[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 134 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11356-S11367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 3074, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       An act (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Dorgan amendment No. 2797, to prohibit the establishment of 
     a program that allows Mexican truck drivers to operate beyond 
     the commercial zones near the Mexican border.
       Inhofe amendment No. 2796, to prohibit the use of funds to 
     implement the proposed Air Traffic Control Optimum Training 
     Solution of the Federal Aviation Administration.


                           amendment no. 2808

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself and Mr. 
     Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 2808.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. 
 Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the 
full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the 
  honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the 
                      United States Armed Forces)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. 
     Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, by 
     a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007.
       (2) General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the 
     United States Army Command and General Staff College.
       (3) General Petraeus earned Masters of Public 
     Administration and Doctoral degrees in international 
     relations from Princeton University.
       (4) General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in 
     Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air 
     Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year 
     of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major 
     combat operations and subsequent stability and support 
     operations.
       (5) General Petraeus supervised the development and 
     crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps 
     counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat 
     experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional 
     experiences.
       (6) General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and 
     defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
       (7) During his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed 
     a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to 
     the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense 
     Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service 
     Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of 
     Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department 
     Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and 
     other awards and medals.
       (8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in 
     the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, 
     impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all 
     the members of the United States Armed Forces.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
       (1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of 
     the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. 
     Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;
       (2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and 
     integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the 
     United States Armed Forces; and
       (3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal 
     attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group 
     Moveon.org.

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will not yield at this time, although 
after I get through speaking I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. President, every generation has defining moments, moments when 
you know in an instant that the world as you knew it has forever 
changed. Some of these moments are cause for celebration, such as the 
Moon landing or the fall of the Berlin Wall. But some, like the bombing 
of Pearl Harbor or the assassination of President John Fitzgerald 
Kennedy, are moments of intense grief, when the entire Nation holds its 
breath in shock and disbelief.
  The morning of September 11, 2001, was one such defining moment. Many 
of us closed our eyes, pleading with reality that what we saw could not 
be true. Many of us sat and cried, reeling from the loss of so many of 
our friends and neighbors. Many of us crowded into houses of worship 
across the country, looking for comfort and for answers. We watched as 
average Americans, finding extraordinary courage, became heroes. 
Firefighters, police officers, and other emergency personnel responded 
with remarkable bravery and determination, and many gave their lives so 
that others might live. The strength and generosity of ordinary 
Americans was the sole bright spot on that dark day.
  But what defines our generation is not just what we do in such 
moments but what we do the next day, and the next week, and the next 
year. Here we stand, 6 years later, remembering that day and reflecting 
back on all that has happened since that time. And here I stand, more 
proud of America than ever, and especially its response over the last 6 
years.
  In the weeks following September 11, our country was faced with 
several choices. Would we crack under the weight of the tragedy and the 
threat of the terrorist mindset or would we unite against the idealogy 
of fear and hatred? Would we retreat from a dangerous global terrorism 
or would we work to create a safer world? Over the last 6 years, we 
have faced terrorism and extremism head on. We have stood firmly 
against those who would attack innocent civilians and push an agenda of 
fear. As a result, our country is safer and terrorism is being combated 
across the world.
  Of course, we owe a profound debt of gratitude to the brave men and 
women of the U.S. military. Their continued service and dedication to 
our country has literally helped to preserve the American way of life, 
and made the world safer, I might add, for everyone. Their strength and 
courage is an example to all of us, and we should always remember and 
honor their sacrifices.
  But the fact is, while we are safer than we were on September 11, 
2001, we are not yet safe. Recent renewed threats from al-Qaida and 
arrests of terror suspects in Germany have proven that the danger is 
still looming for us. Fighting terrorism means we have to be right all 
the time, while the terrorists only need to be right once. We

[[Page S11357]]

have to stay on the offensive, taking the fight to the enemy and always 
looking for ways to improve our national security here at home.
  Now, yesterday and today, Congress received a report from the general 
in charge of the Multinational Force Iraq, GEN David Petraeus, and from 
our Ambassador to the region, Ambassador Crocker.
  All of us will recall that when General Petraeus was nominated to 
this high office as a professional military man, his confirmation came 
to the Senate. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I 
was proud to vote for his confirmation in the Armed Services Committee. 
As you can see by this chart, on January 26, 2007, the Senate 
unanimously confirmed this professional soldier as the head of the 
multinational forces in Iraq.
  Unfortunately, when General Petraeus's report was received yesterday 
before a joint hearing in the House, there was all too common 
partisanship and shrill rhetoric. But, in contrast, this report 
represents an honest, nonpartisan assessment of the conditions in Iraq, 
both political and marshal.
  You know, the fact is, it bears note that General Petraeus's report, 
along with Ambassador Crocker's, is exactly aligned with what the 
Director of National Intelligence issued in August in his report as 
well as the report of the independent commission created by this 
Congress headed by retired Marine Corps GEN Jim Jones, who testified 
just last week.
  As a result of these reports, we will now be faced with a choice: 
Will we heed the advice of our generals, particularly in the case of 
General Petraeus, a counterinsurgency expert, unanimously confirmed by 
the Senate, or will we close our ears and our minds to the facts and 
cave in to special interest groups that claim to know better than our 
distinguished military leaders?
  Even before this report was issued by General Petraeus, one such 
group began employing a despicable and reprehensible new tactic in 
anticipation of a report which contradicted their ideology. MoveOn.org 
sponsored this ad, which shamefully, despicably appeared in the New 
York Times, claiming that General Petraeus, this distinguished military 
warrior, was a traitor and that he would lie in his report.
  Lest anyone be misled into thinking this is a product merely of an 
individual organization, MoveOn.org, I would refer my colleagues to an 
article that appeared in the New York Times magazine on Sunday entitled 
``Can Lobbyists Stop the War?'' What that article pointed out--I would 
commend it to all of our colleagues--is that an attack such as this is 
not an isolated event on behalf of an antiwar organization like 
MoveOn.org; it is part of a concerted strategy composed of some 20 
outside special interest groups consulting with Democrats on the Hill.
  This organization, as the article reports, does not work only through 
media by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for ads like this; 
they coordinate extensively with Democrats on Capitol Hill, as the 
article points out. Mr. Matzzie, who is the head of this organization, 
is actually the Washington, DC, representative of MoveOn.org, and he 
himself, the article says, meets with Speaker  Nancy Pelosi or Harry 
Reid, the Senate majority leader, maybe once a month, he says, adding 
that he talks to their staffs once a day or at least a couple times a 
week. In the article, Mr. Crowley notes that senior Democratic aides 
sometimes even join in conference calls. This might entail discussions 
of political strategy or more substantive policy briefings by experts 
from the think tanks that are part of these outside interest groups as 
part of this organized, orchestrated effort on behalf of those who want 
to tear down the good name of a distinguished patriot like David 
Petraeus.
  This smear campaign consisted of an entirely unwarranted and 
fallacious attack and sought to impugn the name of a highly respected 
man of integrity. I have seen this kind of attack before. I suspect all 
of us have at one point or another.
  But sometimes it is called just simply ``poisoning the well.'' It is 
a simple principle: When you cannot refute someone's report, try to 
discredit them before they, in fact, even make it. Indeed, Mr. Matzzie, 
the Washington director of MoveOn.org who heads up the organization 
that is referred to in the New York Times magazine article entitled 
``Can Lobbyists Stop the War?'' was quoted in Politico as saying this:

       We have to frame his statements before he makes them. He's 
     not St. Petraeus, he's General Petraeus.

  This same article which I mentioned a moment ago quotes an anonymous 
Democratic Senator:

       No one wants to call Petraeus a liar on national TV. The 
     expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.

  I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate will join me in condemning 
these disgraceful attacks against the good name and character of this 
general. Instead of making wild allegations, we ought to actually 
listen to what he has to say. It is always, I have found, a valuable 
tool to listen to what someone has to say before you try to argue with 
them.
  Of course, what he had to say in the House yesterday will be and is 
currently being repeated, I expect in large part in the Foreign 
Relations Committee this morning and the Senate Armed Services 
Committee this afternoon. The fact that General Petraeus has reported 
that these groups find so reprehensible is that we have actually made 
progress in Iraq in communities or in areas such as Al Anbar Province 
and in other places around the country; Al-Qaida in Iraq is losing 
popularity, and with it they are losing ground.
  For every person who abandons the doctrines of terrorism, we take 
another step toward a stable Iraq and a safer America. Unfortunately, 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, even before General 
Petraeus gave this report and in the face of the National Intelligence 
Estimate and the Jones Commission, denied the fact of violence actually 
going down in Iraq.
  This is just one comment made by the Senator from New York, who said:

       The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not 
     because of the surge.

  Disclaiming that our 170,000 American uniformed servicemembers in 
Iraq have made any difference. The problem is that when you bet against 
the men and women of the U.S. military, you are going to lose. And 
those who bet against the U.S. military in claiming that their efforts 
would have no effect in Iraq have lost that bet because it has, and 
they just can't seem to handle it.
  Another statement by the majority leader attempting to undermine the 
credibility of this general--Senator Reid said:

       General Petraeus has made a number of statements over the 
     years that have not proved to be factual.

  The chair of the House Democratic caucus, Rahm Emanuel, on September 
7, 2007, said:

       We do not need a report that wins a Nobel Prize for 
     creative statistics or the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.

  Suggesting that this general, whom we confirmed just last January by 
unanimous vote, in charge of multinational forces in Iraq would write a 
report that could be described as ``fiction'' is an insult.
  We should make no mistake about the fact that success in Iraq is 
inextricably linked to our safety here at home. Let us not forget that 
only 2 months ago, this Senate overwhelming passed a resolution 
declaring the dangers of a failed Iraq state and expressing our intent 
not to pursue any strategy which might lead to that failure, passed by 
a vote of 94 to 3.
  I agreed with Senator Reid back in January of 2007 when he said:

       Our hope, our prayer is that this President will finally 
     listen, listen to the generals.

  That is what we are asking Senator Reid and our friends on the other 
side of the aisle to do today, is to simply listen to this good man who 
wears the uniform of the U.S. military and give him a fair hearing.
  We passed the measure I mentioned a moment ago about taking no action 
which would likely result in a failed state in Iraq because we 
recognized that Iraq is the front line in a much larger war, a global 
war on terrorism.
  When the Confederate and Union armies met near a small shoe factory 
in Gettysburg, they could not have known that battle would be a turning 
point in our Civil War. But as we stand now looking at the situation in 
Iraq, we must acknowledge that our success or failure there will be a 
turning point, one way or the other, in the global war on terror.

[[Page S11358]]

  Already we have seen Islamic terrorism spread across the globe from 
Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Jordan, India, 
and Bali. All have suffered from Islamic terrorism. European countries 
such as Spain, Great Britain, and most recently Germany have all had to 
face the growing threat of suicide bombers and terrorists. Even here at 
home recently we have seen two terror plots fail, thank goodness, at 
Fort Dix and at JFK Airport.
  Were we to close our ears and our minds to what General Petraeus and 
Ambassador Crocker have to report and abandon our effort to provide an 
ability for the Iraqis to govern and defend themselves, were we to 
leave the region to the hegemony of Iran, an enemy of this Nation which 
is developing nuclear weapons, we would leave not only the Iraqis but 
the people in the region--indeed, ourselves here at home--at the mercy 
of terrorist organizations and countries that give safe haven to those 
terrorists, a base of operations which would serve as a launching point 
for further operations into Europe and America. But if we create a 
stable self-sufficient Iraq, we can begin to push back the terrorist 
organizations in the Middle East. We can stop their spread and we can 
push back, just as the American military has in Anbar Province, 
recruiting local people, the sheiks, the tribes there to be part of the 
fight on our side and to eliminate al-Qaida from that region.
  Just as transparency is the enemy of corruption, free and stable 
nations are the Achilles' heel of terrorism. Today, 6 years to the day 
from when we were first attacked, we must redouble our efforts. We must 
combat terrorism throughout the world, starting with a liberated, 
secure Iraq.
  We should make sure that we give General Petraeus and our troops 
everything they need to win the battle and turn the tide of the larger 
war, not undermine them by condoning the kind of scurrilous attacks 
reflected in this New York Times advertisement by MoveOn.org.
  We should also remember that the war on terrorism is more than a 
military engagement; it is a battle of wills which we all fight. Every 
day we meet in this hallowed Chamber, we fight that battle. Every time 
Americans gather to worship without fear, we fight that battle. Every 
night when we go home to our families and we find comfort with our 
loved ones, we are fighting that battle. America's determination to 
continue our way of life is a powerful statement to the terrorists that 
you may threaten us, you may attack us, but you will never break the 
American spirit. We will always cherish freedom, and we will always 
pursue peace and justice throughout the world.
  Over the last 6 years, we have had to make many changes in order to 
adapt to this new threat, but one thing will never change: America will 
always fight against fear and extremism, and we will always stand up 
for a peaceful, more humane world.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator from Texas essentially through with his 
statement?
  Mr. CORNYN. I am glad to yield for some questions.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator from Texas has completed his statement, 
I will seek recognition.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves, I 
wish he could put back up the ad in the New York Times yesterday. It 
strikes me that the Cornyn amendment is an opportunity for Senate 
Democrats to have their reputation restored. I can't believe that 
Senate Democrats approved of this kind of trash that we have seen in 
the New York Times in this paid ad last Sunday which, I gather, cost 
over $100,000. This organization, MoveOn.org, is claiming it controls 
the Democratic Party. I don't believe that is true. But this is what 
they had to say back in 2004.
  Someone named Eli Pariser, an employee of MoveOn, talking about the 
Democratic Party, said:

       Now it's our party. We bought it. We own it. We are going 
     to take it back.

  MoveOn is claiming they control the Democratic Party. If I were a 
Democratic Senator, I would be offended by MoveOn.org's claim, as 
Senator Cornyn pointed out in his comments, that they communicate on a 
near-daily basis with senior Democratic Members. Here is a quote:

       I called over there and said ``you guys better have a 
     strategy on this.''

  By ``there,'' Matzzie, who, I guess, is the head of MoveOn.org, meant 
the offices of Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill with which he or his 
staff communicate on a near-daily basis. According to Matzzie, Matzzie 
has personal relationships with several senior Democratic Members of 
Congress.
  In short, it strikes me, listening to the Senator from Texas and 
reading the article in the New York Times myself Sunday, that this 
organization, this radical leftwing organization is attacking the 
patriotism of General Petraeus with this ad, accusing him, in effect, 
of treason--``Betray Us,'' it says--and is claiming control of our good 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I don't believe that. I 
don't believe that for a minute. The Cornyn resolution is an 
opportunity for the Senate to go on record, hopefully unanimously, 
objecting to this kind of dialog. Certainly, they are free to do 
whatever they want. It is a free country. The first amendment allows 
everyone to say whatever they please. But you don't have to endorse 
this kind of nonsense.
  This organization strikes me as a severe threat to the reputation of 
the Democratic Party. This is an opportunity the Senator from Texas has 
offered for all of us to go on record in opposition to this outrageous 
and unacceptable ad run in the New York Times on Sunday.
  ``General Petraeus or General Betray Us?'' What an outrage. Are we 
not offended by that? Do we not condemn that? This is the opportunity 
for the Senate, on a broad bipartisan basis, to condemn this outrageous 
ad.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for giving us this opportunity. I hope 
when this vote occurs, it will be a unanimous expression. Regardless of 
how we may feel about the war--and I know that is a deeply divisive 
issue in this body; we understand that--some kinds of rhetoric are 
simply unacceptable. Here we have an outside organization claiming to 
basically control the Democratic Party. I don't believe they do. If I 
were a member of the Democratic caucus and sitting on the other side of 
the aisle in this Chamber, I would be offended by an organization 
claiming to control me and to speak for me, such as this group 
apparently does.
  I thank the Senator from Texas. It is a perfectly timely amendment, 
as General Petraeus is testifying here in the Senate today and in the 
House yesterday. Of course, next week we will be dealing with the Iraq 
issue again. I hope we can discuss it in a typical, responsible Senate 
debate and not have these extreme organizations on the far left, which 
apparently wish for America's defeat, have a disproportionate influence 
on this body over the outcome of our debates. We ought to be able to 
rise above that. We have the possibility of doing that. The American 
people would like for us to do that. They want us to engage in a civil 
debate about the way forward in Iraq. We will have an opportunity to 
demonstrate that again next week. I hope we will demonstrate it this 
morning by overwhelmingly--and hopefully on a unanimous basis--
condemning this outrageous ad questioning the patriotism of General 
Petraeus.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators who want 
to speak to the pending amendment by the Senator from Texas. The 
Senator from Minnesota has been waiting for some time. I ask unanimous 
consent to temporarily set aside the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas in order for the Senator from Minnesota to send her amendment to 
the desk and to speak for a couple of minutes and then to return to the 
amendment of the Senator from Texas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, once the amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota is sent to the desk, spoken on, if my amendment will then 
become the pending business, if I understand the request, I have no 
objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S11359]]

                           Amendment No. 2816

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk for 
immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Ms. Klobuchar], for herself and 
     Mr. Coleman, proposes an amendment numbered 2816.

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

 (Purpose: To make available amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
   the repair and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35W bridge that 
        collapsed on August 1, 2007, in Minneapolis, Minnesota)

       On page 20, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:


                 I-35W BRIDGE REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION

        For necessary expenses to carry out the project for repair 
     and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35W bridge located in 
     Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007, as 
     authorized under section 1(c) of Public Law 110-56 (121 Stat. 
     558), up to $195,000,000, as documented by the Minnesota 
     Department of Transportation to remain available until 
     expended, Provided, That that amount is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 
     21 (110th Congress): Provided further, That the Federal share 
     of the costs of any project funded using amounts made 
     available under this section shall be 100 percent in 
     accordance with section 1(b) of Public Law 110-56 (121 Stat. 
     588).

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first thank this body for its amazing 
response when the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis. Senator Coleman and 
I went there immediately the morning after the bridge collapsed on 
August 1 and saw firsthand what happened. I came back and reported the 
bravery of our citizens, the emergency responders immediately diving 
in, people who were off duty coming to the scene, ordinary citizens 
running in saving people among shards of steel, among rebar, diving in, 
risking their own lives. There was a miracle schoolbus there where 
little kids could have died. But one man, who didn't even know those 
kids, opened the door and let them out. This is what happened in 
Minnesota that day. Then we returned to this body and worked with our 
fellow Senators. Not one Senator objected to the idea that when a 
Federal bridge falls in the middle of America, we must rebuild it. When 
a Federal highway overpass falls in the middle of America, we must 
rebuild it.
  At that time, when we only had 60 hours to get the authorization for 
the $250 million that we requested to rebuild that bridge, we were told 
to wait until the dust settled to figure out the details of the 
appropriation. That seemed like a good idea.
  The dust has settled. We have learned in our State and in our 
community that 13 people died in that tragedy, ordinary people coming 
home, going to work, people such as Patrick Holmes, who was driving 
home to his young wife Jennifer and their two children; people such as 
Sadiya Sahal, a pregnant nursing student, and her 2-year-old daughter 
Hannah, who were headed to a relative's home when the bridge crumbled 
beneath them. Many people were injured. Many people died. That is what 
happened when the dust settled.
  We now have a gaping hole in a major bridge in the middle of 
Minneapolis-St. Paul, a major metropolitan area. Any of our Members, or 
anyone who is listening today, would think about major metropolitan 
areas in their States, if there was suddenly a gaping hole. The bridge 
basically buckled into the Mississippi River. It is eight blocks from 
my home, so I see it every day. It is costing an estimated $400,000 a 
day in lost business, lost time. There are a number of other bridges, 
but they are very small. Traffic has built up.
  The emergency response from the Federal Government has been strong. 
The response from the State has been strong. Within 12 hours after this 
tragedy, billboards were up about emergency bus service. People 
responded in the right way, including the Senate and Congress. But on 
that day, 60 hours after this happened, a promise was made that we 
would rebuild that bridge. I appreciated the amendment to build bridges 
and to help repair bridges across this country. I supported it, as did 
my colleague, Senator Coleman. But we knew this was not the money that 
had been allocated to fix our bridge in Minnesota.
  Oftentimes when these tragedies happen, it does lead to help across 
the country. When we realized that levees needed to be looked at, when 
we realized that flood control systems needed to be built after the 
Grand Forks flood--a lot of things happen that help other people in the 
country, but we always first help the people where the tragedy occurs. 
That is what our amendment--Senator Coleman is a cosponsor--is about, 
to make sure we fund the bridge repair, that we fix the bridge.
  A bridge in the middle of America just doesn't fall down. We will get 
to the bottom of what happened. But when it does fall down, we rebuild 
it. We fix it.
  I thank the Senate for its consideration.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Minnesota a 
couple questions? Obviously, we are all concerned about this collapse. 
We know the burden. We want to make sure we provide responsible help 
that is necessary. Senator Coleman has indicated he wants to speak on 
the amendment.
  I would like to know, No. 1, if this includes transit funding in that 
$195 million. Is it emergency highway funds, emergency bridge funds, or 
is it just designated as an emergency that does not come out of any of 
the existing highway or bridge funds?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. It is my understanding that it is emergency funds. We 
did get some transit money designated early on. The Secretary of 
Transportation has been very good in working with us. I believe we have 
received about $55 million of the $250 million. That is why this 
amendment asks for the remaining $195 million to be appropriated. We 
will work with the Senator's staff on the details. We want to make sure 
we cross all the t's and dot our i's. But we cannot continue to let 
this interstate be a gaping hole in the middle of a metropolitan area, 
when it is clearly the intent of Congress to fund and authorize the 
money. We are simply trying to receive the rest of the funding that 
could be immediately given to us by the Department of Transportation.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate that. We need to work with DOT 
to make sure we have the details worked out. I appreciate the Senator 
agreeing to work with us so we can. Senator Coleman wants to be added 
as a cosponsor. We may get further information as we go to conference, 
but we will try to get this resolved today.
  If the Senator would add Senator Coleman, I would appreciate that.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Senator Coleman is an original cosponsor of the 
original amendment. We made some modifications after speaking with 
Senator Bond and, of course, he would be included in this one as well. 
I also thank Senator Murray for the work she did immediately after this 
disaster, sending a staff member out to observe the bridge and work 
with us on getting immediate funding.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Coleman will be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The Democratic whip.


                           Amendment No. 2808

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to return to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Texas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak to that amendment, if I 
could. First, let me stipulate I have said publicly, and believe in my 
heart, GEN David Petraeus is an honorable man who has served this 
country with distinction. It has been my good fortune to meet with him 
in Iraq on several occasions, 2\1/2\ years ago, when his job was an 
important job in training the Iraqi Army, to prepare it to take over 
for American soldiers. Most recently, in August, I met with General 
Petraeus in Baghdad for 3 hours, and with Ambassador Crocker, over 
dinner. We had a lengthy conversation about the surge, the situation in 
Iraq.
  I never for 1 minute questioned General Petraeus's patriotism, his 
competence, and his record of serving America. That is something I am 
happy to stipulate for the record and I believe is beyond question and 
reproach.

[[Page S11360]]

  I will also tell you I voted for General Petraeus to be head of our 
military effort in Iraq and did so without reservation. I believe he is 
extraordinarily competent as a military leader. There are no questions 
to be raised about that.
  Yesterday, before a joint session of the House Armed Services 
Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, General Petraeus 
appeared with Ambassador Crocker. The morning news reports suggest 
virtually every single Member of Congress from both sides of the aisle 
preceded their remarks about General Petraeus's testimony by giving 
credit and tribute to this man for his service to our Nation.
  That is why this amendment that has been offered by the Senator from 
Texas strikes me as a little unusual, first in that it is being offered 
on the Transportation appropriations bill. Someone said, kind of 
jokingly: Is it because General Petraeus was transported over American 
highways to make it to the hearing? It is a good question that is being 
raised here about the general, but it certainly is not a question 
relative to a Transportation appropriations bill, which includes many 
serious and important issues as well.
  We just heard a comment from the Senator from Minnesota. I can tell 
you her concern about her State and the terrible tragedy that occurred 
there is heartfelt. I am glad on behalf of Senator Coleman and herself 
she has brought it to our attention. I hope we will take it up, as we 
should, during the course of debating this bill.
  Secondly, though, there is a time and place for this debate. It is an 
important debate because having conceded all of these important 
personal qualities of General Petraeus, the fact is I disagree with the 
conclusions he presented to that joint committee yesterday. That, of 
course, does not reflect on him personally; it just reflects on the 
fact he and I have a difference of opinion. Differences of opinion are 
pretty basic to our style of Government, not only in Congress but among 
the American people. So for someone to take exception to the remarks of 
General Petraeus is not unusual. In fact, it is expected. That is a 
debate that characterizes a democracy, a government where we are not 
afraid to stand up and disagree with even people at the highest levels 
of Government, even people who have excellent reputations who can, from 
time to time, be wrong.
  I would remind the Senator from Texas it was a gentleman from his own 
State who became Attorney General and recently resigned, after serious 
questions were raised about his judgment. I did not vote to confirm 
Alberto Gonzales. I had serious doubts about whether he could serve as 
Attorney General, and expressed those doubts during his confirmation 
hearing, during the consideration of his nomination before the vote on 
the Senate floor, and afterwards, and that is a fact. That is what we 
are here for. That is part of the debate which is part of our American 
conversation. It goes on on the floor of the Senate and the floor of 
the House.
  The same was true for Secretary Rumsfeld. I introduced him to the 
committee when the President first nominated him to be Secretary of 
Defense, and did so with pride because I had known of his service as a 
Congressman from Illinois. Over the course of several years, I came to 
disagree with many of his policies and believe he made some serious 
mistakes, for which we are still paying. That kind of disagreement is 
also part of this debate on Capitol Hill.
  Now, what the Senator from Texas suggests--and also the Senator from 
Kentucky, the minority leader--is that now the Democratic side of the 
aisle has to be held accountable for all the critics of General 
Petraeus. In fact, they have gone so far--the Senator from Kentucky 
said what we are about here is not a resolution relative to 
MoveOn.org., what we are about is ``restoring the reputation of the 
Democratic Party.'' He went on to say the actions of this organization 
are ``a severe threat to the reputation of the Democratic Party.''
  Perhaps the Senator from Kentucky overstated a little bit. When the 
organization ran a full-page ad, I did not notice at the bottom 
anything that said ``endorsed and approved by the Democratic National 
Committee.'' Organizations make their statements, stand by their words, 
and are held accountable for those. Occasionally, there is a poor 
choice of words. I think in this particular ad there was a poor choice 
of words to suggest there was any betrayal involved in the testimony of 
General Petraeus. But I might remind my colleague and friend from 
Texas, even the best of us can occasionally get tangled up in a poor 
choice of words. It has happened to both of us on the floor of the 
Senate. That is a fact. Occasionally you have to stand up and say: I 
did not quite mean it the way it sounded.
  Well, let me say at this point, if we are going to be held 
accountable for every organization that opposes the war and the 
language they use, if the Democratic Party has to come to the floor and 
be asked up or down to vote on every comment and phrase made, it is a 
standard that might consume a lot of time in the Senate.
  I do not recall a legion of Republican Senators filing in here to 
complain about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the middle of that 
Presidential campaign, John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam war hero, had 
his reputation attacked and criticized by a Texas organization, the 
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that suggested he was not deserving of 
the combat decorations which he received. I thought their attack was an 
outrage. Most Americans felt the same. We understand many men and women 
have risked their lives and given their blood in service to this 
country and received recognition from our Government, which they 
deserved. To have the scurrilous attacks from the Swift Boat Veterans 
for Truth, I thought, was an outrage. I do not recall resolutions on 
this side of the aisle saying: Well, now, the Republican Party has to 
repudiate those.
  But if this is going to be our stock in trade now--instead of dealing 
with issues such as rebuilding the bridge in Minneapolis, instead of 
facing the reality of bridges across America that are dangerous, 
instead of dealing with highway funds that are critically important--we 
are going to set all that aside and ask, first, the Democrats and then 
the Republicans to respond to every ad that is published in the 
newspaper, then we better set up a special committee to deal with that. 
It would be the ``Committee on Headlines,'' I guess. We could have a 
bipartisan group and each day have a list of headlines we all object 
to, and then vote on them on a regular basis.

  Is that why we are here? Is that why we were elected? Do we set aside 
the Transportation bill for America to deal with an ad purchased by a 
private organization? I do not think so.
  Let me say I think it was a poor choice of words in that ad. I do not 
subscribe to that point of view about betrayal at all. I will defend 
the right of that organization and others to speak up against the war 
or for the war, whatever their position might be. That happens to be 
part of the American opportunity, to stand up and speak your mind, 
whatever it may be. To take the time of the Senate, on a regular basis, 
to come through here and to hold us accountable for purchased 
advertising by organizations will become a full-time job.
  Now, before I close, let me say this: I do not believe this amendment 
is germane. If the Senator wants to offer it on some other bill, in 
some other context, that is his choice, if he wants to do it that way. 
But I wish to get back to the business of the Transportation bill.
  But before I leave the floor, let me make it clear I disagree with 
the conclusions of General Petraeus. I have been there. I have met with 
him. I have seen it. It is true the surge is buying us at least 
temporary security benefits in some parts of Iraq, but the general has 
said, and many others have said, we will never win this war militarily. 
It has to be won by the Iraqi Government making important political 
decisions to bring their country together and to stabilize Iraq. No 
matter how many soldiers we send in, that political responsibility will 
still be there, and even the most optimistic fans of the Bush 
administration could not say at this moment in time there is a 
government of national unity in Iraq. There is not.
  For all of the lives that have been offered up by Americans--3,774 of 
our best and bravest who have died as of this day in this war in Iraq; 
27,186 who have been wounded--the fact is the political situation in 
Iraq is a disaster.

[[Page S11361]]

Even with the additional surge troops, it is a disaster. For General 
Petraeus to suggest he will try to bring home the surge forces--
30,000--by some time next year, from this Senator's point of view, is 
not good enough. That will not move the Iraqis forward to accept 
responsibility for their own country, to accept responsibility for 
their own defense.
  So though I respect General Petraeus, and will continue to respect 
him, I respectfully disagree with the conclusions he reached before 
that joint committee in the House yesterday. That is my right. It is 
the right of every American. If people, in disagreeing, make a poor 
choice of words, an unfortunate choice of words, I am not going to be 
standing here and defending them. But I will stand and defend the right 
of every American to question and challenge this Government and its 
policies. That is not a reflection on the general's good work or on the 
fine contribution by the men and women in uniform.
  I hope this amendment offered by the Senator from Texas is found not 
to be germane to this Transportation bill, and I hope we can return to 
the important business of that bill soon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before I respond to the distinguished 
majority whip, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Inhofe, the Senator 
from Oklahoma, be added as an original cosponsor of my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. He is on the amendment now.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois. He is one of the most gifted speakers in the Senate, and 
he is a brilliant lawyer. We serve together on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  I agree with him that sometimes people say things they later regret. 
He is right, both of us have been in that barrel, and we have asked for 
forgiveness. Hopefully--I do believe, actually, we have received that. 
But I do think he protests too much.
  This simple amendment--which would take us 15 minutes to vote on, if 
allowed to do so--has to do with more than just a simple disagreement 
with what General Petraeus has said. This is a direct attack, impugning 
the character of this distinguished member of the U.S. Army. It is not 
simply a poor choice of words.
  The Senator from Illinois said: I do not subscribe to that point of 
view. If we would have an opportunity to vote on my amendment, his vote 
in favor of my amendment would, in fact, confirm what he has already 
said on the floor--that it is a poor choice of words and he does not 
subscribe to that point of view.
  At the same time he asked: We are on the Transportation 
appropriations bill. Why are we talking about this now? Well, frankly, 
there are a lot of people who think the global war on terrorism and our 
success or failure in Iraq are just as important--I would submit more 
important--than an appropriations bill. But the fact of the matter is, 
we could do both, and we could get this amendment voted on in rather 
short order.
  So I do think this amendment is timely. General Petraeus testified 
yesterday before a joint committee of the Armed Services Committee and 
Foreign Relations Committee in the House. He is testifying, even as we 
speak, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and will testify 
this afternoon before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I think this 
is a timely matter, where we should express our strongest repudiation 
of the kind of despicable attack on the character of this good man that 
this ad represents.
  This ad reportedly cost roughly $160,000 in the New York Times by 
MoveOn.org. I have already spoken to the coordination between these 
outside groups--including MoveOn.org, reported in the New York Times 
Sunday magazine in an article entitled ``Can Lobbyists Stop the War?'' 
talking about regular consultation and coordination between these 
outside groups and Democrats on the Hill.
  I agree with the distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell. 
This is a way for our friends on the other side of the aisle to show 
some separation between the irresponsible rhetoric of these groups, 
such as MoveOn.org, and their own position.
  All I am asking is that the distinguished majority whip--who has 
already said this is a poor choice of words and that he doesn't 
subscribe to that point of view--allow the amendment to be voted on, 
and by voting for the amendment, he will basically confirm what he has 
already said on the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have about 26 hours left to complete 
the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee appropriations bill. Our 
majority leader has already said we are going to return to a debate on 
Iraq next week, a very few days away from now.
  I have a great deal of respect for General Petraeus, but I would 
remind my colleagues this is the Transportation appropriations bill 
which we are attempting to complete and the amendment before us has 
nothing to do with that subject matter. Therefore, in accordance with 
the point of order established by Senator Lott when he was majority 
leader, I now make a point of order against the amendment, that it is a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment which is not germane to the 
Transportation appropriations bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the precedent of May 17, 
2000, the Chair must rule on the germaneness of sense-of-the-Senate 
amendments to appropriations bills. The Chair finds this amendment is 
not germane. The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senator from 
Washington has chosen to make a point of order against this timely 
amendment. This amendment is not delaying the underlying bill, contrary 
to the distinguished Senator's statements and the statements of the 
majority whip.
  We are prepared to set a vote on this amendment at any time this 
week. I understand the rules of precedence, and I am certain we have 
considered other amendments previously when similar points of order 
could have been made and the Senate chose not to raise the point of 
order. It is not self-executing; someone must raise it. It appears the 
other side believes the Senate should not speak on this, what I believe 
is the most important issue today. Again, we are prepared to set an 
immediate vote and move on to other issues.
  Having said that, I will alert my colleagues that the Senate will 
speak on this issue at some point. We will come back and the Senate 
will weigh in on this despicable ad.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by 
the two leaders today, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of 
a resolution, the text of which is the exact language of the amendment 
which I have offered. Further, I ask unanimous consent that if the 
resolution is agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and a motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Before the Chair rules, this unanimous consent request allows us to 
consider the language outside the Transportation appropriations bill, 
and I would hope there would be no objection to this.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the majority leader has said, we are 
going to return to the Iraq debate within a few days. We are trying to 
work our way through a very difficult Transportation bill today and, 
therefore, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to make general comments on the 
legislation that is before us today--the Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.
  This legislation provides critical funding for our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure and supports programs that are essential 
to creating vibrant neighborhoods and communities throughout the United 
States. I particularly wish to commend Senator

[[Page S11362]]

Murray and Senator Bond for their leadership on this very important 
legislation. They have been long-time supporters not only of 
Transportation projects but also the Housing and Urban Development 
projects inherent in this bill.
  We are all aware of the Nation's aging infrastructure. Senator 
Klobuchar pointed out very eloquently the terrible situation in 
Minnesota with the collapse of the bridge over I-35. This bill provides 
$40 billion to the Federal-aid Highways Program and helps State and 
local governments maintain bridges, build roads, reduce congestion, and 
improve air quality. The funding level of $631 million more than the 
administration requested and more than $1.13 billion than what was 
provided in 2007. Frankly, even this robust amount is probably not 
adequate to deal with the crises we face across this country.
  After the tragedy in Minnesota, every State looked very closely at 
their bridges and their roadways, and it turns out that in my State of 
Rhode Island we have one of the highest percentages of structurally 
deficient and functionally obsolete bridges in the country. We need 
resources, but we are not alone. Every State in this Nation needs these 
resources. This bill is very critical in responding to that need. 
Again, I commend Senator Murray and Senator Bond for doing that, and I 
particularly commend Senator Murray for her amendment yesterday 
increasing the allocation for this type of work on bridges with an 
additional $1 billion. The Transportation provisions in this 
legislation are critically important to the future of the country.

  The other important part of the legislation is the Housing and Urban 
Development programs. Here again, we have to be terribly concerned 
about what is going on in the United States. We are all aware of the 
unfolding subprime mortgage crisis. We are aware of the fact that many 
individuals are already suffering foreclosure because of the exotic 
mortgages. It is also rippling over into our larger financial 
institutions in terms of a liquidity crisis. These are huge problems 
the economy is facing and facing them with great difficulty over the 
last several weeks. But what is happening and what will happen over the 
next several weeks is the fact that many additional subprime mortgages 
will reset their interest, and everyone is projecting and looking 
forward to additional pressure on home loans.
  One of the important aspects of the legislation before us is that 
this legislation includes $150 million for housing counseling 
assistance that will help address some of these subprime foreclosure 
problems by allowing not-for-profit groups to reach out to people 
facing foreclosure and give them help and assistance and act as an 
intermediary between the financial institution and the borrower. This 
is very important, very timely, and I hope we move aggressively to pass 
this legislation as a result.
  The bill also provides $16.6 billion for the Section 8 accounts. We 
all understand that Section 8 is a vital component of our housing for 
our elderly and housing for low-income Americans. Without this, we are 
literally going to force people out of safe, secure, affordable housing 
they have today because the bulk of this money goes to maintain those 
individuals who are in subsidized housing today. So many of them are 
seniors, low-income seniors. This is the least we can do. I am 
particularly proud to support the $75 million Senator Murray has 
included for the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing Program. This is a 
new incremental voucher program that would be jointly funded by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and HUD to provide Section 8 vouchers 
for homeless veterans. There is nothing more deplorable, if you want to 
talk about deplorable then leaving veterans homeless. What about the 
thousands of veterans, combat veterans in this country who are living 
on the streets? We had a hearing, and a gentleman from Durham, NC, 
talked about the veterans program he is running. We have veterans of 
the Armed Forces of the United States who are living behind the bicycle 
rack at the local Kinkos because they can't get housing. So if you want 
to talk about a shame and an insult to America's men and women in 
uniform, look closely at how we are treating some of these homeless 
veterans. This bill at least attempts to try to reverse that. I am 
pleased we are providing $1.6 billion for overall homeless assistance 
grants because we have a large population of homeless Americans who 
deserve help and assistance.
  There is an additional grant for a pilot program of $25 million to 
give the Secretary of HUD the ability to put a program together that 
will provide for rapid rehousing of homeless families. Homelessness at 
one point was perceived as a problem of principally men on the street; 
perhaps stretches back to our--not nostalgic but our recollection of 
the hoboes of the Great Depression moving around without homes. Today, 
homelessness is a family problem in this country, and this program can 
provide hope--limited resources but a matrix, if you will, to help 
these families move forward.
  This legislation also provides additional funding for the Public 
Housing Capital Fund and the Public Housing Operating Fund. We have to 
help our cities and municipalities that are running public housing to 
maintain the facilities and to operate these facilities.
  There is also another issue that is important and that is lead 
abatement. Senator Bond has been a particular champion, along with 
Senator Mikulski, on lead abatement problems throughout this country. 
This legislation reflects his interest, his concern, and his commitment 
to helping communities deal with lead abatement. It also deals I think 
very effectively with the Community Development Block Grant funding 
which is so necessary to all our local leaders. This bill represents 
wise policy and robust funding beyond the President's request. I hope 
very sincerely the President will not carry out his threats to veto 
this bill. This bill addresses infrastructure problems and housing 
problems. It goes to what makes this country work: the economic 
infrastructure of highways and bridges and the human infrastructure of 
homes and housing and community development.
  This is legislation that I, again, commend Senators Murray and Bond 
for developing, and I thank them and their staffs for their great work. 
I hope we can, this evening or tomorrow, go to final passage and send 
this bill forward for enactment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He 
has been a very effective advocate on housing and the wide range of 
topics he has discussed. His assistance and support for the bill is 
very important. We work with him on many issues and appreciate the 
opportunity to do so.
  Yesterday, we had some very interesting discussions. I am sorry the 
Senator from North Dakota is not here, but I am hoping he will perhaps 
be watching because I do have some answers to the questions he raised 
about the Department of Transportation's inspector general report. The 
first thing he asked was how could the Department of Transportation--
the DOT--act so quickly when they received the IG report on Thursday 
night, September 6, and came out with their truck order for the pilot 
program on Friday, September 7. Well, the fact is that the DOT, similar 
to Congress, had been fully briefed on the contents of the report on 
August 27. I think everybody who is familiar with audits knows that 
before the audit is released, there is an audit conference and the 
auditee--in this case the DOT--gets an opportunity to comment on it. 
The report that the DOT issued was based on the inspector general's 
draft.
  We were able to confirm--they were able to confirm they felt they had 
complied with the concerns raised by the inspector general.
  Specifically, on the inspection of every truck, every time, the IG 
said that as of July, the DOT didn't have a plan in place with DHS to 
make sure Customs and Border Protection checked all the trucks. Since 
that time, however, DOT has executed agreements with Customs and Border 
Protection so every truck, every time is checked. That is departmental 
policy, rather than a statutory requirement, but that is what is being 
done.
  The third item: It was alleged that DOT does not have independent 
access to accident, driver's license, and other data if it is not 
voluntarily provided by

[[Page S11363]]

the motor carrier. DOT tells us that is not true. Motor carriers who 
want to participate in the program willingly and promptly turn over all 
records pertaining to their proposed operation. If the Federal Motor 
Carriers Agency feels there is a need for more indepth data, the 
Mexican Government will provide it. That is exactly the same process 
that is in place for Canadian carriers, Canadian drivers who come from 
north of the border.
  There was a question about State enforcement and DOT has addressed 
that. The Federal Motor Carriers Agency has developed a significant 
program to train State officials on the enforcement where FMCSA 
officials are not available, and it would include testing English 
language proficiency.
  Having covered that, I think it might be useful for our colleagues to 
know there is some strong support for allowing these trucks to run in 
the United States. I had a letter that was e-mailed to me, and I assume 
to others, today. It is actually dated June 6; I think it is one they 
had previously issued. But it says:

       The undersigned U.S. food and agriculture groups are deeply 
     disturbed by congressional efforts to block the 14-year-old 
     commitment of the North American Free Trade Agreement to 
     allow Mexican and U.S. trucks to deliver international 
     cargoes . . .

  And they state:

       These efforts imperil U.S. food and agriculture exports, 
     which have grown dramatically under the NAFTA, and could 
     inflict serious harm on U.S. farmers, ranchers, and 
     agribusinesses.
  They go on to say:

       The NAFTA is a huge success story for U.S. farmers and 
     ranchers. U.S. exports of food and agricultural products to 
     Mexico have tripled under the NAFTA, climbing from $3.6 
     billion in 1993 to $10.9 billion in 2006. Mexico is now the 
     top-value export market for U.S. beef, dairy, rice, corn 
     sweeteners, soybean meal, soybean oil, apples and dry edible 
     beans and the second largest for U.S. pork, corn, poultry, 
     soybeans and a stable and reliable market for U.S. cotton.

  They go on to talk about how this action is unwarranted. It would 
signal to the world that the United States is willing unilaterally to 
renegotiate terms of existing trade agreements. Secondly, they say it 
enhances the likelihood that Mexico will likewise disregard commitments 
that it made in the NAFTA, such as terminating the remaining tariffs on 
American agricultural exports, and it notes that Mexico could legally 
retaliate against the United States and retaliate against U.S. exports 
to Mexico. That is why Mexico's U.S. Ambassador correctly calls this a 
powerful symbol of the state of our bilateral relations.
  I think that if you will humor me for just a minute, I want to tell 
you who is behind this letter. For anybody who has agricultural 
interests in your State, the people supporting it are the American 
Bakers Association; the Cotton Shippers; Farm Bureau Federation; Frozen 
Food Institute; Meat Institute; Soybean Association; Corn Refiners 
Association; International Dairy Foods; National Barley Growers; 
Cattlemen's Beef Association; Chicken Council; Corn Growers; Milk 
Producers; Oilseed Processors; Pork Producers Council; Potato Council; 
Sorghum Producers; Turkey Federation; North American Equipment Dealers; 
North American Export Grain Association; American Millers' Association; 
Produce Marketers; Sweetener Users; Fertilizer Institute; U.S. Apple 
Association; Dairy Export Council; Wheat Associates; Dry Bean Council; 
Hide, Skin and Leather Association; Dry Pea and Lentil Council; and the 
Rice Federation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 6, 2007.
       Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned U.S. food and 
     agriculture groups are deeply disturbed by congressional 
     efforts to block the 14-year-old commitment in the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to allow Mexican and 
     U.S. trucks to deliver international cargoes throughout each 
     other's territories. These efforts imperil U.S. food and 
     agriculture exports, which have grown dramatically under the 
     NAFTA, and could inflict serious financial harm on U.S. 
     farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses.
       The NAFTA is a huge success story for U.S. farmers and 
     ranchers. U.S. exports of food and agricultural products to 
     Mexico have tripled under the NAFTA, climbing from $3.6 
     billion in 1993 to $10.9 billion in 2006. Mexico is now the 
     top-value export market for U.S. beef, dairy, rice, corn 
     sweeteners, soybean meal, soybean oil, apples and dry edible 
     beans and the second largest for U.S. pork, corn, poultry, 
     soybeans and a stable reliable market for U.S. cotton.
       We are concerned that Congress has delayed implementation 
     of a modest demonstration program for cross-border trucking 
     with a provision recently attached to the Iraq supplemental 
     spending bill. Of paramount concern, however, are H.R. 1773, 
     which was passed by the House and referred to the Senate 
     Commerce Committee, and rumored plans to attach a similar 
     measure to appropriations bills in both chambers. H.R. 1773 
     effectively rewrites the NAFTA by stripping the 
     Administration of authority to operate anything but a limited 
     test program for three years.
       Supporters of this proposed legislation contend that they 
     are concerned about highway safety. But Mexico has always 
     agreed that its trucks and drivers will have to comply with 
     all U.S. safety standards. Indeed, the demonstration program 
     requires that U.S. inspectors examine and clear all Mexican 
     trucks on-site in Mexico before any can participate--a step 
     we do not require for trucks driving through our nation from 
     Canada, our other NAFTA partner, or, for that matter, for 
     U.S. trucks.
       If implemented, the legislation would create a number of 
     serious problems:
       First, it would signal to the world that the United States 
     is willing to unilaterally renegotiate the terms of an 
     existing trade agreement.
       Second, it enhances the likelihood that Mexico will 
     likewise disregard commitments that it made in the NAFTA. 
     There is significant unrest in Mexico over the termination of 
     remaining Mexican tariffs which are scheduled under the NAFTA 
     to be removed on January 1, 2008. Although Mexico's 
     government has reaffirmed its commitment to implement these 
     NAFTA obligations, it is under immense political pressure to 
     disregard some NAFTA provisions--in particular, provisions 
     regarding food and agriculture. Such action by Mexico could 
     have devastating effects on U.S. farm exports to Mexico.
       Third, Mexico could legally retaliate against the United 
     States on the trucking issue. A NAFTA dispute-settlement 
     panel unanimously ruled in 2001 that the blanket exclusion of 
     Mexican trucking firms from the United States violated U.S. 
     obligations under the NAFTA.
       Mexico was authorized to retaliate against about $2 billion 
     in U.S. imports. Fortunately, to date, Mexico has refrained 
     from retaliating against the United States. Unless Congress 
     stops preventing implementation of the cross-border trucking 
     program--which Mexico's U.S. ambassador correctly calls ``a 
     powerful symbol of the state of our bilateral relations''--we 
     fear that Mexico may retaliate and that U.S. food and 
     agriculture will be the hardest-hit sector. That would 
     seriously harm U.S. farmers, ranchers and food companies and 
     reverse the vital gains that U.S. agriculture has achieved 
     because of the NAFTA.
       The Mexican government is resisting broad domestic 
     pressures to keep its word on the NAFTA. We strongly urge you 
     to honor the cross-border trucking commitments the United 
     States has made to Mexico.
       Sincerely,------.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read this because if 
they are concerned about what NAFTA has done for U.S. agriculture, I 
think this is a fairly impressive list of agricultural associations, 
touching almost every facet of American agriculture, that see the 
amendment pending on the floor as a great threat to the trade that 
keeps agriculture strong and provides revenue farm families in rural 
communities need throughout America.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on August 2, 2007, by a vote of 83 to 14, 
the Senate approved S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act 
of 2007, clearing that measure for the President. When that is signed 
by the President, this ethics reform legislation will significantly 
improve the transparency and accountability of the legislative process.
  While the President hasn't yet signed that legislation, I wish to 
assure Senators that we intend to abide by the requirements of that 
legislation during the consideration of this bill. The legislation 
requires that the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction certify 
that certain information related to congressionally directed spending 
be identified and that the required information be available on a 
publicly accessible congressional Web site in a searchable format at 
least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill. The information 
required includes identification of the congressionally directed 
spending and the name of the Senator who requested such spending. This 
information is contained in the committee report numbered 110-131, 
dated

[[Page S11364]]

July 16, 2007, and has been available on the Internet now for 8 weeks.
  In addition, pursuant to standards established by Chairman Byrd and 
Senator Cochran for consideration of the fiscal year 2008 bills, 
letters from each Member with the congressionally directed spending 
item in this bill or accompanying report are available on the Internet 
certifying that neither the Senator nor his or her spouse has a 
pecuniary interest in such spending item.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a certification by the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows: 

       Senator Byrd: I certify that the information that will be 
     required by S. 1, when it becomes law, related to 
     congressionally directed spending, has been identified in the 
     Committee report numbered 110-131, filed on July 16, 2007, 
     and that the required information has been available on a 
     publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable 
     format at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their hard work 
on this bill. As the tragedy in Minnesota showed, priorities are 
important.
  I notice Senator Bond referred earlier to the IG's report I had 
requested on the Department of Transportation.
  I must thank both the inspector general and Secretary Peters for 
their forthrightness and plain-spokenness in this report. The report is 
pretty significant. I wish to spend a few minutes talking about it.
  First, I want to show the American people the significance of where 
we stand on the National Highway System. This doesn't have anything to 
do with States; this is national highways--designated national highways 
or interstate highways--in terms of the structurally deficient bridges 
in this country. This is from the U.S. Department of Transportation. 
These are not my numbers. As you can see on this chart, throughout the 
country--and it is emphasized in the most populous States, with the 
exception of Florida--we have significant problems when it comes to 
bridges. I contend that it is not necessarily too low of a gas tax that 
has created this; it has been a lack of priority.
  I have several amendments I plan to offer to this bill. However, I 
will probably limit those if my overall first amendment passes.
  There were several key points that the IG made and the Secretary of 
Commerce commented on when it comes to earmarks. Probably the most 
important of those is that earmarks, when they are made, don't fully 
account for the cost of those earmarks. As a matter of fact, the IG 
found substantial reduction in all of the other programs throughout the 
Department of Transportation because of the underallocation of the 
moneys necessary to complete an earmark.
  What does that mean? It means that when we put an earmark in--
authorized or unauthorized--and we say it costs $100, what the 
Department of Transportation is finding is that often it doesn't cost 
$100; because it is mandated by law, we spend $150. That $50 goes out 
of the rest of the programs at the Department of Transportation; 
therefore, it cuts. They talked about this as overearmarking, not in 
terms of the numbers but earmarking a result without putting in the 
dollars to do it. I think there is a comment on one of these charts out 
of the IG's report which states just that.
  Here is another chart. It says:

       99 percent of the earmarks reviewed by the inspector 
     general bypassed merit review.

  What does that mean? That means had they not been earmarked, they 
would not have been a priority in a State transportation project and 
would not have met a priority of the standards the DOT has on highways 
and bridges--there are five. Only 1 percent of the earmarks placed in 
the appropriations bill actually pass or meet merit review. The very 
thing our States do is sit up and say: This is how we want to 
prioritize spending in our States for safety and infrastructure in 
terms of transportation. These are not my words; these are the IG's 
words from the Department of transportation:

       7,724 out of 7,760 transportation earmarks in 2006 were not 
     subject to the agency's priority ranking, review, or 
     selection process, or bypassed the States' normal planning 
     and program processes.

  So it comes back to the point, why don't we have all these bridges 
inspected, and why did we see a tragedy in Minnesota? It is because we 
failed; the bridge didn't fail. We failed to put in the proper amount 
of money, and we failed to put priorities on what is most important for 
our transportation sector.
  Here is the next chart. Here is another point the IG made:

       Recent Department of Transportation reauthorizations have 
     included a significant number of specific projects with 
     associated funding directed to specific State and local 
     agencies or locations. For example, the current Department of 
     Transportation authorization for surface transportation 
     accounted for 6,474 of the Department of Transportation's 
     8,056 earmarked projects for FY2006.

  We are taking money away from the priorities the States and 
Department of Transportation have that are out there and are 
transparent, and we are moving them away. That means there is less 
money for the tremendous number of bridges that are structurally 
deficient right now in our highway system.
  How do we solve that? How do we meet the needs? The State of North 
Carolina has somebody up here full time to make sure that when an 
earmark is requested, it meets the State's guidelines. The State 
Department of Transportation of North Carolina has to lobby its own 
members to make sure the requests are within the guidelines of the 
priorities of the State of North Carolina.
  How did we get to the point that we disconnect priorities to the fact 
that we want to help a certain group that is outside the priorities of 
our State but inside the priorities of our political purposes? I think 
we need to reexamine what we are doing. I think we need to 
reprioritize.
  The fact is that a lot has been said about the tragedy that happened 
in Minnesota. I honestly believe President Reagan was right in 1982 
when he vetoed a Transportation bill that had 11 earmarks. His point 
was that these take away from the priorities. Those 11 earmarks have 
grown to over 8,000 now. So each year, we have lessened the priorities 
of safety and efficient transportation to help us politically.
  Better planning and prioritization of existing transportation funds 
could improve road safety and bridge safety. Realize that 13,000 people 
a year in this country die because of inadequate or poor-quality 
roads--Federal roads, not State roads. What are some of the things we 
do with transportation dollars? We build transportation museums, we 
build bike paths, we build parking garages. We have multitudes of 
earmarks that are anything except a priority for safety for 
transportation in this country.


                           Amendment No. 2810

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2810.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to setting aside 
the pending amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2810.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, what is amendment No. 2810?
  Mr. COBURN. This amendment is an earmark moratorium until all bridges 
are repaired.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2810.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funds appropriated under title I from being used 
for earmarks until all structurally deficient and functionally obsolete 
          bridges have been repaired, with limited exceptions)

       On page 70, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 194. (a) Except as provided under subsection (b), none 
     of the funds appropriated or

[[Page S11365]]

     otherwise made available under this title may be used for any 
     earmark until all bridges in the United States that are 
     classified under the Federal Highway Administration's bridge 
     inspection program, as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, as ``structurally deficient'' or ``functionally 
     obsolete'' have been sufficiently repaired to no longer meet 
     the criteria for such classifications.
       (b) Funds appropriated under this title may be used for an 
     earmark that is designated to repair--
       (1) a bridge that is classified as ``structurally 
     deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete''; or
       (2) a road with ride quality that is not classified as 
     ``good'' or ``acceptable''.
       (c) In this section, the term ``earmark'' means a provision 
     or report language providing, authorizing, or recommending a 
     specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit 
     authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, 
     loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure 
     with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, 
     locality or Congressional district, other than through a 
     statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive 
     award process.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what does this amendment do? This 
amendment does not get rid of earmarks. What this amendment does is it 
delays earmarks. What it says is that for all the earmarks we have had, 
both authorized and through the appropriations process, unless they are 
going to build and fix structurally deficient bridges in this country, 
or they are going to improve a highway that brings it up to standards, 
that makes it safe, we ought to delay the implementation of those 
earmarks until we have solved this problem.
  How many more bridges have to collapse until we get the message? How 
many more people have to die until we get the message? The Minnesota 
bridge that collapsed was noticed in 1990 as being structurally 
deficient. In 1999, the State department of transportation in Minnesota 
said there needs to be a priority on this bridge, and yet we did not 
respond.
  The earmark that should have been made was for the repairs for that 
bridge, and yet they were not made.
  This amendment is very simple. I know it goes against the grain of a 
lot of the processes we use, but it makes common sense that if we are 
going to forego another Minnesota tragedy, we have to change our 
priorities.
  All this amendment says is the priorities ought to be the safety of 
the American people and quality so that 13,000 people do not die this 
next year on roads that are not within the quality classified as 
``good'' or ``acceptable.'' All we do is say let's put our priority 
where it needs to be right now. Let's set the priority for making sure 
there is not another Minnesota.
  My State leads the Nation in the percentage of bridges that are 
classified as deficient. Oklahoma, as a State, has never received back 
what it has paid in to the transportation fund. As a matter of fact, 
there is over $1.8 million that we have paid in that we never received 
back. But we have disproportionately shared that in other areas. My 
State does not begrudge this point. The fact is, our State is small 
compared to the Northeast and the west coast in terms of structurally 
deficient bridges.
  The point ought to be: How do we change the priority, how do we 
respond to the concerns of the American people over what, in fact, has 
to be the right priorities for transportation?
  A couple of actions can be taken on this amendment. We can vote it 
down, and we can say safety and bridges and safe roads are not a 
priority, but museums and bike trails and theaters and parking garages 
are because they help us politically. Or we can adopt this amendment 
and send a message to the American people that: We hear you, we 
understand what you are saying, and we agree that your safety ought to 
outperform and be above our political necessities and our directed 
spending.
  This does not limit any directed spending for any of these bridges or 
any of the Federal highways that will move them to good or acceptable. 
So in terms of transportation, it will not eliminate anything that is 
important to our safety, important to repairing the infrastructure in 
this country.
  The third action that can be taken on this amendment is that we can 
pass this amendment, and because it is not liked, it will get trashed 
in conference. So we can all look good by voting for this amendment, 
but if we do not insist on this amendment when we get to conference, we 
will have winked and nodded to the American people again. We would have 
brought our numbers down by not paying attention to what their concerns 
are. And, most importantly, we will keep American drivers and 
pedestrians and passengers at risk.
  I hope the chair and ranking member will agree to this amendment, 
will accept it, and fight for it in conference. I believe we should 
vote on this amendment. This is an amendment we ought to have a vote on 
in the Senate. I believe it is about time we start getting our 
priorities right.
  I yield the floor for the present time and wish to speak on this 
amendment later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I always enjoy a discussion with our 
colleague and neighbor from the State of Oklahoma. His comments that 
earmarks have caused bridge deficiencies and tragedies is a bridge too 
far. I believe as well-intentioned as this amendment is, it fails to 
understand how the States go about rehabilitating their bridges and 
maintaining the bridges in their States.
  There are many points I can make about this amendment, but I think it 
is important to note that according to the conditions and needs report 
of the Department of Transportation in 2006, we need to invest 
approximately $12.4 billion annually to eliminate the existing backlog 
and correct other deficiencies, and we are currently spending over $10 
billion a year.
  As Secretary Mary Peters said in testimony on September 5 before the 
House Transportation Committee, the number of structurally deficient 
bridges has been declining significantly from 18.7 percent in 1994 to 
12.0 percent now. Obviously, that is still too much, but it is not just 
deficient bridges.
  As I pointed out yesterday, we have tremendous highway safety needs. 
The Chair and I and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
Committee, the THUD Committee, held a hearing on highway fatalities. We 
kill about 43,000 people a year on our highways. We went back and asked 
the Department of Transportation how many people were actually killed 
on bridges, either bridges that collapsed or bridges that were too 
narrow. Over a 5-year period, it came out to about 400. We kill 400 
people a year on bridges, and roughly 43,000 on highways.

  Why is this important? As the occupant of the chair, my colleague 
from Missouri, knows, we have done a study of what causes highway 
fatalities. Our Missouri Department of Transportation has estimated 
that approximately one-third of the deaths on our highways are caused 
by inadequate highways, outmoded, old-fashioned highways. We have two-
lane highways that are carrying traffic that should be on four lanes. 
Those two-lane traffic jams get people to take unnecessary chances.
  When we are talking about the problems of safety, we cannot forget 
the fact that the biggest safety dangers are the inadequate highways 
and not just the bridges. In our State, the department of 
transportation has embarked on an ambitious program to bring 800 
bridges up to standards, and every department of transportation in this 
Nation realizes they have bridge problems, that they need to inspect 
them, and, as I said yesterday, it is important that we find out what 
caused this particular collapse. Were the inspections adequate? Was the 
design adequate? Were there unusual loads that were put on the bridge? 
These are the kinds of issues we need to deal with immediately. But we 
also have money going, under the bridge program, to States to deal with 
these deficient bridges.
  Earmarks are not taking away money from bridges. I can tell my 
colleagues about earmarks in the State of Missouri. Every single 
earmark in our State, everything that has been earmarked is on the 
State implementation plan. It is a priority, and most of them are 
highly significant priorities for safety, whether it is bridges or 
highways.
  I am not surprised that an executive branch agency doesn't like 
earmarks. Way, way a long time ago in the dim past, I was an executive, 
and I did not like the legislative body exercising its power of the 
purse. As a matter of fact, I had all kinds of problems when the 
General Assembly would pass something, and I vetoed a couple of them.

[[Page S11366]]

So legislative earmarks are efforts to exercise the legitimate control 
over the purse and are always resisted by the executive.
  Let's take a look at what happened in last year's Transportation 
appropriations bill. There was about $853 million worth of high-
priority projects that Members had asked for in their States and the 
bill contained. That bill never got to final passage. So the Department 
of Transportation took that money. They took the money from high-
priority projects all across the Nation and put it into something 
called Urban Partners. They are going to reduce congestion. In one city 
they are going to use the money to start having rush-hour traffic drive 
in breakdown lanes. What happens when somebody breaks down in the 
breakdown lane? They have a tremendous jam. There are many things going 
on.
  Oh, and by the way, under Urban Partners, $853 million went to Miami, 
New York, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle. As far as Oklahoma, 
Missouri, and other States, we were left out. Frankly, I think I can do 
a better job of working with my colleagues to determine where some of 
that money should go rather than what I think is a not very well 
thought out Urban Partners program to just five cities.
  My colleague from Oklahoma says he really likes authorized projects. 
I have been an authorizer, too, but the bridge to nowhere, which gained 
such infamy, was an authorized project. It was put in by the chairman 
of the conference committee on SAFETEA. Three months later, the 
Transportation appropriations bill that year unearmarked that earmark, 
and we are pleased to say that it is no longer federally earmarked.

  I know our colleague from Oklahoma doesn't like putting in money for 
bike paths. It may surprise him to know I am not a fan of that either. 
I voted against it. But it was in the authorized bill. Yes, that is 
what the authorizers put in, $100 million to go to bike paths. I think 
bike paths have their place, but given the state of congestion on 
highways, I think with the danger on highways and bridges, we probably 
should not be putting $25 million there. But since the money was in 
there, I did, in the authorization project, get $25 million for bike 
paths, and that has been spent. If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to 
change that, I think we need to change the underlying authorization, 
and I would certainly vote for that.
  I think trying to blame earmarks on deficient bridges is a bridge too 
far, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I appreciate the words of Senator Bond, 
although I was misquoted. I don't like any earmark.
  I accept that authorized earmarks have, in fact, been reviewed by an 
authorizing committee, but I would make a couple of points. This year, 
the appropriators will spend $188 billion appropriating money for 
something that has not been authorized. So you can use that as a debate 
tool, but the fact is, the authorizers have limited influence over the 
Appropriations Committee because they will spend 20 percent of our 
discretionary budget on items that are not authorized by the 
authorizing committees.
  The other point I would make is that the Senator will get a chance to 
vote against bike paths because I have another amendment that 
eliminates funding for bike paths until we have restored the bridges. 
This amendment cares for the roads that Senator Bond just made a point 
of. The fact is, this amendment allows the money to bring roads up to 
quality and safety standards. So it would not eliminate where the 
13,000 people die in this country from unsafe and poor quality national 
highways; it will, in fact, allow those to happen.
  What it would not allow is $600,000 to be spent on horse-riding 
facilities in Virginia; a snow mobile trail in Vermont of $5.9 million; 
parking for New York's Harlem Hospital of $8 million; $532,000 for a 
bicycle and pedestrian trail in Tennessee; a daycare center and park 
and ride facility in Illinois; dust control mitigation for rural 
Arkansas of $3 million; the National Packard Museum in Ohio, $2.75 
million; a historical pilot project in Washington for $200,000. I think 
we are going to have trouble convincing the American people those 
things are a higher priority than bridge safety in this country. And 
that is just a small example of the congressionally directed spending 
in this bill.
  So I don't deny that those may be priorities, but what I would state 
is they are lower priorities than safety on our roads and rebuilding 
our bridges and making sure our highways are safe. And I would wager 
that the vast proportion of Americans, by far, would agree with that 
statement. We have lost our way if, in fact, we are going to fund these 
things at the expense of not funding bridge repair in this country.
  I think the projects that are funded, many of them, a great many of 
them, fit into the priorities of restoring bridges and highways, but 
many don't. And the question around this amendment is, Will we do that 
which is the highest priority for us?
  It is kind of like the war. We are spending about $8.5 billion a 
month. But whose money are we spending on the war? We are spending our 
children and grandchildren's money because every bit of it has been 
outside the budget guidelines, so it goes straight to debt. The point 
is, we don't have the money right now to do some of the things we would 
like to do because we should be doing the things that we need to do. 
And the things we need to do should be the highest priority for the 
American people. That certainly isn't horse-riding facilities in 
Virginia or a snow mobile trail in Vermont.
  Madam President, I yield back and hope to speak again on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I have listened to the Senator from 
Oklahoma on the amendment he has offered, and I want to make a few 
comments.
  I remind all of our colleagues that at noon we are going to go to a 
moment of silence. Today is the 9/11 anniversary, and it is a time we 
all want to pause for a minute to reflect on what has happened over the 
last 6 years. Hopefully, I will be able to make a few remarks, and we 
will see if the Senator from Oklahoma has any remaining time, and then 
I can talk to my colleague and we can set a time for this vote and then 
get to many of the other issues that are pending now on this bill.
  I want to remind all my colleagues that we are trying to work to 
finish this bill. Hopefully, we will get a path cleared for late 
tonight or to finish tomorrow morning. I remind everyone that we are 
going to be finishing this bill because of the Jewish holidays this 
weekend. We are trying to work through this in a very tight timeframe. 
We have a number of pending amendments we want to work through.
  But let me respond to the Senator from Oklahoma. He brings before the 
Senate today his argument on funding bridges within our Transportation 
bill, and yesterday the Senate spoke out very strongly and acted very 
strongly to address the needs of our deficient bridges across the 
Nation. I spoke out on the floor yesterday about the number of bridges 
that were deficient across our country, the imperative that we have in 
moving forward to make sure that they are taken care of, and on a very 
strong bipartisan vote we approved yesterday a $1 billion increase in 
Federal funding for bridges. That was, I remind everyone, a historic 
25-percent increase in Federal bridge funding.

  That amendment won't allow us, obviously, to fix every deficient 
bridge, but it is a historic increase, and it does set the priority of 
this bill in moving forward to address this very critical need that I 
share the concern of the Senator from Oklahoma about. We cannot, 
however, let all our other transportation and all of our other housing 
priorities be ignored to address the bridge problem.
  Yes, we are all very focused on what happened because of Minnesota. 
But having worked on this bill for a number of years, and worked with 
my colleague from Missouri, we have had hearings on safety and 
infrastructure in this country that need to be addressed. The FAA needs 
to be addressed, we need to deal with our Nation's highways, and there 
are a number of critical housing projects. We

[[Page S11367]]

have to balance all of those priorities, and I think we have done a 
very good job in this bill of doing that, and then adding $1 billion 
yesterday to address the bridge problem.
  The long-term solution to our need to address our underinvestment in 
infrastructure is going to have to come about within the Transportation 
authorization bill that will be debated sometime in the future. My 
colleague, Senator Bond, has been a leader on that committee, and we 
need to do a thorough look at the revenues available in the trust 
funds. We have talked about that on this floor through our bill. We 
know that needs to be addressed. We have talked to the Finance 
Committee. It does need to be addressed and will be addressed with this 
Congress, and in the coming years.
  But I want to remind my colleagues that the vast majority of our 
transportation earmarks that are in this bill require a match, and not 
just a small match but an overmatch by local communities that have set 
the priorities for these projects and brought them to the attention of 
Members who have then brought them to us and to our committee.
  As we move to a vote on the amendment that has been offered by the 
Senator from Oklahoma, I remind everyone that if it passes, it would 
have the impact of bringing many of our multibillion-dollar projects to 
a complete halt. His amendment would not just terminate highway 
projects, it would also stop major transit projects that many Senators 
have come to our committee and talked about. They are currently under 
construction, and we are funding them in the Federal Transit 
Administration. These are projects that are working their way through 
the pipeline. If we were to wipe them out with this amendment, 
construction contracts across the country for these transit projects 
would be halted and cause a tremendous amount of difficulties and 
probably challenges within those contracts as well.
  Those contracts include the Jacksonville Rapid Transit System in 
Florida, the Regional Rail Project in Pennsylvania, the South County 
Commuter Rail, Wickford Junction Station in Rhode Island, transit 
projects in Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, 
Virginia, another one in Virginia, Washington, Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Illinois.
  Madam President, I refer all of my colleagues to the Transportation 
bill, all of these projects that are now under construction that have 
full funding grant agreements would be brought to a halt if this 
amendment were to pass.
  So besides all the other arguments, I encourage Members to understand 
what the impacts of this amendment are should it pass on the Senate 
floor today.
  Now, let me, before we go to a moment of silence in just a minute, 
Madam President, remind my colleagues that the IG report that the 
Senator from Oklahoma referred to today does refer to past practices of 
this Congress. We came into session in January of this year 
understanding the need to take a look at our processes within the 
appropriations. We understood the impact from past practices that were 
under scrutiny, and we addressed them very clearly.
  This Congress has now sent a very comprehensive ethics reform law to 
the President, and we are awaiting his signature. That law includes 
some new procedures that require a great deal of clarity and 
transparency that have not been required ever before in Congress. But 
even before we sent that law to the White House, the Appropriations 
Committee, under the direction of our chairman, Senator Byrd, and 
Ranking Member Cochran, said we are not going to wait for a law to be 
enacted. We imposed new rules that require new procedures under the 
ethics reform bill. And this bill, this Transportation bill, in working 
through our process, has directly followed those new rules and the new 
rules of the ethics bill that have been sent to the President.
  Every Senator who asked for an earmark was required to certify that 
there was no pecuniary interest in their earmark request, and each and 
every one of those certifications is now available for any Senator to 
look at on the Web for review. Every earmark is identified with the 
Senator who requested it in the Congressional Record. You can look on 
the Web site to see who is there. So we are complying with what this 
Senate has said we need to do.
  I would also remind all of us that in addition to those reforms, 
Senator Bond and I worked to develop a new procedure within the 
Transportation Housing Subcommittee, and under the procedures we have 
established, each and every earmark has to be fully consistent with the 
mission of the Department of Transportation or the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. So we recognized that past practices 
have brought us to a point today where we have to fully look at each 
and every one of these earmarks. We make sure they are consistent with 
the funding requirements of that bill, and they are seeing the light of 
day, as we will see today as we face a number of amendments about them.
  I want to make one final point before we move to this important 
moment of silence that is going to occur, and that is, the Senator from 
Oklahoma is essentially arguing that bureaucrats in Washington, DC, 
make every decision about funding across the Nation.
  Madam President, I know I go home every weekend and I talk to 
community leaders, I talk to mayors, I talk to members of numerous 
community projects, and I listen to what their needs are. There is no 
bureaucrat in any department of this United States Government in 
Washington, DC, who takes the time that most of us do to go home and 
really understand what the needs of our communities are and to come 
back here and fight for them. That is what we do. That is our job, and 
we are responsible for that. I take a back seat to no one in working 
hard to represent the interests of my State.
  Finally, Madam President, one other point. The Senator from Oklahoma 
said he only wants to see authorized funding being done. I would remind 
all my colleagues, if we move to that, the State Department hasn't been 
authorized for years, the FAA authorization will run out this year, the 
Older Americans Act, the No Child Left Behind Act--all extremely 
important business we need to accomplish. But if we move to a point 
that says no money except authorized, a number of critical programs in 
this country will be subject to cutback. I don't think that is what any 
of us intend to do.
  Madam President, we are moving rapidly to a very important moment in 
the Senate, and I notice many of my colleagues are coming to the floor 
right now. I ask that all of us listen to our majority leader at this 
point, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, in 10 seconds, I will ask that the Chair 
announce the Senate will stand for a moment of silence.

                          ____________________