Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has favorably considered the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2003, and will pass by unanimous consent the Senate manager's amendment to H.R. 2443. We look forward to working with the House to quickly reach agreement on a final bill for passage in both houses.

Senator Hollings and I have agreed to work with the House through a balanced, bipartisan conference committee. The Senate members would include five majority and four minority members of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. We plan to work together in a bipartisan manner to support the provisions of the Senate bill, while working with the House conference members to reach a final bill acceptable to all conferees. We will also include one majority and one minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to work with us on provisions in the bill that amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Mr. President, reluctantly, I will vote for cloture on the motion to recommit S. 1637 to the Finance Committee. I support the underlying bill because I fully appreciate the need to resolve the controversy between the United States and the European Union over the extraterritorial income--ETI--exemption tax benefit for exports. As my colleagues know, the World Trade Organization--WTO--has ruled that ETI is essentially an export subsidy and is prohibited under international trade agreements. Subsequently, on March 1, the EU began to impose retaliatory tariffs on imports from United States manufacturers. Therefore, it is critical that we pass this legislation to bring the United States back into compliance with WTO agreements and stop the burdensome tariffs now imposed on our manufacturers.

It is unfortunate that this important bill is becoming a vehicle for wasteful spending and tax breaks for special interests and the super rich. With the Nation facing a half-trillion dollar deficit, now is not the time for Congress to be enacting new tax credits. The proponents of this bill are fond of pointing out that it is ``revenue neutral'' and that all of the tax cuts in the bill are paid for with offsets. I firmly believe that, due to our current fiscal crisis, any proposed offsets should simply be used to reduce the deficit. It is incomprehensible to me, at this time of record deficits and debt, that we would consider risking the future of our manufacturing base and our standing in the international community by wasting time and jeopardizing corrective action while carving out sweet deals for special interests.

Let me outline just a few of the most egregious provisions contained in the proposal before us today:

The bill includes an extension of the tax credit for the creation of electricity from ``renewable resources.'' This provision would extend for a year the tax credit for facilities that produce electricity from wind, poultry waste or closed-loop biomass. While I know wind is the favored renewable technology and various tax credits have made it competitive with conventional energy production in some locations, renewable solar technology has greater potential in my State and does not receive this favored tax status to make it more affordable. Turning poultry waste into electricity may be an efficient way to generate electricity at particular facilities, but again, with our fiscal future so bleak, I cannot understand the urgency in extending such a questionable tax credit at the expense of the American taxpayers.

Another provision would allow for a ``bonus depreciation'' of an additional 50 percent for noncommercial aircraft in the first year of ownership. In order to qualify for this incentive, the aircraft must be purchased and placed in service before January 1, 2005. I assure my colleagues--we will see many of America's wealthiest citizens running off to buy new private airplanes--while the American taxpayer effectively foots half the bill.

Included in the manager's amendment to this bill is $1 billion in tax credits for railroads--a 4-year $500 million subsidy for shortline and regional railroads, and a 3-year, $500 million subsidy for intercity passenger rail service.

The proposed tax credit for small freight railroads makes all maintenance eligible for a tax credit, whether or not the maintenance is a capital project under generally accepted accounting principles. It is totally inappropriate to provide a tax credit for routine maintenance items like snow removal and routine equipment servicing, which do nothing to enhance the value or life of railroad assets. Nor does it make sense to provide a tax credit for maintenance that the railroads will perform anyway, without

the tax credit. The purpose of a tax credit is to provide an incentive to perform capital projects that a company would not otherwise undertake.

Further, the shortlines intend to sell tax credits they cannot use to their shippers and suppliers. There is no requirement, however, that the shortlines use the proceeds to fund additional capital investments. The proceeds from selling tax credits could be used for anything-- profit-sharing for the owners, a vacation to the Bahamas, or even to fund lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

The Department of the Treasury, in preliminary, informal comments on this proposal, has indicated that the tax credit for intercity passenger rail projects would be quote ``problematic''. Business credits are typically in the 10- to 20-percent range, far less than the 50 percent credit proposed by the substitute. Treasury also commented that:

It provides for a national cap and allocation among states

but has no provision for allocation within states. Also, it

is transferable and we generally oppose transferable tax

benefits because they are difficult to administer.

This proposal also is another scheme to provide money to expand intercity passenger rail service without dealing with the failure of Amtrak. I oppose providing any funding above the President's request of $900 million for fiscal year 2005 without Amtrak reform and restructuring. The American taxpayers have invested nearly $27 billion in Amtrak over the past 34 years, yet Amtrak still carries less than 1 percent of intercity travelers. Every 2 days, our transit system carries as many passengers as Amtrak handles in a year. How can my colleagues seriously consider expanding Amtrak, when it carries so few passengers and still manages to lose over $1 billion annually?

Additionally, Section 646 of this bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit a taxpayer who owns and operates a shipyard to elect to use the completed contract accounting method with respect to a qualified construction contract. This means that large shipyards, owned by even larger defense contractors, would be allowed to defer paying taxes on U.S. Navy ship construction contracts until the ship is completed. In some cases this could be as long as 7 years. This benefit results in these contractors getting an interest-free loan from the American taxpayer. These shipyards should pay taxes on an annual basis on income earned that year.

Some of the more interesting--and indefensible--proposals in the managers' amendment include capital gains relief for horse owners, special tax breaks for car dealers and favorable treatment of track facilities.

Again, I will vote for cloture because passage of this legislation is imperative, not only to our reputation in the world community, but also to the continued health of the American manufacturing industry and to the creation of desperately-needed new jobs. However, I continue to be amazed about this body's lack of fiscal discipline. We are setting ourselves up for a very rude awakening. We simply cannot continue this endless wasteful spending spree while carving out tax breaks and good deals for the special interests. It's about time we realize that our actions have consequences. Unfortunately, it will most likely be our children and our grandchildren who will have to deal with those consequences.

Mr. President, I support the amendment by the Senator from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has been a member of the committee for many years. He understands our defense and national security needs.

I believe the fundamental message is we are in a war. We are in a war. We are in a war. The fact is this money is needed in order to prosecute the conflicts in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and around the world, as we fight the war on terrorism and attempt to thwart the possibility of a terrorist attack on the United States of America and our citizens.

Clearly, we are going through a period of transition in the military, and one that is going to be somewhat expensive, but there is no doubt we have to adjust our military in order to meet the needs of an ever- changing and, in some respects, larger threat to our security than we have faced in the past few years.

Also, I have the greatest respect for our colleagues here in the Senate and the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member. But I did note, with some interest, that the chairman of the Budget Committee in the House suggested a moratorium on earmarks for 1 year. Why would he do that?

Well, I show my colleagues a very interesting Congressional Research Service chart which shows that in 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks; in 1996, it went down to 3,023 earmarks; and it has gone steadily up geometrically; and in 2004, there were 14,040 earmarks--amounting to a grand total of $47.9 billion--$47.9 billion.

Rather than cut $7 billion out of defense, why don't we cut $7 billion out of $47.9 billion of pork-barrel projects, such as the $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana, the Cowgirls and Cowboys Hall of Fame, and the elves up in North Pole, AK, that got some more money this time?

Why don't we cut $7 billion out of $47.9 billion in earmarked funds? That comes from the Congressional Research Service, up from $23.7 billion in 1996. Why don't we show some courage, make some choices, and cut this, rather than cutting $7 billion out of defense?

I would hope my colleagues on the Budget Committee at some point would seriously consider a moratorium on earmarks--just for 1 year. It might be a nice thing to see.

Mr. President, I support the amendment from the Senator from Virginia and I hope the choices we make are not to cut into our Nation's security but to cut into the pork-barrel spending which has absolutely run amok in this body. It is a disgrace, and there is no excuse for it. I hope we will start attacking the wasteful and pork-barrel spending rather than the men and women in the military.

I support the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by my good friend from Wisconsin.

We are facing a dire financial situation. The projected deficit for the current fiscal year is $521 billion--that's over half of a trillion dollars--the largest ever. That is why the Congress and the administration must begin taking action this year, despite the fact that it is an election year, to address this crisis. Our failure to start making some of the tough decisions will land squarely on the backs of our children and grandchildren, and their financial future will be strapped with digging out of the holes that have been created by our actions and inactions.

The Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified recently before the House Budget Committee about the seriousness of our rising budget deficit and, more specifically, the impact the deficit is going to have on our future economic stability. He very clearly warned about the consequences of a lack of fiscal discipline, and called for new steps to restrain spending. The Chairman firmly supports reinstatement of the pay-go rules as one such step.

According to a joint statement issued by the Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years.''

These figures are shameful and frightening. Another astonishing part of this report states that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than

double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.''

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, also has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. According to a recent CBO report, due to rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share of the nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went onto say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever- growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive . . . effect on the economy.'' Additionally, CBO has projected a 10-year deficit of $4.4 trillion.

These are alarming figures. It is critical we take action to curtail further deficit spending.

In the 1990s, when we faced what we thought to be the worst fiscal situation possible, we passed the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which instituted a number of statutory deficit control rules, including the pay-as-you-go, pay-go, requirements. The statutory pay-go rules were largely responsible for imposing true financial discipline on the Congress when it came to mandatory spending programs and taxes. Unfortunately, those rules expired in 2002.

We have an opportunity today to show the American public that we are serious about digging out of the fiscal hole that faces our country by adopting this amendment to strengthen the Senate pay-go point of order. Although I wish we could reestablish the statutory pay-go rules, we can't do that in the budget resolution since it is not a law. We can, however, tighten up our own Senate rules to make it more difficult to pass legislation that increases the deficit.

I would like to bring my colleagues' attention one of today's editorials in the Washington Post, urging reinstatement of the pay-go rules. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the editorial be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. President, I want to clarify that I firmly support the three proposed tax extensions in the pending budget resolution. I fully expect that when tax legislation is considered by the Chamber in the weeks ahead, it will include extensions of the marriage penalty tax elimination, the $1,000 child tax credit, and expanding the 10 percent income tax bracket as called for in this resolution, and I will support such legislation. This amendment is not an amendment in opposition to those provisions, but rather, an amendment to promote fiscal responsibility and protect us from ourselves.

I urges my colleagues to support the amendment.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2004]

Rigging the Budget Rules

When it comes to matters of taxes and spending, members of

Congress are like would-be dieters who can't stop raiding the

refrigerator. Recognizing this weakness, lawmakers have

resorted in the past to budget rules that act much like a

lock on the fridge. During the 1990s, these rules set

ceilings on discretionary spending and required that any tax

cuts or spending increases in entitlement programs be matched

by offsetting spending cuts or tax increases. As with the

dieter who knows where the key is hidden, the rules didn't

work perfectly--they could be avoided with a 60-vote

majority--but they did help curb lawmakers' natural

tendencies.

The rules expired at the end of 2002, and everyone from

President Bush to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to

Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin has called for

their renewal. ``Perhaps the single most important act

Congress and the Administration could take at this point to

rein in the budget over the next decade would be to re-

establish the budget rules that existed in the 1990s,'' Mr.

Rubin wrote in a recent paper co-authored with the Brookings

Institution's Peter R. Orszag and Allen Sinai of Decision

Economics Inc.

But the Bush administration, and some of its allies in

Congress, would rig the rules to apply discipline in a

dangerously lopsided fashion. The administration proposes

strict controls on spending but no restraints at all on

cutting taxes, an approach influenced by the administration's

inflated view of the beneficial effect of tax cuts. But even

for those who fully subscribe to the administration's

position on the relative merits of taxes and spending, it's

clear that such a rule would simply skew budgetary choices,

resulting in spending programs recast in the guise of tax

breaks. Mr. Greenspan reiterated last month that the rule

ought to apply to both spending increases and tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the budget resolution before the Senate would

leave in place the sham version of pay-as-you-go adopted last

year, in which the rule applies only to tax cuts or spending

increases in excess of what the budget resolution provides.

This year's model would permit $122 billion more in tax cuts

not offset by savings elsewhere. Under this meaningless form

of pay-as-you-go, senators promise every year to show

spending discipline--the next time around.

An effort to add an evenhanded pay-as-you-go rule failed on

a party-line vote in the Senate Budget Committee last week.

The Senate should fix that omission before it approves

another irresponsible budget. And lawmakers should show

discipline by requiring themselves to pay for all their tax

cuts--not carving our popular middle-class breaks like the

child tax credit, and certainly not speeding up repeal of the

estate tax, for special budgetary treatment.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my friend, Senator Feingold in cosponsoring this important and timely legislation. Today, the Senate is deliberating over the nation's budget priorities in the face of our enormous deficit.

Historically, Congress has considered water projects, costing many billions of taxpayer dollars, as essential expenditures--regardless of the environmental costs or public benefits. The reforms of the Corps of Engineers' procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more cost- effective expenditures for water projects that will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as crucial as it is now.

The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can be effectively fixed. In fact, the reforms in this bill are based on thorough program analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for building on the legislation we introduced with Senator Smith in the last Congress to provide additional improvements. It is surprising that Congress hasn't already put these procedures in place, but there is no time or need like the present.

Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today would modify the Corps planning and approval procedures to consider both economic and environmental objectives. Independent review of Corps projects and an increase in the cost-benefit factor would ensure that only beneficial projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and monitored. The existing $56 billion project backlog is addressed and projects that have been suspended or never started for five years would no longer be considered.

Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to our state citizens and all federal taxpayers serve the common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my friend, Senator Feingold in cosponsoring this important and timely legislation. Today, the Senate is deliberating over the nation's budget priorities in the face of our enormous deficit.

Historically, Congress has considered water projects, costing many billions of taxpayer dollars, as essential expenditures--regardless of the environmental costs or public benefits. The reforms of the Corps of Engineers' procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more cost- effective expenditures for water projects that will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as crucial as it is now.

The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can be effectively fixed. In fact, the reforms in this bill are based on thorough program analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for building on the legislation we introduced with Senator Smith in the last Congress to provide additional improvements. It is surprising that Congress hasn't already put these procedures in place, but there is no time or need like the present.

Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today would modify the Corps planning and approval procedures to consider both economic and environmental objectives. Independent review of Corps projects and an increase in the cost-benefit factor would ensure that only beneficial projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and monitored. The existing $56 billion project backlog is addressed and projects that have been suspended or never started for five years would no longer be considered.

Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to our state citizens and all federal taxpayers serve the common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, first, I would like to begin my remarks with my respect and appreciation for the knowledge and expertise that the Senator from Connecticut has on foreign policy and national security issues. I believe he is unequaled or he has few peers in this body as to his knowledge and experience on foreign policy issues. For many years, the Senator and I have worked together on issues that are of importance to our Nation as far as the conduct of policy and national security is concerned. I have the highest regard and respect for him.

I hope I can work with the Senator from Connecticut to remove some unintended consequences of the Dodd amendment; that is, the Dodd amendment as it relates to defense/national security.

The Senator from Connecticut knows, as well or better than I do, the interrelationships of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the commonality of equipment, the fact that many times we build an aircraft, the F-16, a country buys it, and a lot of that aircraft is built in the country that purchases it. That is part of the deal that goes on. For example, significant parts of the F-16 aircraft that are bought by European countries are constructed there. That is also true with a broad array of defense equipment.

The Senator from Connecticut is also aware there is a huge imbalance as far as the purchasing of military equipment. In other words, our European friends--and I will freely admit, because they do not spend the money on research and development that the United States does, the United States builds superior equipment--buy a tremendous amount--by a factor of 15 or 20 in dollars--of U.S. equipment versus equipment that the United States buys from our European allies. We build the best defense equipment there is. We continue to maintain that lead, and we are all proud of it.

What I worry about, in the Dodd amendment, is that this would upset the relationship I just described.

Second, there are many times, many occasions when our troops overseas, our ships overseas, our deployments have to purchase from the local economy equipment, food, supplies, whatever it is.

So I could not certify that it is a national security requirement when the USS Enterprise pulls into a port and has to buy some equipment or machinery from the local economy which is manufactured there but fits their needs because there is a tremendous amount of interoperability amongst ourselves and our European allies.

I am sure the Senator from Connecticut is well aware of everything I am saying, and I do not mean to insult his intelligence by saying so.

What I am trying to do--look, straight talk. I do not support the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. But what I would hope we could do is work out some language which would ensure, one, that at no time would our military be prevented from purchasing goods, services, or equipment on a needed basis, and, second, to preserve the relationship we have amongst our allies as far as the purchase of defense equipment is concerned, maintaining interoperability, and, very frankly, the jobs which are the object of his amendment, the jobs which are maintained in the United States of America because of the production of a great deal of defense equipment which is bought by other nations.

Now, the reason why I say that is important is because, if we do not allow the purchase of foreign-manufactured defense equipment, then sooner or later they will retaliate by not purchasing ours. That could have significant effect.

I have a rather interesting letter from Mr. Wynne, who is the Acting Under Secretary of Defense, saying ``this provision''--talking about the Dodd amendment--``would impact our ability to sustain our troops stationed overseas and the refueling and re-stocking of our naval vessels as they carry out their missions. Often times, the support of these activities comes from foreign sources. . . .'' It goes on.

I know my friend from Connecticut does not want to impair this. It is clearly not the object of his amendment. So I have an amendment which would make clear that there are exemptions for national security.

Perhaps better than forcing a vote on it, perhaps the Senator from Connecticut and I can work out an agreement to amend his amendment or change the language of his amendment so it does meet these concerns, which I know he shares. If not, then I would be proposing an amendment, after the McConnell amendment is disposed of, to try to ensure that.

I am talking now about national defense and national security. I have concerns about the impact of the Dodd amendment which has been debated ad nauseam. But I hope we can work out an agreement at least on the national security/national defense side of this issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as he mentioned, and I worked hard last year, with the President and Secretary of Defense, to exclude some very onerous ``buy American'' measures. It took an entire year before the authorizing bill was passed, which is always very unfortunate. I want to ask the distinguished chairman about another aspect of this.

Last time I checked, we have allied forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq from as many as 30 countries who have contributed troops to our efforts in all of those countries, including the fact that a number of those allied countries have sacrificed the lives of their young soldiers in the cause of freedom, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, in Afghanistan we have a significantly expanded NATO operation. I say this with the greatest respect to our friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. My question is--suppose we tell the government of a tiny country that lost soldiers in Iraq that we want your young men and women there, and we want them to be ready to sacrifice and die but, by the way, we are not going to buy anything from you. If you produce something that is a quality product, we are not going to buy it from you because we are going to protect American jobs in the United States of America.

My question to the distinguished chairman is, What effect does that have on their willingness and desire to help us bring peace and freedom to the people of Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

I have one more question. The Senator and I, both in our declining years, have spent a lot of time traveling around the world. One of the things that took me a long time to appreciate is the effect of what we do in the world. It is astonishing----

Yes. We have passed sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that neither you nor I have paid any attention to, and all of a sudden it is headlines in the country it has affected.

My question to the Senator from Virginia is this: All of those countries that have contributed troops--Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq--they see a headline tomorrow that says the Congress of the United States bars purchase of any military equipment from the manufacturers in these countries. How do you think that affects an already fragile public opinion in these countries?

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, as a strong defender of law-abiding Americans' second amendments rights, today I join my colleagues, Senators Reed, DeWine, Lieberman, Chafee, and Dodd to offer a bipartisan compromise amendment to address what has become known as the gun show loophole.

Currently an individual can walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm from either a federally licensed dealer or an unlicensed dealer. A background check is only performed on that individual if he or she buys a gun from a licensed dealer. There is no requirement--I repeat, no requirement--for a background check of any kind when purchasing a firearm from an unlicensed dealer. This is a very dangerous loophole in the law and we are doing a disservice to the American people if we allow it to remain open.

This amendment would close this dangerous loophole in our gun safety laws in a way that is respectful of the rights of gunshop operators, gun show vendors, and gun show enthusiasts. It defines gun shows in a reasonable manner to cover only public events where at least 75 firearms are offered for sale. It specifically exempts from regulation any private sale from the home, such as yard sales or estate sales. Additionally, it exempts sales between members of hunt clubs, an exception that I know is important to a number of our colleagues who represent hunting and sporting clubs that occasionally sell, trade, or raffle firearms between club members.

The amendment would also create a new category of licensees who can become deputized to perform background checks for unlicensed sellers at gun shows. This licensee, who could even be a gun show employee, would enable any unlicensed vendor to conveniently have an instant background check performed when selling a firearm. In addition, this amendment would allow States to graduate to an even faster instant check once they have sufficiently automated the records necessary to ensure that a faster check does not sacrifice accuracy.

Why do we need this amendment? Some might point to tragedies such as Columbine, but as horrific as the massacre at Columbine was, where 11 young people needlessly lost their lives, that is not what drives the need to close the gun show loophole. We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws. We need this amendment because our second amendment rights do not extend to criminals who violate our laws and terrorists who hate this country.

We need this amendment because, according to the NRA, ``hundreds of thousands'' of unlicensed firearms sales occur at gun shows each year. We need this amendment because ATF has identified gun shows as the second leading source of firearms recovered from illegal gun trafficking investigations.

We also need this amendment because my law-abiding constituents who attend gun shows in Arizona should not have to rub shoulders with the scum of the Earth who use this loophole to evade background checks to buy firearms to peddle to God knows who. We need this because every one of the 15 leading gun trafficking States in America has not taken action to close the gun show loophole. Conversely, 11 of the 15 States with the lowest level of interstate gun trafficking have taken action to close the gun show loophole.

When discussing the topic of gun safety, I often hear my colleagues say things such as, let's enforce existing law before we make new ones. I completely agree and that is exactly what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to strengthen existing laws by closing an enormous, dangerous loophole.

I offer this amendment as one who counts himself as a strong supporter of the underlying legislation to protect the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits. I plan to vote for the underlying bill because it is fundamentally unfair to blame a firearms manufacturer when a criminal misuses a gun. But it is also unfair to the American people to knowingly leave open a gaping hole in our gun safety laws that criminals and terrorists can and do easily exploit.

The last time the Senate considered similar legislation was in 1999, following the school shootings at Columbine High School. Two amendments were proposed to close the gun show loophole. One amendment received 51 votes with then-Vice President Gore casting his deciding vote. I opposed that amendment because, frankly, I thought it defined gun shows too broadly, covering certain private sales from the home, at yard sales, estate sales, and between members of private hunt clubs, places that obviously are not gun shows.

The second amendment which I supported also passed the Senate. Unfortunately, opponents of that amendment said it weakened the Brady law for licensed dealers and created new loopholes.

Today we offer a compromise proposal that is a reasonable, responsible consensus. I urge this body not to let this opportunity slip by.

Opponents of today's amendment will make several arguments. I would like to take a few moments to address them head on. It is important to point out that this amendment is a modification of the legislation we introduced last fall. This amendment contains none of the vendor notification requirements contained in that bill. The vender notification requirements in this amendment are the same as those that passed the Senate in 1999. Let me state that again for clarity. This amendment does not contain the vendor notification provisions contained in S. 1807. They are gone.

We still hear that criminals don't obtain guns from gun shows and we will

hear about a survey of State and Federal inmates conducted by the Justice Department showing that about 3 percent of prisoners obtained their guns from gun shows. Let me make a couple of points.

First, the survey was conducted in 1997. The gun show loophole didn't exist until December of 1993, so any criminal in prison for more than 3 years or any criminal who had a firearm for at least 3 years would not have had a reason to exploit this loophole.

Second, let's be clear to quote ATF field agent Jeff Fulton: ``Crime guns do originate at gun shows. That's been documented.'' In fact, the ATF says gun shows are the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal trafficking investigations.

Some opponents of this amendment will say that background checks take too long for weekend gun shows. That may have been the case in 1999, but today, thanks to the diligence of the Department of Justice, 91 percent of criminal background checks are completed within several minutes and over 95 percent of background checks are completed within 2 hours.

For 19 out of 20 background checks, instant check has lived up to its name. For the 1 out of 20 checks that take more than 2 hours, these applicants are 20 times more likely to be unlawful than the rest of the applicants. Additionally, this amendment encourages States to improve their records, making them eligible for even faster background checks.

I point out again that 91 percent of criminal background checks are completed within several minutes; 95 percent, within 2 hours.

Opponents say the background check requirements would put gun shows out of business. That is not true. According to the Krause Gun/Knife Show Calendar, the definitive source of gun show information in the Nation, in 2003, the 17 States that have closed the gun show loophole have hosted, on average, more gun shows than the 33 States that have not closed the loophole.

I repeat, the 17 States that have taken action to close the gun show loophole hosted, on average, 45 gun shows in 2003. The other 33 States, on average, 41 gun shows.

I am a gun show supporter. Arizona is a big gun show State. This amendment will have zero effect on legitimate gun show businesses.

This amendment has been endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs of Police, the Conference Of Mayors--the list goes on and on with those who have to deal with the results of guns obtained illegally.

Let me say that the administration has said they want a ``clean bill.'' The administration has supported closing the gun show loophole but now they want a ``clean bill.'' Wink-wink, nod-nod. It is remarkable. It is remarkable. This loophole needs to be closed. The administration has had the position that it needs to be closed. We all know it needs to be closed.

There were two State referendums in the 2002 election, in Colorado, not notoriously a liberal State, and Oregon, not notoriously a conservative State. Both of those ballot initiatives carried overwhelmingly when taken to the people instead of the incredible influence of the NRA over this process.

I hope my friends will stand with the police chiefs and mayors and those who are required to enforce the law and vote for this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, let me just for a minute put a practical face on the issue we are talking about this morning. These are just a few examples of the criminals who are exploiting this loophole.

Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national, member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, arrested and convicted for attempting to smuggle firearms bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon; Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani national in this country on an expired visa who admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. Asrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who obtained a pilot's license and had photos of tall buildings in American cities and, though seemingly impoverished, purchased a time-share for a Lear jet. And Conor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, spent over $100,000 at Florida gun shows and through other private dealers to obtain firearms to smuggle into Ireland.

We are talking about the ability of terrorists--the proven record of terrorists exploiting the gun show loophole for the purpose of obtaining weapons that could be used against the United States of America.

This is a serious amendment and a serious issue. I want my colleagues to understand when voting on this amendment that there have already been cases where members of known terrorist organizations have exploited the gun show loophole and purchased weapons with which to eventually commit acts of terror against the United States of America. This is not an issue that should be in any way dismissed. There are many others.

Mr. Thomas Timms was arrested October 2003 with 147 guns and 66,000 rounds.

Mr. President, do I have time remaining on my time?

I remind my colleagues all reference to the Attorney General has been removed from this amendment. There is no Department of Justice oversight of the gun shows in this amendment.

Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national and a member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, was arrested and convicted for attempting to smuggle firearms he bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon.

Muhammed Asrar, a Pakistani national, in this country on an expired visa, who admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. Asrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who had obtained a pilot's license, had photos of tall buildings.

Connor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, spent over $100,000 at Florida gun shows and through other private dealers to obtain firearms to smuggle to Ireland.

They were arrested. How many were not arrested? This is the most curious logic I have ever heard. They were arrested. Who wasn't arrested? A loophole exists. If we are interested in the security of this Nation, we will close it.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. first of all, I don't object to taking up the highway extension bill under the normal Senate procedures, which is that the bill is an amendable vehicle. That is the normal parliamentary procedure we abide by as we address legislation, so I don't object to taking up the highway extension bill under the normal Senate procedures, which makes the bill amendable. I would obviously have an amendment to the bill.

I object to the unanimous consent request that it be taken up and passed without debate or amendment.

Second of all, we have to make some choices here. The choice is whether we will have a short-term disruption--and I might point out no existing projects now underway would be cut off--of the highway programs, or we renege on our commitment to the families who lost their loved ones, brave firefighters and members of law enforcement agencies, on September 11, 2001.

Senator Lieberman and I introduced legislation that created a commission to study the causes of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and also an effort to prevent a recurrence of that terrible tragedy. We have a choice here between a temporary disruption--I might say a minor one, although it will be described, as it is whenever a government agency might be disrupted, as ``Apocalypse Now''--or telling the families of those who died on September 11 the Commission will not be able to complete its work and part of the reason for it, as described by Commission members, is because of failure to cooperate on the part of the administration.

We are faced with a choice. If there is another amendable vehicle that would have an amendment on it that must pass by the House, I would be glad to agree to passage of this extension. If there is any way we could get the other body to agree with what the President has asked for--not Senators McCain and Lieberman, but what the President asked for--and that is an extension of 2 months of the 9/11 Commission, which was reported out of the Intelligence Committee unanimously yesterday, then I would be glad to withdraw my objection.

The majority leader just pointed out, this is the end of civilization as we know it if these highway employees are deprived of some hours. I might point out we knew when this bill was going to expire. Why is it we do business in such a way that we are faced with a shutdown unless we give an extension, knowing when the bill was going to expire? Most importantly, we all have a choice to make here, including the majority leader and the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Nevada. We have a choice. Are we going to face a disruption in some highway projects which, although important, can be fixed and repaired over time or are we going to abandon the families of 9/11 who demanded and received the appointment of a commission that would thoroughly and completely investigate the events that led up to one of the greatest tragedies in American history? That is our choice. I intend to again object to this unanimous consent agreement.

I will agree to taking up the highway extension bill and to not blocking it if I am allowed to amend it. I cannot dictate the schedule of the other body. But I do know the President of the United States, the majority leader, a majority of the Senate, the members of the 9/11 Commission, and the families of those who died want this Commission to be able to complete its work and, by God, we should honor that commitment to them.

I object.

Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for one question?

Mr. President, I just have a brief question for the majority leader. In case he missed the morning Washington Post, it says that the independent commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks will have to consider scaling back the scope of its inquiry and limiting public hearings unless Congress agrees by next week to give the panel more time to finish its work, its chairman. Governor Keane, a Republican chairman, said that their ability to conduct their investigation will be impaired permanently and severely unless Congress acts by next week.

The majority leader is incorrect. This article was last Friday, talking about this week, the chairman of the panel talking about this week.

Could I respond by again repeating what was in last week's Washington Post: The independent Commission will have to consider scaling back the scope of its inquiry, limiting public hearings, unless the Congress agrees by next week--that is this week-- to give the panel more time.

They may not have to shut down but certainly their ability to conduct their investigation, according to the chairman of the Commission, Mr. Keane, former Governor of New Jersey, a Republican, says would be impaired.

Every week that goes by makes the extension less valuable, and when they have to work toward the earlier deadline they have to start cancelling things and cannot go over things quite as clearly as they might like. There is a certain urgency, obviously, to Governor Keane's plea that we act this week.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, that is the bill that was passed through the Intelligence Committee yesterday; is that correct?

I do not object.

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

Mr. President, in regards to the issue which has been holding up the proceedings of the Senate, that is the extension of the highway bill and the issue tied to it, which is the charter of the 9/11 Commission chaired by Governor Keane and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, we have been in extensive discussions all day long. I would like to begin by thanking the majority leader as well as the Senator from Nevada for their patience, but also their involvement in trying to help bring about a resolution to this issue. They have certainly done everything in their power.

The upshot of it is that the Senator from Connecticut and I have been in conversations with former Congressman Hamilton and Governor Keane. As we understand from our conversations with them, they are scheduled to meet with the Speaker on Tuesday, this coming Tuesday, and that their chief of staff, the general counsel of the Commission, has been assured by the chief of staff of the Speaker that at that time the Speaker will agree to an additional 30 days in addition to the 60 days that the Commission will need to operate, and will be then given an additional 30 days in which to wrap up their report. That is satisfactory to Congressman Hamilton and Governor Keane. Both of them have personally assured me that is satisfactory to them. They will be proceeding on the assumption that they will receive an additional 30 days, as well as the 60-day extension.

I hope, as a result of this, that the House will take up and pass the bill reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee which the Senate majority leader had approved by a voice vote earlier today. It seems to me that is the most reasonable resolution.

I thank the majority leader again for his patience and hard work in this effort, including visits over on the other side of the Capitol. He certainly performed above and beyond.

May I finally say I believe that the Commission will now receive an additional 60 days of work plus 30 days to wrap up, and hopefully this issue will be resolved.

I thank my friend from Connecticut who has always done such great work.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment being offered by the Senator from Texas. Her eloquent explanation of the amendment is very compelling.

Let me go back to the larger issue. It is fascinating to me that after receiving a Statement of Administration Policy where the President of the United States says:

In total the Senate bill authorizes $318 billion in

spending on highways, highway safety, and mass transit . . .

a full $62 billion above the President's request for the same

period. . . .

Accordingly, if legislation that violates these principles

(such as this legislation, which authorizes $318 billion)

were presented to the President, his senior advisors would

recommend that he veto the bill.

There was discussion amongst Republican Senators yesterday that we will fix it in conference. I have this quaint and unusual idea that when we are authorizing $256 billion or $318 billion, maybe the whole Senate ought to be involved rather than ``fixing it'' in conference.

I cannot speak for my friends on the other side of the aisle--they are the opposition party--but how does this party, the party of fiscal sanity, the party of smaller Government, the party of lower taxes, the party that insisted that any revenues to fund highways should come out of the trust fund, now support a bill--according to the last vote-- overwhelmingly when the President of the United States and the American people are saying ``enough.'' Enough deficit spending, my friends. Enough. We are mortgaging our children's futures.

We just found out we have been sold a bill of goods on the Medicare prescription drug bill. It is $153 billion more than it was advertised to be a few months ago. When does it stop? When does the Republican Party find its soul? And this bill is an outrageous manifestation of how badly we have left our moorings. The amendment of the Senator from Texas at least restores some equity and fairness to this proposal.

I don't want to take too much more time except to mention one other point about the President's message:

In addition, the Administration opposes inclusion in a

surface transportation bill of unrelated provisions regarding

Amtrak. Any legislation regarding the future of Amtrak should

be considered separately and should provide for meaningful

reforms. . . .

What is interesting about that aspect of the President's message is, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, none of the provisions that the administration objects to came out of the Commerce Committee, the authorizing committee. It was stuck in by the managers of the bill who have about as much knowledge, expertise, and jurisdiction over Amtrak as I do over nuclear science.

It is fascinating the overreach of this bill. They add provisions for Amtrak that have nothing to do with their area of jurisdiction, and what we reported out of the Commerce Committee was not objectionable to the administration.

Finally, this whole formula is just crazy. It is bizarre and byzantine. In TEA-21, there was an immediate increase in the highway formula to provide each State a minimum return of 85 percent to 90.5 percent. The very first year of the authorization period, all donor States received an immediate increase. It has still not been explained to me or any of my colleagues why we should wait 5 years before our share increases. Why should we wait 5 years? It is patently unfair, and it is patently abusive, particularly for those of us who represent States that are dramatically growing in population, which means that our needs, obviously, are greater.

I make no argument that my State deserves more, not in any way. I say the citizens of my State deserve $1 back for every dollar they sent in the form of taxes to the Federal Government.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield to me for a comment, through him, that is a correction?

I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I was incorrect in my comments concerning the Amtrak provisions. These were provisions that I opposed in the bill and I was incorrect when I stated that they were put in by the committee. My apologies to the Senator from Oklahoma.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sent Congress what should be a much needed and sobering wake- up call. He warned that a lack of fiscal discipline could lead to increased long-term interest rates and called for new steps to restrain spending.

In delivering the Fed's monetary report to the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Greenspan said that should investors become significantly more doubtful that the Congress will take the necessary fiscal measures, then appreciable backup in long-term interest rates is possible.

Also, as we know, yesterday the administration transmitted its statement of administrative policy which we will continue to talk about throughout this debate. We all know the projected budget deficit for 2005 is over $500 billion, half a trillion dollars. Almost every Member in this Chamber has been talking the talk about reining in spending, but when are we going to start to back up our words with our actions? Passage of this bill would be the quintessential example of what we are doing wrong and how we are not stepping up to future financial straits for our children and grandchildren.

The current budget resolution provided $231 billion for the EPW Committee to spend on its portion of the bill. That is the current budget resolution. The pending EPW proposal would instead provide $255 billion, or $24 billion over the current budget resolution by which we are to be abiding. The current budget resolution provided $37 billion for the Banking Committee to spend on its transit portion of this bill. The Banking Committee proposal contained in the pending bill provides $46 billion or 25 percent over the budget resolution.

I guess I have to ask a question about this body's adherence to the budget resolution. We spend arduous days, and then with a vote-athon that is the most unpleasant day and evening of the year--certainly for me and I believe for most of my colleagues--we come up with a budget resolution and one we at least commit to abide by.

This bill, at least in two instances which I am bringing to your attention, is $24 billion over the current budget resolution by EPW, and 25 percent or $9 billion over the budget resolution by the Banking Committee.

A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial entitled ``Road Kill'' had some pretty harsh comments about what we are doing today. I will not quote from all of it. The Wall Street Journal editorial says:

An old political adage has it that the most dangerous place

in Washington is between a Congressman and asphalt. That is

exactly where taxpayers now find themselves as Congress

conspires to pass another monster highway bill. The only good

news is that President Bush is showing signs he may fight

this election year.

The administration has its own highway proposal which is

hardly cheap. Mr. Bush is asking for $256 billion over six

years, which is 21 percent more than the past six years and

fairly close to Treasury estimates of revenue from the

current 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax that is earmarked

for roads.

Ah, but this isn't enough for the boys of summer

construction. The draft Senate bill demands $55 billion more

than Mr. Bush and is loaded with fiscal gimmicks that divert

money from general--non-gas-tax--revenues into roadbuilding.

One of the more embarrassing arguments from Congress's

highwaymen is that this is somehow a ``jobs bill.''

That is what we continue to hear on this floor over and over again.

So at least for parochial matter, Republicans claim to

believe in the superiority of government over private

spending. Some Econ 101: Highway spending rolls out slowly

over many years but new taxes are immediately taken away from

the more productive private economy.

I would like to repeat that.

Highway spending rolls out slowly over many years but new

taxes are immediately taken away from the more productive

private economy. Still, this is a fight worth having.

Congress will keep spending freely until Mr. Bush shows he's

willing to spend political capital to say no. In a letter to

Congress last week, Administration officials warned that any

bill that includes higher gas taxes, trickster accounting or

a siphoning of general tax revenues will face a veto.

Presidents who make veto threats and don't fulfill them

quickly come irrelevant.

There are one of two things that are going to happen and let's be very clear about what is happening. One of two things is going to happen.

No. 1, if we pass this bill, it goes to conference and the President of the United States makes good on his very specific veto threat. I am sure that will be of benefit to the President of the United States in showing he is willing to crack down on reckless fiscal insanity, which is really what this bill is all about, or, somehow, a bill is passed by both bodies and they go to conference and, without the participation of the majority of Members of the Senate, the bill will be pared down to the President's demands.

Either way, this bill is rendered meaningless. What we are arguing about is a meaningless 1,300-page piece of document because the President has assured us that, unless it is a certain level, far lower than the present level, he will veto it.

I don't know if the President has the votes to sustain his veto in this body, but I am confident the President has the number of votes to sustain his veto in the other body. Either way, my dear friends of the Senate cannot come out of this looking good because we are so far over in excess of what the President has guaranteed he would veto.

As my colleagues who are managing this bill keep saying: We will fix it in

conference. We will fix it in conference. The last time we fixed something in conference we got a Medicare prescription drug bill that, it turns out, was only $143 billion short.

I have seen things fixed in conference and there is nothing worse than seeing a piece of legislation ``fixed in conference.''

So we are arguing about a piece of legislation that cannot pass--that cannot pass, certainly at its present level, by a significant number of billions of dollars. We are in violation of our own budget resolution in this bill.

Therefore, I raise the point of order against the substitute amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Parliamentary inquiry: Doesn't it have to be sent to the desk?

I ask for it to be sent to the desk.

I would like to respond to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Is the Senator aware that the EPW portion is over, by $24 billion, the budget resolution? The Commerce Committee is over by $2.5 billion. The reason it is over by $2.5 billion is because of administration requests. But I would be more than happy and would vote for removing the $2.5 billion which the Commerce Committee is over and the $24 billion that Environment and Public Works is over. That, it seems to me, would be fair.

Again, I hope the Senator from Missouri would look at the substitute that contains the Commerce Committee's input in title IV. The Senator from Missouri keeps claiming that the Commerce Committee is not in there. Look at title IV of the substitute, I say to the Senator from Missouri, and then you will find out what the Commerce Committee is. I am astonished he does not even know what is in his own substitute.

Mr. President, since the Senator from Missouri is on the Senate floor, I draw his attention to the index of his own substitute which has the commerce provisions of the bill in it in title IV. I wish he would ask to strike his comments if he doesn't know what the Commerce Committee is. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little surprised that he doesn't know what is in his own substitute.

The Senate Budget Committee staff tells us that EPW is $24 billion over the budget; Banking, $9 billion over the budget; Commerce, $2.5 billion over the budget--I would be more than happy to erase all of those--for a total of $35.5 billion over the budget. Meanwhile, everybody in America is warning us about running up these huge deficits. The President of the United States, the administration's proposed authorization level was $262 billion on highways and highway safety, $50 billion over the President's request; $56 billion on mass transit, $12 billion over the President's request. In total, the Senate bill authorizes $318 billion in spending on highway safety and mass transit over the next 6 years, a full $62 billion above the President's request for the same period.

The President has guaranteed a veto. He has guaranteed a veto if we go on with this number which the managers of the bill continue to stoutly defend. King Canute had a better idea.

I hope my colleagues will vote to support the point of order which was raised against the Budget Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I probably will not win this vote since I think the sentiments of many of the Members were expressed in the cloture vote, but I think it is important to point out again that the total spending in this bill exceeds the current budget resolution by $35.5 billion. We are facing a $500 billion deficit for the year 2005. In the Armed Services Committee hearing the other day, the Secretary of Defense pointed out that they will be coming in for a supplemental appropriation, many billions of dollars, after the elections, probably sometime in January. Our service chiefs mentioned that they might be 4 months' short of being able to operate with the funding they have. Our priorities seem to be passing a bill that exceeds the budget resolution by $35.5 billion.

I note the presence of the Budget Committee chairman, who I think does an outstanding job. I appreciate the credible efforts he has made both as chairman and otherwise for fiscal sanity. I wonder if we ought to waste our time this year going through the couple of weeks of trying to come up with a budget, or should we consider, as many House Members have and other Members of this body, that perhaps we should make the budget resolution signed into law by the President of the United States? With all due respect to my dear friend from Oklahoma, who has been here many years, this makes a mockery of the entire budget process.

The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee came to the floor and raised these old chestnuts as to how we are going to finance it. My all-time favorite is customs user fees. Again, I ask my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, how many times have we used customs user fees as a way of paying for something which has now given us a half-trillion-dollar deficit, the party of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in 1994?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Oklahoma to respond to my tirade.

I say to my friend, I thank him for his hard work. Again, I do not look forward to the most unpleasant day we have this year in the Senate, and that is when we all vote every 30 seconds on issues of huge import and none of us have a clue as to what we are voting for when we do it.

Again, I don't think it is through any fault of the chairman of the Budget Committee that this is over the budget resolution by $35.5 billion. But, if this is the process we should go through when we are authorizing or appropriating money--we have a budget resolution. It calls for a certain amount of money to be spent for a certain function. But then we can get the chairman of the Finance Committee to come down and say, Don't worry about what we decided in the budget resolution; we will just find some more money. Usually customs user fees is one of the old chestnuts that are drawn out of the fire to be used over and over again.

The other thing about this, my dear friends, the House of Representatives just decided to delay by 4 months consideration of the transportation bill. Why? Because there is an outright revolt over there, because they are closest to the people, about these totally out- of-control spending practices which have given us these unprecedented high deficits. I hear a rumor that they may do what is probably the right thing to do and just extend for 1 year the existing transportation legislation.

So what do we do? We are passing legislation of which the President of the United States has guaranteed a veto. Again, I like to point out, it is the Republican Party that is the majority. It is the party of the President of the United States that is in the majority here, yet we are pushing a bill to which the President says he is unalterably opposed. What is going on?

I hope my colleagues will consider voting to uphold this budget point of order. It is clearly valid. This budget point of order is clearly valid.

My friend from Oklahoma said he wished I hadn't raised this point of order because he doesn't like to see the budget really overridden. A vote against upholding the budget point of order, to waive the budget point of order, will basically override the work of the Budget Committee. I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration if they vote to waive this and future budget points of order.

It is interesting, on this bill no further budget point of order can be raised, according to the waiver that is before the Senate now. No matter how outrageous, no matter how egregious, we have waived this budget point of order and future points of order.

There is something wrong with this system. Let me remind my colleagues again, we have been on this for 2 weeks. For 1 week we didn't have a single vote. Yes, I oppose unanimous consent agreements. I never ever opposed votes on amendments. I was in favor of those. Why didn't we have a vote on the Gregg amendment? The reasons are obvious: Because they didn't want a vote on it. But that was not a reason to stall any process. But that is behind us.

Now we are faced, as of yesterday, with a veto threat from the President of the United States because of the tremendous $35.5 billion increase in spending over the budget resolution and about $62 billion above the President's request on this legislation.

I urge an affirmative vote, a vote against the motion to waive the budget point of order.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. This is an opportunity for the supporters of this legislation to avoid a Presidential veto, in two ways. One, bring it down to the President's number and, two, the criteria established by the statement of administration policy highway spending should be financed from the highway trust fund, not from the general fund of the Treasury. All spending for highways should be authorized and appropriated from the trust fund and derived from taxes imposed on highway use. It says the administration supports an authorization level of $256 billion. So to avoid a Presidential veto, I think the Kyl amendment is very important.

I do not want to comment on the statement of the Senator from Missouri, but I was entertained by his comments about the hole in the roof. I will tell the Senator from Missouri, there is actually a hole in the net, there is a hole in the safety net. Maybe highways are more important than people's Social Security and health care to the Senator from Missouri, but the fact is, and ask any expert, including testimony by Alan Greenspan just yesterday, this deficit is going to destroy America, and the first casualties will be Social Security and Medicare because they are unfunded mandates to which we just added, with the support of the Senator from Missouri, a $400 billion and now $543 billion debt on the taxpayers of America.

So if he is worried about a hole in the roof, I hope we are worried about a hole in the net, the safety net, the guarantee that we have made to people who are the least able to defend themselves and help themselves in our society. Those are recipients of Social Security and Medicare. Both systems are going bankrupt while we spend 60-some billion dollars more than the President wants and $35 billion more than the budget resolution we passed calls for.

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

Madam President, while the Senate began debating S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, known as SAFETEA, nearly 1 week ago, I am not sure some of my colleagues have been informed about how this bill would impact their State's highway funding. While perhaps we have all taken a look at the tables distributed by the committee of jurisdiction a few weeks ago, these tables omit some very important facts, including the fact that the number of donor States would actually increase under the pending legislation compared to the last reauthorization bill, TEA-21.

Instead of giving greater parity, it appears to be going in the opposite direction, as I will explain in a few minutes. Before I go too much further, I understand that after my colleague from Arizona was on the floor last week in opposition to this legislation, the Senator from Oklahoma went through some routine about how Arizona would do well under this legislation. Rather than subject my colleague from Oklahoma to that again, I would suggest we swap formulas between Oklahoma and Arizona. If the Senator from Oklahoma is not willing to do that, then please don't waste my time and his in trying to convince me this is a good deal for the State of Arizona.

First, I think it might help to put the bill in context by quickly reviewing the history of the Federal highway program, which I briefly mentioned on the floor last Monday evening. Nearly 50 years ago, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was enacted. As you can see, it was a deceptively inconspicuous-looking piece of legislation. It was 29 pages, but what it accomplished truly changed this country. The 1956 act created programs that constructed the interstate highway system, the largest civil works project ever undertaken by the United States. The act established the highway trust fund, financed by taxes paid by motorists--financed by taxpayers, not by general revenue--which is an important aspect to look at as we consider this legislation. It required that the interstate be built using a uniform design that would be safe within most U.S. highways in existence at that time.

The program to construct the interstate was first proposed by President Eisenhower in 1954 and signed into law in 1956. Today we are all the beneficiaries of the foresight of President Eisenhower and a Congress that helped to shepherd this bill through to enactment. The interstate system is 47,000 miles long, comprised of 62 superhighways crisscrossing the Nation in a grid. Twenty-four percent of all travel occurs on the interstate, and it has obtained a record being twice as safe as other highways.

Unfortunately, when people look back 50 years from now at the highway legislation currently before the Senate, I don't think history will be as kind. We reauthorize the multiyear highway transit safety programs about every 6 years. We last reauthorized these programs in 1998 with enactment of TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, following extensive debate in the Senate. The highway program reauthorization measure is a bill second to none in terms of attracting Members' interests. We all want to know how much our States will receive in highway funding under the byzantine formula distribution being proposed during each authorization debate. Therefore, because of its significance, it is important that each and every Member have an opportunity to know what the bill would do and how it would do it.

At this point, what exactly do my colleagues know about the real impact this bill would have on their States? I recognize the difficulties this reauthorization poses for the bill managers. I would prefer to be in a position to support their legislation. But in its current form, I cannot.

The bill would increase highway funding by over $60 billion over the TEA-21 enacted level, again, over $60 billion, for a total of $255 billion. At the same time, the bill not only perpetuates the donor/ donee discrepancy that we donor State representatives have battled during every highway bill reauthorization, but it actually expands it. The 28 donor States under TEA-21 will have the company of another three States--New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin--if this proposal is approved.

I guess I could say something about misery loving company, but I don't want more States to be shortchanged. Instead, I want all States to be treated more fairly. It amazes me that an additional $60 billion still can't enable the authorizing committee to develop a fairer formula but, as demonstrated by EPW's funding tables, they cannot or perhaps simply will not. Where will this extra $60 billion go?

While the EPW Committee argues its bill would get every State to a 95-percent rate of return by 2009, the sixth year of the authorization, I remind my colleagues that under TEA-21, the formula increased the minimum rate of return from 85 percent to 90.5 percent in the first year, and it continued throughout the authorization period. Yet, again, the EPW bill we are considering doesn't raise the floor to 95 percent until the sixth year. So, again, where exactly will this $60 billion go?

The committee proposes a new so-called formula. I say that because it is not actually a formula but instead is a series of five calculations consisting of funding caps and floors. This Rube-Goldberg-like funding contraption is grossly unfair and would result in 31 States getting back significantly less funding than they contribute to the highway trust fund. Further, while a number of the current bottom-of-the-barrel donor States would receive an immediate step up from the smallest of 90.5 percent rate of return, including a number of donor States with members on the committee, six States would receive almost no percentage increase until the last year of the authorization in 2009.

Under this formula, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, and Texas would be held at the very bottom, while many other States also would continue to get shortchanged.

This is not the right approach. It is unfair. We should do everything we can to try to ensure that any bill voted on is more equitable for all States. Again, it isn't just these six States that I mentioned that are being asked to contribute more to the highway trust fund than they will get back. I asked the Department of Transportation to provide an analysis of the formula. I thought it would be revealing to first learn how much each State would receive if the formula funds in the EPW bill were distributed proportionately back to each State based on their contributions to the highway fund.

According to the Department of Transportation, 31 States are donor

States under this formula, while 19 get back more than they pay in, according to this chart.

Let me give some examples. The people of California are being asked to send almost $2 billion to Washington, DC, so that it can be redistributed through some arcane funding scheme to the lucky 19 States that would get back more than they put in.

For Arizona, $364 million of its contributions would be sent away to the 19 States. You know, it is interesting, Arizona and California, neighboring States, have something in common that, frankly, neither Vermont nor Oklahoma have, which is high growth. Obviously, it puts on greater pressure when you have a high-growth population, which actually argues for increased funding. Instead, we are being shorted.

But here are other examples of funding. Florida, another high-growth State, would send away a billion dollars; Georgia would send away $643 million; Illinois would send away $403 million; Kentucky would send away $304 million; Michigan would send away $383 million; Missouri would send away $286 million; New Jersey would send away $547 million; Ohio would send away $517 million; and Texas would send away $1.7 billion.

The list goes on and on. It is remarkable.

I fully realize that during the era when the Federal Government was building the Interstate System, a redistribution of funding between the States may have made sense. Clearly, it would have been difficult for Montana, for example, with fewer than a million people, to fully pay for building its share of the Interstate System. But that era is over.

Congress declared the construction of the interstate complete in 1991. Yet here we are, 13 years later, and donor States are still being expected to agree to the redistribution of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to other States, regardless of the already enormous transportation needs in donor States. Why?

I am sure we will hear about the great transportation needs of the States that receive more than they contribute. I have no doubt that those States do in fact have such needs. But how is it determined that California should have nearly $2 billion of its funding redistributed? Why aren't California's transportation needs as worthy of receiving the same percentage of Federal funds as provided to meet the transportation needs of New York, for example, which will receive $989 million more than it contributes over 6 years? Where is the logic? I am afraid there is none.

Let's consider New Hampshire and Vermont. These are two very similar sized neighboring States. Both have about the same total road and street mileage--around 15,000 miles. But under this EPW formula, New Hampshire is a donor and Vermont is a donee, getting a windfall of almost $500 million, or almost 190 percent of what it contributes. In fact, Vermont would even receive more in total dollars than New Hampshire. There can be no policy rationale for that--none.

I will admit that I have a certain affection for the State of New Hampshire--a great deal of affection for the State of New Hampshire. But to have this kind of disparity between two States is rather remarkable.

Madam President, this bill is suspect. In fact, the tables that have been circulated by the EPW Committee actually raise more questions than they answer. For example, what affect will new air quality standards have on State allocations? The new formula included in the EPW bill for the congestion management and air quality improvement program, a program totaling $13 billion, is not reflected in the tables.

What happens to State allocations if the bill is not fully funded? The promise that your State, if you are a donor, will finally achieve a 95-percent return by 2009 may be empty. In order to achieve a 95- percent rate of return for all States in 2009, it would require a 1- year increase of $5.5 billion in 2009. How likely is that to occur, taking into consideration the projected fiscal year 2005 budget deficit of $\1/2\ trillion continued budget deficit projections well beyond 2009?

Here is a fundamental question, one I think the President is seriously considering: Are we really paying for this bill? The Finance Committee has proposed what many of us consider to be accounting gimmicks to make the highway bill appear to be fully paid for. But appearances are often deceptive, as several colleagues have already discussed on the floor. How will the Finance Committee's proposed accounting changes for gasohol taxation impact your State's share? I am told it will be dramatic for some States. Should the EPW Committee's funding tables not be updated to reflect any and all changes so that we all know the real impact of what we are being asked to vote on?

What affect will provisions in a potential managers' amendment have on your State's funding? Last Friday, on this floor, the chairman of the committee announced that Members' staff should bring all of their amendments to the committee staff on Saturday to determine if they will be incorporated into the managers' amendment. Today, it was announced that the EPW Committee staff met with 10 Members' offices over the weekend. The Democratic bill manager announced this afternoon that 34 amendments have been accepted by the managers. What amendments are being accepted? I am sure we will know when we read the Congressional Record. Should we not all be informed? Clearly, the managers' amendment needs to be made available for review prior to us being asked to vote on it. And will the EPW Committee distribute tables showing the impact of any funding changes that will occur under the managers' amendment? Again, we should all want to know exactly what is being proposed and how it will impact our State's funding.

I strongly support a long-term reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation programs and understand the vital nature of this funding to our States. This legislation only comes before the Senate every 6 years. I urge my colleagues to start asking some questions and ensure that they fully understand how the safety legislation would impact their State before it is allowed to pass the Senate.

We also have been told that at some point in the next few days, before we vote cloture on this bill, we will add a ``slimmed down'' energy bill to the highway bill. Now, I will freely admit--in fact, I will testify to the fact--that many times in our Nation's Capital we either are immune to, or insensitive to, the concerns of the American people. Here we are looking at massive deficits, massive overspending, massive growth of Government, unseen in the history of this country, and what are we going to do? We are going to add a ``slimmed down'' energy bill.

I understand that it has gone from $31 billion to $18 billion or $13 billion--you know, only in the teens of billions of dollars. This is a remarkable exercise. Adding an energy bill that was basically rejected--thank God--by this Senate, because of its hooters, looters, and polluters provisions, and now we are going to stick it on to the highway bill.

What does the energy bill have to do with the highway bill? Nothing. Do we have no shame? Is there no embarrassment whatsoever about the way we are doing business around here?

Madam President, I will continue to struggle and fight to see that for these 19 States, the percentage of what they are getting, as opposed to what they donate, is also important, as opposed to the 31 States which will be donating, and that we try to correct this inequity. Really what we should do is have a 1-year extension of the existing legislation and go back at this again next year. I think that would probably be of benefit to the taxpayers of America, who are deeply concerned about our overspending.

I also point out that I think the attention of the President of the United States is on this issue. I have heard--not directly but indirectly--that he would contemplate a veto of this legislation. I can think of no single act that might be more important or popular with the American people than for him to veto this bill, because at least the funding should come out of users fees, which was the fundamental principle behind the original highway bill.

If this Congress, in its wisdom, because we need more money for highways, thinks we need to increase the gas tax, I think that is a subject for

discussion and debate. The American people are getting a little weary of this smoke and mirrors of passing a $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill and finding out within weeks that it is $130 billion more expensive, to see our deficit skyrocket from surpluses of several trillion dollars and deficits of several trillion dollars. And no one--no one--no economist believes we are going to have the deficit within the next several years because, guess what, Madam President. We are going to be coming back--among other overspending, including this one--we are going to be coming back next year for another emergency supplemental for our operations in Iraq which will probably be in the range, at minimum, of about $50 billion.

I am hopeful that the American people will call a halt to this overspending. I am hopeful that the American people, particularly in these 31 States, will recognize that for every dollar in taxes they are paying when they go to the fuel pump, they are getting less than that back because it is being funneled through Washington, DC, to the benefit of States for which no rational argument can be made that it would be more beneficial to them than other States, including those that are experiencing very rapid growth.

I will continue, as some of my colleagues will, as long as we can to prevent the passage of this legislation. It is not only our obligation to our individual States that are not getting their money back for the funds they send, but also to all the taxpayers of America who are being victimized by this back-room, porkbarrel spending process which is really remarkable.

Again I want to show my colleagues, in 1956, this was the highway bill, and now we all know what rests on our desks.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I think it is well known that the President sent over three criteria, one of which was funding has to come strictly from the trust fund and not from general revenues. It is well known. It is published everywhere. I am sorry the Senator from Nevada missed it.

Yes.

Does the Senator know that the President sent over very explicit principles concerning the bill?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gregg amendment.