Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I reserve that time until later in the day.

Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his remarks. Diogenes walked the streets of Athens in broad daylight with his lighted lantern. He was asked why. He answered, ``I am looking for a man.'' Plato, when visiting Sicily, was asked by Hiero, the tyrannical head of the Government, why he came to Sicily. He said, ``I am seeking an honest man.'' May I say, Mr. President, today I have found an honest man --the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, next Monday is the official observance of the birthday of our first President, George Washington, who so wisely observed, as did Judge Hogan, ``From the nature of the Constitution, I must approve all the parts of a bill or reject it in toto.'' How right George Washington was! I can think of no greater tribute to his wisdom than this decision today. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague who joined in preparing the amicus and who has, all the way from the beginning of these debates, which have gone on for years now, stood like the Irish oak in opposition to giving the President of the United States--any President, Republican or Democrat--a line-item veto. I salute my friend, and I am very grateful to him for the work that he has done and for his constant support and leadership as we have stood together with Senator Carl Levin, who cannot be here today because he is in Europe. If Senator Moynihan had been at the Constitutional Convention, even though Judge Yates and Mr. Lansing left the Convention early, leaving only Alexander Hamilton to sign that great document, Senator Moynihan would have been there to attach his signature. And not only that, he would have joined with Hamilton and Madison and Jay in writing one of the greatest documents of all time, the Federalist Papers. I yield to my friend.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues may already be aware, in a decision announced today by Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Line Item Veto Act has been found to be unconstitutional, an unconstitutional delegation of the Congress' power over the purse. While I congratulate each of the plaintiffs and their attorneys, this victory does not belong to them alone. This is a victory for the American people. It is their Constitution, it is their Republic, and their liberties that have been made more secure. Judge Hogan's opinion parallels a previous decision by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, also for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in Byrd v. Raines, as well as the opinions expressed by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in that same earlier case. While I fully expect this decision today to be appealed and I, therefore, recognize this as a first step, I nevertheless regard it as an important step. For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to take just a few moments to read pertinent excerpts from Judge Hogan's decision. I read now, beginning with that section titled ``Procedural Requirements of Article I.'' I continue to read from Judge Hogan's opinion: The Constitution carefully prescribes certain formal procedures that must be observed in the enactment of laws. The Line Item Veto Act impermissibly attempts to alter these constitutional requirements through mere legislative action. Because the act violates Article I's ``single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure,'' . . . it is unconstitutional. * * * * * Both Houses of Congress, through a process of discussion and compromise, had agreed upon the exact content of the Balanced Budget Act and the Taxpayer Relief Act. These laws reflected the best judgment of both Houses. The laws that resulted after the President's line item veto were different from those consented to by both Houses of Congress. There is no way of knowing whether these laws, in their truncated form, would have received the requisite support from both the House and the Senate. Because the laws that emerged after the Line Item Veto are not the same laws that proceeded through the legislative process, as required, the resulting laws are not valid. Furthermore, the President violated the requirements of Article I when he unilaterally canceled provisions of duly enacted statutes. Unilateral action by any single participant in the law-making process is precisely what the Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses were designed to prevent. Once a bill becomes law, it can only be repealed or amended through another, independent legislative enactment, which itself must conform with the requirements of Article I. Any rescissions must be agreed upon by a majority of both Houses of Congress. The President cannot single-handedly revise the work of the other two participants in the lawmaking process, as he did here when he vetoed certain provisions of these statutes. * * * * * Whatever defendants wish to call the President's action, it has every mark of a veto. * * * * * Finally, Congress' ``indirect attempt[] to accomplish what the Constitution prohibits . . . accomplishing directly'' cannot stand. . . . ``To argue otherwise is to suggest that the Framers spent significant time and energy in debating and crafting Clauses that could be easily evaded.'' Congress knew that a single Line Item Veto, performed prior to the President's signature, would violate Article I's requirement that the president sign or return the bills in toto. This limitation on the President has been clear since George Washington's tenure. Let me quote the words of George Washington as they are quoted in Judge Hogan's opinion: (``From the nature of the Constitution, I must approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto.'') Congress cannot evade this long-accepted requirement by merely changing the timing of the President's cancellation. Because the Line Item Veto Act produced laws in violation of the requirement of bicameral passage, because it permitted the President unilaterally to repeal or amend duly enacted laws, and because it impermissibly attempts to evade the requirement that the President sign or reject a bill in toto, the Act violates the requirements of Article I. For that reason alone, the Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional. Now, under the heading ``Separation of Powers,'' in Judge Hogan's opinion, I find these words, and I quote from his opinion: Furthermore, the Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional because it impermissibly disrupts the balance of powers among the three branches of government. The separation of powers into three coordinate branches is central to the principles on which this country was founded. . . . The declared purpose of separating and dividing the powers of government was to ``diffuse power the better to secure liberty.'' * * * * * Pursuant to the doctrine of separated powers, certain functions are divided between the legislative and executive branches. Article I, section I vests all legislative authority in Congress. Legislative power is the authority to make laws[,] Says Judge Hogan. Executive power, on the other hand, is to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' * * * * * With regard to lawmaking, the President's function is strictly a negative one: to veto a bill in its entirety. While it is Congress' duty to make laws, Congress can delegate certain rulemaking authority to other branches, as long as that delegation is appropriate to the duties of that branch. (``[T]he lawmaking function belongs to Congress . . . and may not be conveyed to another branch or entity.''); * * * * * The Line Item Veto Act impermissibly crosses the line between acceptable delegations of rulemaking authority and unauthorized surrender to the President of an inherently legislative function, namely, the authority to permanently shape laws and package legislation. The Act---- Writes Judge Hogan, enables the President, in his discretion, to pick and choose among portions of an enacted law to determine which ones will remain valid. The Constitution, however, dictates that once a bill becomes law, the President's sole duty is to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' His power Writes Judge Hogan, cannot expand to that of ``co-designer'' of the law--that is Congress' domain. Any subsequent amendment of a statute falls under Congress' responsibility to legislate. The President cannot take this duty upon himself; nor can Congress relinquish that power to the Executive Branch. I shall not quote further excerpts from the opinion of Judge Hogan, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire opinion, following the remarks of Mr. Moynihan and my remarks. I understand the Government Printing Office estimates it will cost $1,532 to print this opinion in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any time that I do not use of my hour be reserved for later in the day.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is a small vocal group in West Virginia that opposes Corridor H. But there was a poll taken in West Virginia within the last 2 weeks, I believe, that showed that 80 percent--79 percent of West Virginians support the completion of Corridor H inside West Virginia. Only about 6 percent--6 percent--of the people are very opposed, and that is the highly vocal group over there that has been opposing Corridor H. Of course, they have some people over in some of the adjoining States who add their voices to the small 6 percent in West Virginia who are opposed to completing Corridor H. About 8 or 9 percent, as I understand it, from the poll do not take any position one way or another. But 79 percent take a strong position for the completion of Corridor H inside West Virginia. So my colleague mentioned Corridor H. And I hope that eventually in my lifetime we can see Corridor H completed inside West Virginia. It has been promised to the people of West Virginia for 33 years. And the Appalachian highway system has been promised to the 13 States in Appalachia for 33 years. It is 78 percent complete in the region, 74 percent in West Virginia. The time bomb is ticking. I hope that we can get that bill up and let the Senate work its will on these amendments, my amendment included. Mr. President, I again thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague from Texas for his patience. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Rockefeller, former Governor from West Virginia, who served 2 terms as Governor. I thank him for joining in urging that the ISTEA bill be called up at this time. And he made the point that partisanship isn't involved here. There is no partisanship in this. Both sides of the aisle--there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who want ISTEA, the ISTEA bill to be called up. And there are Senators on both sides of the aisle who are supporting the amendment, the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, which would provide for the moneys that are in the trust fund, the moneys that the American people have paid at the gas pump, the 4.3-cent gas tax, for example. That is doing nothing now except building up surpluses in the trust fund. There are Senators on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who want to see those moneys that are spent by the American people out there in the form of gas taxes, who want to see those spent for highways to improve highways and mass transit programs. As of now, they are just building surpluses; they are not being spent for anything. There are those in this Senate who are importuning the distinguished majority leader not to call up this highway bill right now because they want to wait until after the budget resolution is adopted so that these moneys in the trust fund can be spent for social programs, and so on, that the administration and some Senators, of course, want to spend those moneys on. But the American people believe, because they have been told, that the moneys in the trust fund should be spent for highway improvements and transit improvements. I have not said much on the West Virginia angle of this, but I intend to. But that is what the amendment which Senator Gramm and Senator Baucus and Senator Warner and I and 50 other Senators, making a total of 54 Senators, are urging, that that ISTEA bill be brought up, urging that the money in the highway trust fund be spent for highways to improve the highways and to improve transit programs. So that money is there. And, as I say, there are some on the Budget Committee, not all, some on the Budget Committee who are importuning the leader, the majority leader, not to bring up ISTEA now--keep it, wait, wait until after the budget resolution is brought up. And those particular Senators, in my judgment, do not want to see those gas tax moneys spent on highways. They want to spend them on other programs. So, Mr. President, I again urge that the leadership keep its commitment to the Senate and call up this highway bill. I can understand the pressures on the majority leader. I have been majority leader. And I can understand the pressures that are on the majority leader from other Senators. And, as I say, I have a feeling that the majority leader, if he did not have those pressures, would have the ISTEA bill brought up now. I have a feeling--I certainly have a hope-- that he would support the amendment that 53 of my colleagues are supporting. Mr. President, I again thank my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, especially for his reference to Corridor H and Corridor D and other corridors in West Virginia. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 minutes, after which I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, may proceed for not to exceed 15 minutes. I do not see any other Senator seeking recognition.

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

Mr. BYRD. I want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from Texas. He worked inside the Finance Committee to offer an amendment which was adopted in the committee transferring the 4.3-cent gas tax to the trust fund, to the highway trust fund, where it would be spent on highways and mass transit programs. So he got it that far. So the money is in the trust fund, and I compliment him. Now he has joined with me and 52 other Senators--in addition to the two of us, he has joined with me and 52 other Senators, Mr. Baucus and Mr. Warner, in particular--who are initial cosponsors of this legislation. He has joined with us in attempting to authorize, to have the Congress authorize, the expenditure of the moneys in the trust fund, the 4.3-cent gas tax, to authorize the expenditure of those funds for highways and for mass transit programs. That is what they were intended to be used for. He has stood like a stout Irish oak on his side of the aisle in urging that the ISTEA bill be brought up and in urging support of this amendment upon which we are both allied and working. I thank him for that. I thank him for his steadfastness; he has stood like a Rock of Gibraltar. We will continue to work in the effort to implore the bringing up of this highway bill. I thank him very much.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Max Cleland, for his fine statement urging action on the ISTEA bill now. Mr. President, bad roads are killers. In 1996, nearly 42,000 people lost their lives in traffic accidents on America's highways; in 1996, 355 of those fatalities occurred in West Virginia. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains that poor road designs and conditions are a contributing factor in at least 30 percent of those fatal crashes. That works out to more than 12,000 Americans--over 100 West Virginians--whose lives could be saved each year by an investment in better, safer roads. These fatalities are not just numbers. They are lives, precious lives lost because we are not spending the money that is needed to make our highways safe. And roadway fatalities are on the rise, having risen in each of the past 5 years. Highway crashes are now the fifth highest cause of all deaths and the leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 6 and 27. This national problem can be blamed, at least in part, on the deplorable and deteriorating condition of our Nation's highways and bridges. Of the 950,215 road-miles eligible for Federal funds, the Federal Highway Administration, in its biennial Performance and Conditions Report, found that 28 percent of the pavement mileage is poor or mediocre in condition, meaning it needs immediate repair to remain passable. The FHWA also reports that the country has 181,748 bridges, in other words, 31 percent of all bridges over 20 feet in length, that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The report estimates that nationwide investments must average $54.8 billion annually just to maintain current road and bridge conditions over the next 20 years, $74 billion annually to improve the highway network. Currently, all levels of government, Federal, State, and local combined, are investing only $34.8 billion annually. That means we are not even coming close to making the investments necessary to maintain our vital highway infrastructure. Fortunately, this trend can be reversed. Well designed and maintained roads will increase our safety by reducing vehicle deaths and injuries. They also save Americans the anguish of losing a loved one. The Federal Highway Administration has conducted extensive research on the lifesaving improvements that can be made to our highways and bridges. According to Federal Highway Administration research: Widening a road lane by 1 foot can lower crash rates by 12 percent. Widening a road lane by 2 feet can lower accident rates by 23 percent. The construction of medians for traffic separation can reduce fatal crash rates by 73 percent. This is information from the Federal Highway Administration. The term ``fatal crash rate'' means the number of fatal crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Shoulder widening can lower fatal crash rates by 22 percent, and one of the lives that is saved may be yours, yours--and roadway alignment improvements can lower fatal crash rates by 66 percent. These are huge figures. Widening or modifying a bridge reduces fatal crash rates by 49 percent, and constructing a new bridge when the current one is deficient can reduce fatal crash rates by 86 percent. I well remember, and shall never forget, the fatal collapse of the Silver Bridge at Point Pleasant, WV, in 1967, in which collapse 46 people plunged to their deaths in the cold waters of the Ohio, the Ohio River; 46 people plunged to their deaths in 1967, 31 years ago, when the Silver Bridge at Point Pleasant collapsed. So, constructing new bridges when the current bridges are deficient can reduce fatal crash rates by 86 percent. Upgrading bridge ratings can cut fatal crash rates by 75 percent. In addition, the number of lanes on a road has an impact on safety. National statistics show that four-lane divided highways are substantially safer than other roads. Four-lane divided highways are substantially safer than other roads. May I say to my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, that when I was in the legislature in West Virginia in 1947, 51 years ago, West Virginia had a total of 4 miles--West Virginia had a total of 4 miles of divided four-lane highway; 51 years ago. Four miles. That was it for the entire State. And today there are almost 900 miles of divided, four-lane highways. National statistics show that four-lane divided highways are substantially safer than other roads. In 1995, 77 percent of all fatal crashes--get that, 3 out of 4--77 percent of all fatal crashes occurred on two-lane roads, while only 5 percent of those crashes took place on four-lane divided highways. Of course, making the types of improvements I just outlined will cost money. But making that investment will reap human dividends. According to the Department of Transportation's 1996 Annual Report on Highway Safety Improvement Programs, every $100 million invested in roadway safety improvements will result in 144--12 dozen--144 fewer traffic fatalities. And now, Mr. President, we arrive at the crux of the matter. The U.S. Senate is sitting idle. Not exactly sitting idle. There are other matters that are being considered and they are not unimportant. But insofar as doing something about the highway conditions of the country is concerned, the United States is sitting idle--the U.S. Senate and House are sitting idle when Congress should be working to finish the ISTEA bill, a bill which was brought up last October and debated, or at least it was before the Senate for about 21 days and then it was taken down and a short-term, stop-gap highway authorization measure was enacted, which will expire at midnight--midnight, when the clock strikes 12, midnight, on May 1, just 43--43--days away. Mr. President, there is a time bomb ticking here. Congress has 43 session days. Let's talk about the Senate. The Senate has 43 session days remaining, and that includes today; 43 session days remaining until midnight May 1. So 43 days includes today and includes May 1. The clock is ticking, and the time bomb is ticking. Roadway safety depends on the uninterrupted flow of Federal highway funds, and yet the Senate is literally inviting a shutdown of our State and Federal highway programs by delaying action on ISTEA II. Forty- three days, 43 session days when the Senate will be in session, not including Saturdays and Sundays and holidays. Senators don't have to just take my word for that. Let's see what the law says. The short-term highway bill that the Senate passed and the House passed and was signed into law by President Clinton on December 1 of last year, let's see what that law says. That is the short-term highway authorization bill by which the time was extended 6 months, the authorization for highway programs, spending on highway programs. Let's see what Public Law 105-130, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997 says, in part. Hear it: A State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal-aid highway program project after May 1, 1998. There it is. That's the law, and further obligating by State road systems or transit systems after midnight on May 1 will be illegal. Further obligating funds for highway programs after midnight on May 1 will be against the law. Let's read it again. This is the law: A State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal-aid highway program project after May 1, 1998. Now, I hope that the Governors and the mayors and the highway agencies out there across the country will consider that language that I just read. You must know that after midnight May 1 of this year, you, the highway agencies of this country, will not be permitted to obligate further funding for Federal aid highway programs. And that is just 43 days away, including today. ``Time Bomb Ticking.'' That's it. So if we postpone debate on ISTEA II until after finishing the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution--that is what some of the budgeteers in the Senate are importuning the Senate majority leader to do--delay, delay, don't take up the 6-year full-term extension of the highway authorization legislation, don't do that until the budget resolution is taken up. Well, if we postpone debate on ISTEA II until after finishing the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution, the earliest then that the Senate will take up the highway bill will be late April, after the spring recess, and that assumes that we meet the April 15 statutory deadline for the budget, which we are not accustomed to doing. But let us assume that miraculously--I still believe in miracles, but not here on this floor--let us assume that miraculously we meet the deadline and turn to ISTEA II first thing on April 20, that would leave less than 2 weeks before the May 1 funding deadline, after which States will be prohibited by law from obligating any Federal highway funds. If we wait until after the budget to consider ISTEA II, we are virtually guaranteeing--guaranteeing--that Federal highway funds will be cut off--will be cut off. That is why the highway bill cannot wait. That is why it should not wait. Given the needs that exist on our Nation's highways and the safety risk which current conditions pose, we cannot afford to delay lifesaving highway projects. The Senate must turn to the ISTEA bill now. The time bomb is ticking--tick, tick, tick, tick. Time for action is now. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. BYRD. I yield that to my distinguished colleague, and that will give him more than 11 minutes, I believe.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is any time remaining?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, yield just for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the completion of the remarks by Senator Collins, Senator Cleland be recognized for 5 minutes, that I be recognized then for 20 minutes, and that my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, be recognized for 10 minutes to speak out of order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in February 1997, scientists in Scotland were successful in producing a cloned sheep, named ``Dolly.'' This incredible event shocked the world and led to the realization that, at some point, cloning human beings might also be on the horizon. Shortly after the announcement about Dolly, my concern about the ethical and moral implications of cloning human beings led me to cosponsor Senator Bond's bill, S. 368, that would prohibit the use of Federal funds for research on human cloning. I believe that, with the notable exception of Dr. Richard Seed, who has announced to the world his intention of cloning a human being, there is broad agreement that cloning humans is unacceptable on many grounds. But, the successful cloning of ``Dolly'' has prompted scientists to ponder other potential uses of somatic cell nuclear technology, the technique used to create Dolly. Scientists believe that research using this technique might hold promise for a whole host of devastating human diseases. For this reason many in the scientific community are urging Congress to move cautiously in this area, lest overly broad legislation have unintended consequences. Care in its crafting is, therefore, imperative. Given the concerns raised by the scientific community and patient groups, it is therefore prudent that we proceed with caution and only after thorough consideration of the ramifications that may follow if we were to enact S. 1601, the bill before us today. This bill has received not one hour of hearing before the appropriate committee. Who can say with any comfort what the impact may be on important research aimed at dread diseases? Doesn't important and potentially far reaching legislation such as this at least warrant hearings before we proceed? This legislation could have unintended and detrimental consequences. Let us now get down to hard work and take the time necessary to determine how to go about banning the cloning of human beings in a clear and precise way that will avoid the unwanted consequence of also banning important research intended to alleviate the pain and suffering of victims of Alzheimers disease, Parkinsons disease, and many types of dreadful cancers. I will vote against invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1601, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. While I wish to register strong opposition to cloning a human being, I also believe that bringing this recently-introduced legislation to the Senate floor for consideration without hearings by the appropriate Senate committee, including testimony from expert witnesses is a mistake.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for arranging the time for me to speak.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, since the convening of this session of Congress 2 weeks ago today, I have spoken on the Senate Floor numerous times to convey the urgency of prompt action on the highway bill. We were told that it would be among the first pieces of legislation considered this year, and yet the bill is still not before us. This inactivity is unjustified and, I think, it is inexcusable. The deadline for passing highway reauthorization legislation is May 1--May 1 of this year. That deadline is set forth in the short-term highway bill that was passed last November before the Congress adjourned sine die. It is very clearly set forth in that legislation. After May 1, States will be prohibited from obligating any Federal highway or transit funds. After that date, states will be prohibited from obligating any Federal highway or transit funds. As a result, many states will be forced to delay road and bridge projects and thousands of highway construction workers, as well as those in related industries, such as gravel and asphalt manufacturers, highway equipment manufacturers, and steel suppliers, may begin to be laid off. At the height of the highway construction season, thousands of highway, bridge, and safety projects will be stopped cold--dead in their tracks--and those who are employed in relation to these projects could begin to be sent home and lose their paychecks, while they await further action by Congress to enact highway reauthorization legislation. So the Senate has just 44 session days remaining, including today. Those are days we have been told that the Senate will be in session. So there are just 44 session days, including today, remaining in which to avert this impending crisis. When the hour strikes midnight on May 1, the time is up. I want to take a few minutes to explain exactly what this May 1 deadline means to a number of the States. The Road Information Program, TRIP, recently surveyed the State transportation departments throughout the country to ascertain what will happen after May 1 if a new highway bill has not been signed into law by the President by that time. To date, TRIP has received responses from 15 State transportation departments, and additional responses are expected soon. Even with preliminary results, however, it is clear that billions of dollars worth of highway projects and transit projects are in danger of being postponed, and will be postponed until new Federal funding is available. These are critical transportation projects-- critical transportation projects--projects designed to improve road safety and reduce the number and severity of highway crashes, to smooth the flow of traffic so we can improve air quality and lower the pollution that Americans breathe every day and every hour and every minute, and to reduce congestion so that Americans can spend more time at work and more time at home caring for their children, more time with their families and less time trapped in gridlock. It may be edifying to my colleagues to hear some of the specific projects in their States that will be delayed, according to their own State transportation departments, if new Federal highway funding is not available beyond May 1. Remember, these are just the 15 States that have responded already to the TRIP survey. The Road Information Program asked each State to list some of the most critical transportation projects that would have to be postponed during the 12-month period beginning May 1, 1998, if no new Federal funding is available. And so let us go down the list. The very first State that is on the list is the State of Georgia. In Georgia, the State transportation department will have to delay: Improvements to I-475 from I-75 in Bibb County to I-75 in Monroe County; improvements to the Harry S. Truman Parkway in Chatham County; work on the Jefferson Bypass in Jefferson County; and improvements to Peachtree Industrial Boulevard in Gwinnett County. The Indiana transportation department will have to postpone: rehabilitating I-69 in Dekalb County; road and bridge rehabilitation on I-465 in Marion County; and bridge rehabilitation on US 20 in St. Joseph County. In Kentucky, funds will dry up after May 1 for projects to: widen US 27 to four lanes from Lexington to Paris; reconstruct the Donaldson Road interchange on I-75 in Boone County; and replace the Cumberland River Bridge in Somerset. Now, the Senators from these respective States, I am sure, are talking with their highway departments. Those Senators will probably have more complete lists than these that I am reading. But these are just the first 15 that have been supplied to me by TRIP. In Maine, delays will occur on: The rehabilitation of the Carlton Bridge on US Route 1 in Bath; the reconstruction of 4 miles of Route 9 in Devereaux; and the replacement of the Penobscot River Bridge on Route 11 in Medway. The Missouri transportation department will have to postpone, I am told: the replacement or rehabilitation of seven bridges on I-70 in the St. Louis area; plans to add left turn lanes on Route 61 at Lemay Woods in St. Louis to improve traffic safety; the widening and resurfacing of Route 39 in Barry County; and the replacement of two bridges over the North Fabius River on Route 136 in Scotland County. In Nevada, they will have to delay plans to: widen I-15 from two to three lanes in West Las Vegas; remove and replace pavement on I-80 in Reno; and widen US 95 to four lanes in Las Vegas. In New Hampshire, our failure to enact a highway bill by May 1 will mean the transportation department has to postpone: reconstructing exit 20 on I-93 in Tilton; safety improvements planned for I-93 in Manchester; and replacing a bridge over North Branch River in Stoddard. In North Dakota, congressional inaction will mean the postponement of plans to: reconstruct South Washington Street in Grand Forks; improve I-94 from Eagles Nest to Geck; and widen US 52 from Drake to Harvey. The Oklahoma transportation department will have to shelve plans for: interchange reconstruction and resurfacing on I-35 in Oklahoma City, a project designed to relieve congestion; widening 50 miles of US 183 from Cordell to Snyder in western Oklahoma to provide four lane access to I-40, designed to foster economic development in the region; and building shoulders and a passing lane on US 283 in Beckham County to improve highway safety. In South Dakota, failure to meet the May 1 funding deadline will mean the delay of plans to: reconstruct I-29 in Minnehaha and Moody Counties; improve Benson Road in Sioux Falls to provide access to the Joe Ross Field Airport; and improve the interchange at the Haines Avenue exit on I-90 in Rapids City. The Texas Department of Transportation reports that the following projects scheduled for Spring 1999--all designed to relieve congestion--would be delayed without new Federal funding beyond May 1: widening to eight lanes a 4.3 mile section of Route 1960 in Harris County; widening to eight lanes a 3.9 mile section in Fort Bend County; and widening to four lanes a 6 mile section of US 67 in Johnson County. In Utah, the following projects--all related to preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games--would be delayed: The reconstruction of the Kimball and Silver Creek Junctions on I-80; the construction of the 1.5 mile Winter Sports Road; and the reconstruction of the interchange at I-84 and US 89. In Vermont, our inaction will mean delay in the planned resurfacing of 200 miles of State highways; the rehabilitation or replacement of three State highway system bridges and five local highway system bridges; as well as the reconstruction of four miles of US 7 in Shelburne and South Burlington to increase capacity and improve traffic flow. In my State of West Virginia, the lack of new Federal highway funds after May 1 would mean postponement of the renovation of the Shepherdstown Bridge on West Virginia 480 in Jefferson County; the widening of a segment of West Virginia 2 in Ohio County to improve traffic flow--by the way, it was on Route 2 that my former colleague in the Senate, Senator Jennings Randolph, and I had an accident in 1957-- 1957 or 1958. We had an accident in that county. We ran head on into another automobile, killing the driver of the other automobile. That was Route 2. So we are talking here about the widening of the segment of West Virginia 2 in Ohio County to improve traffic flow, and the replacement of the Easley Bridge in Princeton, Mercer County. Mercer County, that is where I first started school in a little two-room schoolhouse over 70 years ago. And finally, in Wyoming, the Senate's failure to act by May 1 would mean delaying reconstruction and bridge work on I-80 in Rock Springs, Rawlins, and Laramie Marginalal; as well as widening and rehabilitation projects on I-90 from Buffalo to Gillette and from Moorcroft to Sundance. So, Mr. President, I urge Senators to call their transportation departments, if they have not already, and find out what a prolonged delay in Federal highway funds would mean for their States. The list I have just read is, obviously, not exhaustive; but it is indicative of the serious problems every State, or almost every State certainly will face if Congress does not act before midnight May 1. When Senators start to realize what this May 1 deadline means for their States, and how few days we have left to move a highway bill through the Senate, it should become obvious that we will have no choice but to bring up the highway reauthorization bill. We have just 44 days, 44 session days. That does not count days like Saturdays and Sundays or other days when the Senate is not expected to be in session. Only 44 session days, including today, remain through the hour of midnight May 1. After that hour of midnight, then those States can obligate Federal aid highway program funds for any Federal highway project, after the hour of midnight on May 1. Now, that is by law. That was a part of the law that Congress passed last November when it enacted the short-term highway bill. It is in there. Bridge replacements, traffic decongestion projects, and road widening efforts all mean safety, time, money and jobs to our people. Further delay makes no sense. A commitment was made to bring up the highway bill after the President's State of the Union speech. The State of the Union speech has come and gone and there is still no highway bill here in the Senate. Further delay makes no sense and the Senate should consider the highway bill promptly. How much time remains, Mr. President?