensitive to that. I think the amendment that we are offering is one that is going to be of great help in getting us to lessen our reliance on foreign countries for our ability to fight a war.

I look at this provision of the energy bill as a very significant provision. As I said, there are parts of it and provisions that, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I do not agree with. However, I strongly urge the support of this provision to the energy bill and hope we can do it with minimum or with no amendments.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as the Senate's only commercially licensed pilot, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Burns, Senator Thomas and Senator Grassley, to introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among airline pilots.

This bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's, FAA, Age 60 Rule--the regulation that for 43 years has forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60--and replace it with a rational plan that raises the retirement age to 63 immediately and then incrementally increases the age limit to 65.

Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. The United States is one of only two countries in the Joint Aviation Authorities that requires its commercial pilots to retire at the age of 60. Some countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all.

The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never did. FAA data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger colleagues. In 1981, the National Institute of Aging stated that ``the Age 60 Rule appears indefensible on medical grounds'' and ``there is no convincing medical evidence to support age 60, or any other specific age, for mandatory pilot retirement.''

This bill will allow our most experienced pilots--demonstrably healthy, and fit for duty--to retain their jobs, a step that will benefit pilots, the financially burdened airlines, and most importantly, passengers. Now, more than ever before, we need to keep our best pilots flying.

Again, there is no scientific justification for requiring pilots to retire at age 60. Our pilots, our airlines, and our passengers deserve our consideration. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, as the Senate's only commercially licensed pilot, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Burns, Senator Thomas and Senator Grassley, to introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among airline pilots.

This bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's, FAA, Age 60 Rule--the regulation that for 43 years has forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60--and replace it with a rational plan that raises the retirement age to 63 immediately and then incrementally increases the age limit to 65.

Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. The United States is one of only two countries in the Joint Aviation Authorities that requires its commercial pilots to retire at the age of 60. Some countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all.

The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never did. FAA data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger colleagues. In 1981, the National Institute of Aging stated that ``the Age 60 Rule appears indefensible on medical grounds'' and ``there is no convincing medical evidence to support age 60, or any other specific age, for mandatory pilot retirement.''

This bill will allow our most experienced pilots--demonstrably healthy, and fit for duty--to retain their jobs, a step that will benefit pilots, the financially burdened airlines, and most importantly, passengers. Now, more than ever before, we need to keep our best pilots flying.

Again, there is no scientific justification for requiring pilots to retire at age 60. Our pilots, our airlines, and our passengers deserve our consideration. I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to make the Impact Aid Program a Federal entitlement.

Impact Aid is one of the oldest Federal education programs, dating from the 1950's, and is meant to compensate a local school district for financial losses resulting from Federal properties or lands in that district. Congress met its obligation of fully funding Impact Aid until the 1970's. When the funding was cut in 1971, many districts that greatly depend on Impact Aid began to suffer. In the past few years, the Impact Aid payment formula has become increasingly complex, causing great funding disparities for the same types of students in different districts.

I have consistently supported increased appropriations for Impact Aid because it not only provides an essential revenue source for impacted districts, but it is also a Federal obligation. Often, close to 90 percent of a local school's funding is comprised of the local tax base. When the presence of the Federal Government in a community takes away from this tax base, we must compensate for this loss. When we do not fulfill our obligation by adequately funding Impact Aid, our children suffer the consequence such as lower test scores, lower attendance rates, crowded classrooms, and fewer and older facilities.

Although funding for Impact Aid has increased over the past few years, it still remains under-funded. Today, I am taking the first step to correct this inequity. My bill will require Congress to meet its duty to these children and schools that have been under-funded for so long. I urge my colleagues to join me in fulfilling our obligation by permanently fully funding the Impact Aid program.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to make the Impact Aid Program a Federal entitlement.

Impact Aid is one of the oldest Federal education programs, dating from the 1950's, and is meant to compensate a local school district for financial losses resulting from Federal properties or lands in that district. Congress met its obligation of fully funding Impact Aid until the 1970's. When the funding was cut in 1971, many districts that greatly depend on Impact Aid began to suffer. In the past few years, the Impact Aid payment formula has become increasingly complex, causing great funding disparities for the same types of students in different districts.

I have consistently supported increased appropriations for Impact Aid because it not only provides an essential revenue source for impacted districts, but it is also a Federal obligation. Often, close to 90 percent of a local school's funding is comprised of the local tax base. When the presence of the Federal Government in a community takes away from this tax base, we must compensate for this loss. When we do not fulfill our obligation by adequately funding Impact Aid, our children suffer the consequence such as lower test scores, lower attendance rates, crowded classrooms, and fewer and older facilities.

Although funding for Impact Aid has increased over the past few years, it still remains under-funded. Today, I am taking the first step to correct this inequity. My bill will require Congress to meet its duty to these children and schools that have been under-funded for so long. I urge my colleagues to join me in fulfilling our obligation by permanently fully funding the Impact Aid program.

Mr. President, today I want to recognize Oklahoma's first loss in the fight for our country's security and our country's freedom and future.

LCpl Thomas ``Tommy'' Alan Blair from Broken Arrow, OK, was killed in the line of duty on or about March 23. Lance Corporal Blair was described as a born leader, an enthusiastic student, and a confident young man who loved Oklahoma and his country.

I remember him well when I went out and talked to him and some of the others before their deployment. All of them were enthusiastic, all of them were courageous, but all of them knew they were risking their lives.

He was killed when an enemy rocket-propelled grenade hit and destroyed his amphibious assault vehicle as it was traveling near Nasiriyah, Iraq.

This battle was described as the sharpest battle in the war to date, and Lance Corporal Blair paid the ultimate price--his life. Let me say again, he gave his life. Why would a person pay this price? Why would a person risk facing this fear and die in combat? Lance Corporal Blair fought and died because he was an American, he was a marine, and he knew what freedom really means--the freedom most Iraqis have never known, and a freedom most Americans take for granted.

He fought for Americans who have already forgotten our freedoms were attacked on 9/11. He fought for the pundits who think this war is about oil. He fought for the protesters who have always had the freedom to express their opinions but never considered what it requires to protect and secure these freedoms for the future.

Expressing your opinion in Iraq may cost your tongue being cut out of your mouth, it may cost your wife being raped in front of your children, or your family may just disappear. If you are lucky, it may only cost a bullet in your head without the suffering.

How could such a place void of these fundamental freedoms exist on God's green Earth? This place does exist. It is Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

Does the average American consider life without these freedoms? Does the average American consider the life of an Iraqi? Does the average American know the bravery Lance Corporal Blair felt in the last seconds of his life? I would say not.

Lance Corporal Blair considered these freedoms and he considered them important enough to join the Marine Corps, serve his country, and eventually sacrifice his life. He gave his life for the continued freedom and security of the American people. He gave his life for the new freedom the Iraqi people will enjoy.

I do remember talking to his group. Many of the people at that time were saying: Why are we so concerned about Iraq? Why not go after Osama bin Laden or some of the other areas? They forget what we are going through now is not a war, it is a battle in Iraq. The war was declared by the President of the United States at 8:30 in the evening on September 11, that fateful day. This is the No. 1 terrorist out there, by any measure. How many people has he tortured? How many people has he murdered? He is the premier terrorist of our time and has to be eradicated.

I ask us and all Americans to think about the freedoms we take for granted, to think about the fear the Iraqi people feel every day, and think about the sacrifice LCpl Thomas Blair and his fellow countrymen have made to ensure we will always enjoy these fundamental freedoms.

Our thoughts and prayers are with his family as they deal with the tragic loss of their son, LCpl Thomas Alan Blair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in SR-253, for a hearing on human space flight.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing to examine issues relating to military encroachment.

The meeting will be held in SD-406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 10 a.m., to mark up original bills, entitled, the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003; the Clean Diamond Trade Act; and the Tax Court Modernization Act. The Committee may also consider any or all of the following nominees: Mark Everson, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Diane L. Kroupa, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; Harry A. Haines, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; Robert Allen Wherry, Jr., to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; Joseph Robert Goeke, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; and, Raymond T. Wagner, Jr., to be Member of the Oversight Board, U.S. Department of Treasury.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Foreign Assistance Oversight

Witnesses

AF Panel (Senator Alexander to Chair): Mr. William A. Bellamy, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC; The Honorable Constance Berry Newman, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Africa, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

EUR Panel (Senator Allen to Chair): Mr. Charles P. Ries, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Europe and Eurasian Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC; The Honorable Kent R. Hill, Assistant Administrator, Bureau of Europe and Eurasian Affairs, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

WHA Panel (Senator Coleman to Chair): Mr. J. Curtis Struble, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC; The Honorable Adolfo A. Franco, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. to consider the nominations of the Clay Johnson, III to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget and Albert Casey and James C. Miller, III to be Governors for the United States Postal Service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 2, 2003.

The following agenda will be considered: S. Genetics Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2003; S. Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003; S. The Improved Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act; S. Caring for Children Act of 2003; S. 231, the ADAM Act.

Any nominees that have been cleared for action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 556, a bill to Reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Communications, be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in SR-253, for a hearing on Universal Service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 10 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management and Office of Legacy Management in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. President, I have been listening to the tributes to a great man. I probably have a different feeling about Patrick Moynihan than most people do. Many people are not aware Patrick Moynihan came from Tulsa, OK, my hometown. Most people think of him as being a New Yorker, but really he is not. We hit it off many years ago before he was even in the Senate. I considered him one of the really sincere and lovable liberals of our time.

People would ask, why are the two of you such close friends? I would explain to them that we have many things in common, even though ideologically we have nothing in common. In fact, during the years we served together in the Senate, his office was next to mine. When the bell would ring to come over and vote, I would walk to the door and wait for him so I could have those moments with him.

I don't think there is anyone who has had a more colorful career than Patrick Moynihan. It is one we will remember for a long time. But he had courage also. I used to say this about Paul Wellstone. There are few people who are really sincere in their philosophy, and yet they want to do the right thing. I remember standing right here when Patrick Moynihan, just a few seats over, stood up during one of our debates on partial-birth abortion, and he made this statement in a long and passionate speech, going into all kinds of detail as to what this barbaric procedure is. This is a quote. He said:

I am pro-choice, but partial-birth abortion is not

abortion. It is infanticide.

It took an awful lot of courage for him to say that.

I can tell you from when we knew each other back before our Senate days, following his colorful career has been a wonderful experience. I am hoping we will have others like him. We will be truly blessed if that is the case.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, this is something we are all familiar with, except perhaps new Members. Back in the fifties, we had a program to replace some of the money that was taken away when land was taken off the tax rolls. It is called impact aid.

Over the years, people started taking money out of this program. It is an easy place to grab money. It has gotten down to 40 percent funding. We are now up to 70 percent. The current legislation would leave it at 70 percent. This amendment will increase it by $112 billion, bringing it up to $1.3 billion, 76 percent. That keeps us on track to have it fully funded 5 more years.

That is what I said.

We are used to using the B's around here. It is $112 million.

That is right.

I appreciate that. I ask for the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, our brownfield legislation was very successful. Nothing is adequately funded, but this comes very close to being adequately funded. We put out an amendment to include the petroleum sites which doubles the scope of the brownfields program.

As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I do not believe it is necessary to have this additional amount of money. I ask you to defeat the amendment.

Mr. President, of all the amendments we have been talking about, this probably is the broadest tax increase of any of them. This is a tax increase on every business regardless of what business they are in, if their income tax shows $2 million or more. It has nothing to do with polluters. It also has a tax increase of 9.7 percent per barrel in excise oil and somewhere between 50 cents and $10 a ton in feedstocks. Right now we are getting the highest amount of cleanups and yet we have the lowest amount in the fund. It is really not needed now. This is not polluters pay. This is not a tax on polluters. This is a tax on people who do not pollute. The responsible parties are being held liable today.

We had a hearing on it in our Environment and Public Works Committee. They are all being held responsible. They are cleaning up the pollution. I urge a ``no'' vote on this tax increase proposal of Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. President, March 23 marks the 20th anniversary of President Reagan's historic address to the Nation in which he launched the program known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI, designed to help protect America and our allies from ballistic missile attack.

I would like to commemorate this occasion by placing a copy of President Reagan's remarks into the Record at this time.

With each passing year, we see more clearly the wisdom of President Reagan's vision. The spread of technology relating to ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction has grown enormously in 20 years. Since September 11, 2001--and now as we are engaged in military operations to disarm IRAQ--more people have become aware of the growing threats we face from missile attack.

When President Reagan spoke in 1983, he said it might take ``decades'' before reliable missile defense was a reality. And he was right. As he well knew, it was not only the technical and engineering hurdles that stood in the way, but also the formidable political obstacles.

During the Clinton years, the outdated ABM Treaty was enshrined as the ``cornerstone of strategic stability,'' SDI was essentially scrapped, and, in 1996, the Congress's determination to build a missile defense system by 2003 was vetoed.

But George W. Bush dramatically changed the political climate and has taken a different course--a course in keeping with President Reagan's commitment. In 2001, he wisely announced U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and in 2002, he announced that we would move to deploy the first elements, sea-based and land based for a real missile defense system capable of protecting U.S. cities from long-range missile attacks.

I applaud President Bush for his steadfast commitment to America's national security and to fulfilling President Reagan's vision. The bold actions he is taking are moving us forward to the actual deployment of a missile defense capability that will serve our country for many years to come.

I ask unanimous consent to have President Reagan's speech printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for a moment let me build on something the distinguished Senator from Michigan said talking about our troops. Having been on the Senate Armed Services Committee and having been chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness for a number of years, I have had a chance to talk to troops all over the world in all kinds of circumstances. Never have I seen such a commitment as is out there right now by these young troops.

I remember not long ago I was at a hospital where they were sending injured from Afghanistan. Without exception, each one of the injured troops--some sailors, some marines, some airmen, some Army--all said they were anxious to get back to their units. One young lady, whose name was Stennis--I remember her name because she was on the USS Stennis--a young sailor, she who got tangled up in a refueling line. It pulled her off to a free fall all the way down into the ocean, crushing both of her lungs. She was a very small person. She made it. She lived. She was in the hospital. Her words were these: I want to get well to get back to my units, and I want to make a career out of the U.S. Navy.

When I look at our distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, who was Secretary of the Navy, I can assure you we have never had sailors more committed than we have today. That is what is happening right now.

I am pleased we are beyond the point of talking about objections. There are three major objections that various individuals are trying to voice. One was: We cannot do anything without allies. We are glad to realize we have allies. We have some 45 nations supporting us in this effort to get rid of this terrorist, Saddam Hussein. But even if we weren't, we remember Grenada, Panama, we remember 1986 when Ronald Reagan was President and when Qadhafi had blown up a building, killing some of our soldiers. We did not have overflight permission, and President Reagan sent in F-111s and pounded Libya, and we have not heard from Qadhafi since.

The smoking gun argument, we all understand that what we are faced with, with Saddam Hussein--not Iraq, but Saddam Hussein--is an ability to do things that would not maybe kill 100 or 200 people but maybe a million people. Rich Butler, probably the most revered of the former weapons inspectors, said one warhead like they have in Iraq filled with 140 liters of VX gas could kill a million people. We have to reprogram ourselves and think in those terms.

If you did need a smoking gun--which we did not have to have--if you did, last night we learned there are smoking guns. He had denied he had the very missiles he sent over and used last night.

The last argument was there had to be a link with Osama bin Laden. We have to again reprogram ourselves because what we are dealing with now is a terrorist. This is not a war on Iraq, it is a liberation of the Iraqi people who have been oppressed and tortured for decades. There is a war involved. It is not a war on Iraq, it is a war against terrorism. This war was declared by our President at 8:30 in the evening on the fateful September 11. He said this is a war on terrorism. You go after the biggest terrorists.

A lot of people do not think of Saddam Hussein as a terrorist, but if you measure the severity of terrorism by the number of people someone has tortured or murdered, certainly no one can hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. In 1983, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented that he executed 8,000 of his own Kurdish citizens aged 13 and older. In 1985, it is reported they executed 315 children between the ages of 8 and 17. In 1988--we all remember this very well because that is when he set a record. We believe it is an all-time record that holds to this day. He murdered, in one day, 5,000 of his own citizens using a chemical that produces the most torturous kind of death, where your eyeballs are fried and your lungs are actually fried. There was mustard gas and other chemicals. That was in 1988. Then they talked about the 60 villages--Human Rights Watch--attacked with mustard gas. Women, children, it did not make any difference.

In 1990, Amnesty International listed 38 new methods of torture used by Saddam Hussein including mock execution, piercing of the hands with electric drills, electric shocks, sexual abuse, lowering the victims into baths of acid.

Then in 1999, at a peaceful demonstration, security forces fired into a crowd of protesters, killing hundreds of civilians, including women and children. In the year 2000, they were looking for a new way to punish those who might be suspected of saying something about Saddam Hussein. They had been sending them into prison, but the prisons were full, so the new method was to pull the tongue out and tear the tongue off.

In 1991, with a person I think very highly of, we made the first trip into Kuwait. It was so close after the war was over that they did not know the war was over and the fires were still going in the oil fields. The guns were still being fired. Alexander Haig, I, and a guy named Sauda Saba who was the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States of America, we went in there to see what it was like. Sauda Saba had his 7-year-old daughter with him. He was of royalty. We went to their house where we found out that Saddam Hussein had used his house as one of the headquarters. We went through the house and found that the young 7- year-old girl's bedroom had been used as a torture chamber. We found body parts and hair stuck to the walls.

I don't believe there is a terrorist anywhere who could be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. That is what this is all about. This is not a war on Iraq, it is the liberation of the people of Iraq. I honestly believe the dancing in the streets after Afghanistan will not hold a candle to the dancing in the streets we will see not just in Baghdad, but in all the oppressed surrounding nations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to support the Bond-Reid amendment to S. Con. Res. 23 which increases funding for highways to $255 billion and increases funding for transit to $56.5 billion. The amendment does not assume a tax increase. Nor do I take lightly that I am asking my colleagues to increase spending. Let me be very clear on this next point. This amendment does not have to mean deficit spending. There are choices we as a body can make to offset the increased spending. I share the same reservations that many of my colleagues do about deficit spending.

Normally, I would be down here urging you to vote against any such amendment. I would like you to consider the following before you make up your mind on this amendment.

The primary purposes of federal spending are to support a strong national defense and to invest in and maintain a strong national infrastructure.

Unfortunately, we are coming out of an extended period in which we neglected defense spending and we are now having to play catch up. During the Clinton Administration, 1993-2001, defense spending was $407 billion under the rate of inflation. Yet during that same period, government spending increased. This increased spending went to domestic programs. I personally believe that, given this wartime environment, those domestic programs should now shoulder an across the board cut. I am not here to make that argument today, but rather to discuss the importance of increased transportation spending.

Projected highway trust fund receipts do not support the level of spending in the amendment. However, we need to be honest in our analysis and recognize that the lag in trust fund receipts is temporary because of a slow economy and a sharp increase in the cost of fuel. Once the economy recovers and gas prices stabilize, receipt will increase above the current projections. Additionally, we need to get the revenue currently lost to the trust fund from users of the system who do not pay their fair share.

As much as it pains me to say this, this budget resolution fails to provide sufficient funding to maintain our nation's infrastructure, much less improve it. The Federal Highway Administration's, FHWA, recent 2002 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance report states the following:

. . . maintaining the overall conditions and performance of

highways and bridges at current levels would require

significantly more investment by all levels of government. .

. . the average annual investment [needs] to be . . . 17.5

percent larger.

The resolution before us sets spending at $30.5 billion in FY04, increases it to $35.1 billion in FY05 and then flat lines it at that level through FY09, for an average investment of $34.3 billion per year. This represents a significant shortfall of over $80 billion from 2004 to 2009 to simply maintain the existing system.

Again, quoting from the Conditions and Performance report:

Despite the historic investments in highway infrastructure

and improving conditions on many roads and bridges,

operational performance--the use of that infrastructure--has

steadily deteriorated over the past decade. In 1987, for

example, a trip that would take 20 minutes during non-

congested periods required, on average, 25.8 minutes under

congested conditions. By 2000, the same trip under congested

conditions required 30.2 minutes, or an additional 4.4

minutes.

Colleagues, this resolution simply does not adequately address the needs. The Bond-Reid amendment sets a reasonable spending level of $39.2 billion in FY04 and moves us in a direction that at least maintains existing infrastructure.

My colleagues on the Budget Committee will argue that this amendment breaks the link between user fees and highway spending because it does not assume an increase in gas taxes. That is not correct. We can pay for this increased spending as I will outline. In the final analysis, the relevant Committees and this body will determine the best ways to pay for this amendment if we choose to do so.

I will now talk about how we can increase spending on transportation and pay for it without increasing the deficit.

First, the trust fund needs to be reimbursed the $8 billion in highway user fees that were transferred to the general fund during the drafting of TEA21. Those were dollars paid by highway users and should be used on highway infrastructure. This is a moral issue. When the motorist pays the gas tax at the pump, they rightly expect that the dollars they pay in taxes will be used for transportation infrastructure. We broke faith with them when we allowed the $8 billion transfer to the general fund.

Furthermore, we as a nation have made some policy choices to encourage the use of certain fuels that cost the highway trust money. Most of us understand that the 5.2 cent tax incentive for ethanol use comes directly from the highway trust fund because ethanol users do not pay the full 18.4 cents per gallon. I believe most would agree that the highway trust fund should be compensated for this amount which is estimated to be over $9 billion. A vehicle that uses an alternative fuel creates the same wear and tear on the system as a gasoline powered vehicle.

Additionally, there is a national policy to encourage the purchase of hybrid and electric vehicles. While these vehicles address an important policy goal of promoting clean burning transportation, they also cost the highway trust fund money. They either pay a limited amount of fuel taxes because their vehicles are hybrids, or in the case of electric vehicles they do not sue gasoline at all and thus do not pay anything into the highway trust fund. Yet the highway trust fund is expected to

pay for the infrastructure for their use. Currently there are 640,000 hybrid vehicles on the road. It is estimated that by 2009 there will be 5 million. This is going to be a real problem in the future in terms of how we fund transportation infrastructure. It is irresponsible to not address this before it becomes a crisis. We need to work now on coming up with a fair mechanism whereby the highway trust fund is compensated for these vehicles using the highway system. I believe that could result in up to $10 billion of new revenue into the trust fund.

Indexing the current gas tax to inflation would result in about a one-half cent increase per year and yield $17 billion from 2004-2009.

Additional options include:

Interest on the trust fund cash balance--$3 billion plus;

Fuel Tax Evasion Measures--$6 billion;

Lost interest on the $8.1 billion transfer--$2 billion;

Retroactive Interest on TEA-21 cash balance, 1991-2003, $4.5 billion;

Bonding--$30 billion, American Association of State Highway Officials;

Clinton Gas Tax Increase Paid into General Fund--over $40 billion.

On this last option, I realize it is not feasible, but that doe not take away the fact that this money belongs to the highway trust fund.

Added together, these ideas generate more than enough to offset the increased spending proposed by this amendment.

Again, I oppose deficit spending and will not ask my colleagues to do so. If I did not believe that there was a way to get this spending without increasing the deficit, I would not be down here today asking you to vote for it. Personally, I support across the board cuts to pay for the amendment, but again, I recognize others do not share my feelings on this and so I have given several very viable options from which to choose.

Finally, I realize that in times of economic downturn and the war, Senators are hesitant to further increase spending. I don't think my reputation around here is that of someone who goes out of his way to increase government spending. I would hope that most recognize that I am a strong advocate of slowing down the rate of government spending and in most cases I favor cutting spending. In this instance, I believe it is the right thing to increase spending because we cannot strengthen our economy unless we have an efficient transportation system. In order to improve our transportation system we need to invest significantly more than is assumed by this budget resolution.

Today's vote is the first step in drafting a bill that will govern how and where our transportation dollars are spent. If we short change ourselves today we won't get a bill that improves transportation or adds to the national economy. I ask you give the Environment and Public Works Committee the head room we need to write a bill.

Support the Bond-Reid amendment and know that it can be done without increasing the deficit by using some of the above mentioned options.