Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Stabenow, Allen, and Durbin. I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation.

Our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.

The situation America faces today is not unlike almost fifty years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had just assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.

In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to stimulate advancement in science and math education. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade.

These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet.

Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.

The truth of the matter is that today, America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future.

The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries.

While slightly better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.

Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.

In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.

The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: according to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America. The American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help. Under current law, the $14 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, two people from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs.

That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every two

years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded with a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education.

We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have approximately $14 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand.

In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a common- sense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in the years I have been privileged to serve in this Chamber, I have so thoroughly enjoyed working with my good friend from Delaware. We have done a lot of things together. I listened carefully to his framework and remarks. I respectfully disagree, and I will so state my reasons momentarily.

But I wondered if we could discuss for a few minutes the following. Before we start, I think it would be advisable for both sides to have from the Presiding Officer the time remaining on both sides for the record, so Senators listening will have an idea.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, to my good friend from Delaware, one of the interesting aspects of what has occurred in the Senate over the last week or so is an impetus to go back and do a lot of historical research. I went back and looked at the Articles of Confederation and the Founding Fathers and what they had to say about this provision of advise and consent in the Constitution.

It is interesting. I was very taken aback with how they went about modifying. If the Senator and others will indulge me, I would like to discuss that for a moment or two because I think it poses a question I would like to put to my good friend. That begins at this juncture.

You may ask why it is particularly appropriate for the Senate to be in executive session today, because on this day in 1787, 218 years ago, our Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution first reached a quorum so that the Constitutional Convention could draft our Constitution and they could proceed. It took several years to get it done. George Washington had been calling for such a convention for years, but it was not until this day, 218 years ago, that the convention finally began.

From May 25, 1787, straight through the summer, 55 individuals gathered in Philadelphia to write our Constitution. It was a hot summer, with long and arduous debate, and many drafts went back and forth. Careful consideration was given. Finally, in mid-September, it was over. It was a monumental achievement, one that would enable the United States today, 200-plus years later, to become the oldest, continuously surviving republic form of Government on Earth today.

I mention all this because one of the key compromises our Founding Fathers made throughout the Constitutional Convention was with respect to the advise and consent clause. Our Framers labored extensively over this section of the Constitution, deferring final resolution of the clause for several months. Some of the Framers argued that the President should have total authority to appoint. Others thought both the House of Representatives and the Senate should be involved in the process. Ultimately, a plan that was put forth by James Madison--if I may say proudly--of Virginia, won the day, where the President would nominate judges and executive nominees, and the Senate would reject or confirm them.

In Federalist Paper No. 76, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton explains in detail exactly why this compromise was so important. Let me read a portion of Hamilton's quote:

It has been observed in a former paper that ``the true test

of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce

a good administration.'' If the justness of this observation

be admitted, the mode of appointing the offices of the United

States contained in the foregoing clauses must, when

examined, be allowed to be entitled to particular

commendation. It is not easy to conceive a plan better

calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for

filling the offices of the Union.

I presume he wasn't looking into the future, so I will add ``women.''

Today, this great compromise can be found, unmodified, in article II, section 2 of the Constitution. This section of the Constitution reads in part as follows:

The President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice

and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . public

Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all

other Officers of the United States. . . .

Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President has the responsibility to nominate, and the Senate has the responsibility to render advice and consent on the nomination.

While article II, section 2 of the Constitution doesn't explicitly make a distinction between the Senate's role with respect to executive branch nominees and judicial nominees of the other branch of Government, the tradition of the Senate, in recognition of the Constitution, dictates otherwise.

Traditionally, a President, especially after taking office following an election, is given greater latitude in selecting individuals to serve in the executive branch of Government. This is in recognition of the fact that the Constitution treats Senate-confirmed executive branch nominees far differently than Senate-confirmed judges.

In contrast to Federal judicial nominees who, once confirmed under the Constitution, serve a lifetime appointment in the third branch of Government, independent of the President, executive branch nominees serve under the President solely at the pleasure of the President. That phrase, ``at the pleasure of the President,'' is paramount. This time- honored phrase, ``at the pleasure of the President,'' has been used by Presidents throughout American history to show the American people that the President is the final arbiter of accountability for executive nominees.

I say that because I have fought hard here recently to deal with this question of the judicial nominees, along with some others. I am not here to seek whether we did right or wrong; history will judge that. But it was a magnificent experience to go back and study the process and listen to many scholarly people and to read extensively. But it is clear to me there is a difference between the judicial nominee who goes for life on the third independent branch--independent of Congress and the executive branch--and the President's right to select those individuals who he, together with his fellow Cabinet officers and others in the administration, feels are best suited to do the job. Would you agree there is a difference in that? I yield for the purpose of answering the question.

Together with 14 in total.

Coequal.

The leadership of Senators McCain, Ben Nelson, and everybody else.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the colloquy. We did settle clearly that greater latitude is given to the President.

And the Senator from Virginia does not infer that latitude is a rubberstamp, that everyone goes through. Clearly--and I know my good friend from Delaware speaks as a matter of clear conscience--I speak as a matter of clear conscience.

Correct, and we have a difference of views as it relates to our conscience.

I thank my friend. I would also go back to Federalist 76 and read the following provision dated Tuesday, April 1, 1788, author Alexander Hamilton:

The President is ``to nominate, and, by and with the advice

and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other

public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court,

and other officers of the United States whose appointments

are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the

Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior

offices as they think proper in the President alone, or in

the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The

President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies which

may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting

commissions. . . .

This is the operative paragraph to which I wish to refer:

It has been observed in a former paper that ``the true test

of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce

a good administration.''

I said that.

If the justness of this observation be admitted, the mode

of appointing the officers of the United States contained in

the foregoing clauses, must, when examined, be allowed to be

entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to

conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a

judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union;

and it will not need proof, that on this point must

essentially depend the character of its administration.

Mr. President, our distinguished President has served in office 4 years. He was reelected with a clarity by the votes. He is now putting together his administration for these coming years. The nomination of John Bolton, with whom I have had considerable experience in work, in whom I have a strong sense of confidence--he has chosen this individual, I might say by and with the consent of his Secretary of State, a very able and most credible individual, in my experience, in working with the distinguished current Secretary of State.

The President, together with his principal Cabinet officers, has put together an extraordinary national security team. John Bolton will be a valuable addition to this team.

The President and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have been clear in their belief that John Bolton has the experience and skills to represent the United States at the United Nations and to carry out the President's priorities to strengthen and reform the United Nations. I agree with the confidence they place in this nominee.

John Bolton has had a long and distinguished career in public service and in the private sector. Most recently, he has served for the past 4 years as the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. In that capacity, Secretary Bolton worked to build a coalition of over 60 countries to help combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction through the Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI. He was a leader in creating the G-8 Global Partnership, which invited other nations to support the Nunn-Lugar nuclear threat reduction concept. As a result, many other nations are now participating with the United States in helping to eliminate and safeguard dangerous weapons and technologies which remain in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Previously, John Bolton has served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, as an Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice, and many years ago he held several senior positions in the Agency for International Development. He has also had a distinguished legal career in the private sector.

It is no secret that Mr. Bolton has at times advocated or represented positions which have sparked controversy. He has done so with a frankness and assertiveness that demonstrate his strongly held beliefs. As the Senate considers this nomination, we should keep in mind the words of Secretary Rice. She stated:

The President and I have asked John Bolton to do this work

because he knows how to get things done. He is a tough-minded

diplomat, he has a strong record of success and he has a

proven track record of effective multilateralism. Secretary

Rice concluded her remarks by saying, and I quote again:

John, you have my confidence and that of the President.

Given the enormity of problems facing the U.N. today, we have an obligation to send a strong-minded individual to help constructively to solve these problems and to build the confidence of the American people in the U.N.

I share the President's and the Secretary's belief that John Bolton will enthusiastically advance the President's goal of making the United Nations a stronger, more effective international organization.

I urge my colleagues to support this nomination and to send Mr. Bolton to the U.N. to represent our Nation and to advance the President's agenda of reform. Such reform is necessary to restore American confidence in the U.N. and to ensure that the U.N. will remain a vital and respected international organization in the years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post with regard to the Bolton nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last Friday, May 13, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ended his distinguished tour of duty at the Department of Defense.

During his 4 years at the Pentagon, Secretary Wolfowitz played a critical role as our Nation responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and our military defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and liberated Iraq from decades of tyranny. We continue to fight an all-out global war on terrorism, guided by the policies which Secretary Wolfowitz, acting as a true partner to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, helped to craft.

He was a true partner with Rumsfeld throughout. I have had some modest experience in the Department having served there myself during the war in Vietnam as Secretary of the Navy. I served under Messrs. Laird and Packard. I served under three Secretaries.

Their partnership, as the two principal's sharing an evergrowing, awesome, level of responsibilities has been exemplary in the annals of the Department of Defense.

On April 29, I was privileged to attend a ceremony at the Pentagon in honor of Secretary Wolfowitz's years of service. The speeches given that day--by General Pace, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz-- are among the finest I have ever heard, and are a true testament to this extraordinary individual. I wish Secretary Wolfowitz well as he prepares for his new duties as the President of the World Bank. I ask unanimous consent to have these speeches printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services 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, I rise today in support of the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

When I evaluate individuals for Federal judgeships, I turn first to the U.S. Constitution. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the responsibility to nominate, with the ``Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' individuals to serve as judges on the Federal courts. Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President is given the responsibility of nominating, and the Senate has the responsibility to render ``advice and consent'' on the nomination.

As I have fulfilled my constitutional responsibilities as a Senator over the past 27 years that I have had the honor of representing the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the U.S. Senate, I have conscientiously made the effort to work on judicial nominations with the Presidents with whom I have served.

Whether our President was President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, or President George W. Bush, I have accorded equal weight to the nominations of all Presidents, irrespective of party.

I have always considered a number of factors before casting my vote to confirm or reject a nominee. The nominee's character, professional career, experience, integrity, and temperament are all important. In addition, I consider whether the nominee is likely to interpret law according to precedent or impose his or her own views. The opinions of the officials from the State in which the nominee would serve and the views of my fellow Virginians are also important. In addition, I believe our judiciary should reflect the broad diversity of the citizens it serves.

These principles have served me well as I have closely examined the records of thousands of judicial nominees.

With respect to the nominee currently before the Senate, I reviewed Justice Owen's record, met with her personally last week, and considered her qualifications in light of all of these aforementioned factors. And let me say, Mr. President, that I came away rather impressed with this nominee.

You see, out of the thousands of nominees I have reviewed in the U.S. Senate, I have to say that Justice Owen has, without a doubt, one of the more impressive records.

In 1975, she earned her bachelors degree, cum laude, from Baylor University. She then remained at Baylor to earn her law degree. While in law school, she served as a member of the Baylor Law Review. And, when she graduated from law school in 1977, she once again earned the honors of graduating cum laude.

Upon graduating from law school, Justice Owen took the Texas bar exam. Not only did she pass it, she earned the highest score in the State on the December 1977 exam.

Since passing the bar, she spent approximately 16 years practicing law in a distinguished Houston law firm. She started as a young associate and through her efforts as a commercial litigator she later became a partner at the firm.

In 1994, Priscilla Owen was first elected to the Texas Supreme Court. Six years later, she overwhelmingly won a second term with 84 percent of the vote--a strong testament of public support given to her by the citizens of the State of Texas.

But not only do the people of Texas overwhelmingly believe that Judge Owens is a highly qualified Federal judge, it is important to recognize that every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her reelection.

She also has notable bipartisan support for her nomination, including three former Democrat judges on the Texas Supreme Court and the bipartisan support of 15 past Presidents of the State bar of Texas. The American Bar Association, often called the ``gold standard'' around here for evaluating judges, has unanimously deemed Justice Owen ``Well Qualified''--its highest rating.

Despite all of this strong, bipartisan support, however, over the course of the past 4 years, we have been unable to get to an up-or-down vote in the Senate on Justice Owen's nomination. All the while, this outstanding nominee has been waiting patiently for the Senate to act on her nomination. In my view, such an exemplary nominee should have been confirmed far sooner, especially since the seat for which she has been nominated has been dubbed by the Judicial Conference of the United States as a ``judicial emergency.''

The fact of the matter is that Justice Priscilla Owen is a highly distinguished jurist with impeccable credentials. There is no doubt in my mind that she should be confirmed for this lifetime appointment.

I look forward to voting in support of her nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall not object--I hope I could state a few words following the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I was scheduled to speak at 8 o'clock. My time I think has been put to good use, and I would be very pleased if I could make my remarks. So if I could follow the Senator from Illinois for not to exceed 4 minutes.

I thank my distinguished colleague from Illinois.

Mr. President, when we opened our brief press conference upstairs, Senator McCain and Senator Ben Nelson spoke for the entire group. It was made clear our everlasting gratitude to the tireless efforts by Senator Frist and Senator Reid. The framework that we have created can be no stronger than the foundation on which it rests. And that foundation was laid by our two respective leaders, and, indeed, the whips, Senator McConnell and the Senator from Illinois. So we are not around this evening to try to take credit for anything. As a matter of fact, this was the most unusual gathering of Senators, and the manner in which it was conducted over a number of days--total humility among our group.

We are proud of the leadership that Senator McCain gave, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Robert Byrd, and others. But each Senator of the 14 was 1, but 1 among equals, working toward a common goal. And no one articulated that goal time and time again in every meeting more than Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who said it is the Nation, it is the institution of the Senate, and the third priority is our own career. So I thank him for that.

I am proud to have been a part of this. I do hope that our wonderful Senate can now resume its long and distinguished service to our Nation over these 214 or 216 years, and I am very privileged to have been a small part of it at this time.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I rise today with renewed hope and confidence that this Congress can pass a surface transportation reauthorization bill. As it has been stated before, we have been operating under continuing resolutions--six of them--to keep the Department of Transportation's highway, transit, and highway safety programs running. We have been operating

for 2 years on expired legislation and we are far past due on our commitment to the American people to deliver an updated policy and expanded funding.

Last year both the Senate and House passed bills and the conference committee met for months before we were forced to abandon hopes of completing a conference report as a result of the much discussed disagreement over the size of the bill. This year we will still have a disagreement over the size of the bill but I am optimistic that with the narrowed gap, we will be able to resolve the differences quickly and amicably. I am pleased the Senate will adopt a bill funded at $295 billion and am hopeful that this funding level can be retained in conference. Our transportation system is bursting at the seams and the Congress must adequately fund this bill to address this myriad of needs. Almost 30 percent of ou Nation's bridges are structurally deficient. Thirty two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Our urban centers and suburban communities need expanded and updated transit infrastructure. Americans spend 3.7 billion hours each year in congested traffic. Our State highway departments are forced to cancel or delay projects as costs continue to rise while the revenue does not come.

In addition, we have a responsibility to make our transportation system safer for the traveling public. The President recognizes this and has appropriately named his proposal, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, SAFETEA. Throughout my career in the Senate I have worked with many of my colleagues to address critical safety measures on our Nation's highways. The most effective way to increase safety on our roads is to get people to wear their seat belts. I am a firm believer that the individual States must pass primary safety belt laws. The statistics are clear. More than 50 percent of the fatalities on our highways are individuals who were not wearing their safety belts. My hope is that the incentive grants included in this bill will prompt states to take actions to cut into the tens of thousands of deaths on our roadways each year.

The Committee substitute will increase funding in the bill from $284 billion as passed by the Environment and Public Works and Finance Committees to $295 billion. This means an additional $247.7 million for my home State of Virginia for a total of $4.7 billion in highway construction over the next 5 years. This represents more than a 32 percent increase over the highway funding in TEA-21. The Virginia Department of Transportation will now be able to restore many projects that had been cut from our transportation plan because of the lack of revenue. We have made small steps in the right direction to address donor States, increasing the rate of return to 92 percent by 2009.

We will also increase funding for transit programs across the country. While this has traditionally only meant our urban centers, transit has evolved to enable Americans in suburban and even rural areas of our States increased mobility on subways, buses, light rail, commuter railroads, ferries, and vans. More than 80 million Americans do not drive or have access to a car and this robust investment in our transit systems helps not only those Americans but also helps relieve congestion on our Nation's roads.

I wish to thank the chairmen and ranking members of the committees and subcommittees working so diligently on this bill. They and their staffs have been working together for several years toward the ultimate goal and today we take one step closer to that end. Chairman Inhofe, Subcommittee Chairman Bond, Ranking Member Jeffords, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Baucus have worked openly with the EPW Committee and every Senator in this body to address our concerns and their work is very much appreciated by this Senator. They have worked well with the Finance, Commerce, and Banking Committees to bring this bill together. I know how difficult this bill is to manage and it is my sincere hope that the conference committee will soon be able to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills and send a strong bill to the President. The bill we vote on today increases the revenue for our state highway departments, enhances the safety of our roadways, will help states address environmental pollution from our roadways, and will reduce the congestion millions of Americans deal with each day to help keep our Nation the strongest economy in the world.

Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the safety belt provisions in the Inhofe substitute, and to urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Allen.

The Commerce Committee's provisions to provide incentives to States which increase the use of seatbelts is essential to improving the safety of the driving public.

Increasing seatbelt usage is the hallmark of the administration's proposals to the Congress, and it is the cornerstone of the Commerce Committee's title to this bill.

The administration does not support the amendment before us and Secretary Mineta has written that, ``President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease highway fatalities and injuries.''

The facts are undeniable as the Secretary of Transportation states: ``Empirical evidence shows that the surest way for a State to increase safety belt usage is through the passage of a primary safety belt law.''

The administration's bill sets as our national goal a seatbelt use rate of 90 percent. That should be our minimum standard, but under the Allen amendment it would be weakened.

In a letter I received yesterday from Dr. Jeff Runge, administrator of the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, he writes in reference to the seatbelt grants program that ``no other proposal in SAFETEA will do more to improve safety than this bipartisan proposal.''

I commend Chairman Stevens, Senator Lott, and Ranking Member Inouye for their strong leadership in continuing a critically needed safety belt incentive grant program. It was my privilege to be directly involved in the drafting of TEA-21 in 1998. For the first time, TEA-21 included a significant, new incentive based program to increase the seatbelt use rate in this Nation.

At that time, the national average for seatbelt usage was approximately 67 percent. Some states, particularly those with primary seatbelt laws, were achieving belt use rates far above the national average, and they saw the immediate benefits of fewer highway deaths and injuries.

Before the TEA-21 program, other States, without primary seatbelt laws, had belt use rates much lower than the national average.

The Safety Belt Incentive Grant Program in TEA-21 provided approximately $600 million to States which improved their belt use rates. We have seen improvements in the number of people wearing seatbelts as a result of this program. I commend the Commerce Committee for their leadership in advancing a program that will take us even further in helping States to get people to buckle up.

Today, the average seatbelt use rate has improved significantly. There remains, however, great disparities between the States in their seatbelt usage. It is clear that States with primary seatbelt laws achieve far higher seatbelt use rates than States without primary seatbelt laws. For this reason, the Commerce Committee provides significant funding to States that enact primary seatbelt laws.

The Commerce Committee program, like the administration's proposal and the amendment I offered last year, sets as our national policy a goal that States reach a 90-percent seatbelt use rate. This important provision recognizes that the most effective tool to improve seatbelt usage is by enacting a primary seatbelt law.

Wearing seatbelts is a critical public health and safety issue. As many have said, wearing a seatbelt is the most single most important act we can take to prevent deaths and injuries on our highways.

For the first time in a decade, highway deaths are on the rise. In 2004, nearly 43,000 children and adults died as a result of automobile crashes. Over half of these deaths involved people who were not wearing their seatbelt.

I find that astonishing. There is no other fact that is more compelling that should convince us to take action.

If for no other reason to support this amendment, we must protect our Nation's youth. Today, automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34.

These tragic statistics are reversible, and the provisions approved by the Commerce Committee are critical to reducing traffic deaths.

I urge my colleagues to support the provisions in the bill to provide financial incentives to States to increase seatbelt usage to 90 percent or to enact a primary seatbelt law.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of John Bolton, the President's nominee for U.S. representative to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador.

The President, together with his principal Cabinet officers, has put together an extraordinary national security team. John Bolton will be a valuable addition to this team.

The President and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have expressed their confidence that John Bolton has the experience and skills to represent the United States at the United Nations and to carry out the President's priorities to strengthen and reform the U.N. I concur in the confidence they placed in the nominee.

John Bolton has had a long and distinguished career in public service and in the private sector. Most recently, he has served for the past 4 years as the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. In that capacity, Secretary Bolton worked to build a coalition of over 60 countries to help combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction through the Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI. He was a leader in creating the G8 Global Partnership to, in effect, ``multilateralize'' the Nunn-Lugar nuclear threat reduction concept by inviting other nations to join the United States in helping to eliminate and safeguard dangerous weapons and technologies which remain in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Previously, John Bolton has served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, as an Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice, and many years ago he held several senior positions in the Agency for International Development. He has also had a distinguished legal career in the private sector.

Mr. Bolton has at times advocated or represented controversial positions which have sparked controversy. But he has done so with a frankness and assertiveness that demonstrate his strongly held beliefs. As this committee, and later the full Senate, considers this nomination, we should keep in mind the words of Secretary Rice: ``The President and I have asked John Bolton to do this work because he knows how to get things done. He is a tough-minded diplomat, he has a strong record of success and he has a proven track record of effective multilteralism . . . John, you have my confidence and that of the President.''

Given the enormity of problems facing the U.N. today, we have an obligation to send a strong-minded individual to help constructively to solve these problems and to regain the confidence of the American people in the continuing need for the U.N.

I share the President's and the Secretary's expectation that John Bolton will faithfully represent the United States' interests and enthusiastically advance the President's goal of making the United Nations a stronger, more effective international organization.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of this bill. I had been discussing with Senator Bond options with regard to this amendment. Those discussions as yet have not yielded any course of action. I judge that he took the initiative here; I just was unaware he had taken it.

At this time I am chairing a hearing in the Armed Services Committee on military intelligence. We have finished our open session. We are now proceeding to S. 407 to conclude our hearing with a closed session. I am not able at this juncture to address this important amendment from the perspective of the Senator from Virginia who is the sponsor of the amendment in the committee, which was adopted as part of the markup. So I thank the distinguished chairman. My understanding is he did address the Senate with regard to my unavailability at this time. I

will, however, at a time mutually convenient, come to the floor and give my response to the Bond amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for his usual gracious work with his colleagues here in the Senate. I will return.

Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague from Colorado. I believe I was to follow him. Is that the order? I do want to adhere to the order.

I want to address the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, which is one of several pending amendments. If the Chair so desires, could we ask our colleague from Colorado, is this a matter related to the bill? We need some orientation so that I can accommodate the Senator from Colorado or he can accommodate me, as the case may be.

The Senator is ever so generous. Let's give him a full minute.

Mr. President, I rise to address the underlying bill which, in markup in the committee on which I am privileged to serve, was a markup of 17 yeas and 1 nay.

I rise in opposition to the Bond amendment. I hasten to point out this body has already disapproved the Bond amendment when they approved the earlier highway bill. This body has acted and approved the current mark that is in the underlying bill, which my good friend from Missouri seeks to strike.

What is this all about? In its simplest form, it is the mayors and the county supervisors and those officials in the State entrusted with the supervision of the construction, modernization, improvements, and renovation of our road system, usually the assistant secretary for transportation or whatever it is designated in the State--it is a whole realm of State officials on one side. I

will call it by one name, the mayors. It is the mayors versus my good friend from Missouri, Mr. Bond. The mayors desperately want to keep intact the bill as written by the committee and keep this provision which helps these individuals deal with a mandate from the Congress of the United States under the Clean Water Act, which says you must, in new construction, and as they rehabilitate the existing road system, deal with storm water runoff. That runoff contributes up to 50 percent of the total storm water which is daily worsening our drinking water. That is a quick synopsis.

Now I would like to go into a somewhat more lengthy dissertation. I express my strongest opposition. I should say I urge colleagues to affirm the markup of the committee. Leave the bill as it is. But to do so, we have to oppose the Bond pending amendment.

The program is urgently needed to fund local governments, the mayors and the supervisors, to reduce the runoff of polluted water. As I say, this was already approved by the Senate when they approved the first highway bill. There is no change of the language in the amendment I put in and incorporated in the markup of the bill. It was included and passed by the Senate last year.

The bill in its present form--and this provision, the Warner amendment, is in the bill--will for the first time begin to address the unfunded mandates affecting our local communities. It helps the mayors and the boards of supervisors and others deal with the unfunded mandate placed upon them with regard to the storm water runoff. I regret that my colleague opposes helping our localities with such serious financial burdens as now imposed on them by the Clean Water Act.

The rest of the story is that the Clean Water Act requires all of our communities to obtain permits for their storm water discharge. Along with this requirement comes the mandate that local governments are to fund projects that will control storm water runoff. These can be very expensive projects. Again, our existing highways are up to 50 percent the contributors to the problem associated with storm water runoff affecting our drinking water and other clean water uses.

Look at this debate we are having now as one regarding public health. What is more important to us than our clean drinking water? It is a matter of public health. Local governments that finance and manage our public drinking water systems tell me and they tell you, every one of you, it is becoming more and more difficult and more expensive to filter and treat our drinking water to remove the pollutants, many of which derive from storm water runoff, particularly from our roads. Stop to think of the contamination that exists on the roads that accumulates over the use of the road. Along comes one of our greatest gifts, a rain shower, and it takes those pollutants and runs them off and they find their way into our drinking water.

Many organizations that are on the front lines dealing with the problem strongly support this very modest provision to begin to address pollution for the existing highway structures. I point out that we have already acted in this body in previous legislation to say all new construction will have set aside by the States as required the funds necessary to deal with the storm water runoff from new construction. This measure very modestly is to take care of the existing road structures--when they need to be repaired at times, when they need to be upgraded.

I will bet I could go to dozens of places in my State, and each of you could go to places in your State, where you have new construction going on over here and it is funded to handle the storm water runoff, and not a mile distant is one of the old roads which doesn't have the precautions, and the runoff from both feeds the same stream which then goes into our water supplies. So unless you correct the old system, what is the sense of trying to correct the new system, in many instances? Stop to think about that. We have already exercised our wisdom to make sure the new construction is adequately financed and this is but a modest provision to finance the existing system.

It is a small provision. It is $170 million a year--$170 million a year out of a $284 billion bill. It will help more than 5,000 local communities in each of our States. Most importantly, our States themselves want this program. The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, our State officials responsible for improving the water quality of our rivers and lakes and streams, has written to each of us urging that the Senate retain the markup which was approved--again, 17 to 1 in the committee.

I refer my colleagues to a portion of the letter from the State and Interstate Water Pollution Administrators:

Communities throughout the Nation, including numerous

smaller towns and counties, are required under the Clean

Water Act to obtain discharge permits for storm water. Even

those communities which have long understood the value of

protecting their drinking sources and recreational sources

from storm water impacts are hard-pressed to absorb the costs

of discharges from the highways. This presents an unfair

burden to these small communities, and we believe it is fair

for the transportation funding system to help remedy this

problem where existing highways and other roads cause

significant runoff problems.

Storm water runoff is an $8 billion national problem. Yet there is no financial assistance to help our localities with the existing road structure. The storm water program in this bill takes the first step. I am very proud, indeed humbled, to represent these small communities. I urge my colleagues to let this bill remain as is.

The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, representing our municipally owned sewage treatment plants, has joined in this debate.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters I have from the various State organizations be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

This organization likewise has written in strong support of the committee's storm water provision. They also cite the undisputed fact that polluted storm water from impervious surfaces such as roads is a leading reason why nearly 40 percent of our Nation's waters fail meeting our Nation's water quality standards.

Similar letters of strong support have come from the U.S. Conference of Mayors which emphasize ``absent some . . . [other Federal funding] storm water pollution cleanup costs, including loadings attributable to the Federal highway system will be borne largely by local taxpayers through property taxes and other general taxes and wastewater utility fees.''

Hear this: These are your mayors reaching out to you for help.

I could go on. I have a great many letters. I am pleased to say our distinguished Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, states:

A program such as this could help improve water quality in

the Chesapeake Bay, and other watersheds in the Commonwealth.

The Virginia Association of Counties has strongly endorsed this program with the view that these provisions, reserving less than one- third of a penny of every highway dollar, are a very modest commitment to an enormous challenge before local governments struggling with contamination of drinking water from highway/street storm water discharge. The support for the committee's provision is strong because everyone recognizes that storm water runoff from highways is a known impediment to good water quality.

Accordingly, from the Environmental Public Agency, storm water runoff is the leading cause of pollution for nearly half of our rivers, lakes, and streams.

Roads collect pollutants from tailpipe emissions, brake lines, oil, and other sources. During storms, they mix with other contaminants of heavy metals and road salts that wash into our waters, and eventually, regrettably, work their way, in many instances, into our drinking water.

Today, every new highway must include methods to control this runoff. We have already spoken to this issue, spoken to this need, and funded in connection with new construction. I am talking about a very modest amount, one-third penny, to help these existing road systems.

We are here to help our local communities. The mayors have reached out. The chairman of the Board of Supervisors has reached out. Those folks that come to our offices and visit, we slap them on the back, and they leave

that office thinking they are going to get help. This is the kind of help they need. It is not much, one-third of one penny of every highway dollar.

The demands of those who are in opposition to this--namely, the road builders, and I am not speaking disrespectfully--have powerful lobbies, unlimited requirements. This is one-third of one penny for the mayors.

Exhibit 1

The United States

Conference of Mayors,

Washington, DC., April 25, 2005.

Hon. James M. Inhofe,

Chair, Environment & Public Works,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. James M. Jeffords,

Ranking Minority Member, Environment & Public Works

Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Minority Member Jeffords:

On behalf of The United States Conference of Mayors and the

hundreds of cities we represent, I write to convey our strong

support for the stormwater provisions of your Committee-

approved SAFETEA plan to renew the nation's surface

transportation programs.

These provisions, reserving less than 1/3 of a penny on

every authorized dollar, is a very modest commitment to an

enormous challenge before local governments struggling with

contamination of drinking water and cleanup of streams,

rivers, lakes and ponds and highway and street stormwater

discharge, including oil, grease, lead and mercury. Moreover,

we have been assured that these provisions limit funding to

actual facilities on the federal aid system, which is a

critical factor underlying our support of this program. This

is important to the nation's cities since it ensures that

users of these systems contribute something to the broader

efforts under the Clean Water Act to reduce pollutants from

the nation's major highways and roads.

Absent some commitment to retrofitting existing facilities

on the federal aid system during this renewal period,

stormwater pollution cleanup costs, including loadings

attributable to the federal aid system will be borne largely

by local taxpayers through property taxes, other general

taxes and wastewater utility user fees.

Finally, we disagree with the claim that this is a

diversion of funds from highway construction and highway

capacity needs. It is the belief of the nation's mayors that

improved performance, whether it is pavement quality, the

deployment of technology, or its stormwater quality features,

are priorities for the nation as we work with you to provide

a modern and fully functional transportation system for our

citizens and their communities and regions.

America's mayors thank you for making these provisions part

of your SAFETEA legislation and urge you to preserve this

important commitment to stormwater pollution abatement

efforts during your conference committee deliberations with

the House. If you have any questions, please contact our

Assistant Executive Director for Transportation Policy Ron

Thaniel.

Sincerely,

Tom Cochran,

Executive Director.

Will the Senator yield?

If the Senator is reading from the same statistics, give the full information.

The Senator said to our distinguished Presiding officer of Minnesota that indeed $17 million would be taken out of the asphalt and concrete. But I point to the next column: Your State holds $471 million under the mandate by the EPA for clean water. I have calculated that $17 million is helping, in a very modest way, the obligation of your State for $471 million to meet the mandate put on by the Senate and House of Representatives.

I know, as a former Governor, how you----

I have always admired the Senator for so many reasons. I really regret to be out here so forcefully taking him on with his arm in a sling.

No conscience.

I ask you--you are out here accusing me of putting in a mandate--how many

mandates in this bill are you the author of?

For instance, Safe Walks to Schools--hurray. I am all for it. Very good one.

I beg your pardon?

Do you have a question to put to me?

But I will get it back.

Mr. President, I certainly have no objection. How might we best accommodate the managers of the bill? A few more minutes on my side, a few more minutes I presume from my colleague, and we would be--

Reserving the right to object, I wonder if you would ask that I be recognized at the conclusion of the debate for purposes of making a tabling motion.

Mr. President, the purpose of my recognition is to move to table. Is that clearly understood?

No. I withdraw any objection. I thank the Presiding Officer. And I just might add by way of courtesy to the Senators, they can expect a rollcall vote within the next 10 minutes or so. Would that not be correct?

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

You have just advised the Senate that the administration has taken a position. I wish to add, is that the current AP or the one that was given last year?

Fine.

I accept the proffer.

Mr. President, while the Senator is on his feet, I say to the Senator, you say that this mandate is going to take some money from the bill. I have added up a number of mandates that our committee has put into this bill which are funded out of highways. Two of them, I commend you for. One is the NHS connecters--that is connecting some of our local systems to the interstate--which are valid. That is $900 million. Safe roads and paths to schools--that is a mandate. I commend you for that. That is $312 million. And Railroad diversion of highway funds, $893 million. It goes on and on.

I have to tell you, I think this is a well-crafted bill. It has my support. The chairman knows that. But, please, do not point the finger to me as if I am the only one who put a mandate in to help the little fellows. They are in here, plenty of them.

Thank you for your smile. That is all I wish to say. You agree with me.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to point out that as Senators come down to vote, I will put this sheet down for their examination. It shows the current allocation of aggregate Surface Transportation Program funds to their respective States, followed by a column which indicates the amount of money that the current markup with the Warner provision in it takes for the storm water. And then in the right-hand column is what their States owe under the EPA mandate to clean up water.

You will find that I offset by just a small percentage the enormous obligation each Senator's State has with regard to the EPA-mandated cleanup of the water.

I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for a very good debate. I hope we have fairly and adequately framed it for all Senators.

I move to table Bond amendment No. 592, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I will withhold.

Mr. President, I simply wish to reply that the amendment that is in the bill provides jobs. The same construction worker who is on the project building the new road comes down and repairs the old road. It requires concrete and asphalt to repair the old road, to divert the water. So it is highway construction. It is jobs. There is no digression of the funds except to provide a safety measure.

Mr. President, those organizations have been misinformed.

I move to table the Bond amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 593

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services 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, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation for my State, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005. This bill will add seven new wilderness areas, six additions to existing wilderness areas, and two National Scenic Areas to the Jefferson National Forest. Congressman Rick Boucher is introducing companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives.

Throughout my career in the United States Senate, I have strived to preserve Virginia's natural resources and heritage through the designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that Virginia boasts approximately 100,434 acres of designated wilderness lands. However, there is still much work to be done. Within the Jefferson National Forest, designated wilderness areas currently account for only 7 percent of the total forest acreage. If enacted, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005 will substantially increase this figure by expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness areas and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas.

Virginia is blessed with great beauty and natural diversity. From the complex ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite vistas, streams, vegetation, and wildlife of the Shenandoah Mountains, residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural treasures. As demand for development in Virginia increases, it becomes incumbent upon Congress to act expeditiously to protect these wild lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can ensure that these areas retain their primeval character and influences.

Mr. President, I consider myself an avid outdoorsman, and I enjoy opportunities for recreation like most Americans. Therefore, I want to stress the many joyful outdoor activities that will be enhanced by the wilderness designation in these areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. In addition, the Act is flexible and provides for reasonable local forest management and emergency services in wilderness areas, such as the use of motorized equipment and aircraft for search and rescue operations; or to combat fire, insects and disease.

I am particularly pleased to include in the legislation an authorization for the establishment of a non-motorized trail between County Route 650 and Forest Development Road 4018 outside of the new Raccoon Branch Wilderness area. This trail will follow the historic Rye Valley Railroad Grade and will be a popular route for mountain bikers, equestrians and hikers. In addition, this bill directs the Forest Service to develop trail plans for the wilderness and national scenic areas.

As a father and a grandfather, I feel a weighty obligation to ensure that our children have lasting opportunities to enjoy Virginia's immense natural beauty and diversity. This legislation is a crucial step in our quest to preserve these lovely areas for the enjoyment and use of future generations.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation for my State, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005. This bill will add seven new wilderness areas, six additions to existing wilderness areas, and two National Scenic Areas to the Jefferson National Forest. Congressman Rick Boucher is introducing companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives.

Throughout my career in the United States Senate, I have strived to preserve Virginia's natural resources and heritage through the designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that Virginia boasts approximately 100,434 acres of designated wilderness lands. However, there is still much work to be done. Within the Jefferson National Forest, designated wilderness areas currently account for only 7 percent of the total forest acreage. If enacted, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005 will substantially increase this figure by expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness areas and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas.

Virginia is blessed with great beauty and natural diversity. From the complex ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite vistas, streams, vegetation, and wildlife of the Shenandoah Mountains, residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural treasures. As demand for development in Virginia increases, it becomes incumbent upon Congress to act expeditiously to protect these wild lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can ensure that these areas retain their primeval character and influences.

Mr. President, I consider myself an avid outdoorsman, and I enjoy opportunities for recreation like most Americans. Therefore, I want to stress the many joyful outdoor activities that will be enhanced by the wilderness designation in these areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. In addition, the Act is flexible and provides for reasonable local forest management and emergency services in wilderness areas, such as the use of motorized equipment and aircraft for search and rescue operations; or to combat fire, insects and disease.

I am particularly pleased to include in the legislation an authorization for the establishment of a non-motorized trail between County Route 650 and Forest Development Road 4018 outside of the new Raccoon Branch Wilderness area. This trail will follow the historic Rye Valley Railroad Grade and will be a popular route for mountain bikers, equestrians and hikers. In addition, this bill directs the Forest Service to develop trail plans for the wilderness and national scenic areas.

As a father and a grandfather, I feel a weighty obligation to ensure that our children have lasting opportunities to enjoy Virginia's immense natural beauty and diversity. This legislation is a crucial step in our quest to preserve these lovely areas for the enjoyment and use of future generations.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend Mr. Donnie R. Wheeler for becoming the first president of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies--NACWA--formerly the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, AMSA. Mr. Wheeler currently serves as the General Manager of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District--HRSD-- Virginia Beach, VA. He is regarded by his peers as an exceptional leader, dedicated to protecting the environment and health of Virginia and the Nation.

Mr. Wheeler is a graduate of Virginia Tech and for 7 years was employed by the Virginia State Water Control Board before joining HRSD in 1974. HRSD, a nationally recognized regional wastewater treatment utility, serves 17 cities and counties covering 3100 square miles of southeast Virginia. Under his management, HRSD has received numerous awards from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is recognized as a state innovator for such initiatives as Virginia's first municipal water reuse project.

Under his leadership, I trust that NACWA will promote responsible national policies to advance clean water and a healthy environment. Mr. Wheeler, is a founder of the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies--VAMWA--and served as its president for 6 years. In his long career, Mr. Wheeler has earned the respect of his colleagues at all levels of government and his achievements have earned him awards from the Virginia Water Environment Association--VWEA--and Environment Virginia. Mr. Wheeler also has served as an adjunct professor of Environmental Engineering at Old Dominion University.

In the true sense of the word and by his many achievements in a long and distinguished professional career, Mr. Wheeler is an ``environmentalist'' who will now proudly serve in a new leadership role the industry in which he has worked for so many years. It is with pleasure that I congratulate and commend Mr. Wheeler on being elected the first president of NACWA.