Floor Statements

Yes.

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

Mr. President, the vote we are about to take is not just a cloture vote on a transportation bill. The vote to move forward on this legislation is about safety, it is about worker productivity, it is about family, it is about fairness, and it is about fulfilling our responsibility to the American public. But most importantly, it is about jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs.

These jobs are not in China or Singapore or Chile. These jobs are in Portland, Springfield, Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Burlington. This legislation is balanced, it is fair, and it is paid for. We owe it to our constituents to finish this bill today. Tomorrow let's send it to the House and then to the President.

I urge my colleagues to support moving forward and completing this vital legislation. Vote for cloture, vote for jobs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back our time, through the Chair.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, this bill contains a very carefully crafted formula. This committee worked for close to a year to develop the formula contained in S. 1072. Balance, that is what this bill is about. The donor States such as Texas have gained 95 percent. That has been their goal for 6 years. Some would say for longer. Now they have achieved their goal and they are still complaining.

This formula is fair. The formula the Senator from Texas put forward would undermine the highway program in many States and therefore I oppose the amendment.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Grassley and Baucus for the contributions they have made to this very important measure. They worked diligently to come up with the funding to pay for the programs contained in this legislation. The Finance Committee has provided the revenue to meet the needs of the three committees that contributed to this bill. In doing so they protected revenue that deserves to be in the highway trust fund and found appropriate ways to offset these costs. Through their hard work we can report that this bill is paid for.

Technically, a budget point of order can be lodged against this bill because a small amount of general revenue is needed. But I want all my colleagues to remember that we have gone beyond the budget for the war, for defense spending, and for tax cuts. Has the spending contained in these type of measures resulted in the creation of U.S.-based jobs? That is debatable. But this bill is a jobs bill. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this bill will create many, many jobs. Should we bring this bill down over a small technicality? No. We should pass this bill today.

I yield the floor with full confidence that we will do so.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment. The previous speaker has outlined articulately the huge loss in productivity this Nation suffers because of the present situation with respect to our highways, and that if we don't do something about it, we, obviously, are not going to get the productivity we need. With international competition from all over the world now, lost productivity becomes even more important as we go forward.

Many in this body have argued that the level of funding in our bill is too low. In fact, if we look at the transportation needs of the Nation, they may be right. What we have done in this legislation is to follow the will of the Senate.

Last year, during debate on the budget, this body overwhelmingly voted in favor of the budget levels contained in this bill. In addition, our levels are almost $60 billion less than the House proposal--again, $60 billion below the House. In fact, our bill falls right between what the President wants and what the House wants. We are in the right place. I could be wrong--maybe I am--that we should accept that low a level, but we will never get this bill to the President's level. And without a bill, we risk missing out on the creation of many jobs.

The American people need these jobs. The biggest problem we have right now is the lack of effort to pull forward and increase productivity and to increase the number of available jobs. This bill will do it. It will create thousands of new jobs, and it will create them within proper areas of expenditure.

This is a good bill. I would like to see it a little bigger. Maybe we will get it a little bigger. The House is certainly going to give us that opportunity. Right now what we should do is pass this bill and get it on to the President.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like my fellow Senators to learn of some of the tremendous advances we have been able to make under this bill in the past relative to the changing needs of our Nation. I am going to spend just a few minutes on the North Street Revitalization Project.

This effort is an innovative transportation project in Vermont that demonstrates the value of the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program, also know as the TCSP.

When the TCSP was authorized in TEA-21, the city of Burlington quickly realized that this innovative program could be used to revitalize a blighted neighborhood called the Old North End.

North Street is located in the heart of Burlington's Old North End.

The North Street revitalization project was born of a need to reinvigorate one of Burlington's oldest and most densely populated neighborhoods, a neighborhood where nearly a third of

the inhabitants fall below Federal poverty levels, where over 85 percent of elementary school children receive free and reduced price lunches.

It has been a wonderful example of a community using transportation funds to fight sprawl by investing in an older urban neighborhood.

I do not exaggerate when I say that efforts to revitalize the Old North End have been underway for over 20 years. The early TCSP Program grant for North Street has been the single most important factor in the success that the project is finally achieving.

I am pleased to report that the project is out to bid and construction will commence this spring. In addition, business activity in the neighborhood is way up and housing investment is increasing. The optimism is infectious and the infrastructure work has barely just begun.

As you can tell, I am very excited by this project. But I have chosen to highlight the project for another reason.

The North Street revitalization project is an excellent example of the benefits of the TCSP. The TCSP allows projects such as this one to develop all over this country. It encourages communities to consider the ways in which transportation investment can improve mobility, economic vitality, and quality of life.

I am pleased to say that we have continued this program in our reauthorization package and increased the funding associated with it. This is only one of the many excellent programs that this bill authorizes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I would concur with the comments of my colleagues and join Senator Warner by reiterating the need to preserve our history.

In my state of Vermont, we have a wealth of history and natural beauty. To see the wildlife that populates the Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge or the covered bridges used by our forefathers is to experience a heritage that we all want preserved for future generations.

Section 4(f) has helped preserve these treasures. The Revolutionary War site at Fort Venegence on Route 7 in Pittsford, Vermont, was avoided as a result of 4(f).

An excellent collection of historic metal truss bridges across the Connecticut River was rehabilitated, not replaced, as a result of 4(f).

A road in the Danville Historic District was narrowed in order to keep the historic characteristics of the historic village because of 4(f).

Section 4(f) protections have served us well and will continue to safeguard our precious resources in the future.

Mr. President, section 4(f) of the highway bill provides important protections for historic sites, parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges throughout the country. With the increasing demand for transportation projects, it is important that we not lose sight of our natural treasures. We need to balance the growing need for transportation with responsible stewardship of our history and natural resources.

In my State of Vermont, we have a wealth of history and natural beauty. To see the wildlife that populate the Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge or the covered bridges used by our forefathers is to experience a heritage that we all want preserved for future generations.

Section 4(f) has helped preserve these treasures. The Revolutionary War site at Fort Vehemence on Route 7 in Pittsford, Vermont, was avoided as a result of 4(f).

An excellent collection of historic metal truss bridges across the Connecticut River were rehabilitated, not replaced, as a result of 4(f).

A road in the Danville Historic District was narrowed in order to keep the historic characteristics of the historic village because of 4(f).

While constructing a new highway in Vermont, we have discovered a significant archeological site containing artifacts from Native Americans, providing us with a piece of history that until now was not known. By documenting this site, we will expand our knowledge of Vermont's Native Americans. Also, because of 4(f) protections.

An amendment to 4(f) is included in this legislation. The objective of this amendment is to allow transportation projects and programs to move forward more quickly, while maintaining the protections of 4(f). Those protections assure that there will be public notice and opportunity for public review and comment on proposed de minimis determinations for transportation projects, and that affected agencies will concur in the decision of the Secretary of Transportation that there will be no adverse impact on a historic site, recreation area, park, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge.

The amendment would require the Secretary of Transportation, when making a finding that a transportation project or program will have a de minimis impact, to consider all avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement measures that have been incorporated into the project. This provision allows project sponsors to incorporate environmentally protective measures into the project from the beginning, in order to support a finding of de minimis impact. These mitigation measures must be backed by enforceable agreements and post-construction monitoring of the effectiveness of these impact mitigation measures, with identified contingency measures to backstop the primary mitigation measures. In other words, the mitigation measures must be carried and be shown to have the intended impact. If they are not having the intended impact, other measures must be used to ensure no adverse impact.

In addition to the 4(f) provisions, this contains some modest, common-sense provisions to assure the transportation planners will consider the location of important habitat, wetlands and other natural resources at the earliest stages of planning for new roads.

These provisions will make project delivery faster and more efficient. Currently, transportation projects are often planned without detailed information on core conservation areas, sensitive resources or important habitat that might lie within the selected corridor. These conflicts do not come to light until the environmental review process, which then becomes more expensive and time-consuming as transportation and resource officials try to reconcile infrastructure and conservation activities.

These provisions will help transportation planners in avoiding unnecessary impacts on wildlife habitat and in mitigating for unavoidable impacts of a project.

These provisions encourage States to utilize available wildlife habitat data and maps to inform the long range transportation planning process. Planners would be able to identify potential concerns at the earliest stage of planning, when options for minimizing impacts are greatest and costs of doing so are lowest.

Over 200 Americans die each year in wildlife-vehicle collisions, many more are injured and more than 1 million animals are killed on our roadways everyday.

State and Federal agencies spend considerable time and money both protecting natural areas and building transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, conservation and growth efforts often happen independently and then come into conflict during the permitting and construction phases of a transportation project. These investments need to be coordinated. If conservation efforts are taken into account at the earliest stages of transportation planning, both priorities can be realized, in less time and at less cost.

The most significant threat to the biodiversity of this country is habitat loss. However, thoughtful, forward-looking transportation planning can go a long way towards reducing negative impacts and mitigating for unavoidable impacts.

Over the next few decades, the decisions we make regarding highways and the ensuring loss of habitat will determine the fate of species and America's biodiversity. These provisions are aimed at helping to preserve that biodiversity through coordinated planning.

Mr. President, first I want to commend my good friend from Oklahoma for all of the effort he put into this bill. I know, having been in the position of being the chairman at one time, the incredible effort that goes into the production of a bill of this size. I know what his staff did, and I will give my commendation to the staff as well.

I emphasize also the importance to the Nation. This is a jobs bill. In fact, there is no other jobs bill that will do so much for different workers of this Nation. Everyone benefits. Those who are in the manufacturing area of all the tools and equipment that are necessary to provide the work all benefit by the tremendous effort that goes into improving roads throughout this Nation. Also, there is a tremendous effort put into it which requires machinery. Therefore, the companies that make the machinery benefit with increased production, increased utilization of workers, right on down through to the people who do the minimal things which are also so very important.

As far as the staffs goes, I would like to thank the staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on both sides of the aisle, for their efforts.

From my staff, I thank Ken Connolly, Ed Barron, Jeff Squires, Erik Steavens, Liz Ryan, Alison Taylor, and Carolyn Dupree; Catharine Ransom, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and J.C. Sandberg with Senator Reid's staff. Chairman Inhofe's staff, I would like to acknowledge and recognize Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Marty Hall and James O'Keefe; from Senator Bond's staff, Ellen Stein and Trevor Blackann.

These staffers have made tremendous sacrifices, working long hours and many days, to bring about the fruition of this bill. We are all proud of it, and the country is going to be proud of it. The more they see of it, the more they will like it, and the more people will benefit from having better jobs.

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

Mr. President, let me reiterate how important this bill is to our country's infrastructure and our country's economy.

This bill will provide desperately needed funds to rebuild decaying roads and bridges and to improve transit systems across the country. It will pump billions of dollars into real, lasting improvements in physical infrastructure.

In the process it will provide new, quality jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced. I repeat--these are jobs that cannot be outsourced.

The President says that this bill is too expensive. He also apparently believes that outsourcing American jobs is a good thing. He is wrong on both counts.

If we can spend billions rebuilding Iraq's physical infrastructure, surely we can find the money to maintain America's transportation infrastructure. Without well-maintained roads, bridges, and transit systems, our economy will inevitably suffer.

Let's keep the big picture in view here. This bill spends money to pay Americans for work done in this country. This work translates directly into improved roads, bridges, and transit systems. Better infrastructure reduces transaction costs and makes the economy more efficient. This is an economic fact.

This bill also reduces congestion on our Nation's roadways by enhancing public transportation and promoting intermodal solutions to regional transportation problems.

As we all know, less congestion means shorter commute times. Shorter commute times means more time for productive activity. This too is an economic fact.

But this bill goes far beyond simply improving the infrastructure in this country. It also enhances our ability to move goods across our borders in trade with Canada and Mexico. By enhancing freight capacity and improving binational transportation planning efforts, the bill reduces the transactions costs associated with cross-border trade.

That means that American consumers will pay lower prices for imports from Canada and Mexico. It also means that our exports will be less expensive for Canadian and Mexican consumers, and that's good for American manufacturers. This too is an economic fact.

Finally, as several of my colleagues have noted, this bill will also enhance safety on our Nation's highways. With improved safety we can reduce injuries and loss of life from highway accidents. That's obviously good for the American people in a deeply personal sense. It is also good for the country as a whole because it reduces the social costs associated with injury and loss of life.

Our country needs this bill and it needs it now. I urge my colleagues to help pass this bill before the Senate concludes its business this week.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I commend the Senator for his accurate statement relative to the purported threats. There was no way to deliver. I think 900 miles was the furthest rockets could carry, and there was no threat really ever given anyway. I want to clear that up from my perspective.

I thank the Senator from South Carolina more so for the wonderful economic history of this Nation he has given us and how we came to the incredibly strong positions we were in but now find ourselves dissipating all those great triumphs we had in the past and watching them all march overseas.

I think what Senator Hollings has given us today ought to be put in marble so everybody can read and better understand the situation of this Nation at this time. I thank him for that wonderful contribution to our history.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement. I want to reassure all of our Members that we will be working together and have been working together, and we will find a solution to many of those amendments. We won't unless they are filed. The sooner they are filed, the sooner we may even have a chance to get home for the weekend. That might be incentive for some.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the EPW Committee has been working this bill for the past 2 years. Senators Inhofe, Bond, and Reid and I have been very involved in this process. From the beginning, we wanted to accomplish a few important national goals: First, improve roads and bridges; second, move freight; third, address congestion; and fourth, improve safety.

Congestion is a growing concern all across America. Each day, Americans spend more time in their cars as they pursue routine activities, such as going to work, taking the kids to school, or picking up some groceries. As our Nation's population grows, travel demands grow as well.

The number of miles traveled annually on our Nation's roads is increasing at a substantial rate.

Many roads are at or approaching their physical capacity. In many areas of the country, it is both impractical and financially infeasible to add lanes to existing roadways.

However, we can increase capacity by actively managing the transportation network.

Intelligent transportation systems provide State and local governments the data and tools necessary to undertake time saving activities like incident management, ramp metering, traveler advisory systems, and variable pricing.

Over the past 10 years, some areas of the country have begun to implement these techniques, and they have realized numerous benefits.

Areas that employ transportation management techniques enjoy improved travel times, more timely incident management, and improved communication with the traveling public.

Crafting this reauthorization bill, we recognized the importance of enhancing State and local governments' ability to manage their infrastructure now and in the future.

S. 1072 expands Surface Transportation Program eligibility to ensure that States may use Federal highway dollars to manage their network.

The bill shifts Intelligent Transportation Systems out of the research realm and into the mainstream program. States may use core highway program dollars to fund ITS projects.

S. 1072 directs the Secretary to implement a nationwide real-time travel data network. Additionally, States are directed to develop statewide incident reporting systems.

Implementation of these systems will assist travelers and provide State and local transportation agencies the information they need to manage our current infrastructure and to plan for future improvements.

Finally, S. 1072 provides resources to examine future management technologies. The research title of the bill includes provisions to develop the next generation of intelligent transportation systems and management tools.

The research title also provides resources to train the engineers who will design, build, and manage our future transportation infrastructure.

Mr. President, I think it is clear that S. 1072 addresses congestion in a proactive manner by providing policy changes and financial resources to promote the efficient use of our Nation's transportation infrastructure.

As I have said before, passage of this bill is critical. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to provide much-needed resources to our States.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is my understanding correct that the Senator said there will be no authority to be able to get documents or be able to subpoena information?

Being one of those who never believed there was a threat of any kind and a sufficient level to warrant the war, it shocks me to find out the route being set up to verify what I believed to be the truth will have no power to find the truth. This is very disturbing for me.

I thank the Senator from Florida for enlightening me on this very disturbing news. I will do whatever I can, working with him and with others, to make sure we get the kind of resolution for finding the information which should be ours to be able to make judgments. I thank the Senator very much for his statement.

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

Mr. President, I would like to continue my discussion about key provisions of S. 1072. In particular, I would like to discuss some of the bicycle and pedestrian provisions. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 5,600 pedestrians and bicyclists were killed in traffic accidents in 2001. Tens of thousands more were injured in traffic accidents.

In that same year, more than one-fifth of the bikers killed in traffic crashes were between the ages of 5 and 15, our Nation's children. Pedestrian and bicyclist fatality numbers have been slowly decreasing over the years, but one death is too many. We must improve our record.

S. 1072 provides resources to help States address this safety problem. Our bill reauthorizes the bicycle/pedestrian provisions found in TEA-21. We recognize the importance of these provisions. More people walking and bicycling means fewer people in cars. It means healthier communities and a cleaner environment. We should promote it. Under our proposal, States may continue to use core program dollars to fund improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians.

However, if we really want to encourage people to walk and bicycle around

our communities, we must make these activities safer. Mr. President, 5,600 fatalities is an unacceptable number.

In addition to reauthorizing current programs, our bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to make safety grants to fund an information clearinghouse and educational programs to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety. These provisions will support existing efforts to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to transportation facilities and to enhance safety for all transportation users.

I believe that these provisions in the bill, if taken into use by our States and communities, will do a great deal to protect the children presently in our system and in the future.

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

Mr. President, I, first, commend my good friend from Oklahoma, and then I will give my synopsis of some of the areas of this bill. I have just never worked with someone who has been more cooperative--and our staffs--to bring about a consensus in a very difficult bill. A little change here and a little change there will change millions of dollars and who it goes to and will bring about a consensus that will at least make enough people happy to vote for the bill, which is the ultimate goal.

We have made great progress. I think we are now in a position where we are going to be able to move forward.

TEA-21 provided record funding levels for transportation, which allowed States and local governments to make greater investments in our transportation systems than ever before. S. 1072 will continue that trend.

In crafting this bill, Chairman Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Reid, and I wanted to ensure the resources available under this bill would be spent wisely and responsibly.

During our hearings, we learned of challenges facing communities and transportation agencies trying to manage a full load of increasingly complex transportation projects. In response, we crafted a bill that will improve the delivery and stewardship of the Federal aid highway program.

First, we have expanded the scope of a program called ``value engineering.'' Value engineering provides States and local governments an additional approach to examining transportation projects before they are finalized. It promotes improved design, construction, and funding of transportation projects.

Second, we have included provisions to address issues that arise when State and local governments develop large-scale projects, so-called mega projects that cost over $1 billion.

To ensure these projects are developed and managed efficiently, S. 1072 requires project management and financial plans.

Finally, to ensure that money received by the States is properly accounted for, we direct the Secretary to annually review States' financial management systems.

As my colleagues can see, S. 1072 provides record levels of funding for transportation investment and the provisions to ensure we are good stewards of the public funds.

I look forward to going into the amendment process and making sure we work, hopefully, efficiently and effectively and quickly to get this bill before us in final form before too long.

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

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

Mr. President, the transportation planning process is a critical component of any surface transportation program or project. Poor planning may lead to cost overruns, project delays, and even project cancellations. An early and comprehensive planning process can help stakeholders and project sponsors to identify and overcome potential problems so transportation projects proceed smoothly.

Our bill includes several provisions to encourage better planning practices at both the State and metropolitan levels. We make some additions to current law to encourage transportation planning agencies to consider our environmental, natural resource, and community health issues early in the planning process.

The bill directs transportation planners to consult with relevant resource agencies when developing long-range transportation plans.

Improved coordination will promote long-range plans and project proposals that adequately consider and address the diverse implications of transportation projects. Improved interagency consultation and coordination is only one component of a successful plan.

As I have said before, transportation investment is about people and communities. It is about making life better for our citizens by providing an efficient, safe, and comprehensive transportation system.

A successful transportation program is one that considers the needs and the wishes of the people it serves. Our bill will enhance public participation in the planning process, encouraging projects that meet our infrastructure needs without sacrificing the environment or quality of life.

Finally, our bill emphasizes the role of new and emerging technologies in transportation planning. Geospatial mapping technologies have inspired innovative and successful planning processes in many States around the country. We encourage States to continue to develop and implement those technologies and to integrate them into the transportation planning process.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Diana Harrington of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 1072.

Mr. President, I do.

Mr. President, S. 1072 will send billions of dollars to the States. It provides the resources to maintain the transportation infrastructure that we use and enjoy every day. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake. It is imperative that we pass this bill this week.

Our staff has worked diligently for many months to prepare this comprehensive proposal. They have addressed concerns raised by various Members. It is time for us to complete this bill and send it to the House.

I would like to continue the discussion I began last week and speak for a few minutes about some of the key provisions of the transportation bill. As I have mentioned in earlier statements, our Environment and Public Works Committee conducted a very thorough hearing process as part of our preparations of S. 1072.

A consistent theme from those hearings was that the national transportation program has worked well over the last 12 years, following the principles set forth in ISTEA and enjoying the funding guarantees established in TEA-21.

We therefore sought to refine rather than revise the program. A key reflection of that decision is the pattern of resource allocation in the bill.

We grew each of the core programs--interstate maintenance, national highway system, bridge, surface transportation, and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement--in proportion to its funding in current law. We could have played politics with these funding allocations, but we chose to maintain the overall balance of the program.

Also based on consistent testimony from our many witnesses, we retained the flexibility that has become a hallmark of the surface transportation program.

Rather than make political adjustments in Washington to suit the needs of an individual State or region, we yield to State and local officials, working through an open planning process, to move funds among the core programs as best fits their unique and individual needs.

Further, under current law and reinforced in S. 1072, we permit money to be ``flexed'' among the various transport modes--highways, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, intermodal transfers, and rail.

By maintaining balance among the core programs along with flexibility on program and modal spending at the State and local level, we seek to foster a more balanced and ``right fit'' outcome on the ground.

The right combination of investments will vary from place to place. And a single solution--roads only or transit only--is likely to be a poor fit for a diverse and dynamic modern American community.

As I traveled our Nation over the past 2 years, I saw intermodalism on the rise. In place after place, the solution to traffic congestion and the solution to freight mobility combined roadway and rail investments with improved operations.

The balance and flexibility in S. 1072 will be essential to support these complex and ambitious solutions.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I have been here a long time, as the Senator from Oklahoma has. Have we had anybody come down?

Well, I hope the Senator from Ohio will get such enthusiasm created with his speech that we can spend the rest of the time making some progress.

Yes.

Madam President, I also add to the accolades to my good friend from Mississippi for putting in perspective where we are and what we must do to make this a reality. This Nation cannot wait much longer to have the funds that will be available under this bill in order to enhance the employment growth as well as the needs of this Nation to be more efficient and effective in all categories of life. We must work together. We must work quickly. And we should start today.

I thank the Chair.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I would like to take you back to when the highway program was started by President Eisenhower. As I remember, one of the big concerns at that time was the inability of this Nation to defend itself, some real problems that were created for the defense of this Nation, because the highway system from East to West and North to South was so poor that in the event we did get an invasion in different areas, we would have little or no chance to get the troops there and mobilize them on the scene. We recognized at that time we had serious defense problems unless we improved the infrastructure of the United States. Am I correct in my understanding of that?

Do we not have other problems, in the sense of trying to move freight across the country and making the highways safe? We took the intermodal transportation systems we had, and a lot of that takes funds we would normally use, is that not true? Mr. Reid, yes. That is why it was called intermodal transportation system--ISTEA.

The reason, as I said before, is we learned a few bills ago that just simply pouring more asphalt is not the way to solve all the problems in this country. What this bill takes into consideration is ways to more efficiently move people and products across our country. We have done the best we can on this.

Again, I don't see how this, in any form or fashion, can be pork. This is different than our regular appropriations bills. I think people are overly critical of those, but this is not even in the same category.

I also go back to some of Senator Moynihan's concerns years ago. Now looking at what is going on in China and other places, with the development of intermodal systems or the ability to travel at much faster rates of speed, to move--in their case--millions of people who want to travel, is that not also something we are trying to look at, trying to make sure we will not lose our position in the world with respect to our transportation methodology?

Also, isn't this a job creation bill and is this not a time when this Nation is in dire need of improving the employment of people who desire to have work?

Madam President, I appreciate the contributions of the Senator in helping us better understand the need for and also the great benefits of this legislation. I am sure when Members go to a vote--if we ever get to a vote--we will overwhelmingly accept the Senator's concept of what should and could be done. I appreciate what the Senator has done to make this bill as good as it is.

Madam President, I would like to make one further statement. The Senator from Arizona indicated we dramatically changed the highway formula. The bill reported out of the EPW Committee, in fact, does not change the underlying formulas for interstate bridges, national highways, and air quality. The only change we made was to increase the return to donor States while ensuring growth to each and every State. The EPW Committee wanted to put forth a bill that achieved fair balance and growth in every State. As in all of our national programs, we direct resources in our bill to the 50 States in order to maintain a national system. If we only sent funds to programs on a State-by-State basis, and then based it only on the ratios of the taxes paid from each State, we would be balkanized and disunified.

I believe our bill is fair, balanced, equitable, and national in scope. As States grow, donor States grow. Every State is equipped to carry the share of the burden it is supporting on the national transportation system.

This is a good bill. Let us get it done.

Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the Senate leaders for their strong support in reauthorizing the Nation's transportation program, and also my good friend from New Jersey who lends his participation and expertise in coming up with a good bill. He has worked very hard. I deeply appreciate what he has done. Senators Frist and Daschle have spoken forcefully to the vital nature of S. 1072, its potential to create jobs and spur the economy.

The American people are counting on us to advance this important legislation. With the stellar bipartisanship of leaders Senators Frist and Daschle, I am confident we will succeed. Having worked now for many months with my good friend from Oklahoma, I know we will succeed.

As we consider this massive surface transportation bill, there is a tendency to focus on the State-by-State funding matter, overlooking the important policy initiatives and broad implications that attend to the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars.

I do not question the importance of the funding formulas. We spent countless hours examining options and developing an approach that benefits all States and balances competing interests.

But today, and through the course of our debate on S. 1072, I want to discuss the many forward-looking refinements that my colleagues and I have put forward for consideration.

Transportation investment is a means to an end. Our Nation has grown and prospered through strategic development of ports, trails, roads, rails, airports, highways, subways, and byways. In almost every case, our great cities can trace their origins--their very existence--to the logistics of transportation as one of the many eras of our Nation's expansion.

The form and expanse of our cities and towns are an outgrowth of surface transportation technology and investment. In my State of Vermont, even today, the distance between village centers reflects historic travel times by horse and wagon.

Older suburbs in the eastern and midwestern United States are located along early twentieth century trolley lines--lines later abandoned and now being renewed.

Our great sprawling sunbelt and western cities are a product of many key technologies, not the least of which is the modern highway. And it is the greatest highway network in the world--the Eisenhower Interstate Defense Highway System--that has tied our Nation and its many regions so closely together as we move into the twenty-first century.

Transportation investment truly forms our Nation and its communities. That is why our decisions on transportation policy and program structure--both in Congress and at home in our States and communities-- must be balanced, well-informed, and forward-looking. I am proud that S. 1072 reflects this understanding.

We are probably coming to a conclusion for the week. I thank all of those who have succeeded in making sure this bill is proceeding properly, especially my good friend from Oklahoma, with whom I have worked. I know he will assist us in making sure this bill becomes a reality in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee not only for their work on this important part of the legislation but also for their willingness to work with me to reconcile the environmental provisions that are contained in this amendment with the provisions contained in S. 1072.

S. 1072 amends title 23 of the United States Code to provide for adjustments in the transportation planning process. The amendment the Banking Committee has admirably drafted contains similar provisions that amend title 49 of the code.

I understand that for the sake of good policy--that is, minimal confusion to the entities that must implement this law--the chairman and ranking member are willing to work with us to craft provisions that are consistent with the two titles. I thank the Senators for their help.

Mr. President, I am also very pleased that the bill the Environment and Public Works Committee reported contains a provision that will help fund community efforts to provide safe routes to schools for schoolchildren who walk or who ride their bikes to school.

This would include funding for overpasses, underpasses, red lights, or other ways to help reduce accidents and keep schoolchildren safer.

The exact use of the funds would depend on the needs of the local community. The funding is important because many school districts have a policy of prohibiting bus service for children living within a mile or perhaps a half mile of the school.

A National Academy of Sciences report shows that, on average, almost 16,000 schoolage children per year are injured or killed during normal school travel hours. Let me repeat that number. Almost 16,000 schoolchildren are injured or killed during normal school travel hours. Thus, I support strong funding for safer routes to the schools.

I know that in my home State of Vermont, especially in the dark winter mornings when it is icy, schoolchildren can be at risk while walking to school. When Vermont warms up, many schoolchildren may choose to ride bikes to school, and we should make it as safe as possible for them to get safely to and from school.

Often school districts do not provide bus service to children living near the schools they attend. Yet research shows that many children are injured within a mile or so of their homes.

The provision in our bill will provide $70 million per year to help States and local communities reduce these serious risks to schoolchildren. The committee report notes that the purpose of this program is to enable and to encourage children to walk and bicycle to school and encourages a healthy and active lifestyle by making walking and biking to school safer or a more appealing transportation alternative for those living close to school.

I look forward to working with the other body on this important initiative. I know that safe routes to schools is important to my friend, Congressman Oberstar, and to a great many of his colleagues.

I thank Senators Inhofe and Bond for working with Senator Reid and me on this important issue. We worked out a strong provision regarding safe routes to school.

Mr. President, I wish to briefly discuss the freight provisions we have included in this bill. We have crafted a package that provides considerable flexibility to States and metropolitan planning organizations in addressing freight rail concerns.

We have made improvements to intermodal freight transportation projects eligible for the Surface Transportation Program and the National Highway System funding.

We will have each State designate a freight coordinator to assist in integrating freight concerns into statewide planning and metropolitan planning.

We have also included funding to improve the condition and performance of the National Highway System intermodal connectors. These connectors are those last mile connections to ports and other freight- related facilities that experience a high volume of traffic and have not received the proper amount of attention in the past.

These freight rail provisions make our bill very responsive to the needs of the freight community.

These are important sections of the bill. I wish to emphasize the need for transit improvement. As we travel around this Nation, from California to New York--wherever we go--we have to develop better ways for our transit systems to be more effective. Looking worldwide, we have seen incredible improvements in some countries that are very populous with the utilization of new transit systems and new modes of transportation, such as maglev and other evolving systems. This is very important, and it is going to be more important as we continue to go forward and continue to increase the number of automobiles on our highways.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank my chairman. I understand his dedication to doing so much more as we go forward. We are accomplishing a lot today, and yet we still have to sit down and look to the future as soon as we are done with the present.

Mr. President, I recognize my good friend from Maryland.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Smallwood, a fellow in the office of Senator Lieberman, be granted the privilege of the floor for the consideration of S. 1072, the highway bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the Senator. I echo those words with respect to the chairman's cooperation as well. It has been a pleasure to work with him and his staff. I am glad we are where we are now.

I wish to speak briefly on yesterday's incident that apparently involved ricin. First, I thank Majority Leader Frist for his calm and professional approach to this matter. I also thank the Capitol Police, the Attending Physician, and everyone who assisted in responding to this incident.

As many of my colleagues know, my personal office is adjacent to Senator Frist's office on the first floor, and my committee staff is located across the hall from Senator Frist, so we were hit twice as hard on this episode.

Nearly a dozen of my staff members were quarantined last night and later decontaminated. They did not get home until after 2 in the morning. I would like to say a special thank you to them. Thankfully, everyone is feeling fine, and they don't appear to have any ill effects.

We should not have to go through this type of episode as we go about our business every day, but, unfortunately, these are the times we are living in.

I am hopeful we will get to the bottom of who is responsible, close this chapter, and return to our normal routines as soon as possible. Incidentally--and I may be getting a little paranoid--we are the only office to have also been involved in the other episode because we moved from Hart to Dirksen this year. I want to warn everyone, watch where I am. You may save yourself some problems.

Some 2\1/2\ years ago when I assumed the leadership of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I set my sights on reauthorization of the Nation's Surface Transportation Program. I recognized this to be the most challenging task confronting the committee.

I have spent these last 2 years working with my colleagues, meeting with Americans, and studying the Nation's transportation needs. I have traveled the country visiting local communities and seeing firsthand our many national transportation challenges.

My observations on the road were reinforced by our committee's hearing process. The committee and our Transportation Subcommittee held 11 public hearings and sponsored three roundtable discussions to prepare for renewal of the Nation's Surface Transportation Program. We heard from over 100 witnesses from 30 States, representing over 60 organizations. The process generated a hearing record of over 1,500 pages.

What I heard is our current national program is working well; that we should refine it and not replace it. Our national transportation policy must serve the public good. In my view, the outcomes we seek are a strong economy, safe and healthy communities, and a clean environment. A balanced transportation system is necessary for us to attain these goals.

The success of our Surface Transportation Program will rest on four fundamental pillars.

Asset management is the first pillar. We must maintain and preserve our infrastructure investment. We cannot allow highways and bridges to deteriorate.

Access and mobility is the second pillar. Most Americans now live in metro areas, and most metro areas are congested and getting worse. We need to focus on these problems.

The third pillar is freight and trade. The value of trade and tonnage of goods moved in this country is enormous and growing. We need new facilities to accommodate this growth.

The fourth pillar is safety. We must continue the progress we have made over the last 10 years reducing the rate of highway fatalities and work now to reduce the actual number of lives lost on our roadways.

In partnership with our chairman, Senator Inhofe, and with the leaders of our subcommittee, Senators Bond and Reid, we have helped construct a bill, SAFETEA, on these pillars. SAFETEA retains the strengths of our current national transportation program while enhancing its effectiveness to deal with the challenges facing our States and communities.

The bill meets highway system needs for strong growth in a manner that increases assistance to every State and every region. It is funded at a level of $255 billion that will enable the States to improve road and bridge conditions.

The bill will generate millions of well-paying jobs since every billion dollars spent on the highway program can generate up to 47,500 jobs. These jobs come at a time of great economic need in our communities.

A well-funded safety title is also included. It features a new program--Safe Routes to Schools--to protect children as they walk or ride their bikes to school.

Significant growth in congestion mitigation and air quality funding will help States improve air quality, reduce pollution, and address congestion. The bill makes it easier for States to mitigate project effects on habitat and wetlands, and retains and expands popular programs such as enhancements, recreational trails, and scenic byways. The increased intermodal flexibility set forth in the bill will allow States, if they wish, to improve freight handling and movement. But fundamentally, this massive transportation bill is about people.

It is about making it easier to commute to work; making roads safer for our families; preserving scenic beauty for future generations; helping our children get to school safely; moving freight efficiently and cheaply; and making America better.

Working with my colleagues, I have done my level best to write a bill that is fair to all States and regions of our country. I am committed to maintaining the legacy I inherited from my dear friends and former colleagues, Pat Moynihan and John Chafee. I look forward to completing this job, working with Chairman Inhofe, with the leaders of the other authorizing committees, and with all my fellow Members to produce legislation that will build a strong America.

I thank the Chair.

I will take very little time. I commend the chairman again and all the staffs, his and mine, for the incredible amount of work they have put into this effort.

Yes, right. It is fantastic. We know also that we have a long way to go. The work you have done and my staff has done, all of us, has placed us in a great position to start. But now it is the opportunity for all the Members to check carefully to see how their States are doing and maybe make some improvements. We know we will have a number of amendments. We have a long way to go, but I think we are off to a great start. I expect we will have a great finish.

They should all have the opportunity, and I know we will provide it. I think we have done a great job, so there should not be too much problem.

Madam President, I thank the Senator for his very kind words. I certainly reciprocate and acknowledge the amount of cooperation we have had, especially that our staffs have had working together, which has greatly stimulated all of us to recognize we have a good bill and we are going to get it done.

I would also like to announce to the Senator that I just left the Finance Committee, and we voted out--as was expected--favorably the money to get it done. So we are ready now to proceed to it tonight, and hopefully we will.

Chairman Inhofe and I are urging a ``yes'' vote, of course, to move the transportation bill to the Senate floor where it can be fully debated and amended. This bill will strengthen our Nation's transportation system, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and improve the safety of our transportation system.

Our Nation's roads and bridges and transit systems need immediate attention. Passage of the bill will provide essential Federal funding to the States so they have the resources needed to maintain and improve our transportation infrastructure. We cannot afford to wait any longer to make much-needed investments in our transportation infrastructure.

Fortunately, unlike many other bills, our transportation bill will be fully offset and paid for. The Finance Committee did a tremendous job working this out. As I said just a moment ago, they passed it.

Let us not forget that each time you go to the gas pump, you are paying for this bill. Our transportation bill better spends the gas taxes you are currently paying. We do not increase the Federal gas tax; we better spend that tax to help States, counties, and cities address their transportation needs.

A 6-year bill will allow us to better spend the gas taxes and fund State efforts to reduce congestion, improve transit programs, repair dangerous bridges, and improve freight mobility. A 6-year bill will create over 2 million new, high-paying jobs. That is 2 million high- paying jobs.

Chairman Inhofe is absolutely correct; since the bill is deficit neutral, putting off our bill until next year will only make matters worse. So let's do it now.

An extension simply means that urgent highway and bridge repair costs will be more heavily borne by States and local governments than by the Federal Government. A simple extension means commuters will spend more time stuck in traffic. A simple extension means visits to the grocery store or the doctor's office or the drugstore or the restaurant will take longer.

Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Almost 30 percent of our bridges are in bad shape. We have to address these problems, and our transportation bill will help get that job done.

We are asking for a ``yes'' vote to move this bill to the Senate floor for a full debate on its merits, and we hope to do it soon. It will be open for amendment, and the chairman and I will work with all Senators in this effort. Do not forget, the EPW bill increases the amount of funding for each and every State. And every State gets more than they did last time. I think that is correct.

Chairman Inhofe has been a very forceful leader in this massive undertaking to reauthorize our Nation's transportation laws. He has thoughtfully devised an innovative plan that balances the interests of the great majority of donor and donee States.

That is a tough one. Chairman Inhofe is to be commended for his creativity and energy in crafting major aspects of the bill, which the EPW Committee is putting before the Senate.

As head of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Bond has worked closely with Senator Inhofe and led the charge to obtain a strong level of funding for this effort.

Senator Harry Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and I have worked together with Senators Inhofe and Bond throughout the Committee process and stuck together at the Committee markup to protect and enhance the passage of the bill.

History should also record that many fine staff worked long hours and proposed some excellent approaches for our consideration. They have done a tremendous job.

Before I conclude I would like to mention my old friend John Chafee. Six years ago, Senator Chafee was the Chairman of the EPW Committee. He moved this massive bill with the grace and the tenacity that was his trade-mark.

John Chafee was a giant in this body, and he is missed very much today by all those who had the wonderful opportunity to work with him and shared his expertise.

I can only hope that we all draw on the lessons of bipartisanship, of cooperation and of consensus that John taught us.

To sum up, we are asking for a yes vote to get this bill to the Senate floor for a full debate on its merits.

Our Nation needs this bill and needs it now.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma. I have been through this before, but this was the most expeditious and well-run operation I have been involved in, and I think we are moving toward a successful result.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to see that the Senate is taking action on the Pension Equity Act of 2003.

As many of my colleagues are aware, the pension discount rate relief initiative, enacted in 2001, expired last month. Passage of H.R. 3108 will provide a resolution to this very serious issue. This bill replaces the outdated 30-year Treasury bill rate with a rate based on a composite of investment grade long-term corporate bonds. Failure to act on this bill will cause the statutory rate that pension plans must use to calculate their assets and liabilities to return to the old 30-year rate. Companies with pension plans will shortly have to begin making large contributions to their plans in the year to come.

An amendment to H.R. 3108 will provide relief from the deficit reduction contribution, DRC, requirements that certain plans are now facing. Under the current pension funding rules, companies that offer defined benefit pension plans are required to make additional contributions to those plans when they are less than 90 percent funded. A pension plan's funding level is determined by comparing the plan's current assets to its promised benefits and then calculated as to whether the two will match up by the time the promised benefits are due.

The recent drop in the stock market, low interest rates, and generous pension benefits agreed to in better times have caused many defined benefit pension plans to fall well beneath the 90 percent threshold. As a result, many companies are being required to make substantial contributions at the time they can least afford them. The Finance Committee reported bill, which I support, included fair DRC relief.

While I support these provisions related to pensions, I am disappointed that this body has not worked to enact further reforms. Two months ago, I, along with Senators Snowe and Hatch, introduced S. 1912, the Retirement Account Portability Act of 2003. In brief, this bill will make a number of improvements in the retirement savings system to help families preserve retirement assets. It will, for example, enhance the portability of retirement savings by expanding rollover options in traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, and SIMPLE Plans. The bill also clarifies that when employees are permitted to make after-tax contributions to retirement plans, those after-tax amounts may be rolled over into other retirement plans eligible to receive such rollovers. This clarification will make it easier for workers to move all elements of their 401(k) or 403(b) savings when they change jobs and move between the private sector and the tax-exempt sector.

In addition, the bill builds on defined contribution plan reforms enacted in 2001 by requiring a shortened vesting schedule for employer nonelective contributions, such as profit-sharing contributions, to defined contribution plans. As a result, employer contributions will become employee property more quickly, helping workers to build more meaningful retirement benefits. This new vesting schedule corresponds to rules for 401(k) matching contributions enacted in 2001.

The bill also helps preserve retirement savings by allowing plans to designate default IRAs or annuity contracts to which employee rollovers may be directed. Employers should be more willing to establish default IRA and annuity rollover options as a result, making it easier for employees to keep savings in the retirement system when they change jobs.

For workers who leave a job without claiming their retirement benefits, the bill improves on the automatic rollover provisions enacted in 2001, by allowing certain small distributions from retirement plans to be sent to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, ensuring that participants are ultimately reunited with their earned benefits. The bill also expands the scope of the PBGC's successful Missing Participants Program that matches workers with lost pension benefits.

The Retirement Account Portability Act of 2003 will benefit employees of State and local governments, including teachers, through a number of this bill's technical corrections that will facilitate the purchase of service credits in public pension programs, allowing State and local employees to more easily attain a full pension in the jurisdiction where they conclude their career. The bill also contains provisions that will clarify eligibility rights of certain State and local employees who participate in a section 457 deferred compensation plan.

As this body moves to pass H.R. 3108 today, I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for their hard work on this legislation. I also thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for their contributions to this initiative. I look forward to working with my distinguished chairmen and ranking members of the HELP and Finance Committees in moving S. 1912 and other measures that will

proactively improve the mechanisms we use for pension and retirement plans.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, as an original cosponsor of legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States. This bill is similar to Title I of the S. 1754, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2003, that I introduced last October in response to the Northeast blackout.

Last night, in his State of the Union, the President urged Congress to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. This bill, the Electric Reliability Act of 2004, addresses the President's request, and the Senate should pass it expeditiously. Our country needs the new, clear national rules of the road contained in this bill to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power.

As the people in the Northeast will not soon forget, in August 2003 nearly 50 million people were affected by a massive power outage. But this is not an isolated incident. On January 16, 2004, Gov. James Douglas urged Vermonters to save power to help avert rolling blackouts because of electricity problems in southern New England. Though there was likely enough power to meet my State's demand, but we are part of a regional grid system. This system, as we learned last year, needs to operate in a coordinated fashion or the region faces blackouts.

The Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, whose State was so significantly affected during the Northeast blackouts, knows well the hardship long electricity outages cause. I am pleased that she and the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, have joined in this effort. The Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, has been alerted to the need for reliability legislation well before last year, as her State suffered during the massive multi-state Western blackout of 1996.

Be it 1996, 2003 or last week, these events emphasize the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. Congress needs to do all that is necessary to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. Those who know this issue well, say that reliability legislation is essential. On the first day of this year, Michehl Gent, President and Chief Executive of the North American Electric Reliability Council, said in the New York Times that all of the actions taken by industry and oversight organizations to respond to the Northeast blackout do ``not reduce the need for Federal legislation that would provide authority to impose and enforce mandatory reliability standards.'' He continues, ``whether legislation is adopted on a stand-alone basis or as part of a comprehensive energy bill, passage is essential. If reliability legislation had been enacted when first proposed, I believe that the blackout would not have occurred.''

Given that Congress has not passed grid reliability legislation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided during its December 17, 2003 open

meeting to have its staff develop an order over the next few weeks requiring utilities and other jurisdictional entities to report violations of voluntary reliability standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Council. The Commission also asked for comment on its legal authority under existing statutes to mandate compliance with those standards.

Why is Congress making FERC waste time trying to determine whether they have the legal authority to act to protect consumers and ensure electric reliability? We should simply make that statutory authority clear. Reliability legislation has passed the Senate twice, and this bill asks the Senate to act on those same provisions again. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. We should pass this bill now, and I pledge my support to the Senators from Washington and New York, Senators Cantwell and Clinton in doing so. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise. I invite my colleagues to join us in our efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, as an original cosponsor of legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States. This bill is similar to Title I of the S. 1754, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2003, that I introduced last October in response to the Northeast blackout.

Last night, in his State of the Union, the President urged Congress to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. This bill, the Electric Reliability Act of 2004, addresses the President's request, and the Senate should pass it expeditiously. Our country needs the new, clear national rules of the road contained in this bill to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power.

As the people in the Northeast will not soon forget, in August 2003 nearly 50 million people were affected by a massive power outage. But this is not an isolated incident. On January 16, 2004, Gov. James Douglas urged Vermonters to save power to help avert rolling blackouts because of electricity problems in southern New England. Though there was likely enough power to meet my State's demand, but we are part of a regional grid system. This system, as we learned last year, needs to operate in a coordinated fashion or the region faces blackouts.

The Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, whose State was so significantly affected during the Northeast blackouts, knows well the hardship long electricity outages cause. I am pleased that she and the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, have joined in this effort. The Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, has been alerted to the need for reliability legislation well before last year, as her State suffered during the massive multi-state Western blackout of 1996.

Be it 1996, 2003 or last week, these events emphasize the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. Congress needs to do all that is necessary to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. Those who know this issue well, say that reliability legislation is essential. On the first day of this year, Michehl Gent, President and Chief Executive of the North American Electric Reliability Council, said in the New York Times that all of the actions taken by industry and oversight organizations to respond to the Northeast blackout do ``not reduce the need for Federal legislation that would provide authority to impose and enforce mandatory reliability standards.'' He continues, ``whether legislation is adopted on a stand-alone basis or as part of a comprehensive energy bill, passage is essential. If reliability legislation had been enacted when first proposed, I believe that the blackout would not have occurred.''

Given that Congress has not passed grid reliability legislation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided during its December 17, 2003 open

meeting to have its staff develop an order over the next few weeks requiring utilities and other jurisdictional entities to report violations of voluntary reliability standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Council. The Commission also asked for comment on its legal authority under existing statutes to mandate compliance with those standards.

Why is Congress making FERC waste time trying to determine whether they have the legal authority to act to protect consumers and ensure electric reliability? We should simply make that statutory authority clear. Reliability legislation has passed the Senate twice, and this bill asks the Senate to act on those same provisions again. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. We should pass this bill now, and I pledge my support to the Senators from Washington and New York, Senators Cantwell and Clinton in doing so. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise. I invite my colleagues to join us in our efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States.