Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, earlier today the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee was here on the floor charging Chairman Inhofe and our EPW Committee with inserting Amtrak legislation into our highway bill. Shortly thereafter, I was glad to see that same Senator rise to apologize for this incorrect statement. Because the truth is, that the provisions the Senator was talking about are actually in his own committee's title of this bill. So now that it is established not even the Chairman of the Commerce Committee knows what is in his title, I think it is only appropriate to address some of the problems in that title. Earlier today I discussed a few of the problems I have seen in that title. At that time, I pointed out that we still have not heard from the Commerce Committee Chairman what is in his title. Well, we still haven't had an explanation . . . and if that committee's chairman didn't know that the Amtrak provisions were actually in his own title, it makes me wonder if anyone actually knows what is in the Commerce Committee title of this bill. That said, I am back here again to briefly address a few more problems with the Safety Title of this bill. And in an effort to safe time, I will not call up amendments to fix these problems, but I hope that these concerns can be addressed in Conference. I am concerned that certain provisions in the Commerce Committee's Title go a little too far in specifically directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to publish final rules on a wide variety of new vehicle safety requirements. I am all for highway safety, but to assume that today, we know enough to tell NHTSA exactly when it must promulgate over a dozen rules, covering many elements of vehicle design to crash testing, over the next few years, seems disruptive to NHTSA's safety priorities. I am not an expert in this area, but let me read what the administration thinks of this amendment. I remind my colleagues that earlier today we were told by the Commerce Committee Chairman that none of the statements in the SAp were in relation to his committee's title. Well, this if from the statement of administration position on this provision issued February 11. ``The administration strongly opposes mandate rulemakings for NHTSA and the FMCSA. These provisions predetermine timetables and outcomes without adequate grounding in science, engineering and proof of net safety benefits. By prescribing specific requirements and mandating priorities, these provisions will delay or interfere with ongoing safety initiatives and may have the unintended consequence of redirecting agency resources away from programs that will do more overall good for safety.'' My main concern is that these mandates disrupt NHTSA's safety priorities and might not be the best use of its resources. We have passed laws that govern the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards requiring NHTSA to consider all available safety data when setting new standards and that those new standards must meet the need for highway safety, as well as be reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the vehicles to which they apply. This amendment, by telling NHTSA it must promulgate certain standards, is inconsistent with existing law and has the potential to require NHTSA to publish standards that might not be in the best interest of highway safety. I hope that the sponsor of the amendment will agree to work with me, and others, to ensure that we actually improve highway safety and not do harm by requiring the experts at DOT to divert valuable and limited resources from their true safety mission. Mr. President, this debate is not personal. But I cannot stand idly by and have one Member or a handful of Members tell us all that the EPW Committee is a budget buster, or is the only part of this package that carries a veto threat, or that Amtrak provisions are in our title, or on and on. The truth, Mr. President, is that this bill is paid for, is budget neutral based on the Finance Committee title which pays for increases over the budget resolution. For the Record, of all the titles above the budget resolution (though paid for), it's the Commerce Committee title that is the highest increase over their allocation. In fact, that title is a 50-percent increase over the budget allocation. Mr. President, it is also true that the Commerce Committee title is new. It is not what was reported out of Committee, and it was not altered by the amendment process here on the floor. Instead, it was changed by the Commerce Committee staff, and apparently not even the Chairman knows what is in it. I want a good highway bill. There are some real problems with this title, and I urge my colleagues to take a close look at it. And I hope we can address some of these harmful mandates in Conference. We had thorough discussions when other safety provisions had come forward. This one has been slipped into the commerce title. There are some real problems. Earlier today, we were told by the Commerce Committee that none of the statements in the Statement of Administration Policy were in relation to the committee title. Let me read from the Statement of Administration Policy on this provision issued February 11: The administration strongly opposes the numerous mandated rulemakings for NHTSA and the FMCSA. These provisions predetermine timetables and outcomes without adequate grounding in science, engineering, and proof of net safety benefits. By prescribing specific requirements and mandating priorities, these provisions will delay or interfere with ongoing safety initiatives and may have the unintended consequence of redirecting agency resources away from programs that will do more overall good for safety. I think this provision disrupts NHTSA's safety priorities. We passed laws that govern the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards. Unfortunately, they are not going to be able to use the full scientific and engineering information they wish to if they are forced to take the provisions in this amendment. This is inconsistent with existing law. I hope in the conference we will work to change these so we do not foul up the efforts of NHTSA to use the best safety and engineering to achieve goals that have not been discussed or debated on this floor. I hope we can change that part. Finally, the truth is, this bill is paid for. It is budget neutral based on the Finance Committee title. For the record, all of the titles in the budget resolution are paid for. It is the Commerce Committee title that is the highest increase over the allocation. It is 50 percent over the allocation. These are problems we are going to have to deal with in the conference. I assure my colleagues we need to address all of these issues. I close my comments by thanking the chairman, Senator Inhofe, the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and my good friend and colleague, Senator Reid of Nevada, for the cooperative way we have worked through this bill. There is a long way to go before we get to a conference agreement with the House that we hope will be able to include concerns by the administration so we will be able to move quickly to get a good highway bill which will deal with our tremendous overwhelming transportation safety problems in the United States and put people to work sooner rather than later. Finally, as I said, I support the proposal raised by my colleague from Missouri, and I hope that can be included in the conference. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill to move the highway and transportation bill forward and get a good bill that can make a great deal of difference for the economy, for jobs, long-term economic growth and, most of all, for the safety of transportation in the United States. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have an amendment for Senator Murkowski relating to Denali and a second-degree amendment of Senator Shelby, No. 2532. I ask unanimous consent to call these up, as modified, and ask they be accepted. The modifications are on the amendments.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join in the commendations particularly to Chairman Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and my cohort on the Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Reid, who also had the double pleasure of being the floor manager and probably deserves a day off before he sees his new granddaughter. I join also in thanking all of the staff, and I will submit their names for the Record. I want my colleagues to know I had a tremendous staff working with me, Trevor Blackann, Ellen Stein, Heideh Shahmoradi, Kent Van Landuyt, and John Stoody. It was a major effort. I think we have crafted a good bill. This was a group effort. I thank each for their very hard work and dedication. Senator Inhofe's staff: Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keefe, Gregory Murrill, Andy Wheeler, Nathan Richmond, Mitch Surrett, Angie Giancarlo, Marty Hall, Michelle Nellenbach, Laura Berry, Brydon Ross, Cori Lucero, and John Shananhan. Senator Jeffords' and Senator Reid's staff: Ed Barron, J.C. Sandberg, Jeff Squires, Erik Steavens, Elizabeth Ryan, Ken Connolly, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Chris Miller, and Alison Taylor. There are many provisions in this bill that make me proud to have been a part of drafting SAFETEA. Some of which include: Safety. For the first time in our recent transportation legislation history, safety is given a prominent position, being elevated to a core program. We have accomplished this by providing much needed funding to reduce highway injuries and fatalities. I am pleased to say we have accomplished this without the use of mandates. We have heard numerous testimony from the administration that nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last year. I am glad that the bill reflects the continued commitment to making not only investments in our infrastructure, but also to the general safety and welfare of our constituents. Equity. Our bill moves to carefully balance the needs of the donor States while also recognizing the needs of donee States. While many people did not think it was possible to achieve, all donor States will receive a 95 cent rate of return at least by 2009. I am anxious to return to my home State of Missouri and report that we will now receive 95 cents back on every dollar, each year of this Act. Like many of the donor States, Missouri has some of the worst roads in the Nation and the second worst bridges in the Nation. This bill will allow Missouri, as well as the other States, to address many of the Nation's major transportation infrastructure needs. Furthermore, I am proud to announce that all States will grow at not less than 10 percent over TEA-21. I am very pleased to report that this bill follows the Bond/Reid amendment by providing a 31 percent increase in funding over TEA-21. This bill also addresses several environmental issues by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review stage. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured environmental review process more efficiently and with fewer delays. And most importantly, our comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion will sustain over 2 million new jobs. These funds will support the much-needed jobs and economic stimulus that our nation currently needs. In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid for their leadership and support in moving this vital piece of legislation that is focused on the needs of our Nation's transportation system. I also want to thank the other Members of the Senate for their overwhelming bipartisan support and helping move this bill forward.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to today to discuss some disturbing news. According to a preliminary report released by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, infant mortality in the U.S. increased from 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 to a rate of 7.0 in 2002. This is the first time that the infant mortality rate has increased since 1958. Birth defects, preterm birth and low birthweight, and maternal complications of pregnancy were the major factors contributing to this increase. During the last session of Congress we passed legislation that I introduced with Senator Dodd to renew the Federal commitment to finding the causes of birth defects and preventing those for which we know the causes. I am very proud of the important work being conducted by the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the CDC in this area. Congress has not yet addressed the problem of premature birth and low birthweight. In 2002, more than 480,000 babies were born prematurely in the U.S 1 in 8 births. In my own State of Missouri, 12.7 percent of births are preterm, an increase of more than 11 percent over the last decade. Preterm labor can happen to any pregnant woman and the causes of nearly half of all preterm births are unknown. In January of 2003, the March of Dimes launched a 5-year, $75 million campaign to prevent preterm birth. Also supporting the campaign are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and 28 other national organizations. I cannot think of a better group of organizations to take on this serious public health problem. As significant as the March of Dimes campaign will be, success in reducing the incidence of prematurity requires a commitment from the Federal Government as well. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of vital legislation aimed at reducing the rates of preterm birth. The ``PREEMIE Act'' authorizes expansion of research into the causes and prevention of prematurity and increases Federal support of public and health professional education as well as support services related to prematurity. I would like to conclude by telling you the story of Jacqueline Reineri. Born 4 months premature, at just 24 weeks gestation, Jacqueline was given a very slim chance for survival. She was the size of a small doll, weighing just 1 lb., 10 ounces. Jacqueline had a grade-three brain bleed among many other complications and spent 96 days in the neonatal intensive care unit, NICU. Today, Jacqueline has Spastic Quadriplegia Cerebral Palsy and gets around in a power wheelchair. She has endured four major surgeries and will continue to experience many long-term effects of prematurity. While her family worries about her future, they feel blessed that she is a very intelligent second grader in a typical classroom and a very active advocate for prematurity and children with special needs, serving as the Missouri March of Dimes Ambassador. As inspiring as Jacqueline's story is many premature babies aren't as lucky. The recent increase in the rate of infant mortality underscores the importance of a comprehensive public-private effort to find the causes and ultimately prevent premature birth. I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in pledging to do all we can to ensure a day when all children are born healthy.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise to discuss a second-degree amendment that I intend to offer. It deals with a very important problem in the national interest--assuring that rental and leasing car operations can be performed in all 50 States. Right now there are several States which have something called unlimited bicarious liability. Under this, if a leasing company leases a car or a vehicle to a person who appears to be a reasonable and responsible driver who meets all of the requirements, and that person goes out and has a horrendous accident, in a few States the victims and the personal injury lawyers are enabled to sue the leasing company which had no control over the car or truck or van and had no evidence of negligence or shortcomings in their procedures in leasing that vehicle. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars of judgments. We have seen in a small number of States liability being imposed on rental and leasing companies without fault. It has cost car and truck renting and leasing companies more than $100 million annually. The problem is these costs don't just come out of the pockets of those in that State; they are paid nationally. When any of us go to rent or lease a car, we are paying far more than we otherwise would because they have had to cover the costs of outrageously high judgments imposed by a few States which allow this bicarious liability language and bicarious notion to apply. In other words, if you are in New York, for example, and you have leased a car, if you go out and hit somebody, it doesn't matter whether the leasing company is at fault. The leasing company is the one that is sued. If there is $100 million judgment against that company, guess who pays for it. Not the people who lease the car in New York but all of us as consumers who may go out to lease a car in all of the 50 States. Therefore, the amendment I am proposing says provided there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner of a motor vehicle, no such owner engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles may be held liable under State law for harm caused by a person to himself or herself, another person, or to property which results or arises from that person's use, operation, or possession of a rented or leased motor vehicle by reason of being the owner of such motor vehicle. In other words, if the owner of the vehicle hasn't done anything wrong--there has been no negligence, no criminal wrongdoing--but the person who leases that car goes out and has a horrendous wreck, the person who has leased the car is the one who ought to be held responsible. We should not have to finance jackpot judgments against leasing companies that pass those costs on to all of us across the Nation whenever we go to lease or rent a car or a van. Consumers nationwide are being hurt by these higher rates--not just consumers in the bicarious liability States. These laws apply where the accident occurs. It does not matter whether the car or truck was rented or leased. Since companies cannot prevent their vehicles from being driven to a bicarious liability State, they cannot prevent their exposure to these laws, and they have to raise their rates for all of us accordingly. In addition, we have also seen that these higher costs drive many small companies out of business. Actually, a small company trying to engage in the business of renting or leasing may find itself caught in one of these bicarious liability States and wind up with a judgment that puts them out of business. This is a death knell for small businesses in the leasing and rental business. That is why we have to do something about it. Accident victims in bicarious liability States would not be left out in the cold. They would be compensated according to the same standard used by the vast majority of States which do not have bicarious liability laws. More importantly, accident victims in the same bicarious liability State would no longer be treated differently based solely on whether a vehicle involved was rented or leased instead of individually owned. In other words, if you are hit by a negligent driver in any State, file suit against that driver and collect a judgment against that driver logically to be paid by the insurance company of that driver, or if it is self-insured then that driver would have to pay out of his pocket. That same standard still applies. What we are saying is you can't reach out and bring in somebody who had nothing to do with the accident and was not at fault. When we do that, we are going to provide relief for small businesses. We are going to provide relief to the people who lease cars and rent cars and vans across the Nation. This provision would not allow a company to escape liability if they were at fault or negligent in an accident in any way. I ask that it be supported by my colleagues. Amendment No. 2327 To Amendment No. 2311

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, very briefly, this is a difficult bill, as the distinguished Senator from Nevada has said. There is a lot of work that goes into it. If anybody was completely 100 percent happy with it, we would not have done our job, because there are too many interests. The only way to accommodate them is to work on a bipartisan basis. I want to say this while the Senator from Nevada is here. The Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Vermont and, obviously, my good friend from Wyoming, on both sides of the aisle, with Senator Inhofe as chairman of the committee, have worked well together, including the occupant of the chair. This is probably one of the most important economic stimulus infrastructure bills we are going to act on this year, or maybe for quite a few years. I hope we can get a solid vote to move forward tomorrow. There is a lot more work to be done, as I believe several have already said. We are waiting for the House to act. When the House acts, we will take it and work with them and we will take into consideration what the White House has said to see if we can--and we must--craft a good bill that takes care of the crying needs of infrastructure. I have said before on this floor so many times that it is not just a question of convenience, of cutting down on idling time, it is a question of long-term economic growth as well as immediate jobs. In Missouri, it is a question of saving lives by having adequate highways. When we have two-lane highways carrying 15,000 or 20,000 cars a day, that is too many. We should have divided highways. The fact that we don't means that wherever you travel in Missouri on heavily traveled two-lane roads, you see little white crosses where grieving families and friends have indicated the place where a loved one was lost. This bill isn't going to solve all the problems in Missouri. If we pass this bill, many of the problems in Missouri and around the country will be solved. I urge my colleagues to work together and move forward on the bill. Our staffs are working now on a cooperative basis with a very large number of amendments that have been filed to see how many we can accept, how we can move it along. Tomorrow is going to be a very busy day. We will try to accept as many amendments as we can on a bipartisan basis. If you want more money, please tell us where you are going to find it because we are strapped for money and major new spending sources without revenue are going to be difficult to accommodate. Within those parameters, I urge everybody to work together. The filing deadline for first-degree amendments is past. I know what we have in front of us. I hope we can resolve as many as possible. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator made a very good point about the need to move this bill. He raised the question about a 1-year extension. Is it the understanding of my colleague that the major projects that would generate the kind of work that is needed to improve our Nation's infrastructure, the major highway and bridge projects, cannot be undertaken on a 1-year extension because these are multiyear projects and they need a multiyear extension?

Mr. BOND. If the Senator would further yield, I know the Senator is from a Western State in the north, and the time during which significant highway construction can go forward is limited by the weather. What is the timeframe for summer construction in your State?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that question because some people talked about a 3- or 4-month extension. I wonder if my colleague agrees that that simply would miss an entire season, even in Missouri, where our weather may not be quite as harsh but we would not be able to really undertake any construction projects. Is that similar to the condition in the Senator's State?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I came to the Chamber to speak about the highway bill, and obviously we hope to be talking about that later on today, but having taken the responsibility of serving on the Intelligence Committee, I thought I might add a few comments to the discussions begun by my colleague from Wisconsin. Let's be clear; the Senate Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis has launched a massive effort to determine whether our intelligence was accurate, where it had holes in it, where are our assessments and our estimates. In intelligence, they are all estimates. The only time there is absolute confirmation that something has happened is when the World Trade Center comes down or when the Pentagon is hit. Then one knows that terrorists have planned something and have executed it. We were dealing with an intelligence system that provided estimates throughout the 1990s and no action was taken. The intelligence service provided estimates about the danger of Osama bin Laden. We considered all kinds of actions, and then September 11 happens. Now, the September 11 commission goes in to try to determine why we did not act on the intelligence we had. The big charge there is that something should have been done about Osama bin Laden. Well, there are now published reports on the intelligence, and I would refer my colleagues to Richard Miniter's book ``Losing bin Laden.'' There were many instances where it was clear that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States. In several instances, it appeared that in the 1990s we might have had an opportunity to deal with Osama bin Laden in one way or another and we chose not to do it. So right after September 11 we are looking backwards and saying, Why did we not act? Now my colleagues, primarily on the other side of the aisle, are saying, Why did we act in Iraq? Let's be perfectly clear. When people start talking about imminent threat, seeming to imply that the President said there was an imminent threat, I distinctly remember the State of the Union message in which the President said: We cannot wait until there is an imminent threat. In essence, he was saying we cannot wait until we see the second airplane heading for the second tower of the World Trade Center. Why were we suspicious of Saddam Hussein? The same reason President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Secretary Cohen, Security Council Chief Sandy Berger had? They said Saddam Hussein was a real and great threat. He was in flagrant violation of all the U.N. resolutions which followed on the cease-fire in the first gulf war. He kicked the inspectors out in 1998. We know he was the only despot alive, the only tyrant ruling a country, who used weapons of mass destruction, and he kicked the inspectors out without ever saying what he had done with them. Sure, there will be things we can find out about what we should have done differently in intelligence. There has already been public discussion about the lack of human intelligence resources. We may find that. We may find other things when we complete our work in the Intelligence Committee and submit a report to be fully declassified and discussed. We need to make our intelligence system better. I think we have gone a long way. The PATRIOT Act broke down the walls between the CIA and the FBI, which legislatively prohibited them sharing information. That was a mistake. We have changed that. Some of my colleagues say we ought to look at the use, look at what people said about that. You don't need to have a commission to do that. You have a Lexis-Nexis search to find out what people said. Are some people making charges? Yes, everybody has a right to make their comments about whether they believed the intelligence. A lot of that intelligence has been laid out in the public. I was astounded at the degree to which Secretary Powell's discussion before the United Nations in February of 2003 went into so much of the intelligence we had at the time. That was out on the table. That was the best intelligence Secretary Powell had. Published reports indicate he went through that intelligence himself and asked questions and only used those things about which he was personally satisfied the intelligence estimates were accurate. So, yes, use--we did use it. We did act. Saddam Hussein is no longer ruling a country, murdering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. We pulled him out of a spider hole. He said he was a great ruler of the Iraqi people. He wanted to negotiate. Well, he is in jail. You know something, Muammar Qadhafi in Libya took a look at what happened to Saddam Hussein and said: ``Oh, I don't think I want to wind up like Saddam Hussein did.'' That is what he told Italian President Berlesconi. ``I don't want to see happen to me what happened to Saddam Hussein.'' So he is coming clean based on the information we had gathered about his weaponry, his participation with Dr. Kahn of Pakistan. We knew he had weapons and was working on a weapons program and he came clean. I think that makes a great deal of sense. There has been a tremendous change in the Middle East. There has been a change because Saddam Hussein no longer rules. It is a tragedy when we lose American lives. It is a tragedy when Iraqi lives are lost. But the Iraqis are slowly but steadily taking back control of their country. Let's talk about what David Kay found. David Kay said when all the facts are known, it will appear, I believe, that Saddam Hussein was a far greater danger than our intelligence even knew. Our intelligence was not adequate before the first gulf war. We didn't know how far along he was at that time with his nuclear program. We did not know, apparently, according to Dr. Kay, how far along he was with his long- range missile program. It was a country, Dr. Kay said, which was attracting terrorists like ants to honey, to come to a country busily engaged in pursuing means of getting at the infidels. That means anybody who doesn't agree with them. It is clear Ansar al-Islam had a ricin factory manufacturing that potent chemical, attempting to weaponize it, in northeast Iraq. It was under the direction of al Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam is part of the brotherhood with al-Qaida. By the way, you probably read in the New York Times about what we learned about the memo, from al Zarqawi. He was totally frustrated because he thinks the infidel, i.e., the coalition, our coalition, seems to be winning. We are making progress. We are turning Iraq back to the Iraqis and we have not cut and run. Their effort to conduct jihad is getting more and more difficult as we get more and more Iraqis engaged as police, as soldiers. Danger still exists, but the danger that Saddam Hussein or the terrorist groups operating out of Iraq will be able to do so with impunity and continue to pursue their weapons of mass destruction programs is much less now that Saddam Hussein is in captivity. You can talk about what the President said, what the President did, but I believe what we are seeing in the Middle East, what we have heard publicly from Dr. Kay, indicates we have taken a major step toward lessening the likelihood of terrorist attacks on the United States and toward stabilizing the Middle East so it will no longer be a hotbed and a haven for terrorists. I thank the Chair.

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

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a truly bad idea that has been proposed on this floor. I believe an amendment was discussed yesterday when I was not here--I didn't have an opportunity to hear it--to provide stiff sanctions on States which do not have primary seatbelt laws. The goal is to move every State up to 90 percent seatbelt use. It specifically says States would be sanctioned if they did not meet one of the following two conditions within 3 years of the enactment of this bill: Either have a primary seatbelt law which would allow law enforcement to pull over a driver if that officer sees the driver is not wearing a seatbelt without having to arrest them for any other infraction, or the State does not get up to a 90 percent seatbelt use rate. In other words, it would require a State to achieve a 90 percent seatbelt use, and it left it up to the individual States on how to get there. The objective of getting to 90 percent seatbelt use is a worthwhile one. As Governor of Missouri, I talked often about the need for seatbelts. When I was young, the primary entertainment when we weren't listening to Cardinal baseball was to crawl under the fence and go out and watch the stock car races. I watched stock car races every Friday night. Sometimes I paid to get in but not often. There were horrendous wrecks every night. Yet the drivers wore harnesses and seatbelts. I saw one driver taken off. He had severe alcohol poisoning because of fuel he had taken internally. But I never saw anybody hurt. I have been in two serious crashes in my life. Both times I had on a seatbelt. I was shaken up and scared. In the first one, the other driver was taken to the hospital unconscious. I did not find out until the next day whether he had survived. I am a believer in seatbelt use. I have sponsored and pushed for seatbelts and for safety seats for infants. I tried to get them on airplanes. But I don't believe taking money away from the 36 States that don't have primary seatbelt laws is a way to get there. If the State fails to meet either of the conditions--either the 90- percent seatbelt use rate or enactment of a primary seatbelt law--the State would lose 2 percent of its general highway safety funds, and the sanction increases to 4 percent for each successive year. The sanctions approach would decrease the amount of funding available to make the necessary investment in safety for their transportation system. States that do not enact a primary seatbelt law or do not achieve a 90-percent use rate will get less funding and fall behind other States in safety. That is not the way to encourage States to increase safety. That is a way to make some States fall further behind. I know more lives can be saved with seatbelts. Good friends of mine who are troopers have said they have never unbuckled a dead driver from a seatbelt, although they have taken a lot of dead people out of cars in car accidents. I do not believe, however, the Federal Government should sanction States, trying to get people to use seatbelts. The Federal Government would force enactment of primary seatbelt laws. This approach is essentially Federal blackmail by Congress. It is telling the States we are not going to return the money you pay into the Federal highway trust fund because some of us in Washington, DC, think your State legislature and your Governor need to enact this law. Well, that is the purpose of the folks we elect at the State level to represent us in our general assemblies and to represent us in our Governors' offices. I held the office of Governor at one point. I spent an awful lot of time looking at federally imposed mandates, many of which did not make any sense. They told us, for example, we had to use our clean water funds to clean up water from our major cities going back into the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, putting in water that was higher quality than was already in the river. We wanted to use it on the pristine Ozark streams where small communities and septic tanks were seriously downgrading streams which had been fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. The priority did not make sense for Missouri. I came up here to try to work with the States, not to tell States that we are not going to send back money you send to Washington unless you adopt our idea. Only 20 States have decided to enact a primary seatbelt law. Other States have decided a primary seatbelt law is not the way to increase seatbelt usage. Missouri has made great strides in seatbelt use, and this has been done without a primary seatbelt law. As you can see on this chart, the States which have primary seatbelt laws have the bold numbers. You start out with Alabama, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia--everybody in the District of Columbia knows you get pulled over if you are not wearing a seatbelt--Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, and Michigan, to name the lefthand side. You can see what progress they have made. Alabama has a primary seatbelt law. In 2002, they had 79 percent usage, and it fell back to 77 percent in 2003. They went down. Other States are nowhere near that. Virginia, for example, has no primary seatbelt law, apparently, according to this chart. In 2003 it only had 75 percent seatbelt usage. The good news is, reduction in non-use, from 30 percent to 25 percent, was a 17-percent reduction. The State of Missouri has gone from 31-percent non-use to 27-percent non-use without the seatbelt law. Why should this body say we are going to take money away from the State of Missouri because we don't like the way you are reducing non-usage of seatbelts? I think public statements--and I certainly have made them, and will continue to make them--educational campaigns and incentives are the way to go to improve usage. When you look at this chart, you see a lot of States with seatbelt usage that is definitely below 90 percent. For most of them, the usage is 70 and 80 percent. We are making progress. We ought to continue to do that with incentives. If you give States incentives, they have the flexibility to use their own solutions to increase seatbelt use. That flexibility would be lost. States would be limited in their ability to educate the public with regard to the importance of highway safety. They would lose safety money. That makes no sense. The enforcement of primary seatbelt laws costs the State a lot of money, from increased law enforcement personnel, hours of work for clerical representation, and prosecutions. Is that the best way to use their law enforcement people? I think that is something that is better left to the authorities in the individual States. We have to stop this sanctions approach and, I believe, use incentives. Under title I, under the Commerce Committee report, NHTSA would be authorized to use over $3.5 billion in grant funding and approximately $800 million for vehicle safety-related rules. The NHTSA programs would pay strong attention to driver safety and seatbelt use. Under the National Highway Safety Program, section 104 grants would be administered by NHTSA in three high-visibility areas of safety: to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, drug-impaired driving, and increase seatbelt usage. I believe that is the appropriate way to go. The amendment that was described yesterday represents a double penalty for States that do not enact primary seatbelt laws. In fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, 10 percent of section 148 funds--those are funds for highway safety improvement--would be transferred to the section 402 program unless the State has a primary safety belt law or has achieved at least a 90-percent safety belt use rate. Beginning in 2007, 2 percent of the interstate maintenance, surface transportation, and bridge programs would be withheld from States that do not have a primary seatbelt law or a 90-percent usage rate. The percentage withheld would rise to 4 percent in fiscal year 2008 and thereafter. If Congress enacts these sanctions, we are not likely to authorize incentives. The States have used section 157 safety belt incentive grant funding to support national safety belt mobilization and other safety belt enforcement activities. Without the incentives, the States would have drastically reduced resources for those purposes. I believe enactment of a primary safety belt penalty mandate, forced upon the States, is premature and unwarranted. There has never been a sufficient program to convince the States to enact primary seatbelt laws or to find other means of increasing usage and decreasing nonusage of seatbelts. Under the Senate Commerce bill, the new safety belt incentive grant program would provide the States with a grant of five times their apportionment if they enact a primary seatbelt law. We need to see if this program works and see if it is effective. Many Governors and State legislatures oppose penalties and sanctions. There are currently 18 penalties and sanctions, 7 of which are highway safety related. Increasingly, Congress has relied on punishing the States if they do not meet safety performance objectives. As a result, I think there is an understandable revolt and reaction growing to this approach. The ``Mother May I'' coming to Washington is bad enough, but when ``Mama Federal Government'' tells us: ``You have to do it this way or you don't get your supper,'' particularly when your voters, your constituents, your taxpayers have been the ones who have paid for that supper, that is, I think, a real problem. Typically, State legislatures being forced to do this are going to rebel, and I think it is very inappropriate. We have a letter from the executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association; the president and chief executive officer of the American Highway Users Alliance; the executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the executive director of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; the chief executive officer of the Associated General Contractors of America; the executive director of the American Traffic Safety Services Association; the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures; the executive director of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association; the president of the American Council of Engineering Companies; the vice president of Public Affairs of AAA, and the executive director of the National Governors Association, all saying: . . . we oppose the use of penalties and sanctions. Our organization supports the underlying safety goals. We believe the use of sanctions and penalties reflect an all-or- nothing approach that forces absolute and unconditional compliance with Federal safety requirements or goals while stifling innovation and redirecting funds from highway construction and maintenance projects with tangible safety benefits. That makes the case very well. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.

Mr. BOND. I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to mandate primary laws or arbitrary usage of seatbelts on the States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.