Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank Senators Lott and Inouye for their commitments to address this issue in conference. I also raise my concerns with the amendment offered by Senator Pryor to define the term ``household goods motor carrier.'' Definitions matter, and in this case, meeting the definition of a ``household goods carrier'' subjects the carrier to certain existing and new regulations that others who do not meet that definition do not have to provide. At the same time, I support excluding express delivery and parcel delivery carriers from the definition of ``household goods carrier.'' As currently drafted, however, I am concerned that the amendment would make it substantially more difficult for an established moving company to enter one of these new markets in which consumers are provided a trailer or container which they pack themselves and which the company then transports for them. The definition, as now offered by Senator Pryor, would mean that an existing moving company would be subject to these new regulations while others who offer these services, but do not provide traditional moving services, would not be. As this bill moves to conference with the House, I am committed to working with the managers of this title to find a definition that is accurate and fair and that covers the universe of services that are being offered to consumers who are planning interstate moves of household goods.

Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's commitment, and I also offer to work with you and Senator Lott and Inouye in conference on the amendment regarding procedures for allowing State attorneys general to pursue enforcement actions against interstate household goods movers in federal court. This amendment, which I have worked out with the managers and is being offered by Senator Lott, establishes an approval process for actions taken by State attorneys general by the Secretary of Transportation before the AGs proceed in court. The amendment is critical because it establishes a responsible framework with a delineation of responsibilities to the States. The efforts of State governments should be focused on investigating and prosecuting those carriers that are too small or cases of fraud that are too isolated to cause a Federal response. At the same time, Federal agencies should be pursuing complaints of fraudulent activities by large and established carriers. By focusing our enforcement efforts along these lines, we will leverage our resources which will improve the effectiveness of the response to fraud and abuse in the household goods moving industry and ensure that no carrier slips through the cracks. The amendment also will ensure that State cases are legitimate and properly prepared. In addition, the amendment provides intervention and substitution authority for the Secretary if the Secretary believes that Federal Government would be in a better position to prosecute the case.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. No.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my thanks to the chairman and also to my colleague on the Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee, the Senator from Montana. As I say, it helps to have a cousin in the business. It helps to have a ranking member who is also ranking on Finance with Senator Grassley. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have done a great job. It is a pleasure to work with him, with Senator Grassley, Senator Jeffords and, of course, our chairman, Senator Inhofe. I hope everybody has been having as enjoyable a time as those of us who have been trying to lead this bill from the various committees-- EPW, Commerce, Finance. I know this is a very pleasurable experience. But the time has come for it to end. It is time for us to invoke cloture. That is why we are asking our colleagues to put an end to this. All good things have to come to a close. If we are to get this bill done, we need to invoke cloture and give it a timeframe. We have already limited the number of amendments. The simple fact is we have to get this bill to conference. We have to go to work with the House to come up with a very important surface transportation bill, known as SAFETEA, this year. The extension expires in May. We are operating on our sixth extension. The original bill, the last bill, ran out on September 30, 2003. We have had extensions. We have missed the deadline. We absolutely have to get this bill passed. If the extension expires and we do not do anything, not only does the U.S. Department of Transportation shut down but States would not be able to issue new contracts for summer construction programs on Federal aid highways. We would have a significant economic blow to our country as well as a delay in the building of our necessary roads. Cloture will enable us to get to conference. It is going to be a very different conference. The House has a measure that is essentially project oriented. As has been stated by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here, we have attempted to achieve equity by a very complex formula. The Senator from Montana made a very important point. When we came to the floor, we added $11 billion. Why did we do this? The administration's own Department of Transportation puts out annually a conditions and performance report. Even with the $11 billion we added to the base number of $284 billion, according to the administration's own report, it still is not enough money even to maintain our current system. That is why money was added. That is why the Finance Committee was given the authority under the Talent-Stabenow amendment to add money. That is why we waived the point of order--because this money is important. We heard my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, complaining about adding money, implying it was adding to the deficit. You have already heard that is pure nonsense. There is, as a matter of fact, a positive impact because the Finance Committee has not only added money to the highway trust fund, but to make sure there was no shortfall in the general revenue sections, they added more general revenue. There is more general revenue coming in than before as a result of this amendment we adopted, and there is more money in the highway trust fund. Regarding the point made by the Senator from Arizona, if the situation were not so serious, it would be funny. There is nothing like a good joke like having a Senator complaining he is not getting enough money and complaining we added money when adding that money brings the State of Arizona increase from last year's bill to 40.6 percent. They do fantastically well. They are one of the top three winners in the whole bill--top four, and he is complaining we added money. You know the old story about the boy who kills his parents and when charged with murder he throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. You can either complain about not getting enough money or you can complain about having more money added to the bill; you cannot do both at the same time. You have to pick one side of the fence or the other. This bill does have very important aspects. First and foremost, the economic impact--47,500 jobs are created for every $1 billion spent. That is immediate economic impact. The longer term economic impact of a good transportation bill, as I have pointed out on the floor before--as a former Governor of my State, I know if you want to know where economic growth is going to occur, where jobs are going to grow, you take a look at the transportation system. You have to have good transportation to create good jobs and to have a strong economy. There are also aspects of this bill, of course, that improve our environment, because we are reducing congestion. We are putting environmental planning at the start of the planning process so we can take care of environmental concerns sooner. But the real name of this bill is the SAFETEA bill, and safety is probably the most important part of this bill as far as my State is concerned. I have told this body several times of the number of friends I have lost on highways in Missouri. You can travel many national highways, Federal aid highways in Missouri, that are two-lane roads with traffic that merits having four lanes. Do you know what happens when you have a slow-moving livestock truck or piece of equipment, construction equipment or farm equipment, on a narrow two-lane road? Traffic backs up and backs up and somebody--very often a stranger to the area--tries to pull out and pass, with tragic results. We see white crosses marking our highways where people have lost their lives. Unfortunately, the number of those white crosses grows. The Senator from Arizona has complained about the criteria used in the formula for money going to States that have greater than 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. That is Missouri and it is 17 other States. Actually it is Arizona as well. If this is a SAFETEA bill, shouldn't you consider safety? I certainly think so. Some of the border State people say we need more money because we are on the borders. I will have a chart this afternoon that shows an interesting point of information. Some of the heaviest traffic--some of the heaviest tie-ups, the bottlenecks--is in the middle of America where East and West, North and South, Southwest and Northeast traffic all come together. When you look at the traffic in trucks on our highways on a U.S. Department of Transportation map, there is a great big artery clog right in the heart of America, in Missouri, in Oklahoma, in Illinois. That is where the traffic is the heaviest. We need a crossroads factor in the formula. It is not the border States alone that have needs. We in the middle of Nation need that formula. Missouri has the fifth worst roads in the Nation; 65 percent of its roads are in fair to poor condition, requiring immediate repair. Missouri also ranks fourth from the bottom in number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. I say that humbly, knowing that my colleague's--the chairman of the committee--home State of Oklahoma ranks below Missouri. Yet for all the complaining about how well our States do, we grow at the average rate of 30.40 percent. We grow in that neighborhood. Yet we are at the bottom of the list of worst roads and worst bridges in dangerous condition. That is why this bill is so important. I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture, and I reserve the remaining time on this side.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. BOND. I ask that I be given 4 minutes of that, allowing 2 minutes for my colleague on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are once again asking for the support of our colleagues to raise the contract authority or budget authority in the highway bill. We said we were going to do this when we brought it to the floor. Eighty of our Members voted in the Budget Act to allow the Finance Committee to come in with additional resources, which they have done. There has been discussion about the legitimacy of the offsets and the Finance Committee actions. The Joint Tax Committee has scored it. That is the authoritative view. It does not add to the budget. The comments about this being a budget buster are absolutely wrong. These funds are paying for the money we add. I will explain a little bit of complicated budgetary process. There are two things called the obligation limit, which is the amount that can be spent, the guaranteed amount. Traditionally, we have put a higher number into the bill for what we call budget authority, or what is called contract authority. That is because the highway departments cannot spend all of the money that they contract, and to enable them to spend the $283.9 billion guaranteed spending proposed by the President we have to have a higher contract or budget authority number. This measure, which was added by the Finance Committee and which is now subject to the point of order, was designed to raise, with a fully offset amount, the spending so that we could provide additional funds for badly needed State roads. Let me be clear. This amount that was added will enable us to bring all donor States up to 92 cents on the dollar by the end of the period. It will also guarantee those States which are at the bottom of the list in terms of increases to get at least a 15-percent increase. It is imperative that those who joined with us in the 80-vote majority to add the provision allowing the Finance Committee now reaffirm that they believe this money is necessary. The additional money, contract or budget authority, will not be spent, the obligation limit will increase slightly, but we cannot spend the money the President said we should spend, the $283.9 billion, unless we increase the contract authority. Obviously, that's lots of confusion but that is where we are. I urge my colleagues who understand, as the chairman and ranking member of the committee and my colleague Senator Baucus on the committee understand, we have to have this money for safety, for economic development, for continued growth and the health of our economy. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time for use by my colleague.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This provides tremendous resources for bicycles and pedestrians, more than $717 million in a mandatory set-aside for bike and pedestrian activities. Metropolitan planning organizations are already required under existing law to plan for bike and pedestrian facilities. What this amendment says is: If you are planning a highway from Leftover Shoes to Podunk Junction in the middle of a State with nobody around, you would have to plan for a bike path. We have a lot of roads through our Ozark hills and farmland where the danger is inadequate two-lane highways. People are not going to ride bicycles along those highways. They need the lanes to drive their cars. Putting an additional planning burden on agencies that don't want or need bike paths is another unwarranted mandate. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. BOND. I would amend that request to say, when I am finished speaking, Senator Lautenberg may speak.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are a number of things that need to be cleared up as we consider this amendment. First, the Senator from New Jersey has mentioned that several States have their own pay-to-play restrictions. But according to the Federal Highway Administration, those States are ones that are restricting contributions where there are not competitive bids. They are talking about no-bid contracts. I do not doubt that New Jersey has had problems with no-bid contracts. I will leave it to my colleagues to discuss some of those problems. What we are talking about is changing the competitive bid system so that one State can opt out of a mandate that the Federal Government has imposed. That mandate is, when using Federal aid to highway dollars, you have to bid it competitively because when we as national taxpayers are funding projects, then we have a right to see that they are done on a competitive-bid basis, to make sure that the Federal taxpayers get the best bargain for their money. The name of my colleague, the other Senator from New Jersey, is attached to the amendment. I find it interesting that his reputation is one of sanctioning and penalizing States that do not conform to Federal laws, so it was alarming to me to see this amendment from the New Jersey Senators that will exempt them from complying with Federal regulations. In my State there are a lot of things our chosen Representatives, the people who serve Missouri in the Missouri General Assembly, choose not to do. There are various mandates that impose burdens on our State that will limit its ability to get funds. If we are going down the road of exempting our States from mandates of the Federal Government on Federal highway aid dollars, I think the Missouri General Assembly and the Missouri Governor would pass along to me quite a number of mandates they wish to have taken off of their backs. We just passed another mandate to take $900 million out of the highway trust fund to pay for storm water improvements for local governments. I think that is an unfortunate mandate; it was adopted by a very close vote. I hope we will be able to revisit it. But when you start exempting a State from the competitive bid contracts to allow them to impose their own campaign finance laws through the Federal highway aid system, that, to me, does not seem to be a proper use of the Federal highway tax dollars. We have a right to expect that we get the best bargain for the money and that is through competitive bids. This amendment, as I read it, limits competition and changes the current Federal process. Political contributions have absolutely no effect on the selection of Federal aid highway projects because, unless otherwise approved by the Secretary, construction projects are awarded only on the basis of the lowest responsive bid that meets the established criteria, based on the State's department of transportation engineering estimates. Very simply put, unless the Secretary of Transportation waives it, you have to take what the State Department of transportation has put together in its request for bids, and make the best bid complying with that, that is responsive, at the lowest price. That does not offer opportunities for corruption. There may be people in New Jersey and other States who find other ways to corrupt the system. I do not deny that. I think they should be punished. But there is no reason, in my view, to repeal the competitive bid standards. If States want to regulate their State projects by limiting competition, by all means, they should be free to do it. If it is a State contract, States can put in anything they want. There are other States, as I mentioned earlier, that currently have pay-to-play laws in place, but there are four States that have pay-to- play laws, two of which--Ohio and South Carolina--only apply to no-bid contracts having no effect on highway and transit projects because these are let under the competitive low-bid method. I believe the Senators from New Jersey think they are being singled out by the Federal Highway Administration as Kentucky and West Virginia have similar pay-to-play laws--but both Kentucky and West Virginia have exceptions to their provisions. Kentucky excludes contracts awarded competitively on the basis of the lowest and best bid, while West Virginia's exception is the restriction that only applies during negotiation and performance of the contract. These provisions are clearly different from what the Senators from New Jersey seek for their State. To open the process in other States, we do not need to have Federal aid highway dollars used as a means of changing campaign finance laws or changing the competitive bid process which gives us the best bid on the projects that are funded with Federal dollars. I don't want to see State laws preempting Federal laws, but if we are going to go down that road, as I said, I have a number of amendments, and I would certainly ask support for all the areas that Missouri wants to exempt from some of the mandates, many of which I think are unnecessary from the Federal Highway Administration laws. At this point, I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment because it provides a very different standard which New Jersey is attempting to use in its award of competitive-bid contracts. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the Talent amendment at the desk, which is identical to the amendment agreed to previously, be conformed to the pending amendment--the amendment which is identical to the amendment agreed to, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as noted by the Senator from Iowa, this bill incorporates more for bicycles and pedestrians than most highway users can support. We have been very generous. The activities are eligible under the core programs for the National Highway System, STP, CMAQ, highway bridge funding. They are eligible under scenic byways, Federal lands, rails and trails. Do not get me wrong. I like bikes. I used to be a big bike rider. I am a big walker. But this is a highway bill. This is not a bill for bicycles and pedestrians. I would urge everyone to get exercise. The proposal we have before us would require my State department of transportation to plan for bicycles, completing Highway 63 from Macon to the Iowa line. Most of my good friends along there are not going to ride a bicycle from Macon to the Iowa line, to the wonderful farm fields in north Missouri or along the hilly mountain paths of Highway 60 in southern Missouri in the Ozark Mountains or Highway 13 or Highway 71. We have plenty of programs. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways are under here. It provides grants of $2 million. They want a bicycle clearinghouse like a Publishers Clearinghouse. The proponent of this amendment says he needs it for the metropolitan planning organizations. Well, if my colleagues will look at section 134(a)(3) contents, the plans and programs for each metropolitan area shall provide for development and operation facilities, including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation. Metropolitan planning organizations already are mandated to do that. Section 1823 has enhancement projects approved. They are eligible for facilities for pedestrians and bicycle activities, preservation for abandoned railway corridors. Similar to the administration's proposed SAFETEA, we elevated SAFETEA to a core program. This part, known as HSIP, there is a mandatory set-aside specifically for bicycle and pedestrian activities. We set it up as $717 million, and since the overall level of the bill has been raised by $8 billion, this level has gone up. There is also the Safe Routes to School Program. If you want people to be safe going to school, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said 24 people die a year on average from school bus transportation, but it is far and away the safest way for children to go to and from school. That is by schoolbus. A number of my colleagues have amendments regarding bicycle and pedestrian activities. It seems that they have some different priorities than the mayors and the community leaders and the State departments of transportation I see in my State. They want to make sure we have roads. If the department of transportation in Iowa and Missouri want it, they can plan for it, as can the metropolitan planning organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent to make a unanimous consent request on an amendment passed?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to the Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association. I am very pleased to recognize this organization for its 25 years of superior service to the Missouri business community. The Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association was formed in 1980. With hard work and untiring commitment, the MMMA has grown into a strong, well respected voice in the legislative process representing over 5,000 small and mid-sized businesses across the State of Missouri. It is actively involved in educating MMMA members and serving as an advocate on State legislative issues impacting businesses. While Governor of Missouri, I found that the MMMA's active involvement in State legislative issues provided a vital resource. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I highly value the insights they have shared on numerous issues of great importance to America's business. MMMA is a vital link in spearheading the causes of small business. Over the past 25 years the MMMA has been instrumental in repealing the Merchants and Manufacturers Inventory Tax. The association has assisted in the passage of more than 35 bills in addition to winning three lawsuits before the Missouri Supreme Court. Collectively the MMMA's achievements have saved small and medium sized businesses more than $400 million. The quality individuals that comprise the MMMA epitomize the kind of dedication, work ethic and ideals necessary to meet the ongoing challenges and demands of the business community. Their leadership has influenced passage of important legislation and provided dependable resources in many court cases to benefit employers. The Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association celebrated its 25th anniversary on January 7, 2005. It is my great pleasure to congratulate the MMMA for this significant accomplishment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will the chairman yield? Mr. Chairman, we are ready. We are open to do business. There have been a great many discussions about the highway title. We have people ready to take those amendments who are ready to discuss those with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to see which ones we can accept. Is it my understanding that we only have 3\1/2\ days to complete work on this very complex bill that covers not only the EPW section but commerce, finance, and the other sections? Is that correct?

Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman. I hope we can get on with it while our colleague is speaking. I hope other Members and staff will come to the floor and share their amendments and begin the discussion that is going to have to move very quickly if we are to finish this bill this week and stay on schedule to try to avoid another extension.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was going to do what the chairman of the full committee said, but I see our friend from Hawaii is here. We have already had a discussion of the commerce title. I am happy to defer to my colleague from Hawaii.

Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BOND. My understanding from the cloakrooms is there are Members who have phoned in their concerns about moving to it.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the effort that my colleague from Missouri is making. When the Senator from Missouri was in the House, he was chairman of the House Small Business Committee when I was chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee. We took great pride in the tremendous contribution that small business made to our State, both in terms of the jobs they produced as well as the tremendous boost that the small businesses were able to provide to our productive sector. Again, I commend the Senator from Missouri for the action he took last year to make sure that these minority small business contractors could be qualified. This will go a long way toward easing the procedure to make sure that minority small business operations have a chance to get in on the work of the highway bill. It is very important that we move forward with our highway construction, and having the minority small businesses providing jobs in their community and representing the communities that will be served is a very worthy goal. This small measure would have a big impact. So I urge the adoption of this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii. I am hoping we can get started on this bill as quickly as possible because this time during this week has been set aside for the bill with all of the titles--EPW, commerce, finance--and we have a very complex bill. We need to work on these amendments right away. There is discussion about holds on both sides. I hope if anybody has a problem with the bill they will come down and work with us and not hold up the bill because we cannot do our job and get this measure passed if we are blocked from bringing it up by people phoning in their holds. I would like to have any Member who has a problem to talk to our staffs, realize there are lots of things that many people want to change, but that is what this whole process is about. We are trying to craft a bill that has been reported out of several different committees. Our highway title has been out there for 10 days, and everyone has had a chance to work on it. We have cleared numerous amendments on both sides of the aisle to take care of needs that various Members have. We cannot get this bill completed if people phone in holds and say: No, we are not going to let you go to the floor. It is very important that Members come down. This is going to be a very difficult bill.

Mr. BOND. I certainly hope the Senator from Mississippi feels better. I feel better because he has expressed my sentiments very clearly. We have been waiting 2\1/3\ years to have this bill in the Senate, and we have plenty to work on. I hope we are ready to move forward. I will add to what the chairman of the EPW committee, my colleague from Oklahoma, has said. Recognize that last year during the consideration of the Transportation bill, the Senate voted 76 to 21 in favor of funding the highway bill at $255 billion, mass transit at $56 billion. This vote was a strong signal that the Members of the Senate believe we need to spend more dollars for safety, for our economy, for jobs, for our long-term growth and future on highways. We did adopt in this budget resolution the provision presented by my colleague, Senator Talent, and the Senator from Michigan, to give the Finance Committee the opportunity to increase funding for the bill as long as it was properly offset, and 80 Senators voted in support of it. That is exactly what the chairman and the ranking member, Senators Grassley and Baucus, have done in their amendment. I urge we support this amendment because we are still going to be short of where we were last time. No one is going to be able to get, for their particular areas of interest, their particular priorities, the same amount of money that would have been available under $318 billion. This measure does increase the funding somewhat over the figure written into the budget, but it is in pursuant to the provision included in the transportation section of the highway bill that there could be an add-on. I hope people will see this is a critical time to move forward on this measure. If there are people who have amendments, I hope they will be ready to come forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, finally, after much laboring, this massive new substitute, or managers' amendment, is before us. This reflects the tremendous amount of work our staffs have done over the recess as well as the many long weeks and months our committees worked on it. It is not what anybody would say is a perfect bill. Everybody would like more money, and many would like more money in different places. But given the constraints under which we operated, this is the best we have been able to produce. Obviously, we hope that after the Senate may complete action on the supplemental, which I understand may be coming up, we would like to move as quickly as we can on this bill. The leadership on both sides has told us they want to finish the bill by this week. That is an ambitious schedule but, frankly, the current extension of the highway transportation bill runs out at the end of this month. The only hope we have of meeting that deadline and getting a bill to the President is to get it to conference this week. The conference is going to be difficult because of the different approach taken by the House than the approach we have taken. The approach we have taken, and the EPW Committee, on highway funds is one of bipartisan cooperation, to use formulas to assure that the highway money goes to States on the various indicators of need built into the formulas. I happen to think the formulas undercut the crossroads of the United States. I will be showing, when people talk about needs in other areas, a map by the U.S. Department of Transportation showing the level of heavy traffic on the roads in America. It is no surprise that that heavy traffic goes right through the middle of America, through Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana. We are the crossroads States. We are not doing as well in our States as many of the other States that are asking for more money. When people say they want more money, my response is: I do, too. But we have attempted to follow the pattern established in previous formulas. And if people want to change it, I have some changes I would like to make as well and include the crossroads where the traffic is the heaviest and where, in my State and in Oklahoma, we now recognize the fact that deaths caused by inadequate highways is a legitimate concern for a bill called SAFETEA. I am delighted, through the leadership of Senator Inhofe and the cooperation and leadership of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Jeffords, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, who worked very closely with me on the last highway bill, we brought our section to the floor as well as the sections from the other committees. We look forward as soon as we can to going back to work on it. We would ask any of our colleagues who have amendments, particularly to our section, you have had a chance to look at it, we have had a chance to work on it. I hope we can move quickly because the time will be short and the bill is important. With that, I thank the chairman of our committee and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am happy to work with the Senator from Colorado on the needs of his particular State. This measure before us would enable his State to spend more on bridges if that is the need but to require States to spend 5 percent more where in our State for various reasons we only spend a minimum of 15 percent, and other States may be in our same situation, I am very much concerned about a mandate because we have bad bridges, but we kill people on our highways. We kill people on our highways because we have two-lane highways that are carrying heavy truck traffic and passenger traffic that warrant four lanes. Rebuilding bridges is not going to solve that problem. So for our State, this would be a real problem. As chairman of the subcommittee, I would be happy to work with the Senator to see if we can reach an accommodation, but I am very much concerned about what I think the gist of his amendment is. I believe the Senator from South Carolina has a brief statement. I yield the floor.