John Warner

Mr. WARNER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I assure the Senator it is almost identical. You can come down to where it has worked in the case of alcohol, and now 47 States out of the 50 have adopted the alcohol legislation. I think, quite frankly, that we can see a similar number of States quickly adopt this legislation--a primary seatbelt law to avoid the penalties. So it is not without precedent, and it also gives the State the alternative of doing it by some other means than going down the path I have outlined.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I see other hands.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague that we selected that time period because of the language the Secretary of Transportation forwarded to the Congress. If there could be a means, if you would be willing to help me devise a formula by which you think a greater degree of fairness can be achieved, I am open to that.

Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, I will take into consideration the views of my distinguished chairman and see what we might do to make that accommodation. I thank the chairman.

Mr. WARNER. That is a reasonable request. I think the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, would require, say, 10 minutes and the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and the distinguished Senator from Washington, 10; I will take 5 more minutes; maybe 40 minutes on this side prior to the vote.

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

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is an amendment I submitted the other day on behalf of myself, Senator Clinton, and Senator DeWine of Ohio. It is an amendment to increase our national seatbelt use rate to 90 percent, a concept that is well known to the Members of the Senate. This amendment is identical to the legislation I introduced last year, S. 1993. As my colleagues examine the highway bill and what it means to each of our States, our foremost responsibility, in my judgment, and the judgment of many, as well as the judgment of the President of the United States, must be to improve highway safety for the driving public. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee because he has a section in the bill on improving highway safety. But I fear that somehow the President's proposal-- actually the proposal the President sent up to the Congress regarding the use of seatbelts--was not included in the final markup. It is for that reason I rise to include in this bill a provision that was sought by the President. Simply by increasing the number of Americans who will buckle up is the most effective--I repeat, the most effective--step that can be taken to save their lives and the lives of others. That is the single most important step. I am privileged to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has the primary responsibility for reauthorizing TEA-21. The bill addresses, as it should, highway safety measures such as how to build safer roads and how to use new technologies to improve safety. But statistics show that the greatest measure of safety, again, to drivers, passengers, and possibly third parties not connected with the vehicle, is through the use of a seatbelt. It is remarkable the lives that have been saved through the use of this simple device. America has about a 79-percent use rate of seatbelts. Now, that is quite a commendation to the drivers all across this country. Seventy-nine percent of Americans, according to reliable statistics, use their seatbelts. That has been translated into the saving of tens of thousands of lives and injuries in automobile accidents. But I believe, as do many in this Chamber, we can do better. Those are the facts. Are we just going to have a standstill or are we going to move forward? Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine, and I think we should move forward with a firmer approach with achievable goals and funding. We have debated the benefits of seatbelt use on many occasions in this body and elsewhere across America. And whether it is in the town forums we conduct, town meetings, or here on the floor of the Senate, there is always that individual who comes back: Don't tell me what I have to do. What does it matter to you, John Warner--or to any other colleague with whom I am privileged to serve--what does it matter to you whether I buckle up? Well, let's take a look. No one disputes that the absence of wearing a seatbelt causes more loss of life and serious injury. The statistics show that the impact associated with the crash, to the extent the driver can maintain control of the vehicle in those fatal seconds, the severity of the crash, and perhaps the loss of life can be reduced by the use of a safety belt--simply said. Accidents involving unbelted drivers result in a significant cost to your wallet. Many people are rushed from the accident scene to various emergency facilities. All of that has the initial cost of the law enforcement that responds, the rescue squads that respond, and eventually the costs to the emergency room or whatever medical facility you might have the good fortune to be taken to, to hopefully save your life. That isn't free. There is a cost. Regrettably, a number of persons who suffer these types of injuries in automobile accidents are uninsured. Again, the cost often devolves down on the good old hard- working taxpayers--in most instances, the taxpayers who buckle up. When an accident happens on our roads and highways across this great Nation, we are all impacted. Accidents cause significant congestion, which results in lost time and productivity as we try to get to our work or to our home along the highway where they are engaged in trying to remove the accident. More often than not, the accident, with the combined slowdown of those passing the accident, causes significant congestion for some considerable portion of time. Either the lane in which we are traveling moves very slowly because of the accident or, indeed, we come to a standstill, as often is the case when a lane is closed to clear an accident. That standstill frequently is necessitated because of the severity of the injuries experienced in that accident. It takes the response team longer to get to the accident. It takes the response team longer in their carefully trained steps to extricate the injured person. All of that requires needed time. To give the initial treatment and then to carefully transport that individual, if necessary, to a medical facility takes time. That costs money. The road becomes backed up. That is lost time for your mission on the road, be it for business, family, or pleasure. That is lost time and productivity. Behind you often are trucks and other vehicles involved in commerce. That is lost time and delay due to the seriousness occasioned by injuries and accidents where there has been the lack of use of seatbelts. It is as simple is that. Those are the facts. Then, of course, there is the cost to the community for caring for the injured person who, regrettably, frequently doesn't have the insurance to pay for his or her costs. The local people in your communities end up paying the bill. The legislation we are proposing today will take an important step forward for the States to adopt either a primary safety belt law or take steps of their own devising to meet a 90-percent seatbelt rate-- not the Warner amendment or the legislative measure put forth by the administration upon which we draw our concept for certain portions. The States can decide for themselves how they achieve a 90-percent goal of the use of seatbelts in their respective States. That is the purpose of this legislation--to move every State to a 90-percent use rate for safety belts. In a letter dated November 12, 2003, to Chairman Inhofe of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which I am privileged to serve, Secretary Mineta stated: President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease highway fatalities and injuries. That is explicit and clear. The Secretary goes on to say: The surest way for a State to increase safety belt usage is through the passage of a primary safety belt law. I have had this debate with Governors and former Governors, even in this Chamber with former Governors. I think they would tell you that a primary safety belt law is a tough piece of legislation for the State legislature to pass solely on its own. I mean that. Frankly, it needs the impetus of those of us here in the Congress, of the combined efforts of the executive and the legislative branches of the Federal Government because it is just one of those things that State legislatures have extraordinary difficulty grappling with. Regrettably, in my own State this law has come down to a single vote defeating it in two consecutive attempts. Stop to think, one vote in the distinguished General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has stopped our State from adopting this type of law. I believe the impetus here will make it possible for our State and many others to adopt this statute. As provided in our amendment, States can increase seatbelt use either by enacting, as I said, a primary seatbelt law. Everybody knows what a primary seatbelt law is and how it works. It means a law enforcement officer can literally stop a vehicle if they observe that the individual is not wearing his or her seatbelt. It is as simple as that. But a State, if they decide not to enact a primary safety belt law, can, by implementing their own strategies, whatever they may be--and there is a lot of innovation out in the States--that would result in a 90-percent safety belt use rate. So that is a challenge to the States. The current national belt use, as I said, is 79 percent. But many States--those that have the primary law--are sometimes at 90, or even above 90, but those that do not have the primary seatblet law are down sometimes in the 60 percentile. It is the weight of the primary States that carries the percentile and brings it up to 79 from those States that don't have an effective law. States with their primary safety belt law have the greatest success for drivers wearing seatbelts. On an average, States with the primary seatbelt law have a 10- to 15- percent higher seatbelt use compared to those with a secondary system. This demonstrates that secondary seatbelt laws are far more limited in their effectiveness than a primary law. Essentially, the secondary laws say that if a law enforcement officer has cause other than a perceived or actual seatbelt violation--namely, the driver didn't have it buckled--if they have cause to stop that car, for example, for a speeding offense or a reckless driving offense or indeed an accident and they observed there has been no use of the seatbelt, then in the course of proceeding to enforce the several laws of the State as regards speeding or reckless driving, or whatever the case may be, they can add a second penalty to address the absence of the use of the seatbelt in that State. Drivers are gamblers. They say: Oh, well, don't worry, I will not buckle up. State law doesn't require it. Unless they stop me--and they are not going to stop me today. It is that gambling attitude that, more often than not, will cause an accident. Then it is too late. So we come forward today to build on our national programs. We are building on what we did in TEA-21. I was privileged to be on the committee. I was chairman of the subcommittee 6 years ago. I worked with Senator Chafee, who was chairman of the full committee, and we drove hard to make progress with the seatbelt laws, and we did it. We basically put aside a very considerable sum of money to encourage States--again, using their own devices--to increase uses. As a direct consequence of what we did in TEA-21, there has been an 11-percent increase in these 6 years in the use of seatbelts. Sadly, traffic deaths in 2002 rose to the highest level in over a decade. It is astonishing. Of the nearly 43,000 people killed on our highways, over half were not wearing their seatbelts. That is according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And 9,200 of these deaths might have been prevented if the safety belt had been used. Those are alarming statistics. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. Stop to think of that: Age 2, that means a child; that means a parent neglected to buckle up a child. Automobile crashes as the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. That is our Nation's youth. Do we have a higher calling in the Congress of the United States than to do everything we can to foster the dreams and ambitions and the productivity of our Nation's youth? I think not. And this is one of the ways. Last year, 6 out of 10 children who died in car crashes did not have the belt on--6 out of 10; that is over half. I plead with colleagues to join with me, join with the President who has taken this initiative. My primary responsibility in the Senate--and this is one of the reasons I got interested in this subject--is the welfare of the men and women in the Armed Forces. I say to colleagues, again, the statistics are tragic. Traffic fatalities are the leading noncombat cause of death for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They are in that high- risk age category, 18 to 35. Someone even took a look at the statistics, the total of the fatalities least year, and said that represents in deaths approximately the size of the average U.S. Army battalion. That is several companies and maybe a reinforced element. Just think, that is the magnitude in one category of those who serve our United States, the men and women in the Armed Forces. I cannot think of any reason why we all cannot join behind this effort. That alone is a driving impetus for this Senator. The time is long overdue for a national policy to strengthen seatbelt use rates. I said a national policy, and that is what this bill represents, either through States enacting a primary seatbelt law or giving far greater attention to public awareness programs that result in more drivers and passengers wearing safety belts. Our goal is 90 percent--90 percent. I have been privileged to serve on this committee 17 years, and I, together with many others, notably my dear friend and late chairman, Senator Chafee, addressed this issue. Our committee is rich in the history of focusing revenue from the highway trust fund on effective safety programs. It goes back through many chairmen and members of the committee. With jurisdiction over the largest share of the highway trust fund, our committee has had the vision to tackle important national safety problems. The legislation before us does provide more funding to help build safer roads--that is a step forward--but it does not have, in my judgment, that provision which represents a step up from what we did in TEA-21, that provision that would represent a recognition of the President's initiative. The President has taken a decidedly strong initiative to increase the use of seatbelts. It is absent from the bill, and this is why we need a provision to strengthen and to move forward the position of the Congress on the issue of increased use of safety belts. That is the purpose of this amendment. It is just unfortunate, but those with reckless intent quickly disregard responsible behavior and drive unbelted at excessive speeds and many times with the use of alcohol. So no increased dollars for improved road engineering, which is in this bill, can defy in many instances the type of personal conduct that results in reckless behavior. It is as simple as that. Our automobiles now come equipped with crash avoidance technologies and are more crashworthy than ever before, but these advances are only part of the solution. In repeated testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, from the administration, our States, safety groups, and the highway industry, we are told that three main causes of traffic deaths and injuries are unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol. The formula we have devised in this legislation does have a reduction in the amount a State receives under this proposed bill that we will consider next year when they fail to achieve the 90 percent safety belt use rate. It is as simple as that. But the formula is patterned directly after the law that is on the books now with respect to the .08 legal blood alcohol content level. The net effect of this legislation is simply to recognize we are asking that the same type of sanction policy with regard to one of the three major causes of death--alcohol--be equated to a second cause of death and injury, and that is absence of the use of seatbelts, bringing into parallel two of the three principal causes of death and injury on today's highways. The administration put forward an innovative safety belt program, as I said, under the leadership of the President that was a major component of their new core transportation program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Our amendment incorporates the administration's bill and includes additional incentives for states to increase seat belt use rates. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of documents that show widespread support for this legislation, from the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, the American Medical Association, and the letter to Senator Inhofe from the Secretary of Transportation. One hundred thirty-five organizations across the United States are in support of this legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a list of 135 organizations across America that advocate their support for this particular piece of legislation. This chart is an enumeration of those organizations. It is not readable, but the list is in the Record for all to see. Simply by increasing the number of Americans who will buckle up is the most effective step that can be taken to save their lives and the lives of others. That is the single most important step. I am privileged to serve on this committee, as I said, that has the primary responsibility for reauthorizing TEA-21. The bill addresses, as it should, highway safety measures, such as how to build safer roads or how to use new technologies to improve safety. But--and I underline ``but''--statistics show that the greatest measure of safety again to drivers, passengers, and possibly third parties, many of them innocent third parties, not connected with the bill is through the use of the seatbelt. It is remarkable the lives that have been saved through the use of this simple device over the years. America has about a 79-percent use rate of seatbelts. That has been translated into the saving of tens of thousands of lives and injuries in automobile accidents, but we can do better. Those are the facts. Are we just going to have a standstill or are we going to move forward? Senators Clinton, DeWine, and myself think we should move forward with a firmer approach with achievable goals and funding. We have debated the benefits of seatbelt use on many occasions in this body and elsewhere across America. Whether it is in the town forums we conduct, the town meetings, or on the floor of the Senate, there is always that individual who comes back: Don't tell me what I have to do. What does it matter to you--they will often say, or to any other colleague with whom I have had the privilege to serve--what does it matter to you whether I buckle up? It matters a great deal to me and to all those who share the joys but often the burdens--the increasing burdens--of driving and using our road system and the risks. Let's take a look. No one disputes that the absence of wearing a seatbelt causes more loss of life and serious injury. Statistics solidify that assumption. The statistics show that the impact associated with a crash, to the extent a driver can maintain control of the vehicle in those fatal seconds, the severity of the crash, and perhaps the loss of life can be reduced significantly by the use of the safety belt. It is as simple as that. Accidents involving unbelted drivers result in a significant cost. Many people are rushed from the accident scene to various emergency facilities. All of that has the initial cost of the law enforcement and the rescue squads that respond, and eventually the cost to the emergency room or whatever medical facility you might have the good fortune to be taken to hopefully save your life. That does not come free. How well we know that. There is a cost. It is borne by the local community often or the county or the State. Regrettably, a number of persons who suffer these types of injuries are uninsured. Again, the cost often devolves down on the good old hard-working taxpayers and, in most instances, the taxpayers who otherwise would buckle up. That is lost time for your mission on the road, be it for business, family, or pleasure. That is lost time in productivity. Behind you are often trucks and other vehicles involved in commerce. That is lost time in delay due to the serious occasion of injuries and accidents from the lack of use of seatbelts. It is simple as that. Often the highway is shut down, and it is just incalculable the inconvenience and cost to others while your safety and perhaps your survivability is attended to more often than not by volunteer fire departments or others who come to the rescue. The legislation that we three Senators are introducing today will take an important step for the States to adopt either a primary safety belt law or take steps of their own devising to meet a 90-percent seatbelt use rate, not the Warner amendment or the legislative measure put forth by the administration upon which Senator Clinton and I draw for concepts of certain portions. The States can decide for themselves--I wish to underline, we are challenging the States to decide for themselves how they achieve a 90- percent goal of the use of seatbelts in their respective States. They could have a far better idea than we have. That is the purpose of this legislation, to move every State to a 90-percent use rate for safety belts. In a letter dated November 12, 2003, to Chairman Inhofe of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which, again, I am privileged to serve, Secretary Mineta states: President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the single-- I repeat, the single-- most effective means to decrease highway fatalities and injuries. That is explicit and clear. The Secretary goes on in that letter to say: . . . the surest way for a State to increase safety belt usage is through the passage of a primary safety belt law. I have had this debate with Governors, former Governors, even in this Chamber with former Governors. I think they would all say that a primary safety belt law is tough legislation to pass solely on its own in the State legislatures. Those in this Chamber who have been members of State legislatures know best. Those of us who have worked with State legislatures, as I have over the 25 years I have been privileged to be a Senator, I have some idea of how those legislatures operate. Certainly, those who have been Governors--and many of my colleagues in this Chamber have been Governors--know full well the difficulty confronted at the State level in getting this type of law through. Frankly, it needs the cover, one might say the political cover, the impetus, given by the Congress--that is us, Uncle Sam--of the United States to move that process in the States forward. So the local politicians can shake their fists at old John Warner, they can shake their fists, hopefully, at those who will join in passing this legislation and say it is Washington that has done it again--more regulation, more direction. We know the arguments. We have all heard them. But lives and injuries and costs to the community can be saved. I think quietly, in the hearts of those State legislatures, is the thought that we will improve safety in our State. We will improve the chances of survivability on the roads of our State. I ask unanimous consent the full text of Secretary Mineta's letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. WARNER. I am pleased to say Senator Murray has asked to join as a cosponsor and I so request that be noted on the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. As provided in our amendment, States can increase seatbelt use by enacting, as I said, a primary seatbelt law. Everybody knows what a primary seatbelt law is and how it works. I want to explain the basic laws as shown on this chart. The white State has a primary enforcement seatbelt law. Those are the existing States. The red State needs a primary enforcement seatbelt law. So my colleagues can see the magnitude. Here is my State, Virginia. Twice now that primary seatbelt law has gone through the legislature up to the point of a final vote, and by one vote only, twice, the General Assembly of Virginia has rejected that primary seatbelt law. That is a clear reason that impetus by the Federal Government can help achieve that one vote and hopefully many more. Now, let's talk about the mechanics. It means a law enforcement officer can literally stop a vehicle if they observe that the individual is not wearing his or her seatbelt. It is as simple as that. But a State, if they decide not to enact a primary seatbelt law, can, by implementing their own strategies, whatever they may be--and there is a lot of innovation out in the States--that would result in a 90- percent seatbelt use rate. So that is a challenge to the States. It can be achieved by other means other than having the officers under law be given the right to stop the vehicle when he observes that the driver is not using a seatbelt. The current national seatbelt use, as I said, is 79 percent. But many States, those that have the primary law, are sometimes at 90 or even above 90, but those that do not have the primary seatbelt law are down somewhere in the 60 percentile. Just think, only 60 percent of the drivers in some States utilize that seatbelt. It is the weight of the primary States that carries the percentile and brings it up to 79 from those States that do not have an effective law. States with their primary safety belt law have the greatest success for drivers wearing seatbelts. On an average, States with the primary seatbelt law have a 10 to 15 percent higher seatbelt use compared to those with a secondary system. This demonstrates that secondary seatbelt laws are far more limited in their effectiveness than a primary law. Essentially, the secondary laws say if a law enforcement officer has cause other than a perceived or actual seatbelt violation, namely the driver did not have it buckled, if they have cause to stop that car, for example, for a speeding offense or a reckless driving offense or indeed an accident, and they observe there has been no use of the seatbelt, then in that circumstance, in the course of proceeding to enforce the several laws of that State as regards speeding and reckless driving or whatever the case may be, they can add a second penalty to address the absence of the use of the seatbelt in that State. Drivers are gamblers, unfortunately, but that is the way it is. They say: Oh, well, don't worry. I will not buckle up--State law does not require it--unless they stop me, and they are not going to stop me today. It is that gambling attitude that more often than not will cause an accident. Then it is too late. So we come forward today to build on our national program. We are building on what we did in TEA-21. I was privileged to be on that committee at that time. I was then, as I said, chairman of the subcommittee 6 years ago. I worked with the late Senator John Chafee. What a distinguished and able Senator he was, and those who were privileged to serve with him have fond memories of working with him. He was chairman of the full committee. We drove hard to make progress for the seatbelt laws, and we did it. This chart shows the result. We basically put aside a very considerable sum of money to encourage States, again, by using their own devices, to increase usage. As a direct consequence of what we did in TEA-21, there has been an 11- percent increase in these 6 years in the use of seatbelts. Now, that is significant, but it could be much greater and stronger. Sadly, traffic deaths in 2002, just one fiscal year, rose to the highest level in over a decade. It is astonishing. Of the nearly 43,000 people killed on our highways, over half were not wearing their seatbelts. Now, that is a considerable number of individuals. That is according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In the judgment of the people who responded to the accidents, they considered that 9,200 of these deaths might have been prevented if the safety belt had been used. Those are the alarming statistics. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans aged 2 to 34. Stop to think of that, age 2. That means a child. That means a parent neglected to buckle up the child. Automobile crashes are the leading causes of death for Americans age 2 to 34. That is our Nation's youth. So many of them are in the Armed Forces of the United States. Passage of this will be helpful to the Armed Forces. Do we have a higher calling in the Congress than to do everything we can to foster the dreams and ambitions and the productivity of our Nation's youth? I think not. And this is one of the most effective means to do it. Last year, 6 out of 10 children who died in car crashes did not have the belt on; 6 out of 10. That is over half. I plead with colleagues to join me, join with the President of the United States, join with the Secretary who has taken this initiative. My primary responsibility in the Senate--and this is one of the reasons I got interested in this subject--is the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces, as I mentioned. I say to colleagues again, the statistics are tragic. Traffic fatalities are the leading noncombat cause of death for our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines. They are in that high-risk age category, 18 to 35. I repeat, it is the largest noncombat cause of death. Someone even took a look at the statistics and totaled the fatalities last year and said that represents in deaths the size of an average U.S. Army battalion. That is a lot of folks. That is one of the principal incentives I have. I cannot think of any reason why we all cannot join behind this effort. That alone is the driving impetus for this Senator. The time is long overdue for a national policy to strengthen seatbelt use rates. I said a national policy, and that is what this bill represents, either through States enacting a primary seatbelt law of their own conception and devising or passing this law, giving far greater attention to public awareness programs that result in more drivers and passengers wearing safety belts. Our goal is 90 percent for the Nation. I have been privileged to serve on this committee 17 years and I, together with many others, notably my dear friend, the late chairman, Senator John Chafee, addressed this issue. Our committee is rich in the history of focusing revenue from highway trust funds on effective safety programs. It goes back through many chairmen and members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. With jurisdiction over the largest share of the highway trust fund, our committee has had the vision to tackle important national safety programs. The legislation before us does provide more funding to help build safer roads. That is a step forward. But it does not have, in my judgment, that provision which represents a step up from what we did in TEA-21, that provision that would represent a recognition for the President's initiative. The President has taken a decidedly strong initiative to increase the use of seatbelts. It is absent from the bill, and that is why we need a provision, by virtue of this amendment, to strengthen and move forward the position of the Congress on the position of increased use of safety belts on America's highways and roads. That is the purpose of this amendment. It is just unfortunate that those with reckless intent quickly disregard responsible behavior and drive unbelted at excessive speeds, and many times with the use of alcohol. So no increased dollars for improving road engineering, which is in this bill--and I commend them for that, but that alone cannot defy, in many instances, the type of personal conduct that results in reckless behavior. In other words, engineering can quickly be overcome by the reckless driving, and particularly that associated with alcohol. Automobiles now come equipped with crash avoidance technologies and are more crashworthy than ever before. But these advances are only a very small part of the solution. In repeated testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee from the administration, from our States, safety groups, and the highway insurance industry, we are told three main causes of traffic deaths and injury are unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol. The formula we have devised in this legislation does have a reduction in the amount which the State receives under the proposed bill that we will consider next year when they fail to achieve the 90 percent safety belt use rate. It is as simple as that. But the formula is patterned directly after the law that is on the books now with respect to the .08 legal blood alcohol content level. In other words, the formula we have in this amendment is identical, in terms of that what I call inducement--carrot/stick type of legislation--that we did for the .08 legal blood alcohol. The net effect of this legislation is simply to recognize we are asking the same type of sanction policy with regard to one of the three major causes of death--alcohol--be equated to a second cause of death and injury, and that is the absence of the use of seatbelts, bringing into parallel two of the three principal causes of death and injury on the highways: .08 and mandatory use of seatbelts. The administration put forward an innovative safety belt program, as I said, under the leadership of the President, and that was a major component of a new core transportation program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, submitted to the Congress. Our amendments incorporate the administration's bill and include additional incentives for States to increase seatbelt use rates. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record today a deeply moving statement delivered by the representative of the American Medical Association, strongly in support of this legislation, and a letter from the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, strongly in favor of this legislation. Of course, the letter to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Inhofe, from the Secretary of Transportation is already a part of the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished manager had the courtesy to advise me that he would object. Given the situation which I think I understand, I would just like to speak to the bill and develop a record for today and hopefully eventual consideration of this amendment in the not distant future can be arranged. This amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and my dear friend and colleague, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine. It is an amendment to increase our national seatbelt use rate to some 90 percent. This amendment is identical to the text of legislation I introduced last year, S. 1993. If my colleagues examine the highway bill and what it means to each of our States, our foremost responsibility, in my judgment and in the judgment of many, and in the judgment of the President of the United States, must be to improve highway safety for the driving public. Today we had a very impressive press conference. I will give further details about it shortly. We must have had a dozen or so representatives who spoke on behalf of their respective organizations endorsing this bill. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of organizations endorsing this bill.

Mr. WARNER. I address the distinguished manager of the bill and ask unanimous consent to have this amendment called up and possibly agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, first, I say to the distinguished manager and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I have been privileged to serve some 16, 18 years, I commend him for his diligence and commitment to try to get this highway bill through the Senate and hopefully enacted into law. I had much the same responsibility some 6 years ago. I know the complexity of this particular piece of legislation. I have worked with the distinguished chairman and the distinguished Senator from Missouri in the preparation of this particular measure. It is badly needed by America. I hope we can work our way through this situation. I send to the desk an amendment.

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

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am privileged to serve on the committee with the Senator. There has been criticism, raising the inference that we have not in the Senate been addressing this with the depth and sincerity and interest we should. I take great umbrage at that. Under the leadership of the chairman and, indeed, myself, we are the ones who brought David Kay up. We are the ones who put David Kay on the stand, the Intelligence Committee first, and before the Armed Services Committee immediately following, and subjected him to cross-examination after the delivery of his report. His report is a mixed one in certain ways, in my judgment, but nevertheless in no way were we not taking the initiative to bring this to the forefront. I say also, yesterday the Armed Services Committee heard from the Secretary of Defense. The distinguished chairman was present. He is a member of that committee. Again, the first questions on WMD and precisely the question of whether or not there was any manipulation or distortion came from the Chair, myself, addressed directly to the Secretary. Any objective analysis of the reports out of that hearing this morning--it was covered by the press--he faced it head on and answered those questions. As we are speaking, I just departed the television where Director Tenet is now addressing the Nation. So I think the President and his principal deputies are facing square on these complex issues, as is the Senate. I commend the chairman, and perhaps he will agree with my observations.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was privileged today to go to the Library of Congress where, under the auspices of Mr. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, a very wonderful exhibit is opening entitled-- and I hold up the volume: ``Churchill and the Great Republic.'' The exhibit formally opens tonight. In attendance today were one of Churchill's daughters, his grandson, and other members of the Churchill family. It was a very moving experience. I encourage my colleagues to find time in the next week or 10 days to avail themselves of this very historical exhibit put together by Dr. Billington. The ceremony today, marking the opening, was attended by the President of the United States, and I, together with my good friend Senator Lugar, Senator Bob Bennett, and a number of Members of the House of Representatives, were privileged to be in attendance. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the full text of the President's speech at this auspicious occasion be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I think we are at a remarkable crossroads of history. In terms of the survival of republics, this is about the great republic, about freedom, and about all of those things we hold very dear. I do not intend to make a political speech, but I say without reservation I think President Bush has given remarkable leadership, certainly in the aftermath of 9/11, an unprecedented attack on our sovereignty, the people of the United States of America, parallel in many respects to Pearl Harbor but indeed more awesome than Pearl Harbor in some respects. We are fortunate to have at the helm in the United States a strong President, a man of courage and of wisdom. I try in my modest way to support his leadership and that of those he has selected as his principal team. I found this speech very remarkable today, and I would like to read just a paragraph: When World War II ended, Winston Churchill immediately understood that the victory was incomplete. Half of Europe was occupied by an aggressive empire. And one of Churchill's own finest hours came after the war ended in a speech he delivered in Fulton, Missouri. Churchill warned of the new danger facing free peoples. In stark but measured tones, he spoke of the need for free nations to unite against the communist expansion. Marshal Stalin denounced the speech as a ``call to war.'' A prominent American journalist called the speech an ``almost catastrophic blunder.'' In fact, Churchill had set a simple truth before the world: that tyranny would not be ignored or appeased without great risk. And he boldly asserted that freedom--freedom was the right of men and women on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Churchill understood that the Cold War was not just a standoff of armies, but a conflict of visions--a clear divide between those who put their faith in ideologies of power, and those who put their faith in the choices of free people. The successors of Churchill and Roosevelt--leaders like Truman, and Reagan and Thatcher--led a confident alliance that held firm as communism collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. Today, we are engaged in a different struggle. Instead of an armed empire, we face stateless networks. Instead of massed armies, we face deadly technologies that must be kept out of the hands of terrorists and outlaw regimes. Yet in some ways, our current struggles or challenges are similar to those Churchill knew. The outcome of the war on terror depends on our ability to see danger and to answer it with strength and purpose. One by one, we are finding and dealing with the terrorists, drawing tight what Winston Churchill called a ``closing net of doom.'' This war also is a conflict of visions. In their worship of power, their deep hatreds, their blindness to innocence, the terrorists are successors to the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. And we are the heirs of the tradition of liberty, defenders of the freedom, the conscience and the dignity of every person. Others before us have shown bravery and moral clarity in this cause. The same is now asked of us, and we accept the responsibilities of history. I find those words very moving, and with a deep sense of humility I commend this President. This is a picture of Churchill and Roosevelt. Years hence, there will be a picture of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. If I may say, again with a sense of humility, historians will eventually parallel the Churchill-Roosevelt era with the Bush-Blair era, when two individuals of somewhat contradictory ideologies and, if we may say, party background, nevertheless came together in this hour in the aftermath of 9/11 and formed an alliance, brought together other nations that valued freedom, and formed a coalition that has now deposed a tyrant who, by any fair standards, was indeed a danger to the free world. I say to the President with complete respect, I think historians someday may call this speech today a runner-up to the Fulton, MO, speech. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Remarks by the President on Winston Churchill and the War on Terror The President: Thank you all very much. I'm honored to join you as we welcome a magnificent collection to the Library of Congress. I've always been a great admirer of Sir Winston Churchill, admirer of his career, admirer of his strength, admirer of his character--so much so that I keep a stern- looking bust of Sir Winston in the Oval Office. He watches my every move. (Laughter.) Like few other men in this or any other age, Churchill is admired throughout the world. And through the writings and his personal effects, we feel the presence of the great man, himself. As people tour this exhibit, I'm sure they'll be able to smell the whiskey and the cigars. (Laugher.) I appreciate Jim Billington for hosting this exhibit, and for hosting me. It's good to see Marjorie. I appreciate the members of Winston Churchill's family who have come: Lady Mary Soames, who is a daughter; Winston Churchill III, the man bears a mighty name, and his wife, Luce; Celia Sandys, who is a granddaughter. Thank you all for coming. We're honored to have you here in America. I'm pleased to see my friend, the Ambassador from the United Kingdom to America, Sir David Manning and Lady Manning here, as well. I appreciate the members of Congress who have come--the Chairman. We've got a couple of mighty powerful people here, Winston, with us today--Chairmen Lugar and Warner, Senator Bennett, Congressmen Bill Young, Doug Bereuter, Jerry Lewis, Tom Petri, Vern Ehlers and Jane Harman. I'm glad you all are here, thanks for taking time to come. This exhibit bears witness to one of the most varied and consequential lives of modern history. Churchill's 90 years on earth, joined together two ages. He stood in the presence of Queen Victoria, who first reigned in 1837. He was the Prime Minister to Elizabeth II, who reigns today. Sir Winston met Theodore Roosevelt, and he met Richard Nixon. Over his long career, Winston Churchill knew success and he knew failure, but he never passed unnoticed. He was a prisoner in the Boer War, a controversial strategist in the Great War. He was the rallying voice of the Second World War, and a prophet of the Cold War. He helped abolish the sweat shops. He gave coal miners an eight-hour day. He was an early advocate of the tank. And he helped draw boundary lines that remain on the map of the Middle East. He was an extraordinary man. In spare moments, pacing and dictating to harried secretaries, he produced 15 books. He said, ``History will be kind to me--for I intend to write it.'' (Laughter.) History has been kind to Winston Churchill, as it usually is to those who help save the world. In a decade of political exile during the 1930s, Churchill was dismissed as a nuisance and a crank. When the crisis he predicted arrived, nearly everyone knew that only one man could rescue Britain. The same trait that had made him an outcast eventually made him the leader of his country. Churchill possessed, in one writer's words, an ``absolute refusal, unlike many good and prudent men around him, to compromise or to surrender.'' In the years that followed, as a great enemy was defeated, a great partnership was formed. President Franklin Roosevelt found in Churchill a confidence and resolve that equaled his own. As they led the allies to victory, they passed many days in each other's company, and grew in respect and friendship. The President once wrote to the Prime Minister, ``It is fun to be in the same decade with you.'' And this sense of fellowship and common purpose between our two nations continues to this day. I have also been privileged to know a fine British leader, a man of conscience and unshakable determination. In his determination to do the right thing, and not the easy thing, I see the spirit of Churchill in Prime Minister Tony Blair. (Applause.) When World War II ended, Winston Churchill immediately understood that the victory was incomplete. Half of Europe was occupied by an aggressive empire. And one of Churchill's own finest hours came after the war ended in a speech he delivered in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill warned of the new danger facing free peoples. In stark but measured tones, he spoke of the need for free nations to unite against communist expansion. Marshal Stalin denounced the speech as a ``call to war.'' A prominent American journalist called the speech an ``almost catastrophic blunder.'' In fact, Churchill had set a simple truth before the world: that tyranny could not be ignored or appeased without great risk. And he boldly asserted that freedom--freedom was the right of men and women on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Churchill understood that the Cold War was not just a standoff of armies, but a conflict of visions--a clear divide between those who put their faith in ideologies of power, and those who put their faith in the choices of free people. The successors of Churchill and Roosevelt--leaders like Truman, and Reagan, and Thatcher--led a confident alliance that held firm as communism collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. Today, we are engaged in a different struggle. Instead of an armed empire, we face stateless networks. Instead of massed armies, we face deadly technologies that must be kept out of the hands of terrorists and outlaw regimes. Yet in some ways, our current struggles or challenges are similar to those Churchill knew. The outcome of the war on terror depends on our ability to see danger and to answer it with strength and purpose. One by one, we are finding and dealing with the terrorists, drawing tight what Winston Churchill called a ``closing net of doom.'' This war also is a conflict of visions. In their worship of power, their deep hatreds, their blindness to innocence, the terrorists are successors to the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. And we are the heirs of the tradition of liberty, defenders of the freedom, the conscience and the dignity of every person. Others before us have shown bravery and moral clarity in this cause. The same is now asked of us, and we accept the responsibilities of history. The tradition of liberty has advocates in every culture and in every religion. Our great challenges support the momentum of freedom in the greater Middle East. The stakes could not be higher. As long as that region is a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will produce men and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our friends. We seek the advance of democracy for the most practical of reasons: because democracies do not support terrorists or threaten the world with weapons of mass murder. America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We're challenging the enemies of reform, confronting the allies of terror, and expecting a higher standard from our friends. For too long, American policy looked away while men and women were oppressed, their rights ignored and their hopes stifled. That era is over, and we can be confident. As in Germany, and Japan, and Eastern Europe, liberty will overcome oppression in the Middle East. (Applause.) True democratic reform must come from within. And across the Middle East, reformers are pushing for change. From Morocco, to Jordan, to Qatar, we're seeing elections and new protections for women and the stirring of political pluralism. When the leaders of reform ask for our help, America will give it. (Applause.) I've asked the Congress to double the budget for the National Endowment for Democracy, raising its annual total to $80 million. We will focus its new work on bringing free elections and free markets and free press and free speech and free labor unions to the Middle East. The National Endowment gave vital service in the Cold War, and now we are renewing its mission of freedom in the war on terror. (Applause.) Freedom of the press and the free flow of ideas are vital foundations of liberty. To cut through the hateful propaganda that fills the airwaves in the Muslim world and to promote open debate, we're broadcasting the message of tolerance and truth in Arabic and Persian to tens of millions. In some cities of the greater Middle East, our radio stations are rated number one amongst younger listeners. Next week, we will launch a new Middle East television network called, Alhurra--Arabia for ``the free one.'' The network will broadcast news and movies and sports and entertainment and educational programming to millions of people across the region. Through all these efforts, we are telling the people in the Middle East the truth about the values and the policies of the United States, and the truth always serves the cause of freedom. (Applause.) America is also taking the side of reformers who have begun to change the Middle East. We're providing loans and business advice to encourage a culture of entrepreneurship in the Middle East. We've established business internships for women, to teach them the skills of enterprise, and to help them achieve social and economic equality. We're supporting the work of judicial reformers who demand independent courts and the rule of law. At the request of countries in the region, we're providing Arabic language textbooks to boys and girls. We're helping education reformers improve their school systems. The message to those who long for liberty and those who work for reform is that they can be certain they have a strong ally, a constant ally in the United States of America. (Applause.) Our strategy and our resolve are being tested in two countries, in particular. the nation of Afghanistan was once the primary training ground for al Qaeda, the home of a barbaric regime called the Taliban. It now has a new constitution that guarantees free election and full participation by women. (Applause.) The nation of Iraq was for decades an ally of terror ruled by the cruelty and caprice of one man. Today, the people of Iraq are moving toward self-government. Our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law with a bill of rights. Because our coalition acted, terrorists lost a source of reward money for suicide bombings. Because we acted, nations of the Middle East no longer need to fear reckless aggression from a ruthless dictator who had the intent and capability to inflict great harm on his people and people around the world. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell, and Iraqi men and women are no longer carried to torture chambers and rape rooms, and dumped in mass graves. Because the Baathist regime is history, Iraq is no longer a grave and gathering threat to free nations. Iraq is a free nation. (Applause.) Freedom still has enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the Baathists and Taliban and terrorists know that if democracy were to be, it would undermine violence--their hope for violence and innocent death. They understand that if democracy were to be undermined, then the hopes for change throughout the Middle East would be set back. That's what they know. That's what they think. We know that the success of freedom in these nations would be a landmark event in the history of the Middle East, and the history of the world. Across the region, people would see that freedom is the path to progress and national dignity. A thousand lies would stand refuted, falsehoods about the incompatibility of democratic values in Middle Eastern cultures. And all would see, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the success of free institutions at the heart of the greater Middle East. Achieving this vision will the work of many nations over time, requiring the same strength of will and confidence of purpose that propelled freedom to victory in the defining struggles of the last century. Today, we're at a point of testing, when people and nations show what they're made out of. America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. we will do what it takes. we will not leave until the job is done. (Applause.) We will succeed because when given a choice, people everywhere, from all walks of life, from all religions, prefer freedom to violence and terror. We will succeed because human beings are not made by the Almighty God to live in tyranny. We will succeed because of who we are--because even when it is hard, Americans always do what is right. And we know the work that has fallen to this generation. When great striving is required of us, we will always have an example in the man we honor today. Winston Churchill was a man of extraordinary personal gifts, yet his greatest strength was his unshakable confidence in the power and appeal of freedom. It was the great fortune of mankind that he was there in an hour of peril. And it remains the great duty of mankind to advance the cause of freedom in our time. May God bless the memory of Winston Churchill. May God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.