Floor Statements

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I wish to talk about the economy. We can sure tell this is an election year. The false rhetoric that is going on about the economy is amazing. The fact is, the economy is recovering and our tax cuts have made a significant difference in the fact our economy is recovering.

I heard the previous speaker on the floor talk about the jobs we are losing, but this President and this Republican Congress inherited an economy that was going in the dumps when he went into office.

It was headed downhill. The stock market had been down for 9 months and the recession was just beginning when he was taking his oath of office, so one cannot blame this President for what has happened in the economy. We need to look back at what happened during the Clinton administration. We had one of the highest tax increases in the history of this country. Everybody who follows the economy knows it takes a while for tax policy to take effect. What has happened under the Bush Presidency, with a Republican Congress, is we put some tax cuts in place to get the economy recovered. It has worked. Now it did not start working immediately, but after a year or two we began to see the results. We are seeing the results today.

The Members of the Senate who come to this floor and say we ought to raise taxes, that will do nothing more than destroy the economic recovery process we see taking place right now.

I have a report from the Joint Economic Committee. The chairman of that committee happens to be Senator Bennett. It is made up equally of Members of each party from the Senate. There are five Republicans and five Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee. They have published a rather promising report. It is time we take a look at what they say about the economy. There should not be any doubt that the economy is recovering and a lot of it has been done due to the tax cuts. We should not allow a tax increase to occur that would destroy this economic growth.

They report the economy is strong and there is sustainable growth going on. The recovery continues at a strong pace. Payrolls increased by over 112,000 jobs in January as activity in the manufacturing and services industries accelerated. Last year closed with the economy growing at a 4 percent annual rate and productivity growing at a 2.7 percent annual rate, well above the long-run averages. Despite all of this, inflation remains benign. It is not growing, allowing the Federal Reserve to maintain short-term interest rates at historical lows. Recent tax relief continues to benefit consumers and businesses. Forecasters see continued robust growth, low inflation, and accelerated job gains throughout this year. That is pretty good news.

The payroll employment increase of 112,000 jobs in January was the largest monthly gain since the year 2000. The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent. I remember when I took economics in college in the 1960s. Five percent was considered full employment. We were spoiled a little bit and it was definitely an aberration, as a lot of economists described it, when we got down to 4 percent, but 5 percent is still considered a full employment figure. The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in January, well below its recent peak of 6.3 percent last June. Five straight months of job gains have now added 366,000 jobs to U.S. payrolls.

5.6 percent is good news. The economy grew at a robust 4 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2003. Forecasters see continued growth of around 4 percent throughout this year. Productivity--this is output per hour of labor--grew at a 2.7 percent pace in the fourth quarter, above historical averages. I continue to believe the workers in this country are the best educated, the best motivated, and nowhere in the world is their productivity exceeded. They are the ultimate. I think we should be proud of that and recognize it is all that individual effort that makes a difference and what keeps this economic engine growing.

The Federal Reserve has kept short-term interest rates unchanged at 1 percent, which is good for individuals who want to buy homes, for example. The administration worked with me to pass legislation called the American Dream Down Payment Act to get people into homes. I see now they are reporting that home ownership is at an historic high. It has never been higher in the history of this country than what we are seeing today as far as homeownership. That legislation, working with the administration, is the type of effort that is making the difference.

The household survey, used to calculate the unemployment rate, showed employment gains of almost 500,000 in January. The gap between the household and the payroll measures of employment continues to widen, confirming initial labor market improvements and continuing jobless claims for unemployment insurance benefits are trending downward.

I like to rely on the household survey because I think the household survey tells us something the payroll survey does not. What it tells me is a lot of our Americans are saying, look, now is the time for me to start my own business. When they start their own business they start out small so that means

they start out of their home, they contract to do their labor. Then as demand grows for their service they begin to expand out from there. The household survey reflects that.

We have seen tremendous growth in the household survey. The payroll wage survey misses that particular parameter. That has been good news for some time, and the Joint Economic Committee has shown evidence this continues to grow. This is the small business sector of this country. It is the small business sector where one sees economic growth happen because this is where new ideas develop. This is where small companies have an opportunity to grow into larger companies like we have seen many of our high-tech companies do.

Last night I had dinner with a number of executives from high-tech companies, and they are bullish on our economy. They think things are doing pretty well. They told us, well, maybe there have been a few jobs that have gone overseas, but nearly all of our jobs are growing in America. This is where our job growth is happening.

Again, this is a political year and a lot of this false negative rhetoric is not telling the full story, and that is what I want to get across this morning. The economy is recovering and that is due to our tax cuts. Gross domestic product and productivity have grown at a very strong and sustainable rate. Real gross domestic product, often referred to as the GDP, grew at a solid 4 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, following the third quarter's remarkable 8.2 percent rate. Amazing, the third quarter of last year had a 8.2 percent growth rate.

In the second half of 2003, the economy grew at the fastest 6-month pace in almost 20 years. Over 2003, as a whole, gross domestic product grew at a robust average of 4.3 percent. By way of comparison, the economy grew at an average of 3.7 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. Even when we had unprecedented economic growth in the 1990s, it was only 3.7 percent. We saw a much higher growth rate last year. Productivity also advanced, growing at a 2.7 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, and in excess of 4 percent for the second consecutive year, well above historical averages.

Forecasters believe the gross domestic growth will be sustained at around 4 percent throughout this year. That is all good news. Our tax cuts are working.

Let's look at business activity. Business activity continues to strengthen. Increases in average weekly hours of work and moderation of job losses in manufacturing indicate rising activity. Confirming this trend, the Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index has risen since May to its highest value since 1983. The ISM services index has also been rising and, in January, was the highest in its history. Index value over 50 means the relevant sector is expanding. Current values of well above 60 indicate vigorous expansion in manufacturing and service.

The economy is recovering and our cutting taxes is making the difference. Consumer confidence and spending grew. The University of Michigan's consumer sentiment index rose in January to its highest value since 2000. The Confidence Board's index rose to the highest in 18 months.

After tax income also continues to grow, boosted by tax cuts. Most Americans, after filing their taxes, are going to get more money back from the Government than they have in previous years. Improved sentiment and incomes have boosted consumer spending, which grew at a 2.6-percent annual pace in the fourth quarter after hearty spending in the third quarter. After tax incomes will improve further as taxpayers receive higher refunds.

What does it look like as far as the Fed? They are holding monetary policy steady. It is unchanged. This means they kept short-term interest rates at the five-decade low of 1 percent but changed their policy statement to set up flexibility to raise rates if they see signs of inflation. So they are prepared to act if we start to move into an inflationary cycle. Many measures of inflation are at their lowest since the 1960s, a key reason the Fed has accommodated strong growth without raising rates.

I continue to point to the housing market where we had huge amounts of growth in home ownership because interest rates are low. All of a sudden, individuals who could not make a downpayment on a home found that, by gosh, with the interest rates down, it is easier for them to come up with the payment. It means their monthly payment will be less because interest rates are lower. Home ownership is good for the economy. It creates jobs.

The housing market remains robust. Remarkably strong home sales have boosted the home ownership rate to a new high, and that new high is 68.5 percent. Many signs point to more strength in housing in the near term. Mortgage applications have increased again on a renewed dip in mortgage rates.

Housing starts rose in December to the highest rate in about 20 years and permits for home construction were up for the fourth quarter. This is all good news. The economy is recovering. It has been due to those tax cuts that we implemented earlier in the President's term.

Ministers from major industrial countries met last weekend to discuss currency issues, including the dollar's recent decline and China's dollar peg. The dollar fell 10 percent against Japan's yen and 17 percent against the euro last year, making U.S. exports less costly in world markets and imports more costly. Ministers again called for flexible, ``orderly'' exchange rates.

This is all good news. I recall at the first of last year and in 2002 manufacturers were coming to me and complaining about their inability to compete in the international markets because the value of the dollar was so much higher than what it had been historically. Those of you who are listening understand, when the value of the dollar is low, it means the cost of your goods and services are much higher and it is harder for you to be competitive against the yen or euro, for example. Now that is changing. The value of the dollar has dropped down so this means our manufactured goods are going to be able to compete overseas against those products that are already provided.

I feel good about what we can look forward to. I am disappointed that we have to resort to all this negative rhetoric because we are in a campaign. I have shared with my colleagues here, and the American people, some real facts about what is happening in the economy. I don't think anybody, when they look at these facts, can disagree that our economy is in a state of recovery. Obviously, you can take the facts and pull them over two decades and you can distort them and try to make the President look bad as far as the economy is concerned.

But the fact is, President Bush has had a strong growth policy for the economy, and it is working. It included cutting taxes and holding the growth in interest rates down, working with the Fed. Economic indicators have shown positive growth and the economy is going to continue to do that.

I cannot understand why the opposition party has decided they are going to make the economy their issue. It is a losing issue because the economy is recovering. The American people are beginning to realize that. My State, for example, is a diverse State. We don't like to put all our eggs in one basket, so we have manufacturing, we have tourism, in the State of Colorado we have agriculture, we have natural resources, high technology, telecommunications and research and development. We realize things need to be done to encourage that, something we need to encourage throughout the country, to make sure we stay competitive. And that is educations. The company executives I met with last night said, yes, education is important. We need to be sure that we have our workforce, our citizens, well educated.

The President has pushed to improve education. No Child Left Behind is certainly a sincere effort to try to improve our educational system. I happen to think it is going to work.

We are improving our educational system. The economic figures are looking good. We should all be positive about the outlook, as far as America is concerned.

I am proud to be American. I am proud of my small business roots. I had an opportunity to start a business from scratch as a veterinarian and I worked hard to see that grow. It gave me an opportunity to contribute to my community as a small businessman, and to

provide an opportunity for my children to get an education. They got their education. Now they are raising their families. I want to see my grandchildren have the same future that I have enjoyed, and my children have enjoyed.

I think what the President is doing to hold down taxes creates lots of opportunity for young people to get their own business started. That is the strength of America, our small business sector. That is where innovation starts and that is where growth begins.

Madam President, I am curious to know how much time we have left on this side.

I want to talk a little bit more about the housing issue. As our economy was going through an unprecedented decline, we saw housing stay up. That was the one part of our economy that actually sustained us.

It was a pleasure for me to be able to work with the President on the American Dream Downpayment Act, to allow for young people in all areas of the country to begin to be able to make that downpayment on that first home.

In studying what was happening in the last several years, even though we had dropped interest rates and it was easier to qualify for loans, there were a lot of people who should have but did not own their own homes. Historically the barrier was that downpayment. So the American Dream Downpayment Act provides a way for families who run up to this barrier, where they look at their rental rates they are paying that are exactly the same as what their mortgage payment would be, this provides them an opportunity to get past this downpayment barrier in order to own a home.

It is working. It is going to work. As it moves forward--it is just getting started--it is going to do even more to create home ownership.

I am proud of this President. I am proud of his economic policies. I am proud to be able to work with him in a partnership in cutting taxes and encouraging the economy to grow.

As a small businessman, I know how that works. If anything affects a job, or growth, it is when taxes get too high and rules and regulations take over your business. As a small businessman, I have had to suffer through down economies. I have had to lay people off because our small business was not doing very well because of a down economy. It is not fun.

But we always recovered and after we recovered we were more productive and we were more efficient and we generally provided a better service. I think that has happened in this country. I think a lot of companies have taken the downturn and streamlined their operations, improved their services.

The bottom line is that we are going to have more jobs in this country. Our economy is going to continue to grow. The bottom line is the consumers in this country are going to be better served.

This President has done the right thing for America. It is unfortunate that, in an election year such as this, the political rhetoric gets so negative because it really does not reflect what has been going on. To repeat, unemployment rates have dropped to 5.6 percent. The gross domestic product is growing at phenomenal rates. Job growth is happening. It is occurring today.

Other countries have looked at what we have done in America to create jobs, and they are updating.

Competition is going to be tough in the international market, and we need to be prepared to compete. Trade restrictions is not the way to do it. We historically have been able to compete throughout the international community without trade restrictions. In fact, the trade agreements we pass actually make it possible for the United States to cut down the trade tariffs that are applied against American products.

One of the things that gets thrown out here is the trade deficit. The trade deficit has been the worst in this country during the Depression and during the recession we had at the end of the Carter years in the 1970s. When our economy goes down, trade deficits get better. When our economy goes up, trade deficits change because consumers are buying more goods. When you have them buying more goods, it creates more jobs. I don't see where the trade issue is one that really reflects what is happening in the economy.

I shared these issues with you this morning because that is really what is happening in the economy. Employment is rising, unemployment rates continue to fall, gross domestic product and productivity continue to grow strong and at a sustainable rate, business activity continues to strengthen, consumer confidence and spending grows, the Fed is holding interests rates at a steady 1 percent, and the housing market looks really good. It has been good for a while and continues to look good. When you compare the dollar to the yen or to the euro, its value is going down, which is good for exports. It is good for business. It means we will be able to move our products overseas. I think it looks good.

I am proud of this President. He has the right solution, and it is working.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to understand where we were. The Senator is going to speak for 12 minutes and then I will be recognized for 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his comments. I, too, look forward to working with him on these transportation issues. We worked together on a number of issues throughout our careers. I always look forward to the cooperation he is willing to share in a bipartisan way.

While we are passing out some ``atta boys,'' I want to again congratulate the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for getting this bill to the floor. It was not easy. I know he worked all last year, and while most of us were on break, he was working hard trying to work out compromises so this legislation would be one of the first with which we would be dealing when we came back in for this particular session of the Congress.

Historically, transportation issues have not been partisan. Usually, it is approached in a bipartisan way. It is very complicated. Every State is affected differently. The bill has a highway transportation portion and a mass transit portion. Usually, there are some provisions, such as we saw this year, that come out of the Commerce Committee. The Finance Committee gets involved because there are some issues on how we are going to come up with the money that is required.

I also wish to compliment Chairman Shelby. Chairman Inhofe is chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and then we have Chairman Shelby who is chairman of the Banking Committee. A major part of the mass transit provisions comes out of that committee. He has been working with the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes. I am chairman of a subcommittee in the Banking Committee that deals with housing and transportation, so I have oversight over mass transit. I work with the ranking member, Senator Reed of Rhode Island. They, too, spent a great deal of time working on this legislation, and I thank them for working in a bipartisan way to reach a consensus on this bill.

One of the issues we struggled with is how we are going to pay for what everybody wants in highway transportation and mass transit. It is something with which Congress has been struggling.

This bill came out of the Finance Committee, and they put in provisions. My concern is that we don't add to the deficit and we use those dollars that are available in the highway trust fund to finance transportation needs, particularly for highways.

The bill is a step in the right direction. It makes important steps in a number of areas. I come from a State that has experienced rapid growth. I know a lot of Members of the Senate who come from rural areas, particularly in the West and the South, have experienced similar growth rates in their particular States. So we all are challenged with the transportation problems that come with that rapid growth. One problem is mass transit.

Historically, most of the dollars in mass transit have gone to those States that have large metropolitan areas or directly to a large metropolitan area, such as New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. But those of us who come from relatively small metropolitan areas but are showing a lot of growth have never had access to dollars that are required for us to begin to move forward with mass transit.

In the State of Colorado, Denver is our metropolitan area. It was very difficult at one point to access the dollars to start mass transit systems. There were provisions put in place when we had Chairman Alfonse D'Amato from New York. I worked with him to try and put together a formula for mass transit where the smaller States could begin to participate in some of the mass transit dollars. That originally got put in place when Alfonse D'Amato, who was from New York, was chairman of the committee. Like I said at the time when we were working with Chairman D'Amato, we don't want to take all the money for small States, but I think when we have more than 90 percent of the dollars in mass transit going just to 11 cities, that is not a good balance either. So we needed to work out a formula.

We worked out a formula where the smaller growing metropolitan areas in this country would have some additional access to mass transit money.

We continue to work on that provision in this bill. We are beginning to recognize the growth and the needs in many other communities throughout the United States and working to give them flexibility to approach their transportation problems with different perspectives. We give them as many alternatives as they possibly can select in trying to meet their transportation needs.

One area is using buses, what we call rapid transit buses. These are buses that have dedicated lanes on highways. In some areas, it is cheaper to put down roads and highways than it is to build rail. They use that and then use buses instead of mass transit. It has the advantage of additional flexibility because the bus doesn't have to stop at one particular station. I know my State of Colorado is looking at this as an alternative.

We have money in the section that came out of Banking to provide additional flexibility to the States and local communities so they can look at these various alternatives as to what they can afford. There is no getting around it; when you start putting in a fixed rail system, they are very expensive.

I am happy to report in my State of Colorado, we have a major construction project combining expanding highways with mass transit. That particular project has been under budget and is ahead of schedule. As a result of that, the State is developing a good reputation in that regard. We have tried to put incentives in this legislation that says to communities throughout the country if you begin to take on these projects, we have incentives where you can work on the project, and if you are responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and you are ahead of schedule and under budget, this is all good news, so we want to encourage that type of behavior.

That is so much of what we have been trying to accomplish in the mass transit section of the bill.

Highways, obviously, are important as far as rural transportation is concerned but also is bus service. In some isolated areas of this country, there are elderly people, and many rural communities are disproportionately impacted by again rural populations. So they need to have some other alternatives of being able to get to their doctor or being able to get down and around in their communities to take care of their vital needs. So we have provided some programs that begin to provide bus service for the rural communities.

Overall, I think there has been a little bit of shift, if one looks at this transportation bill, from large States to the smaller States and giving the smaller States some flexibility as far as the dollars. That is good because that is kind of what is happening with the population. There is a lot of population change. People are moving from the larger communities and going out into the smaller communities, and sometimes it has to do with the quality of life. They are going out in the smaller communities because they have smaller classes in the schools. They like the rural living. They like easier access without having to deal with traffic problems.

We need to keep this in mind. So there is a provision in there to help take care of some of these big issues. We figured out that about 40 percent of the counties in this country do not have any transit at all and they are looking at some ways of trying to meet the needs of their local citizens.

Overall, this package has some good in it. We just need to work out how we are going to pay for all of it.

The other thing I would mention is, the private sector plays a key role in all of this. We sort of leaned on the private sector to help provide the expertise, and we want to be sure they have an opportunity to get into public-private partnerships because it can benefit all parties. Many times if it can be opened to a free market approach, it holds down the cost of the project. If projects develop into monopolies where one company, one group of employees, or one community has such control, then we do not have the competition out there to hold down the cost of the project.

I am one who ordinarily believes that if costs for a project are to be held down, competition is the way to do it. Rules and regulations are passed, as well as having price controls. Basically, it is going to be competition that best serves the customers, whatever that transit project would happen to be, and also would be a process where we do not have an overburdensome bureaucracy which in itself does a lot to add to the cost of the project because of so much oversight.

So it is kind of a balance between where is the proper level of regulation so they can assure that things are done right but on the other hand hold down on the regulations so there are not unnecessary bureaucratic delays.

This is sort of a broad-brushed approach to our transportation needs. We began to recognize that there are lots of ways people can travel, and I think we have done that in this particular bill.

I want to talk a little bit more about my own State of Colorado and what is happening. If we look at the highway transportation funding formula, Colorado does well as far as the formula is concerned. This kind of chart sort of illustrates that. If we look at TEA-21, the 6- year average is $335 million available for Colorado in the previous 6 years, per year. TEA-21 is the highway transportation bill that was passed and its funding ended in 2003. Now we are on 2004. This is what we call SAFETEA. If we look at the funding there, we have $423 million in 2004 for Colorado. In 2008, it goes up to $505 million, but in the last year we have a real balloon that goes up to $603. Some people say: I do not know if it is going to be there.

Well, it is out there quite a ways, 6 years. In the last transportation bill we had, it was available for the State of Colorado. In the last transportation bill, they had flexibility that the States could use. There were some rather unique happenings in the Denver metropolitan area in trying to meet the transportation needs of the State as well as that metropolitan area. So for the State of Colorado it is about a 46-percent increase. All total, we are talking about 934.3 million new dollars over and above what was provided in TEA-21. If we want to spill those over into jobs, it is estimated that could create as much as 44,300 new job opportunities in the State of Colorado. So there is no doubt that if the infrastructure is worked on and it is done the right way, it can create a lot of opportunity in one's State. Certainly in the State of Colorado it is creating a lot of opportunity for us.

Now, when we talk about transportation issues in my State, there are a lot of things with which the local communities have to deal. Obviously, there are those who have to commute to work who want to get to work as fast as possible. There are those who say, look, we have air pollution problems and as a result of that we want to restrict the amount of driving that goes on. So maybe mass transit is one of the ways to do that.

The first large mass transit line that we put in the State of Colorado, in the Denver metro area, out toward what we would refer to as the southwest corridor, has helped hold down our air pollution. People are using that.

Some people say we spent a lot of money on mass transit but it does not get used. Well, at least as far as the Denver metro area, it is being used. In fact, it is being used to the point where it has exceeded the amount of revenue that anybody anticipated. The usage is much higher. There is so much demand to get on the train that one of the things that has become an issue is parking, where are people going to park around the various stations in order to be able to take the train to work.

So now this has been moved a step further. With the success of that train, they are taking the money and saying, OK, now we can expand it out to the major project they are doing now, which is between two major business centers. As far as Denver is concerned, it is going to help the economy a lot. So when done right, this can create a lot of opportunities in the various States.

Again, I would stress the importance of the provisions that we have in here that encourage local control, encourage accountability, encourage efficiency so public policymakers in one's State will ask: What is it that we can do that will allow this project to move forward, without unnecessary delays? Our communities will benefit if we can get these projects done under budget and ahead of schedule.

This is something I think every community should have the opportunity to strive for. As policymakers at the Federal level, it is something we need to begin to push.

Again, the issue we are all facing is how to pay for this. I know the Finance Committee struggled. We are still struggling with it. What is the proper funding level for mass transit? I think the key markers that the President and so many Members have talked about is that we have to make sure the money is money that does not come out of the general fund, that it stays with the--now I am talking about highways--gas tax, because the gas tax is an allocated stream of revenue that has gone to a special purpose, and that special purpose is to build roads and highways and meet the needs of this Nation.

We need to make sure we stay with that principle. Also, we want to make sure we do not begin to spend money on a bill, or through a bill, that is going to add to our Nation's deficit. Our deficits in this country are reaching historic highs, and we need to do something now to get deficit spending under control.

I think the Budget Committee and the Members of this body are beginning to treat that issue in a very serious way. So we still have some challenges ahead of us, as we move forward with this particular legislation.

I have a lot of confidence in Chairman Inhofe as well as Chairman Shelby. I think they have the ability to shepherd this very controversial, very complicated piece of legislation through the process.

This is just one body. You have the House. They take a little different perspective on the highway transportation bill because they have districts they have to represent, and they don't look at it from a State view like those of us here in the Senate.

I don't like, in my State, to be putting in special projects because what happens with special projects is they take away the flexibility of the State. You are telling your State where they ought to be spending their money on certain projects. I think that ought to be left to the States.

For example, in the State of Colorado we have sort of a complicated process. We have a highway commission. They allocate. They make recommendations to the Governor and legislature. I don't feel comfortable as a policymaker here in Washington telling my Governor and the highway commission, people who know what is happening as far as their transportation needs, what should be done in the State of Colorado. So I try to avoid what is referred to as porkbarrel spending, where you earmark any particular projects in your particular State because I think that ought to be done in the State level.

In the Senate that has never been much of a problem. When you get to the House side, where Members have their own districts they have to worry about, sometimes they worry about not having adequate voice even at the State level for the district they represent, particularly if it is a rural area, because it gets run over by the masses in the metropolitan areas. So on the House side you will see more earmarking, but on the Senate side you don't see so much. If I talk to my colleagues I try to encourage them to stay away from earmarking projects.

I think the chairman on the Environment and Public Works Committee shares those views. He has done a good job of making this a responsible piece of legislation. We still have a few challenges ahead of us, but it has been a pleasure working with the chairman.

I see he has made it here to the floor. I don't see anybody else right now here who is interested in speaking, so without any more comment on anything.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his statement. I have worked with him on the Environment and Public Works Committee on this important piece of legislation. The fact is there are a lot of committees involved in this legislation. I am thankful the majority leader brought it to the floor.

We had a cloture vote to move forward with the bill. This bill has been before the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, with Chairman Shelby, and also before the Environment and Public Works Committee, with Chairman Inhofe. Senators Bond, Jeffords, and Reid have all had input into this particular piece of legislation. I appreciate all of them for the work they put into this bill. It is not easy with input from the Budget Committee, from Don Nickles, chairman of the Budget Committee. We had input from the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, and also input from the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has a small section involving transportation.

This is a transportation bill, not just a highway bill. It is a transportation bill. It takes a good deal of cooperation, working together, to put together any piece of legislation like this. It is not simple.

Most Members experienced the same thing I have experienced in the State of Colorado. The demand and the transportation needs have increased in each of our States. Over time, the demand for transportation mechanisms has grown throughout the country. The States have had to work harder to make their dollars stretch further every year. Transportation projects, whether they are building roads or laying rail, are simply not cheap. They are getting more expensive with each passing year, and the funds required for transportation projects are simply staggering.

The Finance Committee has produced funding mechanisms they believe will be able to fund this bill. We must use the moneys intended for use in building roads and mass transit projects. That is the money in the highway trust fund.

Some time ago, this Congress decided we need to dedicate a stream of revenue into the construction of highways. We need to make sure we maintain the integrity of that process because it is important. It sends a message that highways and this type of infrastructure are important in America. We have told the American people we will use the tax they pay on each gallon of gas they buy directly for funding transportation projects. We must do that. However, it is not appropriate to use moneys from the general fund. We have to stay true to the fiscally conservative obligations we have made for ourselves. We must not add to our country's deficit as we have an increased demand for transportation projects.

That is why I am excited about the potential of an amendment on which I am working. This amendment will allow States to build additional capacity. It is called Fast Lanes. On roads that currently experience problems with congestion, you toll only those lanes. It brings forth a user-pay concept. In other words, if you use these lanes, you will pay for them. I worked hard to get this amendment adopted in committee. It just barely lost by one vote. I hope we can go ahead and get it adopted in the Senate. It gives another mechanism to provide infrastructure in this country, badly needed infrastructure, and has a user-pay concept.

We say on interstate highways you can build additional lanes on to existing highways and toll the highways, toll them with a mechanism. We use our high technology so there are no toll booths. As the trucks and cars go down the toll lanes, commonly referred to as fast lanes, they will receive a bill later for the use they put on the highway. That helps pay for those fast lanes. It is intended to relieve much of the congestion problem we are seeing throughout the United States.

The toll would be paid with electronic technology. There would be no need for a toll booth. The process can happen quickly, without requiring a decrease in speed.

If you wish to use the ``fast lane,'' you pay the toll and do so. However, if you do not wish to pay the toll, you simply drive in the regular lanes, and that means just sit over in the regular lanes for an hour or two on some highly congested roads. It is your choice. But if you decide it is worth your time to go over and pay a toll to go on the toll lanes, then you can do that.

So this is the advantage of having toll lanes. I emphasize that when we talk about ``fast lanes,'' we are not taking existing Federal highway lanes and putting a toll on them. These are new lanes we are putting on the side of some of our interstate highways.

One study found that if every State participates, this ability for States to put in these kinds of lanes could raise close to $50 billion to go toward increasing road capacity.

I realize that it is unlikely all States will use this funding mechanism, but if a tiny fraction of that is raised, that is still additional funding for road capacity that does not put an additional financial burden on those who are not willing and able to pay it.

I see this ability as simply another tool in the ``toolbox'' that State departments of transportation can carry around. My staff continues to work with Senator Bond's staff to see that these provisions are included in the bill, and I appreciate the assistance they have given and their willingness to work with us on this particular provision.

Because this is a transportation bill, and not just a highways bill, as so many incorrectly term it, I would also like to make a few remarks on the mass transit title of the bill. I went through the Environment and Public Works Committee. I served on that committee, so I had some input there. I serve on the Banking Committee. In fact, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, so I had some input there. I am also on the Budget Committee. So I want to make a few comments about the mass transit side.

Before I turn to the specifics of the Banking Committee's bill, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Shelby. As chairman of the Banking Committee, he has worked diligently to make sure the committee's jurisdiction was protected, while moving forward as quickly as possible with a positive bill. I also thank him for his willingness to work closely with me as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation.

Finally, I also thank Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, and Senator Reed, the ranking member of the subcommittee of which I chair, for their work on this particular piece of legislation. Along with their staff members, they have spent a considerable number of hours working to achieve consensus on many issues in the bill, and I appreciate their efforts.

I was pleased to support the Banking Committee's bill during our markup earlier today. I believe it makes important progress in a number of areas.

First, I am especially supportive of the new growing States formula. For far too long, the transit formulas have sent the lion's share of transit dollars to a small number of cities, primarily located in the Northeast. While we can all agree that transit is important to larger, east coast cities, there is no denying the need for transit services in a number of rapidly growing cities in the South and the West.

While I believe we still need further adjustments to the formula to even better address the growing States, I believe this new formula will finally help growing States begin to address their transportation needs.

I am also extremely pleased to see that the bill places a strong emphasis on rural transit. While many would consider ``rural transit'' to be an oxymoron, in fact, rural areas can often face even more acute transportation needs than large cities.

Last year, one of my constituents, Larry Worth, testified before the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee regarding the need for transit in rural areas. He described how rural citizens may not have any other alternatives to access medical care, jobs, and vital services. With 40 percent of American counties having no public transportation, this investment is long overdue.

There are a number of other very good provisions in the transit title, but I will not take the considerable time that would be necessary to enumerate them all. Suffice it to say that I believe the transit provisions will be of great benefit to public transportation in America. I am pleased to support the transit title, and I look forward to passage of the bill, preserving the provisions, and staying within our budget.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Joseph E. Leta, whose endless enthusiasm and energy promoted many of Colorado's sportsmen's organizations. Mr. Leta, who passed away on January 14, 2004, was a champion of wildlife and conservation programs. Joe was a lifetime member of numerous sporting organizations which included in Safari Club International, SCIF Sables, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Foundation, The Mule Deer Foundation, The Elk Foundation, The Alaskan and Canadian Outfitters Association, The Wild Turkey Federation, and The National Rifle Association.

He had a particular passion for Safari Club International and served as President of the SCI Denver Chapter until September 2003. Concurrently and subsequent to his tenure as Chapter President, he was also very active at the National level for SCIF by serving on the Ethics Committee, The Conservation Committee, The Guides and Outfitters Committee, Director of SCIF Nominating Committee, Governmental Affairs Committee, Convention Committee, Humanitarian Committee, and as a Director at Large.

In recognition of Joe's years of dedicated service, the Safari Club International will posthumously present him with the President's Award at SCI's 32nd Annual Hunters' Convention in Reno, NV in January 2004.

As president of the SCI Denver Chapter, he inaugurated the establishment of the SCI Denver Sables, which is a club venue for sports women and men dedicated to preserving our hunting heritage through education. Joe recently proposed that the SCI Denver Chapter establish a scholarship fund for needy junior and senior college students who major in wildlife and conservation management. As a tribute to Joe, the Board of Directors approved the proposal and named the fund The SCIF Sables Joe Leta Hunting Heritage Scholarship Fund.

During Joe's tenure as SCI Denver Chapter President, he presided over such club accomplishments as promoting the Sportsmen Against Hunger Program, which distributed over 3,000 pounds of fresh salmon to Colorado's various humanitarian food banks. He also presided over several revenue generating programs for the benefit of the Colorado Division of Wildlife by promoting big game hunting licenses. Numerous wildlife students at Colorado State University have received educational grants from the SCI Denver Chapter under Joe's direction.

Joe was even instrumental in helping the Wyoming Game and Fish Department by directing SCI funds to construct an anti-poaching cabin in one of Wyoming's more remote regions where unlawful hunting was a problem. Joe was also a champion of the newly formed Colorado Sportsman's Caucus which is a sportsman's support group that interfaces with members of the Colorado Legislature on hunting, fishing and various other outdoor and wildlife issues.

After graduating from Youngstown University and completing a tour of duty in the U.S. Air Force as an x-ray technician, Joe joined Picker International as a sales representative for their Medical Imaging Equipment Division. He retired from Picker after 30 years of service as a regional sales manager.

Joe Leta was born July 16, 1931 in New Castle, PA as the only child of Joseph and Edith Leta. His wife of 49 years, Shirley and their three children, Joseph, Jr., Christopher, Lisa (Charles) Stanley, and one grandchild, Lacy, survive him.

Joe and Shirley resided in Evergreen, CO for the past 26 years and they are members of Christ the King Catholic Church and the Hiwan Golf Club in Evergreen, Colorado.

Madam President, I rise today to offer a few words for a friend of mine and a friend of the State of Colorado, Mr. Hal Shroyer. Mr. Shroyer has selflessly served, and continues to serve, both the Nation and Colorado. He has always fought for what is right and just, a warrior in both military and civilian life.

Prior to the United States entering World War II, barely 20 years old, Hal Shroyer joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and flew bombing missions over Europe. When the United States entered the war, Hal joined the U.S. Army Air Corps where he piloted bombing missions across the English Channel into occupied lands. While serving in the Army Air Corps Hal met and married his wife Maxine, joining her in a loving union that lasted for more than 50 years. Around 1953 Hal and Maxine moved to Colorado where, day after day, year after year, Hal has given generously of his time and energy to his fellow Coloradans.

Among Hal Shroyer's many professional and civic accomplishments stand a few I would mention today. Hal was instrumental in the addition of photographs to Colorado driver's licenses, helping to make the State the second in the Nation to include a picture. More recently Hal Shroyer led the fight for a motor voter program, allowing for voters to register to vote at their local Department of Motor Vehicles. Each of these programs represent the norm today across the United States. Hal Shroyer's tireless dedication to the betterment of Colorado cannot be simply summed up by these examples, but I am pleased to offer them as illustrations of this man's tremendous contributions.

As a young man in Indiana Hal Shroyer tried out for his local track team. The track coach told Hal he would never make the team because he walked like a duck. Needless to say Hal made the track team and he has been a dynamo ever since. As Hal Turns 83 years old in the coming days I send him my thanks for his lifetime of service and wishes for joy in the years to come.

Madam President, it has been brought to my attention that the Department of Agriculture has put for comment their rules and regulations on animal identification, in particular beef. It is not unusual that by the time Federal agencies in today's environment get around to issuing their rules and regulations, or by the time Congress passes legislation, our technology has moved so quickly that those provisions become outdated. I am concerned this could be happening with the Department of Agriculture promulgating rules on the radio frequency identification, RFID, tag in United States animal identification. It has an internal code structure that identifies a specific bovine, but if something happens to the tag, there is no way of re-establishing the animal's identification. That is, there is no way of re-establishing the animal's identification unless another form of permanent identification is obtained. That is why it is so important to discuss the use of biometrics in animal verification, and more specifically, to fully explore the use of retinal scanning for identification purposes.

It is my understanding that the rules and regulations may exclude the use of retinal scanning because the rules that the USDA is considering do not address or allow the use of a ``secure permanent identifier,'' or at the least, they could be interpreted to discourage its use. I have personally viewed such retinal scanning technology and believe that it can be a practical way to identify individual animals, or lots of animals, and that this technology should not be put at a disadvantage because of a policy position by the Department of Agriculture.

With the December 23 discovery of a cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, the United States faced a real-life test of our animal identification and tracking system. Identification of livestock is very advanced in the United States, but even with our system, it took days to track that BSE-infected cow to Canada.

As part of our efforts to confront, control and eliminate the risk of BSE and to address future animal health emergencies, we should consider putting into place systems that can easily and rapidly identify an animal and tell us where it has been. It must be able to tell us what animals it has been in contact with and where those contacts are now. The system should do this rapidly, securely and without error.

I commend the efforts of the USDA and industry who have been working together for some time to design a national animal identification plan. During the intervening period, new technologies have continued to emerge. As the USDA looks at implementing a national animal identification plan, it is important that we utilize the best of today's technologies. For instance, a primary objective of this plan, as proposed, is to trace any animal within 48 hours. With the technology available to us in this country, we can be looking at systems that can locate animals in minutes--not hours--with great accuracy.

To assure the American public and our export customers that we have not lost track of any animals, the U.S. animal identification plan should allow use of a secure, tamper-resistant image of the animal's retinal vascular pattern that is more unique than a human fingerprint. Retinal scanning identifies the animal, not the identifier. The majority of the other animal identification systems work on the basis of adding an identifier to the animal, such as a visual or electronic marker or tag and then recording that identifier. Identifiers like this can be lost or changed and are not secure. Some estimates put livestock tag loss in the range of 5 to 8 percent--an unacceptable scenario when considering the ramifications that this could mean to the beef industry.

I hope that the national animal identification plan does not preclude the use of new technologies introduced since the plan's inception, especially when these technologies exceed the proposed plan's performance objectives. Several U.S. companies are not waiting for the USDA, but are rapidly installing retinal imaging technology in their own plans to significantly improve their ability to track livestock. These companies should not be forced to also adopt a poorer performing technology because the plan mandates a certain, specific technology.

It is critical that the plan's systems be audited for performance and reliability to verify that they are actually working. We must be able to measure and document how many animals are misidentified or lost. Since retinal scanning technology uses secure, tamper-resistant, retinal patterns, it is currently the only available method against which to verify the performance of any tag-based system.

We should be using the most current technology available--the Global Positioning System, GPS. By linking the Global Positioning System to a secure identifier such as a retinal scan, the time, date, and location of the animal can be captured when the eye is scanned, proving beyond a doubt that ``this animal was at this place at this time.'' Furthermore, the use of GPS coordinates provides USDA with the means to audit and verify the accuracy of any identification numbering system.

The United States has the most competitive livestock sector in the world. But we are at risk of falling behind countries in Europe, South America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, nations that are all exploring more modern technologies for identifying and tracking livestock. Not only can the U.S. take a leadership role in this area, we can take identification and traceability ``off the table'' as a possible trade barrier by introducing technologies that leapfrog existing country requirements.

I would like to close by reminding my colleagues that it is only when you combine identity with location that you get traceability. And in order to build a secure, tamper-resistant system to trace livestock, you must begin with a secure, tamper-resistant identifier. I believe we have the technology to do this in a practical, economically feasible way that will allow United States producers to meet the concerns expressed by our trading partners when

managing diseases like mad cow disease. I believe retinal scanning combined with the GPS system can be the most practical option if the policy of this country is to require an identification system of each animal or even for tracing batches of live animals because it is technology that can be easily used in the field and is very accurate, reliable, and precise.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation that would amend the United States Constitution identifying and reaffirming the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The language I submit today is brief and simple:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

This language is simple, direct and to the point. This union is sacred and must remain so.

This resolution is a starting point for a more comprehensive discussion. I look forward to having an involved, informed debate with the other members of this chamber.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Jeff Sessions who are original cosponsors of this Resolution.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation that would amend the United States Constitution identifying and reaffirming the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The language I submit today is brief and simple:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

This language is simple, direct and to the point. This union is sacred and must remain so.

This resolution is a starting point for a more comprehensive discussion. I look forward to having an involved, informed debate with the other members of this chamber.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Jeff Sessions who are original cosponsors of this Resolution.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding the balance of his time.

Mr. President, first I want to compliment Majority Leader Bill Frist, from Tennessee; Chairman of the Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley; and the Conference Committee on working diligently and in good faith toward a workable prescription drug program for elderly citizens. Some have come to this floor and proclaimed it is about politics. I couldn't disagree more. President George Bush, Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Chairman Grassley have not only talked about the need for a prescription drug program but have worked hard for several years toward a workable program.

It is the Democrats who have demagoged this issue. We just have to look at last year when the prescription bill was brought to the floor by the Democrat majority leader, without having it debated and reported out of committee. I believe that it was their hope that they could embarrass Republicans in an election year. Instead, it only helped point to the failures of a Democrat-led Senate that couldn't even pass a budget because they did not want to deal with the tough votes they would have to face on this floor.

I believe this Republican-led Senate is wrapping up one of the most successful sessions since 1994. There have been long hours and a lot of hard work that has paid off, despite filibusters on judges and attempts to slow down and kill many provisions, such as the budget. But Republicans passed a budget. Republicans are still working hard to pass an energy bill that was blocked through the efforts of key Democrats, and the Republicans are now working hard to pass a description drug benefit that is facing a possible filibuster on the Senate floor by the Democrats.

Mr. President, I am very disappointed that we have had to face all this obstruction on the floor, despite the concerted effort to work responsibly and respectively through the Senate committee system, then bringing the prescription drug bill to the floor and passing it. Now, here we are again, facing a threatened filibuster by the Democrats. Mr. President, we need to have an up or down vote on this conference report. Again, I know that the conferees worked hard in a bipartisan way.

I plan on voting for cloture because I want to see the conference report on Medicare voted on the floor of the Senate. I have stated that I am undecided on final passage. That is because, as a general rule, in the process of negotiations, legislation doesn't get less expensive, it gets more expensive through spending to attract more support and votes. I hope to act as a counterbalance with the clear message that, if spending gets out of hand, I will not vote for the bill.

I am not happy with creating a new program that could lead to a monstrous program in the future. That is why I opposed the bill as it left the Senate, because it was not limited to just the most needy and I felt it broke the budget. It was later proved that I was right in the assessment that it would break the budget, and with more accurate budget figures the conference committee set to work to reduce the scope of the program to keep it below $400 billion for 10 years and within the parameters of the budget. This, in effect, forced the conference committee to means test the program and keep certain provisions that would hold the user accountable by forcing that patient to participate with a deductible and the so called ``donut hole.''

In my view, it is very difficult to have a third party pay system and yet maintain accountability. Users feel that they have already paid for the system and are going to utilize it to its maximum to get their just return, and providers feel that it has already been paid for and creates no particular hardship on the individual so they charge with little restraint the third party. So utilization is regulated. And we end up with regulations like we have now in the current Medicare system, which prevents a patient from paying for their own medical care if they want, and it prevents the physician from receiving cash outside the system that could reduce the burden on taxpayers. It ends up creating a system where the close patient-doctor relationship is disrupted to where the patient can't use whomever they desire to care for their medical needs. So what we have today is a Medicare system that is not actuarially sound and, if not reformed, will lead to much higher payroll taxes and huge demands on the general budget. That is why I was pleased to see some reform proposals on medicare emerge from the conference committee, such as health saving accounts.

When I served in the Colorado State Senate, I sponsored, with State Representative Phil Pankey, a bill to put in place an individual medical saving account; and Colorado became the first State to have such a program.

Unfortunately, in an effort to pass the bill, we allowed the program to become so limited that the risk pool became too small to function as insurance against future liabilities. Consequently, when Colorado moved to a modified flat tax, this program became a victim of tax reform.

This Congress puts forth a health savings account that will work. Individuals can put in $5,000 a year or a family can put up to $10,000 per year and save on their taxes. The income builds up within the health savings fund without tax liability and, finally, can be pulled out to pay for the family medical needs without paying additional taxes.

This is wonderful reform because it reestablishes the doctor-patient relationship and makes individuals responsible for their own health care with much fewer regulations, and it brings common sense to the decisionmaking process. It builds upon previously enacted medical savings accounts that have been limited to small business and the self- employed by Congress.

One other attractive feature in this bill is that the elderly are not forced to participate. It is voluntary. It also tries to prevent large businesses and local governments from dumping their current prescription programs into the Federal system to save themselves future liabilities and further burden the Federal prescription drug program.

The other side has repeatedly made the claim that this bill is full of giveaways to Republican contributors. This is simply not true. That is simply more absurd ``medi-scare'' tactics by the opponents of a bipartisan drug benefit for our Nation's seniors and the disabled.

The argument I find most amusing is the claim that this bill will lead to increased drug company profits. The reason this bill is so desperately needed is because our Nation's seniors and the disabled, particularly those with low incomes, are unable to afford their prescriptions today. Let me stress that again. The reason this bill is so desperately needed is that our Nation's seniors and the disabled, particularly those with lower income, are unable--unable--to afford their prescriptions today. Today they are forced to choose between food and rent and taking their medicine. We have all heard the stories of seniors cutting their pills in half to get by and in so doing taking a lower dose than their doctor prescribed.

When this Medicare prescription drug benefit goes into effect, they will be able to get their prescriptions filled. Of course, this is going to lead to increased drug sales. Surely, this is no surprise to anyone. With new technologies and new medications, invasive procedures become less likely. Any prescription drug bill that works is going to lead to increased drug sales. That is just common sense.

Where are the medicines supposed to come from except the manufacturers of those medicines? Every single medical prescription drug bill introduced by these naysayers would also increase drug sales and the bipartisan conference report has the same basic drug benefit structure that passed the Senate by a vote of 76 to 21.

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the competitive approach in this bipartisan drug benefit will do better at controlling drug costs than other proposals. To suggest that no one should support a Medicare drug benefit because it will lead to increased drug sales turns logic on its head. If this were our basic principle, then we should not have food stamps because this will lead to increased profits by grocery stores and farmers. How about housing subsidies? This might lead to profits by construction companies and utility companies and increased sales of lumber, bricks, and nails. This is just an absurd issue, and it is easy to see why.

I am here to tell you that this bill will strengthen and improve the Medicare Program. The spending on this bipartisan prescription drug bill goes to better benefits for America's seniors and the disabled.

As I draw to a conclusion, unfortunately, those who want universal health care and the big Government solution to drugs, making people more vulnerable to Government control, are vehemently opposed to this conference report.

The conference report lays out a plan for Medicare reform and a way to help the most needy. It is a balance that does not come easily and not without a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle. We should at least have a vote on the bill. It is time to put partisan obstruction aside and think about what is good for America.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting yes on cloture to stop the filibuster and to help hold down costs to within the budget limits.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the fine Senator from Utah.

I thank the fine Senator from Utah for yielding.

Many papers in the State of Colorado have expressed a concern that we are not voting on judicial nominees, along with many papers throughout the country. I have three papers that expressed a view. I would like to have the chairman respond to the comments made in these three papers.

Many people throughout Colorado wonder what the impact might be on having a filibuster and how that will affect the Federal judiciary. Many of them live in the great city of Pueblo. In fact, the Pueblo Chieftain observed, ``some liberals are trying to create a second legislative body,'' referring to the judiciary, ``that will pass measures which they cannot get passed because they're often opposed by a majority of Americans.'' The paper fears this will lead to ``a serious erosion of the separation of powers.''

Does the Senator from Utah share those concerns?

That is correct. I thank the chairman for responding to those comments made in those three major papers in the State of Colorado.

We do need to move on for a vote. They express the view of many in Colorado. I thank the chairman for giving me an opportunity to ask the question.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I wonder if the Senator from Washington would yield for a question and we would divide the time against each of us; time would go against her in responding to the question and my asking the question would go against the Republicans.

That was just a suggestion, but obviously she does not want to respond to the question.

Mr. President, today my colleagues and I are trying to put an end to the nomination logjam. All we are asking is for a simple up-or-down vote on these highly qualified nominees now. Carolyn Kuhl, Priscilla Owen, and Charles Pickering must receive a vote. Today, our Nation is facing a judicial crisis. Currently, there are 22 emergency judicial vacancies and 12 of these are on the court of appeals. It is simply irresponsible for us to ignore this growing crisis.

Sticking our heads in the sand like an ostrich and ignoring it, as some of my colleagues would like us to do, will not diminish the seriousness of this crisis and make it go away.

I have an article from the Washington Post written by George F. Will on February 28, 2003, entitled ``Coup Against the Constitution.'' I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.

Now some of my colleagues have proudly said they have acted on 98 percent of the judicial nominations sent to the Senate for confirmation. I would just simply like to point out that if we would only accept a 98 percent success rate, say, on flight safety, there would be 1,740 flights a day that would not land safely. Five hundred major organ transplants would be performed incorrectly and more than 4 billion letters would be mishandled by the U.S. Postal Service this year. Ninety-eight percent, when we are talking about district as well as circuit court, simply is not good enough.

On a personal note, I ask my colleagues, what would they want from their veterinarian performing a 98 percent success rate on their pet? My colleague is a veterinarian from Nevada. I am a veterinarian. That would not be acceptable to my colleagues. At that particular rate, I do not think we would be in business very long. Some in this body may believe 98 percent is good enough, but clearly it is not good enough.

I point out one example of the new judicial nomination double standard in the Senate that resulted in an outstanding nominee, Miguel Estrada, not being given a fair up-or-down vote.

In March of 1995, President Clinton nominated Carlos Lucero to be the first Hispanic judge to be on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Carlos Lucero was a Coloradan, the State I represent. After only 3 months, Mr. Lucero was nominated, confirmed, and was seated on the bench of the Tenth Circuit.

Prior to his confirmation, Mr. Lucero had no judicial experience yet enjoyed a well qualified rating from the American Bar Association.

Miguel Estrada was considered well qualified. He was to be the first Hispanic ever to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Court. He argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, was a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy, and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.

Let us compare Carlos Lucero's nomination to Miguel Estrada's nomination. President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to be the first Hispanic judge to be on the District Circuit Court of Appeals in May of 2001. He received a highly qualified rating from the American Bar Association, yet he waited more than a year for a hearing. After waiting for more than 2 years for a vote, he finally asked that his name be withdrawn.

The point I am making is, how can we expect well qualified judges to be

willing to serve on the Federal court if they have to go through a 2- year process and they have to put their careers on hold at the time?

Now tell me that this is not a double standard. Tell me that in a case where there are two nominees equally qualified, with the same rating by the ABA, there was not a double standard being imposed by Democrats on Miguel Estrada.

This double standard has been recognized in my home State of Colorado. On a chart beside me, I have two editorials, one from the Denver Post, a newspaper that endorsed Al Gore for President, and the other from the Rocky Mountain News. The Denver Post said:

The key point--

Talking about Miguel Estrada--

is that there should be a vote. . . . A filibuster should

play no part in the process.

The Rocky Mountain News says:

The Democrats have no excuse. . . . Keeping others from

voting their consciences on this particular matter is simply

out of line.

I also have an editorial from the Chicago Tribune entitled ``Squandering Miguel Estrada,'' on September 7, 2004. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to vote on these four highly qualified nominees.

I now yield to the esteemed Senator from Idaho to make a few comments.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

I am happy to extend an additional 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I will wrap things up on our side. Before I do that, there are a couple of questions I would like to pose to my colleagues who are now in the Senate. I understand they are going to take some time to speak on their side of the aisle.

First, I pose a question to Senator Dorgan, who is the Senator from North Dakota. Senator Dorgan stated there would be no foot dragging on President Bush's nominees.

I am speaking under my own time.

I have a question I would like to ask of Senator Dorgan, if I might.

That is, he quoted that we are moving expeditiously on the President's nominees, refusing to return in kind the foot dragging delay of so many of President Clinton's nominees.

I ask him to respond to that question under his own time.

I also have a question to pose to the Senator from Iowa and give him an opportunity to respond on his own time. That question is, What has happened to change your view, when he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome?

I quote:

If you want to vote against them, let them vote against us.

That is their prerogative. But at least have a vote.

This was made September 14, 2000. I ask both Members to respond to those statements. I ask them what has changed since those comments were made.

When they get their time, they can respond to those questions.

Let me wrap this up. I had a press conference this morning at 3:30, maybe 4 a.m., with the small business interests of this country. The point was made that delay in the judicial process is a problem for small business. How the courts function does have an impact on our economy. Lawsuits have an impact on our economy and how rapidly the courts respond.

We have a crisis in the circuit courts, the courts of appeal. We need to fill the vacancies so cases that go before the circuit courts such as civil rights cases dealing with racial discrimination, sex discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, and the Americans With Disabilities Act can be handled in an expeditious way. These are cases impacting small businessmen in this country. We need to have our commercial disputes resolved in the circuit courts. There are contract disputes, insurance coverage disputes and trademark infringement issues in those courts. There are a lot of regulatory cases, for example, in the DC Courts, on environment, health, and safety standards, labor court enforcement, challenges to the Federal rules.

In the DC Court, the crisis we have on the DC Circuit Court is especially important as it applied to the small business community in this country. We do have a crisis. We have a crisis in the DC Circuit Court, which is 25 percent slower than 2001, another 58,000 days more than 2001, a crisis in the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth, and the Fifth Circuit.

The point is we need to get these nominees to the circuit courts passed through the Senate. It is unprecedented. Never in the history of the Senate have we not moved forward on judicial nominees when we had the majority of the Senators supporting that nominee.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request so that just prior to proceeding as requested, the three cloture votes would be vitiated, and the Senate would then immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate.

Then I object to his request.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield?

I will make it short. The question I have for the Senator from Iowa, my good friend--and we have worked together on many issues-- is, Will you now support the Frist-Miller proposal? It is a bipartisan proposal, a step in the direction that you proposed several years back.

Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am a veterinarian by profession, and we have a code of ethics in our profession. I understand we are expected to abide by the code of ethics, and I understand the American Bar Association has a code of ethics for judges. My understanding is the code of ethics says you will not take a position, when you are in the process of seeking a position on the bench, that might prejudice your ability to decide a case. Every one of these individuals up for consideration is highly respected by their peers. I suspect it is because they are honorable and they live by the code of ethics.

I am disturbed by the specific questions that come from members of the committee when, in my view, it makes it difficult for the nominee to answer those questions because it would make it difficult for them to be objective in the way they look at a case that comes before them. I wonder if you would share with me about the code of ethics and the question on how is that practical, and do you have any reason to believe these are horrible individuals who would not measure up to the highest standards of the court, based on their peers who recommended them as highly well qualified?

I thank the Senator for responding to my question. I have one other followup question. You mentioned jobs and it seems to me we have an efficiently operating judiciary. We don't have a lot of lawsuits that help the economy. That means we need to move out of filibuster and get these nominees voted up or down and get them on the bench, particularly in the circuit courts where we have a lot of pending cases. One of the best things I think we can do is to get these nominees on the bench and fulfilling their duties. Do you agree?

Madam President, I would like to have an opportunity to speak.

I appreciate that.

Madam President, I understand the Senator from Delaware has a comment. He is trying to catch a train this evening and wants to take 1 or 2 minutes to comment. I ask unanimous consent that we let him speak, if it is OK with the chairman.

I would be glad to yield for 15 seconds.

Madam President, I thank the Chair and note in a public way that it is an honor and privilege to serve with the Chair on the Armed Services Committee. I think it is entirely appropriate that the Chair is having an opportunity to preside in the Senate at the time when we have this important legislation affecting the armed services personnel. The Chair is a hard worker on the Armed Services Committee.

I rise to discuss the conference report for fiscal year 2004, the Department of Defense authorization bill. Before I discuss those provisions that I think deserve this body's attention, I believe it is important to note how difficult this particular conference was.

In fact, it is only because of the patience and perseverance exhibited by the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia that we even have an authorization bill. Senator Warner has worked tirelessly over the last 4 months to come up with a compromise bill that this body could approve. He acted with integrity and poise despite the difficulties. I commend him for his efforts and thank him for his commitment to the Armed Services Committee and to our men and women in uniform.

I believe it is appropriate for this body to consider this important legislation today. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have kept this country free and preserved the peace are owed a debt of gratitude by all others who have the privilege of living in America.

We in America are blessed with freedoms unattainable in any other countries, rights inconceivable elsewhere, and liberties guaranteed by our way of life. Our grandfathers fought in World War I hoping their sons would never have to. Our fathers again fought in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam keeping the same hope alive. We have recently fought in Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now again in Iraq. We hope that as we battle the war against terrorism, we can see the end of war as we know it and never have to send our sons and daughters into harm's way again.

Until that time, though, the least we can do to respect their service is honor them on Veterans Day. The least the Senate can do is approve this legislation which will do much to ensure our men and women in uniform are well equipped, well trained, and well provided for.

The conference report before us authorizes $401 billion for the Department of Defense and Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs. It also authorizes multiyear incremental procurement funding for the Air Force's planned acquisition of 100 tanker aircraft, which I will discuss in greater detail momentarily.

The first priority of this bill is to address many of the quality-of- life issues facing our troops today. It includes an average 4.1 percent pay increase and provides higher targeted raises for midcareer service members. The agreement also expands the benefits provided for disabled military retirees. Veterans who are more than 50 percent disabled or receive their disability during combat operations will now be able to currently receive retirement pay and disability compensation.

On top of this, the bill authorizes certain special imminent danger and separation pay through next year. I support these benefits and believe they will greatly assist those who are courageously serving our country.

Now I will turn to provisions in this bill relating to our country's military service academies. Since last January, I have been heavily involved in addressing the allegations of sexual assault at the U.S. Air Force Academy. This fine institution, which has produced thousands of outstanding Air Force officers, has been seemingly besieged by a culture of indifference.

Over the last 10 years, dozens of female cadets have been sexually assaulted but only a few have reported the crime and even fewer have received the kind of support and assistance needed to overcome such a traumatic experience.

In fact, some victims said they were punished for reporting a sexual assault and many feared they would be punished if they did report the crime. Nearly 65 female cadets came to my office and met with me and my staff. I cannot express enough my admiration for their willingness to tell their stories and for their determination to change the climate at the academy.

I have also been very pleased by the Air Force's response to these allegations. Immediately after I notified the Air Force, Secretary Roche and General Jumper ordered a comprehensive investigation. This investigation discovered a systemic lack of coordination of activities and information, inadequate command involvement, considerable cadet reluctance to report sexual assaults, and failed gender climate surveys.

The investigation led to the Air Force's agenda for change, new leadership at the academy, and a renewed emphasis on sexual assault prevention and response. Earlier in the year, Congress also created an independent panel to look into these allegations. That

panel, headed by former Congresswoman Tillie Fowler, found that Air Force headquarters needed to better oversee the activities of the academy, that the board of visitors needed to be more involved, and that the Department of Defense inspector general's office should fully investigate the role former academy and Air Force headquarters officials played in creating the climate that permitted these assaults.

Both the Air Force's investigation and the Fowler Commission recommended a number of important legislative changes. I am pleased many of these changes have been incorporated in the legislation before us. For example, each service Secretary must now prescribe a policy on sexual assault that promotes awareness of the crime, informs cadets of procedures for reporting, and describes procedures for disciplinary action. Perhaps more importantly, each service is now required to conduct an annual assessment on the effectiveness of the school's sexual assault program.

These assessments will help academy and headquarters leaders, as well as the Board of Visitors of each academy, in their effort to measure whether these programs are working.

The bill also includes a requirement for an Air Force study on the permanent professors and gives the Air force the authority to appoint a dean from an expanded pool of candidates.

I would like to take a moment to thank the chairman, Senator Warner, for his assistance in addressing these problems. From the beginning, Senator Warner worked with me to encourage the Air Force to appropriately respond to these allegations. His interest and dedication to fixing this problem were instrumental and invaluable. I have deeply appreciated his counsel and his willingness to devote the Committee's time to this issue.

As chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces with oversight over national security space, strategic weapons, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons, I would like to take some time to discuss some important provisions in this conference report relating to these issues. Before I do so, though, let me first thank Senator Bill Nelson, the ranking member for the strategic forces subcommittee, for working so closely with me throughout the year. While we did not agree on every provision, his assistance and contribution helped make this a better bill.

Let me now address several specific provisions.

With regard to enhancing U.S. national security space capabilities, the conference report establishes a policy that states that the Nation will have an assured space launch capability, promotes the development of an effective space cadre, and authorizes additional funds for space control initiatives.

With regard to protecting our country from a ballistic missile attack, the conference report authorizes $9.1 billion for ballistic missile defense research, development, and procurement. Specifically, the report authorized an additional $100 million for ground-based mid- course system and $90 million for the PAC-3 Patriot terminal missile defense system.

With regard to improving the Department of Defense intelligence gathering capability, the conference report requires the Secretary of Defense to establish an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance council to develop a roadmap to fully integrate the ISR efforts of the military services. The report also prohibits the National Imagery and Mapping Agency from spending more than 10 percent of its commercial space imagery budget on other important but unrelated projects.

Lastly, the conference report includes a number of provisions that will greatly improve our ability to deter a possible nuclear attack. One provision repeals the ban on research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons. Another requires the Secretary of Energy to achieve and maintain the ability to conduct an underground nuclear test within 18 months. Finally, the report authorizes $21 million for advance concept initiatives, of which $15 million is directed toward continuing a study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

I again wish to commend Senator Warner, his staff director Judy Ansley, and the rest of his staff for their outstanding work on this conference report. I understand that this was one of the most difficult conferences in which Senator Warner has ever had to participate. I was particularly impressed by the way he addressed the Air Force's proposed lease of 100 tanker aircraft. Like many other Members, I was greatly troubled by the budget implications of this lease. Senator Warner's compromise agreement will get the Air Force the tankers it needs while saving the American taxpayer nearly $4.0 billion. I supported the compromise and see it as another example of Senator Warner's determination to do what is best for our men and women in uniform.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chairman. It has been a delight working with him.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an important program that significantly assists our men and women who are fighting abroad.

The war on terrorism is being fought on may fronts and around the world. Today, there are more than 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many more around the world.

Many of these troops served in Afghanistan only to be almost immediately redeployed to fight in Iraq. These extended deployments have been trying for those left behind, But they have stepped up and met the challenge. They have answered the Nation's call with enthusiasm and dedication.

In Colorado, the large deployment from Ft. Carson has shown just how difficult it can be for many military families when our troops must be sent abroad. While the military is dedicated to taking care of its own, the current situation abroad means needs of the family will only continue to escalate.

To address this, the four relief agencies representing the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force recently combined into one umbrella relief organization in order to better provide assistance.

The National Association of Broadcasters and its 1,000 television station and 6,000 radio station members recently produced and disturbed Public Service Announcements that encourage viewers and listeners to contribute to the Armed Forces Relief Trust.

Broadcasters have a long history of involvement in this country's national security. I commend them for dedicating airtime to this worthwhile cause.

Last year, together, the four relief agencies distributed $109 million to military families in need. I am confident that by streamlining operations into one entity and with help from local broadcast stations to get the word out, the Armed Forces Relief Trust will be able to assist even more military families.

We are counting on our brave young men and women in the field. They are relying on the Armed Forces Relief Trust, and the trust is counting on local broadcast stations. Local radio and television stations are performing an invaluable public service through this program, and I salute them.

Since today is Veterans Day, I also salute those who have already experienced the hardships of war much like those currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe the most important thing we can do for our veterans is say thank you for their service and sacrifice to our country.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes. I understand we have a lull on the Internet tax bill.

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