Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment and they are, indeed, technical corrections. There is nothing here that is not technical. There are grammatical errors, spelling errors, et cetera. We agree the amendment should be adopted.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment and think it is fine.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment NO. 1687

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me give you an idea just how technical this is. One of the provisions here is to strike ``wildernessK'' and insert ``wilderness'', page 62, line 14. That was just a typo. Another is to strike the words ``SET ASIDE'' and replace them with ``SET- ASIDE''. That's the nature of this. This is a very technical amendment. I urge its adoption. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Timothy Hess, a fellow in the office of Senator Bob Graham, be given floor privileges during the ISTEA debate.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to comment on the certification process in transportation management areas. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment would add to the types of works the Secretary should undertake with regard to innovative bridge research. The Secretary would have the flexibility to look at innovative techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic from railroad traffic. It is designed, obviously, to deal with the problems of congestion, deaths and accidents on bridges. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I concur. It is the committee's intention that his program be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution. We expect no less. Secretary Slater is aware of, and I am assured agrees with, our views on this matter.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Jersey on the floor. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.

Mr. BAUCUS. How much time do we have left, Mr. President?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume. Mr. President, we had a good debate yesterday. I want to emphasize a couple of points. First, with all due respect, the argument that the Supreme Court has ruled that this program is unconstitutional and that we now have a duty to expunge the program from the statute books is a red herring. It is a bogus argument, a diversion, a smokescreen, as was so ably stated by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter. If there was any doubt, it should have been dispelled by the letter that Senator Domenici received yesterday from Attorney General Reno and Secretary Slater. I urge my colleagues to read that letter. In Adarand, the Supreme Court did not hold that the DBE program is unconstitutional. It held that the program is subject to strict scrutiny. And it emphasized that this is not equivalent to holding that the program is unconstitutional. The case was remanded to the district court. Judge Kane held that the program furthers a compelling governmental interest. But he also held that the program was not narrowly tailored. So we have one district court judge, holding that the program is unconstitutional. Not the Supreme Court. Not an appeals court. But one federal district court judge, out of the 647 federal district court judges in the country. The Justice Department disagrees with the decision. So do many others. And the federal government has appealed the decision. There are, moreover, strong arguments that the program passes the strict scrutiny standard. The district court itself held that the DBE program furthers a compelling governmental interest in overcoming discrimination in the construction industry. With respect to narrow tailoring, as the letter to Senator Domenici explains, the DBE program is not a mandatory set aside or rigid quota. It's flexible. It's negotiated with each state. It can be adjusted, lower or higher. It can be satisfied by good faith efforts. No penalty has ever been imposed on a state that has not met it's goal. And the proposed rules would make the program even more flexible and narrowly tailored. So I believe that it is very clear that this program is constitutional. But there's another question. What's right? What's the right thing to do here? We all wish we lived in a world that was free from discrimination based on gender or race. We don't. Discrimination is still with us. I think we all know that. Women earn about 75 percent of what men earn for comparable work. Women own one-third of all small businesses, but women-owned businesses only receive 3 percent of federal procurement dollars. Minorities make up 20 percent of the population, but own only 9 percent of the construction businesses, and those businesses receive only 4 percent of construction receipts. So what do we do about it? Sometimes, Mr. President, equal opportunity means more than outreach. It means more than mailing out brochures and holding seminars. It means giving people an opportunity to prove themselves. It means giving them a seat at the table. That's what the DBE program is designed to do. And, as I said yesterday, it works. In 1978, 1.9 percent of federal highway construction dollars were going to firms owned by women or minorities. Today, under the DBE program, it's 14.8 percent. That's progress. I, for one, am proud that the percentage of women and minorities participating in the federal highway program in Montana has risen to 20 percent. That's good news. Not only for women and members of minority groups. But for all of us. For our communities. The program has worked. And because it has worked, people are still counting on it. About 20,000 companies have qualified as DBEs. They've grown their companies, taken out loans, hired more employees, in the expectation that the program would continue. If we look at the experience of Michigan, Louisiana, and other states that have repealed their state DBE programs, repeal of the federal DBE program will result in a sharp drop in the percentage of contracts going to businesses owned by women and minorities. By half, or more. If that happens, all across this country, small businesses women and minority entrepreneurs will be left high and dry. I, for one, will not vote to let that happen. Mr. President, the DBE program is constitutional. It's fair. It works. And it builds more inclusive communities and a stronger economy. It's good for America, and it brings us together. That is what America is all about. Again, I urge that the McConnell amendment be defeated. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. I can assure the Senator, and the Senate, that we will indeed.