[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 60 (Wednesday, April 16, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3046-S3067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               HIGHWAY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1195, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1195) to amend the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users, to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 4146

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4146.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of March 7, 2008, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know my colleague Senator DeMint is here 
to offer what will be the first amendment to this bill. I thank him, 
because I know he initially had several amendments. It looks as though 
he has boiled it down to one amendment. I know Senator Inhofe and I are 
glad about that. I thanked him previously for calling me and saying 
that he was pleased with the way we treated the transparency of this 
bill.
  I have been given a copy of the amendment by the Senator from South 
Carolina. I will listen carefully to his presentation, and I will have 
remarks afterward. Senator Inhofe may also have some remarks prior to 
Senator DeMint being recognized.
  Senator Inhofe and I are hopeful we can get this completed. This is a 
bill that overall creates not one more penny of new spending. It will 
unleash into our economy, however, a billion dollars already budgeted 
for. That is why so many people are supporting this in real life: 
Construction companies, workers, transit operators. All of them have 
written to us. I will put those names in the Record. We are hopeful, if 
everybody cooperates today, we can get this finished. This bill isn't 
rocket science. It is very simply making technical corrections to 
SAFETEA-LU and in places where some projects simply couldn't go 
forward, replacing those projects without adding a penny of new 
spending. There is full transparency.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I agree with the comments made by the 
chairman. It is my understanding we are down to maybe three amendments. 
I have talked to Senator Coburn, who has an amendment, as well as 
Senator Bond. It is my hope that Senator DeMint will be able to present 
his amendment. Then it is my understanding we will hold votes until 
early this afternoon and maybe try to get some of the others out of the 
way. Being a conservative, I want to make sure everybody understands: A 
technical corrections bill is always necessary when we have a major 
reauthorization of transportation. There are some things in here that 
are borderline. One case, in my State of Oklahoma, in Durant, I 
mistakenly said 200 yesterday, but it is $300,000 on a road program 
that the Department of Transportation came back and said: We thought we 
were ready for this, but we

[[Page S3047]]

are not. But we are, on down the road in Idabel.
  It is common sense that that is where it should be done. It is the 
same amount of money. I agree with the principle behind the amendment 
of the Senator from South Carolina, but in this case we have to have 
the technical corrections bill in order to go forward with a lot of the 
projects that have been authorized since 2005. I am hopeful we will be 
able to proceed along those lines.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to recommit H.R. 1195 to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate with instructions 
     to report the bill back to the Senate with an amendment 
     striking all new earmarks and spending increases for existing 
     earmarks.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member 
for setting an example for this body in how a bill should be presented 
to the Senate--with full disclosure, all documentation. It allows us to 
have an open and honest debate about any differences. There is no 
question about what is contained therein and what is not. In this case, 
we disagree on parts of this, but I don't want to begin without first 
saying I believe the chairwoman and ranking member have set an example 
for the rest of the committees.
  My motion to recommit simply addresses what I believe are serious 
problems in developing a technical corrections bill that actually 
changes the legislation from one earmark to another or pluses up 
earmarks, takes money from an earmark that might be not needed anymore, 
the project is not wanted, that money is moved somewhere else. While it 
certainly is correct that the total cost of the bill is about the same, 
we do need to remember that by next year, we are projecting over a $3 
billion shortfall in the trust fund. So instead of adding to earmarks 
and creating new ones, it makes sense to try to save some of that money 
so we can fund important infrastructure projects around the country.
  The motion to recommit sends this bill back to committee with an 
amendment that says it should be presented back to the Senate where all 
of the new earmarks are excluded and any additions to funding for 
existing earmarks is returned to the current level. What that leaves us 
with is a technical corrections bill, which is what this bill should 
be.
  The administration has noted with strong concerns that the majority 
of the technical corrections bill is devoted to earmarks. It modifies 
hundreds of earmarks from the legislation that passed in 2005. It 
effectively creates new earmarks, including a stand-alone section that 
would provide mandatory funding for a magnetically levitating rail 
system. The presence of excessive earmarks in the 2005 bill created 
significant inefficiency in the allocation of resources to fund 
transportation infrastructure.
  I have heard regularly from the Department of Transportation of the 
difficulty in implementing a national transportation system with 
thousands and thousands of earmarks for special projects that don't 
necessarily match State priorities.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the motion to recommit. 
It does not kill the bill. It simply refocuses on a technical 
correction perspective rather than adding to earmarks or creating new 
ones.
  I thank the chairwoman for the opportunity to offer this and thank 
both her and the ranking member for setting an example of how a bill 
should be brought to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator for his kind 
comments about the way we have handled this legislation.
  This amendment is, first, wrong on its face and, second, it is going 
to kill the bill. Of all times to try and kill what I consider a mini-
economic stimulus plan, this is not one of them. We have a lot of 
people out of work. Many people have called Senator Inhofe and myself, 
and others, saying this is an important piece of legislation.
  I will read the names of those people, because I believe it is 
important that we show the breadth of support. It is a very simple 
piece of legislation, but it will correct some errors. It will say, as 
an example, in Oklahoma--and we have them in California--and for all 
these 500 projects, one leg of a project might not have been ready. 
Let's put the funds where they can be used now, where they are ready to 
go. Unleashing up to a billion dollars of funds right now means tens of 
thousands of jobs, and we have to rebuild our infrastructure. We are 
doing it within the confines of the moneys that were already 
authorized.
  Again I have said this so many times, I am sure it is boring people, 
but I think it is important to note who has written to Senator Inhofe 
and myself to move this bill: the American Association of State Highway 
and Transportation Officials, whose members include the Departments of 
Transportation for all 50 States; the American Highway Users Alliance, 
whose members represent millions of highway users; the American Public 
Transit Association; the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association; the Associated General Contractors; the Council of 
University Transportation Centers; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel 
Association; the National Asphalt and Pavement Association.
  This is not one of these bills that is a matter of some intellectual 
debate. This means real jobs for real people and real infrastructure 
improvements for all the people of this Nation who count on us to keep 
their highway and transit systems moving.
  What does Senator DeMint do? He would send this bill back to the 
committee, in essence killing the bill. We passed this bill out of 
committee on a bipartisan voice vote on June of 2007. Here we are, 
moving toward June of 2008. Why on Earth would we want to stop the 
forward progress of this legislation? We can't afford further delay.
  I am sorry my colleague has left the Chamber, but Senator DeMint had 
several projects that he asked for in SAFETEA-LU. I ask unanimous 
consent to print a list of those projects in the Record.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    DeMint SAFETEA Project Requests

       Senator DeMint requested 13 different earmarks in SAFETEA, 
     totaling $110 million dollars.
       1. 1-73, Construction of 1-73 from Myrtle Beach, SC to 1-
     95, ending at the North Carolina state line: $40,000,000.
       2. Construction of I-73 from Myrtle Beach, SC to I-95, 
     ending at the NC state line: $10,000,000.
       3. Widening of US 278 to six lanes in Beaufort County, SC 
     between Hilton Head Island and SC 170: $15,000,000.
       4. Engineering, design and construction of a Port Access 
     Road connecting to I-26 in North Charleston, SC: $10,000,000.
       5. Improvements to US 17 in Beaufort and Colleton Counties 
     to improve safety between US 21 and SC 64: $10,000,000.
       6. Widening of SC 9 in Spartanburg County from SC 292 to 
     Rainbow Lake Road: $5,000,000.
       7. Complete Construction of Palmetto Parkway Extension (I-
     520) Phase II to I-20: $3,000,000.
       8. Complete a multi-lane widening project on SC Hwy 5 
     Bypass in York County, SC between I-77 and I-85: $4,000,000.
       9. Re-construction of an existing interchange at I-385 and 
     SC 14, in Laurens County, SC: $2,000,000.
       10. Construction of the Lexington Connector in Lexington 
     County, SC to alleviate traffic congestion: $2,000,000.
       11. Widening of 4.4 miles of West Georgia Road in 
     Greenville County, SC: $2,000,000.
       12. Extension of Wells Highway in Oconee County, SC: 
     $2,000,000.
       13. Demolition of the old Cooper River Bridges in 
     Charleston, SC: $5,000,000.
       Total: $110,000,000.

  Mrs. BOXER. All of these will bring jobs and improve transportation 
in the State of South Carolina. That is why I supported it, as did 
Senator Inhofe. That is why we all supported it. There is a number of 
projects contained here, 13 projects, $110 million, Senator DeMint has 
in SAFETEA-LU. Fortunately for Senator DeMint, none of his projects 
required any technical corrections.
  Let's take one: Construction of I-73 from Myrtle Beach, SC to I-95, 
ending

[[Page S3048]]

at the North Carolina State line. Suppose something had turned up in 
the engineering and they had to stop it further toward Myrtle Beach, 
but they couldn't go ahead with the project until they made that 
technical change. Then Senator DeMint would find that the project was 
stymied. He is fortunate. He didn't have this problem. But a lot of us 
weren't so fortunate. We did have issues in our States where we had to 
make changes.
  This legislation fixes nearly 500 descriptions for highway and 
transit projects. Without the changes included in the legislation, many 
of these projects will continue to be stuck at red lights. This isn't 
the time to slow down job creation. This is the time to unleash job 
creation. This technical corrections bill provides a green light that 
could unleash up to $1 billion in transportation projects. The funding 
has been approved before, so we are not increasing spending. Given the 
current slowdown in our economy, we simply cannot afford to allow these 
funds to remain unused.
  At the appropriate time, I am going to move to table the DeMint 
motion. I think we are working on an agreement to have a vote on that 
motion at around 2 o'clock.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will just be a moment. I see the Senator 
from Florida wants the floor. But let me, first of all, say that this 
is right. In my State of Oklahoma, we had some things for which it took 
7 years for this bill to come into reality. The reauthorization is 
something we should do every other year, but we did not do it.
  When you pass a bill of this magnitude--and, look, I have to say 
there is no one person in this body of 100 Senators who is more 
conservative than I am. That is what all the ratings say. ACLU has me 
as No. 1. So it is not a matter of conservative versus liberal. This is 
a matter of doing what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to defend 
America. We are supposed to work on the infrastructure. We have been 
doing it since the National Highway System came into effect back in the 
Eisenhower administration.
  But I had two changes that were in my bill. I had a light 
signalization that was meant to take place in Tulsa, OK. This is a 
modernization, using new technology. However, in the original bill, it 
said ``Oklahoma.'' It did not say ``Tulsa, OK,'' when clearly that was 
our intent. So the Department of Transportation of Oklahoma said: Put 
in ``Tulsa'' so we know where that belongs.
  The other one, which I have already mentioned, was the $300,000 for a 
project. Actually, it was a feasibility study in Durant, OK, in 
southern Oklahoma. Then they found out later that you are better off 
doing it down the road from there in Idabel. Consequently, if we are 
forced not to be able to make that technical correction, we would be 
forced to spend $300,000 on something we are not ready to do.
  So the important thing to get across to people is that this technical 
corrections bill does not increase the total amount of authorizations 
that are taking place right now from the 2005 bill. It is the same 
amount. I do not want people to think it is not, because it is, and 
that is an irrefutable fact.
  I kind of agree with the chairman of the committee when she talks 
about that this will kill the bill. It would if it went back and they 
could not move it, the House would not accept this. This is one of the 
most difficult things to deal with when we are doing the authorization 
bill because every time we finally get an agreement here, we have to go 
over there and get the same thing--Democrats and Republicans here and 
Democrats and Republicans there. I just don't want to put ourselves in 
a position where we send anything over there that could kill this bill 
because this is necessary to finally finish the implementation of the 
2005 Transportation authorization bill.
  So with that, I will yield the floor, and I will have more to say 
later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
technical corrections bill. In large part, we have a technical 
correction in the bill affecting a major interstate project in Florida 
that needs to be passed.
  Now, the story I am about to tell you is going to amaze some people 
of what happened.
  A few years back, when we passed the highway bill, they passed the 
version in the House, and we passed the version in the Senate, and they 
got merged so they were identical. The bill was getting ready then--the 
same bill that had passed both Houses--to go to the President for 
signature. But a strange thing happened on the way to the White House 
because someone--identity yet unknown--went in and changed the 
language, which was, ``Widening and Improvements for I-75 in Collier 
and Lee County''--a matter of $10 million in the highway bill--and 
changed that to be, instead, $10 million for a study for an interchange 
on Interstate 75 at Coconut Road.
  Now, the long and short of it is, you simply cannot do that once it 
passes the House and passes the Senate in identical form and then goes 
to the President in that identical form for signature. Somewhere in the 
process of enrolling the bill to send it down to the White House, 
someone is not permitted to go in and change the meaning of the 
appropriation--in this case, $10 million for widening Interstate 75, 
which has become a parking lot at 7 o'clock in the morning and 5 
o'clock in the afternoon because of all the traffic. That is why we 
want to widen Interstate 75 in southwest Florida to six lanes instead 
of the existing four lanes.
  Someone went in and changed the intent and wording of the bill. So 
what we have in the technical corrections bill is a technical 
correction to have the law read, in fact, what it was intended to read, 
and what it, in fact, did read until somebody went in and tampered with 
it.
  Now, in the meantime, we have had correspondence from the chairman of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House of 
Representatives to the local metropolitan planning organization, which 
has, under State law, the authority for setting up the priorities for 
road projects, saying to them that you need to follow the law--the law 
as it went to the President for signature. We have correspondence back 
from the metropolitan planning organization--in this case, many 
letters, but in the one I have in my hand to me--stating there was an 
error in the enrollment of the bill and the metropolitan planning 
organization wants the original intent of the legislation to be what 
governs, which is the widening of Interstate 75, and the $10 million 
used for that.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record both of these pieces of correspondence.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 2006.
     Mr. John Albion,
     Chairman, Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization 
         (MPO), Fort Myers, FL.
       Dear Chairman Albion: Thank you for your letter of December 
     21, 2005 updating the Committee Transportation and 
     Infrastructure on the Lee County MPO's Long Range 
     Transportation Plan and their decision to exclude the Coconut 
     Road Interchange from its financially feasible plan. The 
     letter further requests a ``re-programming'' to occur for 
     these funds.
       Section 1701 of Subtitle G, Title I of SAFETEA-LU (Public 
     Law 109-59) contained amendments to the law located in 
     Section 117 U.S.C. Title 23, titled High Priority Projects. 
     The authority provided in Sec. 117 with regard to projects 
     authorized in Sec. 1702 on SAFETEA-LU is quite clear and 
     unambiguous. Projects for which funds are designated are 
     available only for that project. The state in which the 
     designated project resides is free under the terms of the law 
     to build, or not build the project. However, the law does not 
     provide authority for a state to use funds designated for an 
     authorized project on some other project.
       In this important sense then, the funds made available to 
     these authorized projects are not subject to the same legal 
     terns and conditions as formula funds.
       As the second session of the 109th Congress proceeds, the 
     Committee will, as the Committee has historically done on 
     previous reauthorizations, work to pass into law a bill to 
     amend SAFETEA-LU. This bill, which in previous Congresses has 
     been titled a corrections bill, will seek to make 
     improvements, rectify errors and modify aspects of SAFETEA-
     LU. With regard to Sec. 1702, my past experience on this 
     committee suggests that where a state elects to not utilize 
     funds designated for an authorized project, the committee 
     will incorporate the effect of that

[[Page S3049]]

     decision as appropriate when developing the bill. In an era 
     of funding shortfalls, it is an important responsibility of 
     the committee to see that all funds provided in SAFETEA-LU 
     are in fact used for their intended benefit on the 
     transportation system.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                           Lee County Metropolitan


                                        Planning Organization,

                                  Fort Myers, FL, August 20, 2007.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson, I write as Chair of the Lee County MPO 
     requesting that the language for the $10 million ``Coconut 
     Road Earmark'' be restored to the language that both the 
     House and Senate approved when they voted final passage of 
     SAFETEA-LU on 7/28/05--``Widening and improvements for I-
     75.''
       This correction to the legislation corrects an error in the 
     enrollment of the bill. The language in the Public Law is not 
     the same as that passed by the House and Senate. During the 
     enrollment process, managed by Congressman Don Young (AK), 
     someone tampered with the bill. Funds for I-75 improvement 
     were changed to funds for a totally new Coconut Rd. 
     interchange--a project not on the MPO priority list.
       The specific requested change is as follows: Technical 
     Amendment to SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1509) [PL. 109-59, Section 
     1934]: The table contained in Section 1934 of the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users (119 Stat. 1509) is amended in item number 
     462 by striking `Coconut Rd. interchange I-75/Lee County' and 
     inserting ``I-75 widening and improvements in Collier and Lee 
     County, FL.''
       The MPO has been discussing this topic for two years, 
     attempting to understand how we received money for a project 
     that was not anywhere on our priority list. We were told that 
     we had no choice other than to accept it or return it. Having 
     learned that our entire delegation and the full Congress 
     actually voted for an MPO priority project and that it is 
     possible to have an enrollment error corrected, on Friday 
     August 17, 2007, the MPO voted (10 in favor, 3 opposed, 2 
     absent) to request this technical amendment.
       On behalf of the MPO, I thank you for your assistance in 
     this matter. If you wish to contact me, please contact me 
     directly. I look forward to your reply to our request.
           Cordially,
                                            Carla Brooks Johnston,
                                                        MPO Chair.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. So we come to this point. It is absolutely 
critical that we pass a technical correction so that the law, as it was 
intended by the passage in the House and the Senate, be honored. The 
question is, What about the tampering? Well, we need to find out.
  Mr. Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma, has taken great umbrage at 
this tampering. I can tell you, as the senior Senator from Florida, I 
am very grateful to him for him being upset and wanting to do something 
about this. This Senator and my colleague from Florida have signed on 
to an amendment by Senator Coburn trying to get to the bottom of who 
did the tampering and how did it occur so this kind of stuff will never 
happen again.
  There is some question about the way Senator Coburn's amendment is 
drafted, that it would be a direction to the House of Representatives 
which might meet some constitutional problem, in which case what we are 
trying to work out is that there would be a future amendment where 
there would be an investigation by the General Accounting Office and 
maybe some resolution with regard to the Justice Department saying that 
this matter ought to be investigated as to a violation of the laws of 
this country in that you cannot tamper with legislation like this.
  Whatever we resolve, I hope we will get it in because we have that 
separate issue of the tampering that needs to be dealt with, and it 
needs to be exposed to the light of day so people will understand you 
just do not take a bill that is duly passed by the Congress of the 
United States and, while it is en route from Capitol Hill to 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, change the meaning of the bill.
  It is my hope that as we get into all these other issues that seem to 
have cropped up that have nothing to do with Interstate 75, we can get 
these other issues resolved so the technical correction can proceed and 
that we can get this particular technical correction adopted into law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. 
today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the DeMint motion to 
recommit the bill, and that no further amendments be in order to the 
motion prior to the vote; that following the conclusion of the debate 
this morning with respect to the motion, it be set aside to recur at 2 
p.m., with the time until 2:15 p.m. equally divided and controlled 
between Senators Boxer and DeMint or their designees; and that at 2:15, 
without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to 
vote in relation to the DeMint motion to recommit the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, since we have a lull in the conversation 
about the technical corrections bill--and the reason for that is, 
frankly, it is a very straightforward bill. We know of two other 
amendments. We are working with Senator Coburn on his amendment dealing 
with an investigation into what occurred in the Coconut Road project in 
Florida. We know Senator Bond has an amendment which is really not a 
technical correction. It goes to overturning a law that was passed 
which protects consumers when they are defrauded by furniture moving 
companies. That is his amendment. We hope he can come down here so we 
can get going; we can start to debate that.

  But in the meantime, I have asked Senator Inhofe if he had any 
objection if I rose to pay tribute to 19 young Americans who were 
killed in Iraq who were either from California or based in California, 
and he had no objection to that. I don't know if I need to ask to speak 
as in morning business. If that is the appropriate thing, I ask 
unanimous consent to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Boxer are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Halting the Growth of Greenhouse Gases

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, later today, President Bush will propose 
halting growth in U.S. greenhouse gases by the year 2025. In his speech 
at the White House, the President is expected to place significant 
emphasis on new technology.
  I recently introduced legislation to address the challenge of how to 
deal with greenhouse gases. The bill is called the Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions Atmospheric Removal Act, or the GEAR Act.
  Members of this body have discussed various proposals to regulate the 
output of greenhouse gases. Some advocate doing it through a cap-and-
trade approach. Others have advocated a carbon tax. Such proposals are 
aimed at limiting future carbon output into the atmosphere. Many 
proposals have been introduced and debated using this approach of 
dealing with carbon output.
  Overlooked in the debate are the greenhouse gases that are already in 
the atmosphere. The best science tells us that the greenhouse gases 
already in the atmosphere are the gases that are causing the warming of 
our planet. To what extent, we are not certain.
  So let's resolve to find a way to remove the excess greenhouse gases 
that are already in the atmosphere--remove them and then permanently 
sequester them.
  To accomplish this goal, we are, as a nation, going to need to make a 
significant investment to develop new technology.
  The approach my legislation takes to address this is through a series 
of financial prizes--prizes where we set the technological goals and 
also define the outcomes we demand.

[[Page S3050]]

  The first researchers who meet each criteria will receive not only a 
financial prize but also international acclaim.
  The prizes would be determined by a Federal commission under the 
Department of Energy. The commission would be composed of climate 
scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers, and 
economists.
  The commission would be appointed by the President with the advice 
and consent of the Senate. The awards would go to those, both public 
and private, who would achieve milestones in developing and applying 
technology--technology that could significantly help to slow and even 
reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
  The greenhouse gases would have to be permanently sequestered, and 
sequestered in a manner that would be without significant harmful 
effects.
  This is how it would work. There would be four different levels of 
prizes.
  The first level would go to either the private or public entity that 
could first demonstrate a design for successful technology that could 
remove and permanently sequester the greenhouse gases.
  Second, there would be a prize for a lab scale demonstration project 
of the technology that accomplishes the same thing.
  Third, there would be an award for demonstrating the technology to 
remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases that is operational 
at a larger working model scale.
  Finally, there would be an award for whoever can demonstrate the 
technology to remove and permanently sequester greenhouse gases on a 
commercially viable scale.
  There you have it--four different levels of development: First, to 
design the technology; second, a lab scale demonstration of the 
technology; then for a larger working model; and then, finally, the 
proven use of the technology on a commercially viable scale.
  Well, once the technology is developed, the United States would share 
intellectual property rights to that technology with whomever invented 
it.
  This bill, as drafted, does not include a specific dollar amount for 
each prize. Instead, it authorizes such sums as may be necessary.
  The commission will be directed to report to Congress 1 year after 
enactment into law. The commission will recommend the levels of funding 
that would be necessary to achieve the goals of this act.
  I believe prizes can be a unique tool in creating the technological 
development we need. It only seems natural that if we get all the best 
scientific minds thinking about the same problem, and working on it, we 
significantly enhance our chances of solving it.
  Historically, prizes have been used to spur all types of 
technological development to solve big problems.
  In 1714, the British Government offered the first prize of this type, 
and they did it for a device capable of accurately measuring longitude. 
John Harrison, a clock maker, was awarded 20,000 pounds for designing 
an accurate and durable chronometer 59 years later. This transformed 
our ability to sail the seas.
  In 1810, the first vacuum-sealed food was produced after 15 years of 
experimentation. It was driven, again, by a prize offered, this time, 
by Napoleon. Today, vacuum sealing is still used throughout the world.
  In 1909, the first flight across the English Channel was spurred by a 
prize offered by a newspaper.
  Charles Lindbergh was competing for a prize offered by a wealthy 
hotel owner when he flew the Spirit of St. Louis nonstop from New York 
to Paris in 1927. Well, that achievement spawned what is a $300 billion 
aviation industry today.
  It is my hope and my goal that this legislation will foster the kind 
of solutions that we need to address the concerns about climate change.
  What I am proposing is that we take a brand new look at climate 
change. With that new look, our solution will be based on removing 
excess greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. We must 
think anew and we must act anew.
  That line--``we must think anew and we must act anew''--is engraved 
on a scenic overlook along Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Laramie, 
WY. It is engraved on the pedestal that holds a large-size bust of 
Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was the one to have the vision for the 
Transcontinental Railroad.
  It is now time for us as Americans to think anew and act anew about 
the issue of climate change and controlling greenhouse gases. Americans 
have always looked within ourselves for solutions. We have always had 
confidence in American ingenuity and American creativity to deal with 
the challenges of the future.
  Yes, we want to protect our environment and, yes, we want a strong 
economy. The way to have both is by thinking anew and acting anew. It 
is time to use our untapped human potential and the American spirit to 
develop the technologies we need.
  It is now time for the Senate and for Congress to find a solution to 
global climate change, not through limits but through imagination, 
innovation, and invention. I look forward to working with each and 
every Member of the Senate in achieving this goal.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Iowa if he wants to 
speak in morning business.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, for 6 or 7 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, Senator Grassley be recognized for up to 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first of all, I make a plea to my friends 
on the other side of the aisle. There are a couple of amendments out 
there. Senator Inhofe and I are anxious to get done with the bill. The 
bill is a mini-economic stimulus. It would release a billion dollars 
worth of projects for important highway and transit programs. It is a 
technical corrections bill that stays within the limits we set in terms 
of spending. When Senator Inhofe and I agree on something, it usually 
covers the spectrum. So we hope we will have a good vote.
  I wanted to say something before Senator Barrasso leaves because he 
mentioned the President's goals. The President says we should halt the 
growth of greenhouse gases by 2025--``halt the growth,'' which means 18 
years of nothing. What a pathetic response to a crisis that has united 
evangelical groups, scientists, businesses, and much of the world.
  So I am just here to say--I am not going to have a debate with my 
good friend, whom I really enjoy as a member of our Committee, but I 
want to say this gives new meaning to doing nothing. When we have a 
crisis such as we have now and we have a small window to act and we 
wait 18 years, this is not talking about leaving the problems to the 
new President, like he is doing in Iraq. It means we are following a 
recipe for gloom and doom instead of looking at this problem and seeing 
it for what it is--an amazing opportunity.
  It is interesting that my friend, Senator Grassley, is here, who is 
so strong on ethanol. Well, this is the kind of thing we are going to 
do so we can get off of fossil fuel. We have other opportunities, such 
as cellulosic. We have new ways of making cars.
  I happen to drive a hybrid. It is amazing. I get over 50 miles per 
gallon. I sort of wave at the gas stations because I don't have to go 
there that often. These cars are getting better and better.
  We have so many ways, but it is not going to happen if we simply say, 
by 2025 we will halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. We have to 
halt the growth very soon. I view it as a great opportunity for an 
economic renaissance in this country. If you look at Great Britain, 
they have cut their carbon emissions by 15 percent over the last 10 
years or so. Their GDP has grown by 45 percent, and they have added 
500,000 new green jobs.
  I think rather than being so frightened and meek as the President is 
about this, we should be leading the world to this new great economic 
renaissance. America should be in the front, inventing these products. 
I know the President says he wants to invest in new technology. Unless 
you have a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, unless your proposal 
involves a cap so we get down to what is necessary to prevent 
catastrophe, then you are part of

[[Page S3051]]

the problem. You are not part of the solution. You are just making 
believe you are part of the solution.
  I don't want to do any more than is necessary. I want to do what is 
necessary to reverse a real, serious, horrific problem for the world. 
As our intelligence community tells us, as our Pentagon tells us, if we 
do nothing, the ravages of global warming will be the cause of wars, 
will be the cause of droughts, will be the cause of famine, will be the 
cause of unrest, and will be the cause of refugees wandering around 
starving to death.
  That is why so many churches have joined us, many of the great 
religions have joined us in this effort. We have a great group working 
here. I was a little bit surprised when the President sort of took on 
the Lieberman-Warner bill in his way. He didn't mention it by name, but 
he basically referred to efforts in the Senate and the dangers. Mr. 
President, I have been trying to get to see you on this issue. I have 
wanted to talk to you on this issue. I know the former Prime Minister 
of England, Tony Blair, spoke to you about this issue. He is coming to 
speak to me again. We need to work together. This should not be 
partisan.
  Unfortunately, it is. When I and my staff were in Great Britain, we 
were meeting to understand what steps they have taken and how about a 
cap-and-trade system and the rest. What we found out was most 
remarkable. Each party, Labor and Conservative, was staking claim to 
the issue of global warming and saying to the other party: You are not 
doing enough. I turned to my staff and said: Oh, if I have one prayer, 
it is that we have a situation where that happens at home instead of 
this horrible fight. And if I have another prayer, it is that the 
Presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic, will argue over who 
has the best plan. That may happen, and that would be exciting. But I 
do not want to wait until then. I do not want to do nothing. I do not 
want to be part of the problem. I do not want my grandkids to say: 
Where was my grandma? At the moment they had a window to do something, 
they slammed it shut.
  I am glad my friend came to speak about global warming. I hope we can 
continue to work together to get him on board in a more aggressive way 
to do more, to do our job, to fulfill our responsibility. We would 
never take our grandchild, put him or her in an infant seat in the car, 
go to a parking lot at the supermarket and leave him or her inside with 
the windows closed and the Sun beating down. We would not do that 
because we adore our children and our grandchildren, and we want the 
world to be better. At least we want it to be as good as it was for us.
  We are so lucky. We have lived through such golden years for 
ourselves and our families. We have the American dream. We saw Richard 
Nixon step to the plate and create the Environmental Protection Agency, 
and Presidents, Republican and Democratic, who have come after stand 
up--until now.
  I say to my colleagues, we are going to have a moment come June. It 
is going to be a little bit different than today. Today Senator Inhofe 
and I are joined at the hip on this technical corrections highway bill. 
We are not going to be that way on global warming, but I hope we can 
have some bipartisanship, and John Warner has been leading the way. We 
need to do more instead of wait until 2025 to halt the growth of 
greenhouse emissions. That is too late. That is dangerously late. That 
is the equivalent of doing nothing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                          Medicaid Moratoriums

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee is taking up--or maybe has already taken up--consideration of 
a bill, H.R. 5613. This bill seeks to place a moratorium on seven 
Medicaid regulations until the next administration.
  I know some people have concerns, because I have discussed those 
concerns, with these CMS Medicaid regulations. So let me be very clear 
that I am not unsympathetic with those concerns. I am not here to argue 
the regulations put forth by the administration are perfect. I have 
issues with some of them that I wish to see addressed.
  However, the regulations do address areas where there are real 
problems with Medicaid. CMS is taking care of those problems, and we 
ought to let them move forward instead of delaying all of these 
Medicaid regulations at once.
  As everyone knows, Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership that 
provides a crucial health care safety net for some very vulnerable 
populations, people whom we all agree we have a social responsibility 
to look out for--low-income seniors, the disabled, pregnant women, and 
children. These classes of people depend on Medicaid, and it does 
generally serve them well.
  Medicaid is also a program with a checkered history of financial 
challenges that we, as fiscal conservatives--and we all brag about 
fiscal conservatism--ought to be concerned about, these financial 
challenges coming from Medicaid, sometimes not being administered the 
way it should be.

  Quite frankly, using the term ``fiscal challenges'' is a gentle way 
of putting it sometimes. A more severe way of putting it would be that 
Medicaid has a history in our respective States--not every State but a 
lot of States--of abusively pushing the limits of what should be 
allowed to maximize Federal dollars that we send to them under various 
formulas.
  I am not going to devote time in my remarks today to issues of fraud 
and abuse in Medicaid, but that is legitimate to talk about. I will be 
back with that at another time. Instead, I want to focus on a very 
simple concept, and that simple concept is that Medicaid program 
integrity depends upon the setter for Medicaid services and the States 
and providers and ultimately beneficiaries having a clear understanding 
of the rules of the road. That is what we ought to expect out of any 
government program, that everybody knows how that program operates.
  In this instance, States have not had clear guidance. In that case, 
they could be inappropriately spending taxpayers' dollars. Improper 
payments, wasteful spending--what does it do? It only increases the 
financial pressure on a very worthwhile safety net.
  The Medicaid regulations that H.R. 5613 attempts to halt would halt 
all efforts by CMS to provide clear rules, rules of the road in very 
critical areas where there have been well-documented problems and most 
of those problems costing the taxpayers more money.
  During the recent debate on the budget resolution, I entered into the 
Record a Congressional Research Service memo that showed some of the 
issues that exist under current law. I am not going to go into all of 
those issues today in detail because they are in the Record, but when 
CMS does not know how a State is billing for a service and States do 
not have clear guidance for how they should bill, neither Medicaid 
beneficiaries nor the taxpayers at the Federal or State levels are well 
served.
  We should be, in fact, talking about fixing the regulations so that 
they better address real problems in Medicaid. But instead, the House 
of Representatives is trying to kick this can down the road to next 
year.
  What does that mean for the taxpayers? H.R. 5613 spends $1.7 billion 
to place a short moratorium on these regulations. This is only to delay 
the regulations until March of next year--$1.7 billion to delay the 
regulations for 1 year.
  I know supporters hope the next administration, whichever party that 
might be, whichever of the three candidates still in the race might be, 
will completely cancel the regulations. If these regulations were 
canceled, what would it cost if we tried to completely prevent these 
regulations from ever taking effect? It would not cost just this $1.7 
billion that is going to be spent between now and next March. It would 
actually cost the taxpayers almost $20 billion over the next 5 years 
and almost $50 billion over the next 10 years.
  It is absolutely a farce for anyone to argue that all of those 
dollars are being appropriately spent and that Congress ought to walk 
away from these issues. But that is what this bill, H.R. 5613, does; it 
walks away. Let's say it another way. It kicks the can down the road 
hoping the next President might walk away.
  I know supporters of that bill will say they need more time. They say

[[Page S3052]]

they have not had enough time to study the regulations and to respond. 
That argument is starting to strain credibility. The public provider 
rule was proposed well over a year ago to study and react. The 
rehabilitation services rule was proposed 9 months ago for people in 
the House of Representatives to respond to and react.
  Supporters of that bill have had plenty of time; that is, plenty of 
time if they wanted to make new policy. But it is obvious by these 
actions that their only real interest is in making these regulations go 
away.
  This is very unfortunate because finding solutions is what we should 
be doing instead of kicking the can down the road. When we start 
talking about the integrity of the Medicaid Program, it is clarity of 
the rules that is most needed between the Center for Medicaid Services 
and our 50 States. So if you do not like the rules, that is fine, but 
there are tens of billions of dollars involved in this delay.
  I say to my colleagues: Roll up your sleeves, or maybe I should say 
roll up our sleeves and let us all get to work to solve a problem that 
the regulations try to solve instead of kicking the can down the road. 
That is what we should be doing for the taxpayers. That is what we 
should be doing for the credibility of the Medicaid Program, a Medicaid 
Program that is needed, a Medicaid Program, for the most part, that 
serves people well. Contrariwise, putting moratoriums on all the 
Medicaid regulations issued by the Center for Medicaid Services is not 
the right answer.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion on the Boxer 
substitute amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Boxer 
     substitute amendment No. 4146 to H.R. 1195, an act to amend 
     the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to make technical 
     corrections, and for other purposes.
         Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Jon Tester, Mark L. Pryor, Bernard Sanders, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, John 
           D. Rockefeller IV, Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Dianne 
           Feinstein.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a second cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1195, an act 
     to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
     Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, to make 
     technical corrections, and for other purposes.
         Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Jon Tester, Mark L. Pryor, Bernard Sanders, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, John 
           D. Rockefeller IV, Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Dianne 
           Feinstein.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum call required by those motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I have indicated to the Chairman, and, of 
course, I have not had the opportunity to speak to the ranking member, 
but we have explained to the minority that I am filing these cloture 
motions--I have done so with the hope and anticipation that we need not 
have a cloture vote on this bill. We should finish this bill today. I 
hope we can do that. If not, of course, with these being filed, we will 
have the cloture vote Friday morning. But I hope that is not necessary. 
There is not a reason in the world we should not finish this bill today 
and go on to something else.


                      Welcoming Pope Benedict XVI

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this morning I was honored to help welcome 
Pope Benedict XVI to the United States for his first papal visit to 
America.
  In his brief remarks this morning on the south lawn of the White 
House, he spoke of his admiration and respect for America, our country.
  His lifetime of righteousness in faith and deeds is an inspiration, 
not just to the more than 1 billion Catholics worldwide but to those of 
every faith.
  As Pope Benedict XVI said shortly after his election 3 years ago:

       I place my ministry in the service of reconciliation and 
     harmony between peoples.

  During my entire life, I have known the Catholic Church to be a deep 
well of comfort and aid to those in need and a pillar of strength in 
times of uncertainty.
  I had a wonderful conversation this morning with Cardinal Mahony of 
Los Angeles. He indicated: Can we please do something on immigration? I 
said: We are trying. And he has been so helpful to us on this issue. I 
hope we can fulfill the wishes and prayers of Cardinal Mahony and do 
something about immigration. Certainly, it is something that needs to 
be done. Comprehensive immigration reform is what we need, which he 
supports.
  On behalf of the Senate, I certainly wish to extend my welcome to the 
Pope. We welcome him to America with open arms.


             One Year Anniversary of Virginia Tech Shooting

  Mr. REID. One year ago today, on a campus not far from here, 
southwest of where we stand, the Virginia Tech community suffered a 
tragedy that continues to defy our comprehension. This great 
university, academically sound, athletically, in many instances 
superior, suffered a great loss. Thirty-two lives were taken by the 
hand of a young man with a deeply disturbed mind and some guns.
  One year from that day, we pause to honor memory of these 32 young 
men and women and to grieve for their friends, family, and loved ones. 
I would, in passing, indicate that there were others than just students 
killed. Our thoughts go out to those unfortunate individuals whose 
lives were snuffed out for no reason.
  I also grieve for our country, for these bright young men and women 
taken from all of us before their limitless potential could be 
fulfilled. As we mark this sad anniversary, the terrible images of 
chaos, panic, and heartbreak remain woven in the fabric of that 
community and our common memory.
  But we remember also the amazing strength of Virginia Tech's 
community in those days and weeks that followed, how they lifted 
themselves from the deepest depths of despair to find a brotherhood and 
sisterhood of solace, peace, and even hope. President Steger and the 
entire Virginia Tech family demonstrated grace and steely resolve.
  I want to take particular note at this time and extend my admiration 
and appreciation to Governor Kaine, who has led that State with such 
integrity and political brilliance but with an example of all things 
good during the time of this tragedy. To this day, he has done a 
wonderful job of reaching out to the community, everyone in the State 
of Virginia, meeting with people, and giving them confidence that the 
future will be better.
  Now, as then, there is little we can offer but the broad shoulders of 
our Nation to lean upon and help carry the heavy burden of their pain.
  Mr. President, I say for those of us who suffer this time of year 
with allergies, being outside on the south lawn for an hour today, as 
indicated by my inability to stop coughing, makes me reflect on how 
great it is to live in the desert with no rose petals, flower petals, 
and pollen around. In the desert, we do not worry about that kind of 
stuff. But we also do not have much hay fever.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3053]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Fair Pay Restoration Act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this month, we honored the 40th 
anniversary of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Each year on 
this anniversary we get together and speak glowingly of Dr. King's life 
and work. These words are important; make no mistake. But even more 
important than honoring Dr. King with words is honoring Dr. King with 
action. Today, we have the opportunity to do that by passing the Fair 
Pay Restoration Act.
  The right to equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. Indeed, 
Dr. King was in Memphis on that fateful day in April 1968 to protest 
pay discrimination against African-American Memphis sanitation workers. 
We hope to have this legislation on the floor in the early part of next 
week. It involves overturning the Ledbetter case, a Supreme Court 
decision of recent times.
  Forty years later, we are still fighting the same fight as Dr. King. 
We are still trying to empower workers to assert their civil rights.
  Over the years, I have been proud to stand with the majority of the 
Congress for justice and fairness by passing strong bipartisan laws 
against pay discrimination. In 1963, we passed the Equal Pay Act. We 
followed that in 1964 with the landmark Civil Rights Act. Then we 
passed the Age Discrimination Act, then the Americans With Disabilities 
Act. Most recently, we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. All these 
laws protected workers from pay discrimination and have made our 
country a stronger, better, and fairer land.
  These laws are just words on a page of a lawbook if workers can't get 
into court when employers break the law. To bring these words to life, 
we must today continue the work Dr. King started. This effort is 
necessary because last May the Supreme Court undermined the fundamental 
protections against pay discrimination. In the Ledbetter decision, the 
Court imposed serious obstacles in the path of workers seeking to 
enforce their rights.
  Ledbetter was a textbook case of pay discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter, 
whom I have had the honor to meet, was one of a few women supervisors 
at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Gadsen, AL. She worked 
at the plant for almost two decades, consistently demonstrating that a 
woman can do a job traditionally done by men. She put up with teasing 
and taunting from her mail coworkers, but she persevered and 
consistently gave the company a fair day's work for what she thought 
was a fair day's pay. What she didn't know, however, was that Goodyear 
wasn't living up to its end of the bargain.
  For almost two decades, the company used discriminatory evaluations 
to pay her less than her male colleagues who performed exactly the same 
work. The jury saw the injustice in Goodyear's treatment of Ms. 
Ledbetter and awarded her full damages. But five members of the Supreme 
Court ignored that injustice and held that Ms. Ledbetter was entitled 
to nothing at all--nothing at all--saying she was too late in filing 
her claim.
  Under the rule in the Ledbetter case, Ms. Ledbetter would have had to 
file her claim within a few months of when Goodyear first started 
discriminating against her. Never mind that Ms. Ledbetter didn't know 
about the discrimination when it first began. Never mind that she had 
no means to learn of the discrimination because Goodyear kept salary 
information confidential. Never mind that Goodyear's discrimination 
against Ms. Ledbetter continued each and every time it gave her a 
smaller paycheck than it gave her male colleagues. The rule imposed by 
the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent in the courts of 
appeal, it overturned the policy of the EEOC under Democratic and 
Republican administrations, and it upset the Nation's accepted 
definition of what is right.
  This chart shows that the paycheck accrual rule was the law of the 
land prior to Ledbetter. In all these areas, these are the courts of 
appeal decisions that would have helped Ms. Ledbetter to recover. These 
areas are the areas where the EEOC demonstrates the paycheck accrual 
rule under EEOC policy, as well as these others. This small area in 
here shows what is now known in the Supreme Court decision as the 
Ledbetter decision. But this is the way the law of the land had been 
for years prior to this judgment and this decision.
  The rule imposed by the Supreme Court reversed the decades of 
precedent in the courts of appeal, it overturned the policy of the EEOC 
under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and it upset the 
Nation's accepted definition as to what is fair and right.
  The Court's decision turned back the clock on civil rights. Every 
year, thousands of workers suffer pay discrimination. The Ledbetter 
decision will hurt workers alleging discrimination of every kind: Sex, 
race, national origin, age, and disability. This chart shows 5,700 pay 
discrimination charges that have been brought. These here are on 
disability, discrimination on the basis of disability, after we passed 
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The dark green is on gender 
discrimination. The lighter green is on race discrimination; 
discrimination on the basis of race. This is national origin in here: 
588. This is discrimination on age. All these cases--5,700--are based 
upon the pay discrimination that has crossed the country.
  This is a real challenge. This doesn't represent the hundreds of 
thousands--hundreds of thousands--of cases of people who don't know 
about it. This is what is happening in this country. This is what is 
going to continue to happen unless we overturn the Ledbetter decision.
  The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter gives employers free rein 
to continue to discriminate and leaves workers powerless to stop it. 
The result defies both justice and common sense. We must act to restore 
the decency and fairness to our Nation's civil rights laws.
  The bipartisan Fair Pay Restoration Act will restore the clear intent 
of Congress. That is the legislation we will have on the floor to act 
on this next week. It provides a reasonable rule that reflects how pay 
discrimination actually occurs in the workplace. It links the time for 
filing a pay discrimination claim to the date a worker receives a 
discriminatory paycheck--not when an employer makes a discriminatory 
decision. Workers shouldn't have to be mindreaders in order to protect 
themselves from discrimination. Workers who aren't allowed to share 
information about their wages shouldn't be rendered powerless to combat 
discrimination. This bill recognizes that workers who receive a 
discriminatory check today should not be out of time to file a claim 
simply because the employer managed to hide its illegal behavior 
initially.
  This legislation holds no surprises. It puts the law back to what it 
was on the day before the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. So we 
know this legislation is fair and it is workable. There would not be 
any unexpected consequences. Courts would not be overwhelmed. In fact, 
the Congressional Budget Office has said this bill would not increase 
litigation costs by much and businesses would not be blindsided. We are 
restoring what the law was previously. Most importantly, the Fair Pay 
Restoration Act makes employers accountable for violating the law. 
Under the Supreme Court's rule, if an employer can keep its 
discriminatory ways secret for 6 months, it gets a free pass. Do my 
colleagues hear me? If they are able to keep this secret that they are 
discriminating on any one of these bases--any of the bases we have 
mentioned, including age or disability, national origin, sex or race--
in any of these areas, if they are able to do that and keep that a 
secret for 6 months, the employers get the free pass.
  They can continue to discriminate and its victims are powerless to 
stop the unfair treatment. It only makes sense that, if the violation 
continues, the right to challenge it should continue. No one should get 
a free pass to break the law.
  The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter took us backward in time. 
It takes us farther away from our ideal of a fair and just workplace 
for all Americans. We have too much progress still to make, and we 
cannot afford a step back. With this legislation, we can at least make 
up the ground we have lost.

[[Page S3054]]

  That is why this legislation has such widespread support. This chart 
indicates the various groups. A wide array of civil rights groups, 
labor unions, and religious and disability rights groups support this 
legislation. It includes the American Association of People with 
Disabilities. AARP understands what is happening in terms of age 
discrimination; Business and Professional Women understand the 
discrimination taking place against women; NAACP; the United Auto 
Workers and other labor organizations, too; National Congress of Black 
Women; Religious Action Center understands the moral implications of 
this issue; U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, and others. They all 
support this legislation. Many businesses also support the bill, 
including the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, as I said. All 
companies that play by the rules and treat workers fairly should 
support this legislation.
  Workers have lived for almost a year with the inequity of the 
Ledbetter decision. It is time to stand up for the right to fair pay. 
As Dr. King said so eloquently after the passage of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964:

       Many people felt that after the passage of the civil rights 
     bill, we had accomplished everything. We didn't have anything 
     else to do and we would miraculously move into a new era of 
     freedom.
       But when we opened our eyes, we came to see that the civil 
     rights bill, as marvelous as it is, is only the beginning of 
     a new day and not the end of a journey.
       If this bill is not implemented in all of its dimensions, 
     it will mean nothing, and all of its eloquent words will be 
     as sounding brass on a tinkling cymbal. We must take this 
     bill and lift it from thin paper to thick action, and go all 
     out, all over this Nation, to implement it.

  It is time to hold employers accountable for their unlawful conduct. 
It is time to turn the clock forward on civil rights, instead of 
backward. It is time to pass the Fair Pay Restoration Act.
  A final comment. This is a remarkable woman, Lily Ledbetter. Here is 
her quote:

       And according to the Court, if you don't figure things out 
     right away, the company can treat you like a second class 
     citizen for the rest of your career. That isn't right.

  She played by the rules. She worked hard and provided for her family 
and was being discriminated against. Here she is again:

       I hope that Congress won't let this happen to anyone else. 
     I would feel that this long fight was worthwhile if, at least 
     at the end of it, I knew that I played a part in getting the 
     law fixed so that it can provide real protection to real 
     people in the real world.

  We hear a lot of speeches in this body about the importance of work 
and paying people fairly. We hear speeches on both sides of the aisle 
about this. Here we have the classic example of a hard-working, decent, 
fairminded woman, who is trying to provide for a family, is playing by 
the rules, and she is getting shortchanged on the basis of doing equal 
work but not getting equal pay. She finds that out and pursues her 
rights and receives damages, under the rule of law in most of the 
States; and the Supreme Court, by a narrow margin of one, makes a 
decision that because she didn't know about it at the time this was 
started, when there was no chance in the world she would know about it 
because pay records are kept confidential, she is going to lose out on 
the fair pay she is entitled to under the protection of the law we have 
passed.
  This body has gone on record time in and time out about fair wages 
for their work. We are going to have another opportunity in the next 
week to see whether we are going to continue this.
  Let me finally say we are going back to the previous law. This isn't 
a new, bold idea carving out terms of the future. This is the way the 
law was. We are restoring the law, restoring the protections. This 
should have passed unanimously. How can Members of this body say no to 
restoring the law to what it was in the overwhelming majority of the 
jurisdictions of this country, on the fundamental issue of fairness 
that applies to virtually all workers, applies to men and women of 
color, men and women of disability, men and women of age, applies to 
national origin, and applies across the board? What are we afraid of?
  We will have the chance to take this up and to take action on it and 
to call the roll, and the American people will understand who in this 
body is for fairness and treating American workers right, and who is 
for going back in terms of the Nation's fundamental commitment to 
decency and honoring hard-working people, who should be entitled to 
equal pay for equal work. We will find out when we call the roll the 
early part of next week.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Tester pertaining to the introduction of S. 2875 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Tax Day

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on an issue that is 
on the forefront of most Americans' minds this week, and that is the 
issue of tax day. Yesterday was the filing deadline, April 15, which 
comes around every year, and for most Americans it is greeted with a 
great deal of trepidation and anxiety.
  April 15 represents the annual call of Uncle Sam, the tax collector, 
knocking on the doors of hard-working taxpayers, and it highlights the 
real tax burden that is placed on American families.
  This year, Americans will work 74 days to pay their Federal taxes, 74 
days to pay their Federal tax burden alone. In order to pay State and 
local taxes, Americans will work an average of 39 additional days. What 
that means is that the typical hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding 
American in this country will have to work an average of 113 days to 
pay taxes in 2008.
  If we look at a calendar, that pretty much takes care of the months 
of January, February, March, and April, up to the 23rd of this month. 
If you think about it, every American is still working this year to pay 
the tax man. They have not gotten to that point in the tax year when 
everything they make can then be dedicated to the expenses they have 
for their families, for their children's education, for retirement, for 
fuel costs--all the things we deal with in our daily lives. We are 
still at a point on the calendar where none of what we make can be 
applied to those necessities of life because we are still at a point on 
the calendar where everything we earn and make in this country is 
dedicated to paying the tax man. Literally 113 days of the calendar 
year of this year up until April 23, which will be next week, is 
dedicated to pay the tax man.
  What does that mean? Another perspective: If you put it into an 8-
hour work day, taxpayers are going to work 1 hour and 37 minutes every 
single day to pay Federal taxes, and an additional 51 minutes to pay 
State and local taxes.
  Put that into perspective. All other categories of consumer spending 
pale in comparison to the annual tax burden. In fact, Americans only 
need to work 60 days to pay for annual housing costs, 50 days for 
health and medical care, 35 days to pay for their annual costs, and 29 
days to pay for transportation.
  So the expenses most people deal with in their every-day lives, 
whether, again, that is the cost of housing, health care, food, or 
transportation--all are basic necessities--pale in comparison to the 
number of days the American taxpayer works every single year to pay 
their tax burden.
  That is a pretty remarkable chart, I think you would have to say, 
when you look at the tax burden and the number of days you have to pay 
relative to the things we spend the rest of our money on.
  This year, the statistics are probably better, if you can imagine 
that, than they were a few years ago. In 2000, before the historic tax 
cuts took effect, taxpayers had to work an all-time high

[[Page S3055]]

of 123 days to pay their tax burden. We have gone from 123 days down to 
113 days.
  In that same year 2000, a record 33.6 percent of the Nation's income 
was dedicated to paying taxes. After the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, 
Americans were able to work an average of two fewer weeks to meet their 
Federal tax burden. That is why we find the average American working 
113 days to meet their tax liability as opposed to 123 days a few short 
years ago. That is attributable to the tax relief that was enacted in 
2001 and 2003.
  Aside from paying taxes, filling out tax returns is a burden in and 
of itself. We have a Tax Code that is out of control, out of date, and 
is imploding under its own weight. The U.S. Tax Code spans over 54,000 
pages. Some of the current provisions of the code were created 40 years 
ago. Each year individuals, families, and businesses spend needless 
hours poring over IRS forms and regulations trying to make sense of the 
endless exercise of filing taxes. In fact, in total, taxpayers dedicate 
over 6 billion hours to file their taxes and spend over $140 billion a 
year in compliance costs.
  I read a story a couple of days ago that those who still fill out 
their own tax returns take an average of 34 hours to do so. That is 
almost a week. That is a workweek almost for most people to comply or 
fill out the tax return--for those who still fill out their own tax 
returns.
  Bear in mind that a lot of Americans have gotten to the point where 
it is so complex, burdensome, and complicated they turn it over to a 
tax preparer. For those who still fill out their tax returns, 34 hours 
is the average they spend in complying with the Tax Code in this 
country.

  Ironically, the complexity and uncertainty of filing taxes is only 
amplified by congressional action. Since 1986, we have made--I say we, 
the Congress--have made 15,000 changes to our Tax Code, or 
approximately 2 every single day. Many of these changes focus on 1- or 
2-year extensions of expiring provisions.
  For example, last year, Congress was unable to extend the alternative 
minimum tax until the IRS had published its 2007 tax return forms. 
Because of this delay, 13.5 million taxpayers had to wait until 
February 11 to file forms relative to the alternative minimum tax.
  Only Congress can create a complex tax provision, such as the 
alternative minimum tax, and actually make it more complicated by 
extending it after the IRS publication deadline.
  Unfortunately, the congressional leadership is simply either 
oblivious or unsympathetic to the tax burden on American families. Last 
month, the Senate Democrats called for the largest tax increase in 
American history. Under the Democratic budget, the reduced individual 
tax rates are set to expire in 20 months.
  As millions of Americans have now finished coping with this year's 
April 15 deadline, I think it is important to point out that this 
deadline is going to be even more painful under the Democratic budget 
that passed the Senate earlier this year.
  If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not extended, on January 1, 2011, 
the 10-percent tax bracket will expire, the tax bracket that was put 
into effect that impacts low-income earners, lowers their tax liability 
and took literally millions of American taxpayers completely off the 
tax rolls. The 25-percent tax bracket that currently applies to earners 
in that tax rate bracket is going to go up to 28 percent. The 28-
percent tax rate will increase to 31 percent. The 33-percent tax rate 
will increase to 36 percent. And the 35-percent tax rate will increase 
to 39.9 percent.
  On top of the increased tax rates that will happen on January 1, 
2010, unless we take steps to extend and prevent those tax cuts from 
expiring, the increased child tax credit will expire as well. Families 
with children are going to see their tax burden increase substantially 
when the $1,000 tax credit is reduced to $500 after the year 2010.
  Additionally, the marriage penalty is reinstated. The 3l million 
filers who report dividend income and the 26 million filers who report 
capital gains income also will see their taxes on their investments go 
up.
  Finally, the death tax will be reinstated at pre-2001 levels of $1 
million. In other words, you can exempt $1 million worth of your 
income, the wealth you acquired over the years, from the death tax 
liability. If we think about how that impacts small businesses, 
farmers, and ranchers--and I can share that as someone who lives in a 
rural State where we have a lot of farm and ranch families. We have a 
lot of people with lots of assets, lots of land, lots of equipment, but 
they are very cash poor. When you take $1 million anymore, with land 
values being what they are in a place such as even my State of South 
Dakota, you are going to have an awful lot of people who are going to 
be hit very hard by the death tax when it becomes reinstated at a $1 
million-level exemption.
  Attach to that a maximum statutory rate of 55 percent--which, 
incidentally, is one of the highest death tax rates in the world. So 
literally you are going to have for people now who worked their whole 
lives--small businesses, farmers, ranchers--to accumulate some things 
to pass on to the next generation, all but $1 million of that would be 
taxed at a rate as high as 55 percent.
  Think about the impact that is going to have on family farm and ranch 
operations in this country and many of our small businesses, which is 
where most of the jobs in the country are generated.
  In total, the average family is going to see their taxes increase by 
roughly $2,300 per year. That is enough to buy several months of 
groceries or several months worth of health care.
  It does not have to be this difficult. Congress can work in a 
bipartisan manner to fix our broken Tax Code and to ease the tax burden 
for families and small businesses.
  Commissions have been convened, hearings have been held, studies have 
been published, and yet another tax day has passed without 
comprehensive tax reform.
  Streamlining our Tax Code will strengthen our economy, it will 
improve the competitiveness of our businesses, and it will greatly ease 
the tax burden for all American families.
  The problem is not that Washington taxes too little. The problem is 
that Washington spends too much. The American people, when they start 
spending virtually a third of their year to pay the tax burden that is 
imposed on them at the Federal level, the State level, and the local 
level, we are asking way too much and imposing way too much a burden on 
the working men and women in this country and those small businesses 
that are creating the jobs and those who are trying to pass on those 
operations to the next generation so we can keep family farms, ranches, 
and small businesses in the family, contributing, creating jobs, and 
paying taxes. With a confiscatory death tax, which will happen if we do 
not take steps to extend the tax cuts, we are going to see a lot of 
those farms, ranchers, and small businesses go by the wayside.
  I hope the sentiment in this body, the Senate, and the House of 
Representatives will change to the point that we recognize the 
importance of extending the tax relief that was enacted in 2001 and 
2003 so we do not see these steep increases in income rates and return 
of the marriage penalty and a decrease in the per-child tax credit, 
dividend, and capital gains income being taxed at much higher rates, 
and the death tax being reinstated. If we are successful in extending 
those tax cuts, I think we will see an economy that, although 
experiencing an economic downturn right now, will improve, will start 
to grow again and create jobs. If we allow these tax cuts to expire, I 
think it is ``Katy, bar the door'' in terms of the adverse economic 
consequences and impact it will have on this economy and on the working 
men and women of this country and the entrepreneurs who make it work.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, the time until 2:15 shall be equally 
divided and controlled between the Senator from

[[Page S3056]]

California, Mrs. Boxer, and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. 
DeMint, or their designees.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I don't see the Senator from South 
Carolina here, and I don't want to presume to describe his amendment. 
That wouldn't be fair because he views his amendment as something that 
will help this bill and I view it as something that will kill this 
bill. Simply put, what he is saying is we need to recommit this bill to 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and what he is basically 
saying is that we need to scrub out of this bill any changes that were 
made to projects.
  Although Senator DeMint wasn't here at the time, I made the point 
earlier that in this SAFETEA-LU bill is $110 million worth of projects 
he requested. He was fortunate: all those projects seemed to be moving 
forward, and they do not need any technical correction. But many of 
us--many of us--don't have that experience. For example, Senator Inhofe 
explained a road project in Oklahoma where one portion of the project 
wasn't ready for funding and another was. So, yes, we make a technical 
correction. I have a similar project in my State where we have to make 
sure the project is changed a little bit or there are going to be some 
bad impacts on some of my people who live in those communities.
  So there is really nothing nefarious going on here. We are just 
trying to get these projects moving. We are trying to give a green 
light to projects that are facing a red light. What that means is that 
about $1 billion worth of projects could actually get started--transit 
projects, road projects--and we think that, at this particular time 
when we are suffering a recession, the last thing we should do is try 
to bring this bill back to the committee because, effectively, that 
would kill it. So I have respect for my colleague's intention here, 
but, in essence, if he was being completely straightforward, he would 
admit this is going to kill this bill.
  We know how hard it is to get bills up before the Senate. This bill 
actually passed when Senator Inhofe was chairman of the committee, but 
it has languished because we haven't had a chance to bring it to the 
floor. Senator Reid gave us time. It is a simple bill. I was hopeful it 
could be finished by now. I am grateful we are having a vote on at 
least one of the amendments--we know of another couple of amendments.
  So that is really what I have to say. At the appropriate time, I am 
going to make a motion to table this motion, so I will return to do 
that, as I say, at the appropriate time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator is advised that the time is under the control of the 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Warner are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two minutes 25 seconds.
  Mr. DeMINT. I appreciate the chairman giving me the time to speak on 
the bill. I am offering a motion to recommit, which will be up for a 
vote in just a few minutes, and it is a motion to recommit the 
technical corrections bill back to the EPW Committee.
  The purpose of this is clear: Colleagues, we have to stop increasing 
spending at every point, never cutting anything and never looking for 
savings. On this Transportation bill, there have been a number of 
projects, hundreds of millions of dollars worth, that were not needed 
or wanted. And we need to be reminded that the highway trust fund by 
next year is going to be over $3 billion in the red. With this 
Transportation bill, we had an opportunity to save. Yet, instead of 
doing that, I am afraid this technical corrections bill goes well 
beyond technical corrections and takes the money that would have been 
saved from unwanted or unneeded projects and uses it to add new 
earmarks to the Transportation bill that aren't in the original 
legislation and adds spending to existing earmarks.
  My motion would recommit the technical corrections bill to the 
committee and instruct them to take out any new earmarks and any 
increases in spending for existing earmarks. What that will do is just 
leave the base bill, which would be, at that point, technical 
corrections. That is what this bill is intended to be. So I encourage 
all my colleagues to show some fiscal restraint and to restore this 
bill to a technical corrections bill.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I have 1 minute to 
respond.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we talked about this before. First of all, 
I am coming from a very conservative perspective. Looking at this and 
also looking at the infrastructure needs we have, we want to make sure 
the technical corrections bill is not killed because that will stop all 
the activity going on that is so desperately needed in South Carolina 
as well as the rest of the country.
  There is no increase in the technical corrections bill in the amount 
of authorization. That is very important for people to know. We talk 
about projects and assume they are projects that were not considered 
before. The top line is an amount of authorization that is the same. It 
has not increased at all. So I contend, with all due respect to one of 
my closest friends and fellow conservatives, that the conservative 
position is to stay with the technical corrections bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint motion to 
recommit and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the motion to recommit.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Sessions
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clinton
     Hagel
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion to table was agreed to.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S3057]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment that has 
been filed, which may or may not be offered. I wanted to alert the 
Senate to the possibility of an amendment that deals with moving 
companies--companies that move families, move furniture, et cetera, 
from city to city and across State lines--in fact, move them all over 
the country.
  This amendment touches on a bipartisan provision that the Commerce 
Committee handled 3 years ago, which was, I guess, led by Senators 
Inouye, Stevens, Lott, and myself. We basically acknowledged that there 
has been a problem in the moving industry for quite some time. I don't 
want to go into great detail, but I will be glad to if Senator Bond 
comes down and offers his amendment.
  I want to give a little bit of background. Basically, if you look at 
the statistics, since 2001, there have been about 25,000 official 
complaints with the Department of Transportation related to household 
good carriers transporting goods in interstate commerce. These 
complaints do cover a wide range of abusive household good carrier 
practices--everything from fraudulent cost estimates to lost and even 
damaged goods. So they really do cover the waterfront. However, the 
most outrageous of these complaints, in my view, is what they call 
``hostage goods.''
  What happens here is a moving company will move goods, and they will 
hold a consumer's possessions hostage until they pay thousands of 
dollars in excess of the original estimate. It is hard to believe that 
people would treat each other this way, but we have seen this thousands 
of times around the country, where a moving company will hold goods 
hostage because they want to chisel more money out of the customer.
  Three years ago now, in the Commerce Committee, we looked at this 
situation. We understood the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration only had five employees assigned for the entire Nation 
when it comes to household goods and those complaints. Obviously, we 
had a problem. We worked on a solution. Again, this was a very 
bipartisan solution.
  Part of the solution was to authorize State attorneys general and 
State consumer protection officials--they are not always AGs; it 
depends on the State. Usually they are attorneys general offices, but 
they don't have to be. It would allow the State to enforce certain 
Federal household goods consumer protection laws and regulations as 
determined by the Secretary of Transportation. This set up a 
partnership between the State governments and the Federal Government. 
We think it has been working well. We are hearing positive feedback.
  State attorneys general, back in January of 2004, sent a letter, 
signed by 48 State attorneys general, saying they would like to have 
this authority. Let me tell you why. Probably, they have had similar 
experiences that I had when I was in the attorney general's office in 
Arkansas. I had a friend of mine who had moved from Florida back to 
Arkansas; he was moving back with his family, et cetera, et cetera. 
Literally, his goods--everything he owned--were held hostage by one of 
these unscrupulous moving companies. Naturally, as the attorney 
general, I thought surely we could help him. We started looking at it 
and learned that we were preempted by Federal law. I think he filed a 
complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation, but let me ask my 
colleagues, who is going to be better at enforcing this and doggedly 
pursuing relief for their citizens, the State attorney general or the 
U.S. DOT in Washington--again, with five employees for the whole 
Nation? That is a pretty easy answer, and that is the State AGs. This 
is something we crafted, and we believe it is balanced. It came out of 
committee unanimously. There was compromise. Two Democrats and two 
Republicans worked together to get compromise language that we believed 
was fair and, we thought, served the purpose, and we believe it is good 
law.
  I think it is important that it did come out of the committee 
unanimously. Again, Senator Lott took a real leadership role, and 
Senator Stevens was involved and Senator Inouye was involved and I was 
involved. We worked hard to get this done for the committee and for the 
Senate and for the American people.
  As part of all this, we listened to industry complaints. We really 
did try to go the extra mile with the industry. We even had a hearing 
held by Chairman Lott on May 4, 2006. We brought in witnesses and 
allowed moving companies to come in and talk about the situation. 
Basically, at the conclusion of the hearing, the committee found strong 
support for our safety provision, including the endorsement of the U.S. 
DOT inspector general and the FMCSA.
  So this has been something that has been vetted, has been agreed to, 
has been passed by the committee and by the Senate, and it has been 
signed into law. We think it is a good provision.
  Obviously, if there is an amendment on this today, this would not be 
a technical correction, this would be a big shift in policy. I think 
that is an important factor for colleagues to consider as they look at 
this.
  Also, if it is offered and if, in fact, I have a chance to come back 
to the floor and talk about it further, I know there will be a little 
bit of a comparison to the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission bill that we filed a few weeks ago, and we 
passed it on the Senate floor 79 to 13, I believe it was.
  I know there will be a little comparison, but this is very different. 
This is different in a number of ways. It is similar in some ways, but 
it is different also. And that is, with a consumer recall and with the 
State being able to enforce a consumer recall once that decision has 
been made in Washington, there may be thousands, tens of thousands, 
possibly millions of units of that product out in the American 
marketplace that has been recalled. Those products may be in warehouses 
or they may show up on the Internet. There are a lot of different ways 
they can show up. It can take literally years to get all those products 
out of the stream of commerce.
  The moving industry is very different than that. Almost always what 
happens with one of these moving companies is something goes on during 
the move which more often than not is over a few days' period. 
Oftentimes, it is from one State to another State. The fact situation 
here is very different.
  One of the reasons we are seeing an increase--and even though we 
passed this law, we are still seeing a fairly steady increase in these 
types of complaints--is the proliferation of the Internet. You can get 
on the Internet right now--I did this yesterday as an experiment. I 
clicked on something such as ``cheap moving companies.'' I don't know 
exactly what I typed. Several came up. With many of these companies, 
what you do is click a couple of little buttons to tell how many rooms 
you have in the house, or something very rudimentary, and you get a 
quote.
  For folks who know about moving, it takes a lot more than that. You 
cannot make a couple clicks on the computer and think you are going to 
get an accurate moving estimate.
  My experience has been with these large companies, they have written 
contracts and they have procedures in place. They come out to your 
home, or wherever you may be, and they look at your goods. They 
measure, they offer various services for crating, boxing, and all this 
kind of jazz. They can look, do their measurements and calculations and 
give you an estimate down to the penny. More often than not, those 
estimates are very accurate.
  The problem is not so much the name-brand companies. I am sure there 
are occasional problems with them. But the problem we are trying to get 
to is these companies that are fly by night, many based on the 
Internet, many of them you do not know with whom you are dealing.
  What we are trying to do is clean up this industry and help the 
American public in any way we can.
  Since we passed this legislation, you would think you would see an 
amazing drop in statistics. We have seen the numbers grow a little bit. 
Again, it has been fairly steady. We feel as though

[[Page S3058]]

we do not have accurate numbers yet. We are actually going to request a 
GAO study to allow them to do their analysis and see how our provision 
is working. I think what we will find, once the numbers come in and are 
analyzed, is some good movement in the right direction.
  One point that is important is that under SAFETEA-LU, the FMCSA did 
not add that many employees. It went from 5 employees to 11 employees. 
That is still a very small number of employees to do this all over the 
country. Hopefully, the State attorneys general will be able to help 
resolve these matters that are very good for the people in their 
States.
  Madam President, I don't know if Senator Bond is going to offer his 
amendment. He told me earlier he thought he would. I hope he does not. 
If it does require a vote, certainly I will ask my colleagues to vote 
against his amendment. If he, in fact, does offer his amendment, I 
would like to have a chance to respond to Senator Bond. I know Senator 
Boxer and a few others have indicated their interest in doing that as 
well.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 4538 to Amendment No. 4146

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside and at the appropriate place amendment No. 4538 be inserted into 
the Boxer substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may propose an amendment to that 
substitute.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. COBURN], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, Mr. Martinez, Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, Mrs. 
     Clinton, and Mrs. McCaskill, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4538 to amendment No. 4146.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To create a bipartisan, bicameral special committee to 
investigate the improper insertion of an earmark for Coconut Road into 
 the conference report of the 2005 highway bill after both chambers of 
   Congress had approved identical versions of the conference report)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. COCONUT ROAD INVESTIGATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) According to item number 462 of the table contained in 
     section 1934 of the Conference Report on H.R. 3 (109th 
     Congress), which was passed by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives on July 29, 2005, $10,000,000 was allocated 
     for ``Widening and Improvements for I-75 in Collier and Lee 
     County''.
       (2) According to item number 462 of such table in the 
     enrolled version of H.R. 3 (109th Congress), which was signed 
     into law by the President on August 10, 2005, $10,000,000 was 
     allocated for ``Coconut Rd. interchange I-75/Lee County''.
       (3) A December 3, 2007, article in the Naples Daily News 
     noted, ``Mysteriously, after Congress voted on the bill but 
     before the president signed it into law, language in the 
     earmark was changed to read: `Coconut Rd. interchange I-75/
     Lee County.' ''.
       (4) Page 824 of Riddick's Senate Procedure notes that 
     ``Concurrent resolutions are used to correct errors in bills 
     when enrolled, or to correct errors by authorizing the re-
     enrollment of a specified bill with the designated changes to 
     be made.''.
       (5) The only concurrent resolution that Congress passed 
     regarding the enrollment of H.R. 3 (H. Con. Res. 226) does 
     not refer to the change made to item 462 of section 1934.
       (6) The secret, unauthorized redirection of $10,000,000 to 
     the ``Coconut Rd. interchange I-75/Lee County'' calls into 
     question the integrity of the Constitution and the 
     legislative process.
       (7) A full and open investigation into this improper change 
     to congressionally-passed legislation is necessary to restore 
     the integrity of the legislative process.
       (b) Preservation of Documentation Relating to the 
     Enrollment of H.R. 3.--Officers and employees of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives shall take whatever actions 
     may be necessary to preserve all records, documents, e-mails, 
     and phone records relating to the enrollment of H.R. 3 in the 
     109th Congress, including all documents relating to changes 
     made to item 462 of the table contained in section 1934 of 
     such Act, to allocate funding for the Coconut Road 
     interchange in Lee County, Florida.
       (c) Special Committee on Enrollment Irregularities.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a select committee 
     of Congress to be known as the Special Committee on 
     Enrollment Irregularities (referred to in this subsection as 
     the ``Committee'').
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Committee are to--
       (A) investigate the improper insertion of substantive new 
     matter into the table contained in section 1934(c) of the 
     Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) after the Act 
     passed the Senate and the House of Representatives on July 
     29, 2005; and
       (B) determine when, how, why, and by whom such improper 
     revisions were made;
       (3) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of 8 
     members, of which--
       (A) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (B) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (C) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (D) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (4) Authority.--The Committee, consistent with the 
     applicable rules of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives, may--
       (A) hold such hearings, take such testimony, and receive 
     such documents as the Committee determines necessary to carry 
     out the purposes described in paragraph (2); and
       (B) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, 
     and materials as the Committee determines necessary.
       (5) Reports.--
       (A) Interim report.--Not later than August 1, 2008, the 
     Committee shall prepare an interim report that details the 
     Committee's findings and make such report available to the 
     public in searchable form on the Internet.
       (B) Final report.--Not later than October 1, 2008, the 
     Committee shall prepare a final report that details the 
     Committee's findings and make such report available to the 
     public in searchable form on the Internet.
       (6) Use of information.--The Committee may share all 
     findings, documents, and information gathered in an 
     investigation under this subsection with--
       (A) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (C) appropriate law enforcement authorities.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I am on the floor this afternoon because 
a few years ago something happened in Congress that should never have 
happened. What happened is a bill passed the House and a bill passed 
the Senate. A bill that both Houses agreed to was changed before it 
went to the President. We do not know where it was changed or who 
changed it. We do not know the details of it. There has been 
speculation in the press, but we do not have any real knowledge of how 
this happened. But there is a principle, and the principle is, if we 
cannot trust what we agree to in both bodies of Congress will be sent 
to the President, then everything we pass has to be suspect.
  This is a hard amendment to offer because there is a lot of angst 
around looking at ourselves and looking at the problems. But the one 
thing we do know is the American people expect the process to be one 
that is open, one that is accurate, and that when the President gets a 
bill, it truly represents what the Congress intended.
  What actually happened? On the highway bill conference report passed 
by Congress, item 461, there were widening improvements for the I-75 
corridor in Collier and Lee Counties in Florida. What actually went to 
the President was different. This was changed to Lee County only and 
for an interchange. Somehow that got changed. This money has been 
rejected three times by the citizens and their elected representatives 
in that area because they do not want an interchange. What they wanted 
was to widen I-75 in terms of hurricane evacuations.
  As I said, we do not know how this happened. There is press 
speculation. We don't know if it occurred in the Senate. We don't know 
if it occurred in the House. What we do know is it did occur, and 
nobody can dispute the fact. And this bill, thanks to Chairman Boxer, 
corrects that and puts it back to what the original intent of Congress 
was, what Congress intended originally.
  Some will say: Now that we fixed it, we don't need to do anything 
about it.

[[Page S3059]]

But the problem the American public has in terms of confidence in us is 
that we will do the right thing, and the right thing is to figure out 
how something such as this happened and make sure it never happens 
again and put in the safeguards so we know it will not happen again. I 
believe it is time for Congress to look at this issue and fix it.
  Many of my colleagues say we are treading on dangerous water because 
if this occurred in the House, we are forcing the House to look at 
something, one body telling the other body to do something. We don't 
know where it occurred.
  The amendment I am offering creates a committee of Members, four from 
the House, four from the Senate, that will look at this issue and make 
appropriate recommendations to the appropriate bodies; that is, the 
House Committee on Official Conduct and the Senate Ethics Committee or 
any law enforcement officers.
  I understand that there will possibly be a second-degree amendment, 
and this ought to be offered and made, that the Justice Department look 
at this. That can certainly happen in due time, but there is this 
little issue of separation of powers. We have the responsibility in 
Congress to do what is right.
  It is very interesting the debates we have had, especially in this 
Congress, about separation of powers and not wanting the executive 
branch to take power away from us. However, we are thinking about 
offering a second-degree amendment that would do that.
  I believe in the people in this body. I believe we all do not like 
that this happened. I believe we all want to see that it never happens 
again. The best way to do this is to have an investigation, two Members 
appointed by the Speaker and two Members appointed by the minority 
leader in the House, two Members appointed by the majority leader in 
the Senate and two Members appointed by the minority leader in the 
Senate. So we have eight Members reporting back to us what happened and 
making recommendations to the appropriate committees, not necessarily 
to us.
  As we all know, Senate ethics investigations, as well as House 
investigations in terms of official conduct, are not public. We don't 
know if something is going on regarding this issue now. But what we do 
know is something happened, and we ought to be about fixing it.
  My worry is if we modify this amendment or we do not agree to this 
amendment, this is going to be the feeling of the American public: Is 
this political? Can we not control the rules of our own body in terms 
of enrollment?
  It is interesting what Jefferson said when he talked about this in 
his manual. He described what should and shouldn't be done when a bill 
has passed both Houses of Congress.
  The House last acting on it, notifies its passage to the other and 
delivers the bill to the Joint Committee on Enrollment, who sees it is 
truly enrolled in parchment. When the bill is enrolled, it is not to be 
written in paragraphs but solidly, all in one piece, that the blanks 
between the paragraphs may not give room for forgery.
  That is, in essence, what happened in this case. Now, that is not a 
case for the Justice Department to investigate at this time. That is a 
case for us to investigate and look at our own rules. The fact is, 
something went terribly wrong on the way of a bill going to the 
President that was different than both Houses of Congress passed.
  I understand the angst of someone coming from the Senate and saying 
this ought to happen, and I understand we don't want to get in a 
fingerpointing mode. But if the House agrees with this in conference, 
it will happen; and if they do not agree with this in conference, it 
won't happen. But what should happen in the Senate should be that we 
look at this so we can create the confidence that the American people 
deserve to have in this body to know that when we pass a bill out, that 
the bill we passed is actually the bill the President signs.
  I am thankful to the Transportation Committee and Chairman Boxer and 
Ranking Member Inhofe for clarifying this and fixing it. It is right 
that it should be done. It is right that the original intention of it 
should be done. But that is not good enough. That is not good enough 
for the American public. I understand the desire of the chairman of the 
committee to move this out of our hands and into the Justice 
Department's hands, but I have some problems with that. One is this 
idea of separation of powers. What other powers are we going to give up 
when we can't handle a simple investigation into what went wrong during 
the process of enrollment?
  The second thing is, my legal staff tells me we cannot mandate to the 
executive branch what they will and will not investigate. So should 
they choose not to investigate this, we will have been no further down 
the road. But the 100-percent guarantee that it will get investigated 
is if we have Members of both bodies investigate this and come to a 
resolution so it does not happen again.
  It doesn't matter whose bill it is, and it doesn't matter which 
party's bill it is. If a bill, no matter whose bill it is, is changed, 
it affects the whole country, and it affects the confidence in this 
body. This is an ethical issue for us, if in fact it involved the 
Senate.
  The easy thing would be not to offer this. That is easy; you don't 
make other Senators uncomfortable with you; you don't have the chance 
that the House could be upset at what we are suggesting in a 
conference, if they agree to us jointly in investigating this. We could 
sweep it under the rug as if it never happened because we corrected it. 
But it did happen. And by not investigating it, it means it can happen 
again.
  This is not without precedent. I believe in 1982 or 1992, this same 
thing happened and it didn't get investigated. It just got changed. So 
here we have it happening again, and only because of some very good 
work in the press were we made aware of it. Consequently, we ought to 
be the ones to fix it. We ought to take responsibility for our actions 
and we ought to correct the problem that happened with this, wherever 
it may be. If it happened in the House, the House should correct it. If 
it happened in the Senate, the Senate should correct it. But at least 
we ought to know the details of how and why, and then, if appropriate, 
a referral, if in fact that is justified. If it was a simple clerical 
error, we will know that. If it was more than that, we will know that.
  The fact is, by not doing this, what we are saying to the American 
people is, oops, we had a mistake that is paramount to the quality and 
the clarity of how this body functions, and we believe it is not a 
grave error. Well, I happen to disagree. It is an entirely egregious 
error because it impacts every other piece of legislation.
  If I as a Senator can no longer trust that the bills we pass in 
Congress, after they are enrolled, are exactly what we pass, then I now 
have to spend the time looking at every bill after it has been enrolled 
to make sure it matches. None of us has the time to do that. That is 
what we entrust the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 
for.
  So somewhere along the way, something changed. We need to know that. 
We don't need to play the same political games. We don't need to play a 
partisan game with it, because nobody knows for sure who did what. What 
we do need to do is to do the hard work of looking at what went wrong 
and making the appropriate changes.
  I note there are several cosponsors, and the Presiding Officer is 
one. She has been a great addition to our body because she seeks 
clarity and transparency in what we do here; also Senator McCain and 
Senator Obama, as well as Senator Martinez and Senator Nelson of 
Florida. They are the two Senators where this had the most impact.

  I don't come to the floor lightly saying we want to poke at people, 
but I do think it is important for the integrity of our body that we, 
along with the House, get to the bottom of it. It was my hope we could 
work this out without trying to refer it to the Justice Department. If 
in fact it needs to get there, it will get there after appropriate 
investigation.
  To bypass us and give up our power to correct things that are wrong 
with our rules--not laws, our rules--seems to me to be the antithesis 
of what we have debated so many times in this Senate over the past 9 to 
15 months about the executive power encroaching on the Senate. Now we 
are ready to give that power away for something that is duly ours and 
set a precedent

[[Page S3060]]

that we are going to ask the Justice Department to investigate us? We 
ought to be investigating ourselves.
  We have the integrity, we have the quality, we have the people, and 
we have the goodwill of all the Senators of this body and all the 
Members of the House to do that. Because the institution is more 
important than any one of us. What we do for the American people has to 
be more important than any one of us. So it is my hope--I will not take 
much more time--the Senate will concur.
  This is done with all sincerity. I am pointing a finger at no one. 
But I think if we do not do this, by a second amendment that takes it 
away, what we will have done is to abrogate our responsibility in terms 
of the clarity of our purpose and the quality of our work. And if we 
choose to do that, here is what we will find. We will find another 
notch down the confidence in Congress by the American people, if we 
refuse to look under our own bedsheets for our own bedbugs and give 
that responsibility away.
  I appreciate the help of the staff of the committee. They have been 
very forthright in working with us. As I have said before, I appreciate 
Senator Boxer's cooperative attitude on this. We disagree on how best 
to handle this, and I understand her right as the chairman and as a 
Member of this body, but my hope is we don't give away powers that are 
ours. The separation of powers is a very important concept in this 
body, and to abrogate our responsibility and appoint it somewhere else, 
when we don't have the facts--that can always happen afterwards.
  In fact, this amendment states that appropriate referrals will be 
made to both Ethics Committees of the House and Senate and to law 
enforcement, if necessary. So my hope would be that we could vote this 
eventually and look at it. I think it is paramount for the quality of 
our work.
  Madam President, I reserve any time I may have, and I look forward to 
the comments of the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, when I learned about this whole issue of 
what went on in a very devious way related to a highway project, I was 
very glad Senator Coburn called it to our attention. Where we are right 
now is the best way to handle this, and this is where there is a bit of 
a disagreement.
  I am concerned, as I look at the Senator's solution here. 
Essentially, what he has is the House and Senate selecting Members to 
go on this special committee, and I believe that injects politics into 
it right away. We can all say we are going to be objective, and so on 
and so forth, but I think people get the sense, oh, that is a 
Republican, and he may feel one way; or she is a Democrat, she may feel 
one way; or I saw that person going to dinner with another Senator or 
another House Member this way.
  I am chair of the Ethics Committee, so I know it is very hard to be 
totally objective, and you must be in this circumstance. But I think 
the appearance of a conflict of interest in setting up this committee 
is something I would rather avoid. So I think that Senator Coburn has 
done everything in his power to set up a way to investigate this that 
is fair, but my feeling is there is a better way to go.
  As a matter of fact, I am going to offer an amendment to the 
underlying substitute, and I would ask the Parliamentarian if I need to 
lay aside the pending amendment in order to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not need to do that. The 
amendment is in order at this time.


                           Amendment No. 4539



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S3060, April 16, 2008, the Record reads: Amendment No. 
4539 to Amendment No. 4146
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 4539


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


    (Purpose: To call for a review by the Department of Justice of 
           allegations of violations of Federal criminal law)

  Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the underlying substitute to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mrs. BOXER. Do I need to ask for its immediate consideration?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is automatic. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4539 to the text of the committee 
     substitute to be inserted:

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REVIEW.

       Consistent with applicable standards and procedures, the 
     Department of Justice shall review allegations of impropriety 
     regarding item 462 in section 1934(c) of Public Law 109-59 to 
     ascertain if a violation of Federal criminal law has 
     occurred.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank the clerk for reading. That is 
it in its entirety. We call attention to the exact problem that 
occurred in the bill, the exact project, without naming it. It is 
explained here. We know it is the Coconut Road project.
  This is not a sense of the Senate. This is a very direct amendment 
that says the Department of Justice shall review these allegations and 
they shall ascertain if a violation of Federal criminal law has 
occurred.
  So what we do, by taking it into this realm, we take it out of the 
realm of politics. Senators selected by the Senate to be on this 
investigation committee of something that happened over in the House; 
House Members selected by the House to investigate, to me it injects 
politics into the process.
  Secondly, if you read the Constitution and you see the speech and 
debate clause, you understand that this raises constitutional issues--
the Coburn amendment--as to whether one part of Congress can 
investigate another. I don't want to see this whole thing collapse like 
a deck of cards because we did something unconstitutional. We know that 
the Justice Department, when there is an allegation of improper 
behavior, we know when there is a possibility here of laws being 
broken, they have the clear obligation and responsibility, and now we 
are, in essence, telling them they must review this.
  In our conversations, one of the things Senator Coburn was worried 
about was that the Department of Justice could not use the subpoena 
power. I have looked at that and what I have found is that is not true. 
In the case of the Jefferson investigation, it was because there was no 
warrant. That was the problem. There was some narrow issue involving 
that. Clearly, this investigation would be appropriate.
  Also, we don't give up anything here, I say to my colleague. 
Consistent with applicable standards and procedures, that is what we 
say. The Department of Justice shall review, consistent with applicable 
standards and procedures. No new rules, no new laws, no new ways, and 
very clearly done.
  Frankly, if I might say, I am so angry about this. I am so upset 
about this. I am sick about this. I think it is very possible people 
ought to go to jail here. A Senate and House committee can't send 
anybody to jail. They simply can't. They could make a referral to 
Justice, but they can't do it.

  I am saying I think what we are doing here, by requiring that the 
Justice Department--by saying, ``They shall review allegations,'' I 
think is a much better way to go. It keeps politics out of this, it 
keeps constitutional questions about the debate clause out of this, and 
it gets to the heart of this, which is, if there was a crime, the 
person ought to go to jail or the people ought to go to jail.
  Let's get right to the point instead of setting up some political 
committee. They will call hearings and the press will come and people--
Senators will make speeches and make their careers. I can just see this 
thing. I can see this coming. I want to avoid a circus. I want to put 
somebody in jail if they did something wrong. That is why I think this 
particular amendment I am offering is the way to go.
  I do respect my friend. I certainly am looking forward to having 
votes on both of these, but I do think this simple amendment we have 
here will get to the bottom of this, which is where my friend wants to 
go. He wants to punish the people who have done something wrong. That 
is what I think we do here.
  I will be happy to yield the floor because I see my colleague would 
like to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first of all, I thank the chair for her 
words. I stated that this amendment language is based on a very big 
precedent established in 1992 in this body with a joint committee of 
Members of Congress to look at the rules in both Houses, to look at the 
processes in both Houses. There is a precedent. There is not a

[[Page S3061]]

problem with the debate clause. I think that is not a prudent argument 
to be against this.
  The Justice Department will eventually get this if, in fact, we find 
out there was a crime. I also make the point that nobody knows right 
now where this occurred. At least I don't. Nobody knows what the facts 
are, so the assumption we are making that we would be involved in 
investigating the House is--we do not know that. At least I certainly 
do not know it, and I have kind of been looking at this for quite some 
time. So it is an assumption that we are going to have, necessarily, an 
investigation of the House. We may be having an investigation of the 
Senate.
  The fact is, we have a good precedent for this. This was a Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress, H. Con. Res. 192, in the 
102nd, and it looked at everything. It didn't just look at one specific 
thing. So there is precedent for it.
  More important is the separation of powers issue. What we are saying 
to the American public is we do not have the power to control our own 
body and that we have to ask the Justice Department to come in and do 
it. If there is a criminal violation, they certainly ought to be 
involved in that, but we do not know that yet.
  First of all, these are the rules of the Senate. They are not law. We 
are asking them to investigate the rules of the Senate, not a law; 
therefore, we are giving power to the executive branch, we are asking 
the executive branch to come in. My great worry--there is no question, 
Senator Boxer's amendment will do this. It will get an investigation, 
if they will come and do it--there is no way we can force them to come 
and do it--and we will get to the bottom of it.
  But I am worried about the integrity of the body, saying to the 
American public that we cannot police ourselves; we cannot do it; we do 
not want to take the heavy lifting it is going to take. And I do not 
believe a four-by-four panel of two Democratic Senators, two Republican 
Senators, two Democratic Congressmen, and two Republican Congressmen--
and this committee has the right to not do any of this in public if 
they do not want to. The committee totally gets to do this. Nobody 
wants a circus. I am even reticent that I am actually here making this 
point. I think it is a pox on our body that this happened, but I think 
it needs to be addressed.
  My hope is that people will not take a partisan viewpoint on how they 
vote. My hope is they will think about the institution of Congress, 
they will think about the separation of powers, they will think about 
the difference between laws and rules of the Senate and rules of the 
Congress. Then, if a referral needs to be made to the Justice 
Department, we would do that, but that would most appropriately come 
from our Ethics Committees, not from this committee--after a referral 
from this committee to the Ethics Committee.
  The chair of the Ethics Committee cannot say whether they are looking 
at this right now. They may be. They may not be. We do not know. The 
Justice Department cannot say whether they are or not. So we do not 
know what is happening.
  The point is, something needs to happen. I worry that when we tell 
the American public we are not capable of looking into our own 
dysfunction, that, in fact, what it says is that we give up power to 
the Justice Department to look at how we enroll bills and whether we 
violated the rules under how we do it. I have a real concern with that. 
I have tremendous concern with that, especially since we made such a 
large issue of separation of powers in this Congress.
  I will make one other point, and it is not to demean the Senator from 
California. If this were important to the committee, why was your 
amendment not part of the committee mark? If, in fact, the committee 
was enraged over this, why was this not a part of the original 
committee mark?
  Mrs. BOXER. Is that a question to me?
  Mr. COBURN. Why have we not addressed this in the original committee 
mark or the substitute? We corrected it--and I said, while the Senator 
was out, I was thankful that the problem was corrected. But the issue 
of how it got changed is not in the committee mark.
  This amendment, this second-degree amendment, comes on the fact that 
we are trying to offer what I think is a cogent way that has precedent 
in both the House and Senate for solving this. That is probably just an 
oversight because I know the Senator cares deeply about this. I know 
she was upset about it. With everything they had to do to bring this 
bill to the floor as quickly as they did, that is probably what 
happened. But the fact is, we are at this point. If the body wants the 
Justice Department--if we want to give up that power to the Justice 
Department, the body will vote that, and that is fine.
  The last point I will make, and I will not continue on a lot further, 
is this does not force the House to do anything. Let me tell you why. 
This bill will go to a conference committee, I believe, of which 
Chairman Boxer will be the head, and all the House has to say is: We 
disagree with this; we do not want to do this; we do not want to have a 
committee look into this. The House has that option, and if it does not 
agree to it, it will not come out of the conference committee and we 
will not do anything on it.
  The same is true of her amendment in terms of the Department of 
Justice. But it is important for the American people to know whether 
something happens on it and whether we do it in a way that emboldens 
and strengthens the institution of Congress or weakens it.


                Amendment No. 4540 to Amendment No. 4539

  Before I yield the floor, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4540 to amendment No. 4539.
       The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. COCONUT ROAD INVESTIGATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) According to item number 462 of the table contained in 
     section 1934 of the Conference Report on H.R. 3 (109th 
     Congress), which was passed by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives on July 29, 2005, $10,000,000 was allocated 
     for ``Widening and Improvements for I-75 in Collier and Lee 
     County''.
       (2) According to item number 462 of such table in the 
     enrolled version of H.R. 3 (109th Congress), which was signed 
     into law by the President on August 10, 2005, $10,000,000 was 
     allocated for ``Coconut Rd. interchange I-75/Lee County''.
       (3) A December 3, 2007, article in the Naples Daily News 
     noted, ``Mysteriously, after Congress voted on the bill but 
     before the president signed it into law, language in the 
     earmark was changed to read: `Coconut Rd. interchange I-75/
     Lee County.' ''.
       (4) Page 824 of Riddick's Senate Procedure notes that 
     ``Concurrent resolutions are used to correct errors in bills 
     when enrolled, or to correct errors by authorizing the re-
     enrollment of a specified bill with the designated changes to 
     be made.''.
       (5) The only concurrent resolution that Congress passed 
     regarding the enrollment of H.R. 3 (H. Con. Res. 226) does 
     not refer to the change made to item 462 of section 1934.
       (6) The secret, unauthorized redirection of $10,000,000 to 
     the ``Coconut Rd. interchange I-75/Lee County'' calls into 
     question the integrity of the Constitution and the 
     legislative process.
       (7) A full and open investigation into this improper change 
     to congressionally-passed legislation is necessary to restore 
     the integrity of the legislative process.
       (b) Preservation of Documentation Relating to the 
     Enrollment of H.R. 3.--Officers and employees of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives shall take whatever actions 
     may be necessary to preserve all records, documents, e-mails, 
     and phone records relating to the enrollment of H.R. 3 in the 
     109th Congress, including all documents relating to changes 
     made to item 462 of the table contained in section 1934 of 
     such Act, to allocate funding for the Coconut Road 
     interchange in Lee County, Florida.
       (c) Special Committee on Enrollment Irregularities.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a select committee 
     of Congress to be known as the Special Committee on 
     Enrollment Irregularities (referred to in this subsection as 
     the ``Committee'').
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Committee are to--
       (A) investigate the improper insertion of substantive new 
     matter into the table contained in section 1934(c) of the 
     Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
     Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) after the Act 
     passed the Senate and the House of Representatives on July 
     29, 2005; and
       (B) determine when, how, why, and by whom such improper 
     revisions were made;

[[Page S3062]]

       (3) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of 8 
     members, of which--
       (A) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (B) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (C) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (D) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (4) Authority.--The Committee, consistent with the 
     applicable rules of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives, may--
       (A) hold such hearings, take such testimony, and receive 
     such documents as the Committee determines necessary to carry 
     out the purposes described in paragraph (2); and
       (B) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, 
     and materials as the Committee determines necessary.
       (5) Reports.--
       (A) Interim report.--Not later than August 2, 2008, the 
     Committee shall prepare an interim report that details the 
     Committee's findings and make such report available to the 
     public in searchable form on the Internet.
       (B) Final report.--Not later than October 1, 2008, the 
     Committee shall prepare a final report that details the 
     Committee's findings and make such report available to the 
     public in searchable form on the Internet.
       (6) Use of information.--The Committee may share all 
     findings, documents, and information gathered in an 
     investigation under this subsection with--
       (A) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (C) appropriate law enforcement authorities.

  Mr. COBURN. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, let me just say to my friend, I am the 
chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am not the chair 
of the Judiciary Committee. I just want to say for the record, in 
defense of my committee members all, that we fixed this problem in this 
bill. We fixed the problem in the bill. Do I support the Justice 
Department going after the evildoers and putting them in jail? You bet 
I do. But--I hate to say it--in Environment and Public Works, that is 
not our role. I support what the Senator is trying to do here. So let's 
get that clear.
  On page 86, here it is fixed, in section 110. I want to make that 
clear, that our committee did the right thing and fixed this problem.
  My friend is right, there was a committee to look at the rules. But 
if all he is doing is looking at rules--and I know he is not--then what 
is the point? I want to look at what happened. My friend himself talked 
about fraud. The fact is, we better get to the bottom of this, and all 
this committee is going to do is look at rules. Frankly, I don't think 
it is doing much. I would much rather put people in jail. The proper 
way to do that is to call on the Justice Department to look at these 
crimes because, to me, it is the crimes that concern me. I think what 
they did, on the face of it, going in the dead of night, is certainly 
not allowed in our rules--at least my interpretation of the rules. 
That, to me, is not.
  I tell you right now, in our committee we are pretty tough on this. 
We are not allowing people to change things.
  Everything that is in this technical corrections bill--and that is 
why Senator DeMint praised us--is on the Web site for all to see. We 
believe in transparency.
  What this is about is getting to the bottom of allegations of serious 
crimes--bribery. Bribery. That is why I do believe at the end of the 
day let's keep politics out of this issue.
  I can tell you right now, the Senators who get on this committee are 
going to have the flashbulbs going off in their faces, they are going 
to make a big to-do about this, and they are not going to talk about 
rules, they are going to talk about crimes. The sad thing is, even if 
they got to the bottom of it, at the end of the day the committee 
cannot put anybody in jail. The Justice Department can.
  The speech and debate clause is really clear. I know my colleague in 
the chair is a very prominent attorney. If you look at section 6, 
article I, it clearly says:

       . . . for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall 
     not be questioned in any other Place.

  So our attorneys are saying the way this is set up, A, you have 
politics in it; B, you have a constitutional problem, probably; and C, 
it is a lot of hoopla, a lot of cameras, and at the end of the day we 
want to put people in jail. That is what we are talking about, really, 
at the end of the day.
  Looking at the Senator's own document on page 5, he says the 
committee shall share its findings, share its documents, share its 
information, and so on, with various groups.
  I just believe to be tough you have to get the Justice Department 
involved. When there is a knock on the door from the Justice 
Department, you will get to the bottom of this. That is what the Boxer 
amendment does.
  I hope people who really want to be tough will do the tough thing, 
not set up some committee that is going to give Senators and House 
Members a chance to make political points, and the public will look at 
us and say this is just a great big show, but really get to the bottom 
of it and get the Justice Department into this now. There are reports 
that they are looking at some issues, but there is nothing to say that 
they are looking at this particular problem.
  That is what I have to say. My friend is right to bring this up. I am 
glad. When the press said: What do you think? I said: Good for him for 
bringing this up. I am sorry we were not able to agree on the right 
approach, but I feel very good about the approach I have come up with 
here. I look forward to our colleagues voting on this at the 
appropriate time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I will just make one comment.
  First of all, the chair of the EPW Committee is very gracious. I 
appreciate her words, and I intended no disrespect for her in terms of 
her effort. I know she supports this effort to get to the bottom of it. 
But I would make a correction. We only say we should share with three 
people: the appropriate law authorities and the appropriate ethics 
committees of both the House and the Senate.
  We did not envision a show. I would envision that the people who 
might be on this committee would take this very seriously; that, in 
fact, it probably would not be open hearings but, rather, closed, and 
that, in fact, we would get to the bottom of the problem.
  But either way we get to the bottom of the problem, I am happy we are 
going to get there. I think it is important that we get there. As I 
outlined, I think the integrity of what we pass, no matter how we get 
there, as long as we can ensure the integrity, I will be satisfied we 
have done that. I am not sure we will get that.
  The final point I would make is we will be setting a precedent. Let 
us not forget, we will be setting a precedent that the Congress says 
the Justice Department should investigate us. That is a big precedent. 
That is a big precedent. I am not a lawyer. I do not know if it has 
happened before, but I do not like that precedent. I don't like it at 
all. Because I think the integrity of this body is far greater than 
that. I think Members of this body are far above that, that we do not 
need the Justice Department to investigate us. I think we can 
investigate ourselves and we need to demonstrate to the American public 
that we do have the will and courage to do the disciplined thing and do 
the right thing and to solve the problem.
  Then if a referral is needed to the Justice Department, we should 
give it. But I have great qualms, great worries about ceding to the 
Justice Department the power to investigate us. My own personal 
experience is, we do not know where they will go. We do not know that 
they will stick on us. The point is, this is a big precedent I would 
worry about setting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, if I might respond to my friend, No. 1, 
we do not cede a thing. We do not give up anything. As a matter of 
fact, we stay consistent with applicable standards and procedures, and 
this cannot be a fishing expedition. We say the Department of Justice 
shall review allegations of impropriety regarding item 462 in section 
193(4)(C) of Public Law 109-

[[Page S3063]]

59, to ascertain if a violation of Federal criminal law has occurred.
  The question is, to me: Will the people or persons who did something 
wrong be punished? At the end of the day, that is what I am about. I am 
not about big committee hearings and special committees and the rest. 
Listen, I am not about that. I am about: We have a lot of work to do 
for the American people. My friend used words--``fraud,'' he said. He 
said ``fraud.'' He already used it. And in his own resolution he says: 
If they find that there was such fraud, which he already thinks there 
was--which, by the way, I think it was worse than that, but that is 
what I think from what I know.
  There needs to be proof here. I do not mean to leap ahead too far. He 
says he is going to refer it to the proper law enforcement. Why can't I 
say: Well, that is a bad precedent. I do not get it. The difference 
between what the Senator is doing and what I am doing is I am saying: 
It looks bad, as if there were a crime committed; we are not sure. 
Let's get right to the heart of it, and let's go after it.
  Here, what my friend is doing, he says: Before we tell them to look 
at it, we are going to have these hearings. By the way, in his own 
words, he is going to put the findings on the Internet, he is going to 
publish them. I have been around here long enough to know what a circus 
is. I have been involved in a lot of investigations on a lot of 
committees, and what I want is justice done. I do not want political 
theatre. I want justice done. I will tell you why. When justice is done 
and someone goes to jail--we have seen a few people from the other side 
walk off to jail--that sends the best possible message.
  I do not think it ought to be delayed by hearings. Sometimes what 
happens is, it holds up a Justice Department investigation when there 
are public hearings going on. I have been in that circumstance too. So 
I say, here we have two options. One sets up this elaborate committee, 
and the other one says: Let's get to the heart of this, go after these 
bad actors, put them in jail. I think that is the better way to go.
  I guess I have said it a hundred ways to Sunday. I would stand on 
those remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. I certainly appreciate hearing the debate on the 
amendments of the technical corrections of the highway bill.
  I want to take a little detour for a moment. I ask unanimous consent 
to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Nigerian Detaining

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise to speak on a matter that has 
been of great concern this week to not only the Governor of the State 
of Montana and Senator Baucus, but to my colleagues from the State of 
Washington, Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray.
  Four Americans were detained last weekend in Nigeria. They have been 
held in Nigeria until today. Today they were released. It is an 
enormous relief to all of us and particularly to those families, that 
Sandy Cioffi, Tammi Sims, Clifford Worsham, and Sean Porter will soon 
be reunited with their loved ones.
  Nigeria's State Security Service has been overseeing their custody 
since Saturday afternoon, more than 100 hours. They were charged with 
no crime. They were in the country legally. They did nothing wrong. So 
we worked closely to try to get these folks released, and it did 
happen. It is particularly of importance to me because one of the 
people who was detained is a lady by the name of Tammi Sims. Tammi is 
from Joplin, MT, which is a stone's throw away from my hometown. I have 
been in regular contact with her family since last weekend, and they 
have been worried sick. But now we have reason for hope. We will not be 
celebrating, however, until Tammi is reunited and the others are 
reunited with their families here in the United States. We will 
continue to keep our fingers crossed, and Sharla and I will continue to 
pray for Tammi and the rest of the group until they are back here on 
American soil.
  I do, however, want to take a minute to thank the consular affairs 
section of the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, who were so very helpful in 
getting information about these individuals back to my office and to 
the families of those folks. I also thank the dedicated Foreign Service 
officers of the State Department. They do this kind of work all over 
the world, probably every day, but it is not until one of your own is 
in need of assistance that you appreciate their work, and I do.
  I also thank some of my other colleagues, including Senator Feingold, 
Senator Brown, who also expressed support for these folks. I thank them 
for that. This is a good day, and hopefully those folks will be back in 
their home country very soon with their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                  Congratulating Dover Air Force Base

  Mr. CARPER. While we are talking as in morning business, I wish to 
continue the detour, although I may take a little different direction.
  As the Chair and my colleague from Montana probably know, each year 
our military bases in this country go through a competition in which 
Air Force bases are evaluated against other Air Force bases, and naval 
installations against other naval installations, Marine Corps against 
others, Army installations against other Army installations.
  For 23 years or so the Air Force has been comparing their bases in a 
friendly competition called the Commander in Chief's Installation 
Excellence Award. During that period of time, it is my understanding 
that no mobility command, no airlift base, if you will, such as Dover, 
has ever been honored as the best of the best.
  Yesterday I was visited here on Capitol Hill by COL Steve Harrison, 
who is the active-duty wing commander for the Dover Air Force Base, and 
he gave me this letter announcing the good news, that Dover Air Force 
Base has been selected for this high honor.
  As an old naval flight officer, I remember often my squadrons on the 
naval bases where I was located participating in ORI exercises, 
operational readiness exercises. This is not an ORI. This is a 
competition which digs in deep and looks at things other than how well 
you fly your airplanes and meet your readiness requirements and meet 
your mission, although that is part of it.
  This is a competition that also involves how you care for your 
people; what kind of workspaces do you provide for the folks who are on 
your bases, the uniformed, nonuniformed personnel? How do you look out 
for the families of those military personnel? How well do you think 
outside the box in trying to address the problems and challenges you 
face? What kind of commitment do you have to innovation in the delivery 
of the service you provide to support our military forces?
  There are over 100 Air Force installations throughout this country. 
To have been chosen as the one that is believed to be most worthy of 
receiving this award this year is a matter of great pride, not only for 
the men and women who wear the uniform at the base, not only for the 
civilians who work there, and for the families, not only for the Air 
Force retirees in our State--and there are a lot of them who served at 
Dover Air Force Base--not only for the folks who live in Dover, the 
civilian population in central Delaware, this is a matter of pride for 
all of Delaware.
  We have one active-duty installation, actually active duty and a 
reserve wing at Dover Air Force Base. We have an Air Guard installation 
up north in our State that we are very proud of. They fly C-130s. But 
this one, Dover Air Force Base, is very special to the people in our 
State. They fly C-5 aircraft, which are among the largest aircraft in 
the world. To be from a little State, and to be the home of one of the 
biggest aircraft in the world, gives us bragging rights that little 
States do not often get.
  We have C-5B aircraft, about 18 of those at our base. We are getting 
a new squadron, a squadron of brand new C-17 aircraft that will 
complement our C-5s. The C-5s will be modernized in the years to come.
  Dover Air Force Base has not only wonderful people, a terrific 
tradition and reputation, but will also have the new C-17s and maybe 
the first modernized C-5s. We will be ready to go to work and do our 
job.
  Among the things pointed out in the recognition of Dover Air Force 
Base is

[[Page S3064]]

that they have secured, I think in the last year or so, October 1, last 
fiscal year, October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007, among other 
things, they have secured some roughly $50 million in milcon projects. 
I hope our delegation, Senator Biden, Congressman Castle and I, was 
helpful in that process. We are grateful to our colleagues for the 
support of that funding.
  During that period of time, we opened a brand new air freight 
terminal that cost, over several years, about $77.5 million. The 
efficiencies that will flow from that new cargo-handling facility will 
actually pay for that facility within 2 years. Now, whenever companies 
are looking for a way of a return on investment, the idea that you can 
get a return on investment in 5 years or maybe even 10 years is not 
deemed very bad. We will realize a return on this investment for our 
new cargo-handling facility, our air freight terminal, within 2 years 
of bringing it on line.
  What we have done at the base in terms of privatizing the housing and 
providing enlisted and officer personnel with better housing for 
themselves and their families is something we greatly appreciate. Also, 
in the Air Force, they conduct roughly every 400 or so days an 
inspection called an isochronal inspection. The isochronal inspections 
that are now being provided for C-5 aircraft take place not only for 
the air mobility command C-5S but for those that are in the Air Reserve 
components and the C-5s that are part of the Air National Guards are 
all done at Dover Air Force Base.
  The good news is not only are they done at Dover, because they are 
done at the Air Force base with people who know how to do this work, 
trained to do it, they are able to greatly reduce the amount of time it 
takes to produce the isochronal inspection--not to diminish the 
quality, the thoroughness of that inspection, but to reduce the time. 
Since time is money, we are saving some money there for the taxpayers.
  Dover Air Force Base provides over one-quarter of all the Department 
of Defense airlift requirements. They have for some time. With the new 
cargo-handling facility coming on line, we expect to see that number go 
up. I understand in the last year or so, the last fiscal year, they 
completed more than 20 antiterrorism and force protection initiatives.
  So to the team at Dover Air Force base that very much is a team, the 
active-duty wing, the Reserve wing, which works seamlessly together in 
providing airlift capabilities for our country and around the world, 
this old naval flight officer salutes you on a job well done. On behalf 
of every single Delawarean, congratulations and God bless. Keep up the 
great work.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, yesterday, the Secretary of Defense 
announced the 2008 Commander in Chief's Awards for Installation 
Excellence. These awards honor the best installation for each service. 
For the first time in the 23-year history of the award, the Air Force 
winner is a mobility base, Dover Air Force Base. Out of 117 Air Force 
installations, Dover AFB was chosen as the absolute best.
  I cannot say that I was surprised. I believe they won because of the 
tradition of excellence imbued in each man and woman working at Dover.
  It started in 1941, when the 112th Observation Squadron of the Ohio 
National Guard arrived to set up antisubmarine operations at the new 
Dover airfield. That mission and the others that helped America and her 
allies win World War II began an enduring tradition of excellence. In 
1948, the airfield was officially named Dover Air Force Base and the 
Nation moved into its Cold War posture. Some may not know this, but for 
7 years, 1951-1958, Dover was home to fighter squadrons defending 
American airspace.
  In 1955, one of Dover's best known missions came to the base, the 
Aerial Port Mortuary. For over 70 years, the Dover team has given 
fallen Americans an honorable and compassionate homecoming. While it is 
only one mission on the base, every generation of air men and women 
stationed at Dover has taken pride in honoring America's heroes and 
ensuring the grace and dignity of their return to our Nation and their 
families.
  By the late 1950s, Dover was transformed into a mobility base, under 
the Military Air Transport Service, which became Military Airlift 
Command, and eventually became Air Mobility Command. Since 1973, Dover 
has been home to America's largest military transport aircraft, the C-
5. Just last year, the Nation's second largest military transport 
aircraft, the C-17, was added to the base. As home to the Nation's 
great airlifters, Dover has always been busy--supporting American 
forces in every military engagement from Vietnam to Grenada to Panama 
to the first gulf war to the Balkans to Afghanistan and Iraq; 
supporting our Israeli allies with critical supplies during the Yom 
Kippur War; evacuating Americans from Iran in 1978; assisting with 
clean-up from the devastating Exxon Valdez oil spill; assisting Central 
American nations, Turkey, and Taiwan that have experienced devastating 
earthquakes; providing humanitarian aid around the globe after major 
natural disasters; and supporting Presidential travel around the world. 
This dual mission, to provide lethal force and vital humanitarian aid, 
makes Dover critical to America's use of both hard and soft power and 
has made it all the more important that every generation serving at 
Dover carry on the tradition of excellence.
  This year, Dover's tradition of excellence and the entire Dover team 
have been recognized with the Commander in Chief's Award. What does it 
mean to be the best base in the Air Force? It means that the entire 
Dover team has found innovative ways to make the absolute most of the 
resources they have. They have not only saved the taxpayers money, they 
have also given the warfighter more capability.
  They have also been unstinting in giving back to the local community 
and the larger Delaware community. The Dover team is not just the air 
men and women serving on the base. It is also their families, civilians 
working on base, the businesses that support base operations and life, 
the State and local government that support base needs, and the entire 
Delaware military community working together to give the State and the 
Nation the very best.
  Let me give you some examples from the seven categories that were 
considered in the competition. Keep in mind that all of these 
accomplishments occurred in 1 year. They were only possible because the 
people at Dover, despite full-time, 365/24/7 operations in support of 
Iraq and Afghanistan, constantly challenged themselves to do more and 
to do it better.
  First, improvements to the infrastructure of the base and the working 
environment were considered.
  Dover opened a state-of-the-art, $77.5 million Air Freight Terminal 
that increased cargo capacity and efficiency through Dover by 50 
percent. The base also invested $53 million in a major runway 
improvement project and another $3.5 million to repair 183,000 square 
feet of taxiway, improving both the efficiency and safety of airfield 
operations. After a close analysis of their budget, the Dover team 
found $32 million to use for base improvements, including a $5 million 
renovation of a squadron operations building, C-5 recapitalization, and 
projects needed for the C-17 squadron setup. Thoughtful planning 
allowed Dover to keep the bed down of a new C-17 squadron on schedule 
because base personnel proactively made $780,000 necessary basic 
infrastructure improvements. In addition, they installed solar lights 
on the runways and reinforced the taxiway so that C-17 aircrews could 
do navigation training and combat off-load training.
  Dover also improved security operations by installing over 450 
removable bollards on the base, including some at the gate in a ``Lazy 
S'' curve to prevent reverse entry threats. The bollard installation 
reduced the force protection squadron's time spent on contracting by 50 
percent, freeing them for security missions. Security was further 
enhanced by the installation of a $450,000 crash-rated airfield gate, 
U.S. Transportation Command's No. 1 priority for force protection, and 
by the use of radiological detection equipment to screen over 91,000 
trucks in 1 year alone. This valuable equipment, valued at $150,000, 
was obtained by base personnel at no cost. In addition, by renovating 
the Security Forces firing range at a cost of $4.8 million, the base 
was able to increase the range's capacity by 15 percent and save 1,000 
manhours per year.

[[Page S3065]]

  Second, improvements to the quality of life on the base were 
considered.
  Dover has pioneered Air Mobility Command's privatization effort for 
base housing. Dover built 240 homes in 2007 and was named the 2007 
Outstanding Housing Installation Team-Privatized Location for the Air 
Force. The $250 million housing project is the benchmark for the 
command and will ultimately increase the housing standards for 980 
families when complete in 2009. Dover's Services Squadron was 
recognized as Air Mobility Command's 2007 Youth Program of the Year and 
the Outdoor Recreation Program earned the Air Force's 5-Star Program 
Award. Quality of life for airmen was further enhanced by finalizing 
the design of a $13 million, 144-room dormitory that exceeds command 
standards and will be a model for other bases.
  Keeping the Dover team, including families, healthy is critical to a 
high quality of life. Dover is the only base in the command with 100 
percent of its pharmacy technicians nationally certified. In addition, 
the base was first in the command and third in the Air Force for flu 
immunization rates, at over 99 percent.
  Third, efforts to enhance the productivity of the workforce were 
considered.
  Dover has taken the lead role in reducing the time needed for 
Isochronal, ISO, inspections and, as a result, was made the regional 
center for all east coast C-5 Isochronal inspections in July of 2007. 
This is the first such regional facility in the Air Force. 
Historically, an ISO inspection took up to 38 days to complete. The 
436th Maintenance Team reviewed the entire process to increase velocity 
while maintaining quality. This led the team to one record-breaking 
effort in which an ISO inspection was completed in only 13.2 days. 
These initiatives were also a key reason the 436th Maintenance Squadron 
won the 2006 Air Force Maintenance Effectiveness Award.
  In order to reduce the time planes are on the ground, the 436th 
Maintenance Squadron did a complete review of how they maintained 
ground equipment. As a result, they were able to reduce the steps each 
mechanic takes from 763 to 73, saving 29.7 minutes per inspection, 
while reducing wait time by 34 minutes. They also saved 63.7 minutes 
per inspection or 26.54 manhours per year and vacated 17,660 square 
feet of floor space to be designated for other use. The cellular work 
design they came up with is considered the benchmark for such designs 
in the command and is a model of how the Air Force Smart Operations for 
the 21st century initiative and use of Lean Six Sigma, a process 
improvement approach first used in the private sector, can make better 
use of existing resources.
  The Dover Operations Group improved throughput for aircraft by 
creating the only C-5 one-stop/jet-side service system in the Air 
Force. The Required Flight Manual, Flight Information Publications, 
weapons and tools needed by an aircrew for a mission are delivered 
directly to the aircraft. This reduces travel time by 20 minutes, 
allowing a 12-percent reduction in the C-5 launch sequence and 
providing more duty days for the crews to complete their missions.
  Dover was able to reduce the amount of time needed to overhaul and 
rebuild C-5 jet engines, TF39, by 12 days, going from 75 to 63 days. 
The process improvement also allowed two production crews to be 
reassigned to other sections, regained five critical manning positions, 
and saved 36 manpower positions and $3.8 million in operating costs. On 
the whole, by reducing wasted motion for support equipment and tools, 
the 436th Maintenance Group has saved 73.3 annual man-days and 
expedited engine repairs so that they are done 5 days faster than the 
original standard and freeing 1,944 square feet of floor space for 
other work.

  Another key initiative was the effort to ensure that Basic Post 
Flight inspections be done within 10 hours of mission completion. This 
initiative was begun in 2005 by the Dover Maintenance Group Commander 
and brought completion time down to 6 hours, a 40-percent improvement. 
The complete process review improved Home Station Logistics Reliability 
rate by 40 percent and overtime man hours were reduced by 75 percent. 
Overall, this means the team saved 23,000 labor-hours and $1.168 
million. The mission benefits included the following: a reduced number 
of tail swaps, increased number of aircraft ready for flight, reduced 
number of late take-offs, and dramatically improved efficiency in the 
launch sequence of events.
  The Dover team also ensured a seamless transition for the new C-17 
squadron, ensuring that Dover's first C-17 was able to fly its first 
combat mission within 36 days of arrival. In the squadron's first 
month, they had a 100-percent on-time departure rate and a 99-percent 
mission capable rate.
  In addition, once investigators were done with the 2007 C-5 crash 
scene, Dover personnel took the initiative to save and recover parts. 
Their efforts ensured that 127 parts were recovered, inspected, and 
restocked into the Air Force supply system, saving $7 million.
  Fourth, increases in customer satisfaction or improvements in 
customer service were considered.
  Today, Dover's key mission, or customer service, is to support 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Twenty-seven percent of the entire 
Department of Defense airlift requirement last year went from Dover. 
The 3rd and 9th Airlift Squadrons flew more than 8,000 hours, with more 
than 2,000 combat hours and 460 combat missions. The two squadrons 
combined airlifted 59.4 million pounds of cargo and more than 12,000 
passengers.
  Dover is the second busiest en route airfield in the Department of 
Defense. It supported 3,000 en route missions in 2007 with a 95-percent 
departure reliability rate.
  In addition, Dover assisted America's diplomatic efforts and the 
State Department by supporting foreign military sales to 32 countries, 
handling 85 missions and 950 tons of cargo.
  The Dover team also made sure that it provided the best possible 
services to military personnel and their families on base. Access to 
mental health care was increased by 35 percent, despite a 40-percent 
decrease in manning. This exceeded the command's goal for access by 20 
percent. In order to keep basic operations functioning, the 
Communications Squadron answered 99 percent of their 2,700 assistance 
requests within 2 days. That is 4 percent better than the Air Force 
standard.
  In an effort to improve safety and provide instantaneous responses to 
emergencies with existing resources, the Civil Engineer Fire Department 
teamed with the Medical Group to provide 24/7 ambulance service. The 
Medical Group Airmen who provide ambulance response are now co-located 
at the emergency call center at the base Fire Department.

  Fifth, efforts to encourage bottom-to-top communication and team 
problem solving were considered.
  Dover has been a true leader in implementing Air Force Smart 
Operations for the 21st century. The key to the success of this 
initiative to make operations more streamlined and ``lean'' has been 
clear communication and a team approach. In recognition of this 
excellence, Dover has hosted numerous training sessions for units from 
five major commands, Air Force senior leaders, and for the Royal Air 
Force. Dover instructors have trained 4,200 students in Basic Lean 
Awareness including a program at the First Term Airmen Center.
  Dover is the first base in the command to have two fully qualified 
level-2 facilitators. These facilitators certified seven level-1 
facilitators and trained another 20 level-1 students. They have 
successfully made operations more efficient in over 50 areas in just 1 
year. In addition, Dover's trainers ensured that 210 future Ramstein 
Air Force Base and Charleston Air Force Base facilitators understood 
the basics of lean initiatives. These efforts won the Dover team praise 
from the Logistics Director at Air Mobility Command Headquarters.
  Sixth, the promotion of unit cohesiveness and the recognition of 
outstanding individual effort was considered.
  The Dover team won two Department of Defense, one Secretary of the 
Air Force, 12 Air Force, and 93 Air Mobility Command Awards in 2006. In 
addition, they won the 2007 U.S. Small Business Administration Award 
for the State of Delaware. One critical example of why these awards 
were won is in antiterrorism, where they won command honors for the 
ninth consecutive year for best

[[Page S3066]]

antiterrorism and force protection programs. Dover was able to obtain 
$1.2 million in Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Funds that it 
used to resolve installation vulnerabilities, resulting in winning the 
Department of Defense's Best Antiterrorism Operational Unit in 2006 and 
the Department of Defense's Best Antiterrorism Program Manager Awards 
for 2007. The Dover team won these awards by completing over 20 
antiterrorism and force protection initiatives that created a hard 
target security signature. These efforts paid off by deterring Fort Dix 
terrorists from attacking Dover AFB. This event permeated Air Force 
culture and is commonly referred to as the ``Dover Effect.''
  Seventh, the promotion of energy conservation and environmental 
safety, including compliance, remediation, and stewardship, was 
considered.
  The maintenance squadron at Dover was able to dramatically improve 
the process for cleaning ground equipment while also making it more 
environmentally sound. Formerly all ground equipment had to be moved to 
a separate wash facility primarily used for aircraft. Through careful 
research, a completely self-contained wash system with zero 
environmental impact was selected, designed, and installed in the 
ground equipment facility. This decreased travel time from 190 hours to 
12 hours a year, a 94-percent savings. This increased the capability 
and availability for ground equipment, alleviated contractual issues 
that had arisen with the old cleaning system, and reduced the chance 
for aircraft delays. The new process is environmentally friendly and 
captures, filters, and recycles all waste water.
  Dover also received the 2006 Secretary of Defense Environmental 
Restoration Award for Best Environmental Restoration Program for its 
restoration of natural resources used to support the base's warfighting 
mission. Dover reached the Defense Department's environmental goals 4 
to 8 years ahead of schedule. Activities at Dover Air Force Base which 
earned this award include, but are not limited to: obtaining regulator 
signatures on six Records of Decision for 39 sites in 6 months; 
achieving Response Complete status at 27 of Dover's 59 sites; opening 
up 54 acres of formerly restricted land for use in supporting the 
base's mission; and completing Remedial Designs and Work Plans for 17 
sites in only 3 months.
  In addition, Dover won the 2006 Air Force General Thomas D. White 
Environmental Award which recognizes the efforts of installations and 
individuals to improve environmental quality, restoration, pollution 
prevention, recycling, and conservation of natural and cultural 
resources. Dover is 6 years ahead of schedule in its environmental 
remediation program.
  These are the areas that the selection committee looked at when it 
decided which base was the best in the Air Force this past year. It is 
obvious that in every area, the Dover team took seriously the challenge 
to improve base operations and the quality of life wherever possible. 
From the smallest process improvements to the largest investments in 
critical infrastructure, Dover personnel found ways to do more. The 
result is not just that they upheld the base's long tradition of 
excellence, they surpassed it. In so doing, they have truly given our 
Nation their best and have made me and every Delawarean proud. We have 
always known Dover is the best in the Air Force. It is time the rest of 
the Nation knew about your excellence.
  Congratulations, Dover Air Force Base!
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Firefighters Killed in Colorado

  Mr. SALAZAR. I come to speak in regard to three firefighters killed 
in the State of Colorado in the last day and a half. These three 
firefighters are part of the legion of first responders who make sure 
they are keeping us safe day in and day out. In Colorado, in the last 
day we have had three significant fires that have broken out: one in 
Crowley County, one in El Paso County in Fort Carson, and a third in 
Garfield and Pitkin Counties in Carbondale.
  The fire in Crowley County, we had two volunteer firefighters who 
gave their lives fighting that fire. They are John Schwartz and Terry 
DeVore. To them, their families, we appreciate their sacrifice, serving 
as first responders often do, putting their lives on the line to make 
sure communities are protected.
  In the case of Gert Marais, who was fighting the fire at Fort Carson 
and whose plane crashed while he was fighting the fire, to his family 
we also send our condolences and appreciation.
  These are unusual fires for us in Colorado. Usually we get to fire 
season during the dry times of July and August, September and October. 
This year in particular we have had moisture that is on average about 
200 percent over a normal year in all of our southern river basins, 
which is seemingly unprecedented. But the fires have been driven by 
high winds, and the damage has been significant.
  In Ordway in Crowley County, a rural and remote part of our State, 
much of the town of Ordway has been devastated; 1,100 people who live 
in the town had to be evacuated because of the fire. I have been in 
Crowley County and Ordway many times in my public life. It is one of 
those counties in Colorado which is part of that forgotten America. It 
is rural and very remote. Thousands upon thousands of acres of land 
within Crowley County have been dried up as the water that irrigated 
those fields has been taken to so-called higher economic uses of the 
city, the cities of Pueblo, and Colorado Springs, and the Denver 
metropolitan area.
  It is this fire that caused extensive damage to the town of Ordway 
and has also created the devastation.
  I am certain the 1,100 citizens of Ordway, as devastated as they are 
in the aftermath of the fire, are also very rich and powerful in 
spirit. With that power of spirit, they will rebuild the town and the 
community. I will be there, along with my colleagues, to do everything 
we can to help them rebuild.
  I appreciate the efforts of Governor Ritter and the Federal agencies 
that have been so responsive to the issues created by these fires in 
Colorado.


                         Visit of Pope Benedict

  I also rise to speak concerning the Pope's visit to America. This 
morning, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, I participated 
in greeting the Pope upon his arrival at the White House with President 
and Mrs. Bush.
  It is a momentous occasion for all of us who come from a Roman 
Catholic tradition to have Pope Benedict visit America. It is our hope 
that as he comes to Washington and then goes to New York and visits 
Ground Zero and also addresses the United Nations, one of the things 
the Pope will do is to talk about what he is here to do, and that is to 
talk about how it is that we are one global community. As we deal with 
the issues that confront our world today, whether they relate to 
terrorism or poverty, disease or the issue of global climate change, at 
the end of the day it is important to recognize that the hope and 
optimism of humanity is bound up in how we work together as one people. 
It is a message of hope and optimism.
  We have looked forward to his visit to America and to the inspiration 
that he will give to 300 million Americans, as well as the over 50 
million Catholics we have in the United States.
  Some years ago, in 1993 and 1994, we prepared for and held World 
Youth Day where Pope John Paul II came to the United States and visited 
many of us in Colorado. He had a mass at Cherry Creek State Park which 
was attended by over 500,000 young Americans from throughout the United 
States as well as the world. It was a celebration of World Youth Day in 
Denver. It was characterized as one of the most peaceful gatherings of 
a crowd that size in the history of the State, a crowd that size, in 
terms of the peacefulness of it, probably in the United States. It left 
a legacy not only in Colorado but across the United States and the 
world about the hope and optimism that we see in America and in the 
world, so much of it through the eyes of our young people.

[[Page S3067]]

  Today, for me, as I greeted the Pope in Washington, DC, at the White 
House, I was reminded about the hope and optimism which is part of the 
legacy John Paul II left when he came to visit in Colorado now some 15 
years ago.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the majority leader will be coming out 
shortly to let Members know what is happening. But I can tell everybody 
that this bill is being slow walked. This is a simple bill. This is a 
mini-economic stimulus bill. It would release $1 billion of highway 
trust fund moneys to build roads, to fix bridges, to run transit 
systems, and it got caught up in Presidential politics, 
investigations--everything you can think of--while the people wonder 
what we are doing.
  This bill, simple as it is, would create about 50,000 new jobs at a 
time when we know--it is worse than a middle-class squeeze. It is 
really a middle-class struggle that is going on, and people are 
worried. They are worried about their homes, they are worried about 
everything, and this bill will create jobs.
  So what we have is a classical slowdown, with Presidential politics 
being involved dealing with the gas tax that funds the highway trust 
fund. That is fine, but just let everybody know from where it is 
coming. The only amendments to this bill--the only amendments--come 
from the Republican side. I offered one as a side-by-side to Senator 
Coburn's, which I think is a good amendment. My amendment will not 
bring down this bill. Others will.
  Here is where we are. We have a simple bill. It passed a year ago in 
the House. It passed, I believe it was June of 2007, under the 
leadership of Senator Inhofe. Actually, it was under my leadership but 
with the work of Senator Inhofe, both of us working together, 
bipartisan, bicameral.
  I want to show you, Mr. President, who is strongly supporting this 
bill: the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, 
that is departments of transportation officials of all 50 States; the 
American Highway Users Alliance, millions of highway users throughout 
the country; the American Public Transit Association, transit systems 
from across the country; the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Associations, more than 5,000 members of the transportation 
construction industry; Associated General Contractors, more than 32,000 
contractors, service providers, and suppliers; the Council of 
University Transportation Centers, more than 30 university 
transportation centers from across the country; the National Stone, 
Sand and Gravel Association, companies producing more than 92 percent 
of crushed stone and 75 percent of sand and gravel used in the U.S. 
annually; the National Asphalt and Pavement Association, more than 
1,100 companies that produce and pave with asphalt.
  These are real people who are willing, ready, and able to build and 
rebuild our infrastructure, to build and rebuild our transit systems. 
This bill is a no brainer. Instead, it is caught up in all of these 
negotiations right now. Whether we vote tonight or not, we are going to 
find out soon enough from Senator Reid. But, Mr. President, let me say 
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Senator Inhofe and I 
really wanted to get them a good bill. Senator Inhofe and I really 
wanted to get this work done quickly. We did all our homework. We put 
everybody's name on the Web site, so we complied with the new ethical 
rules. Senator DeMint said he was very pleased with the standard we set 
for transparency.
  These projects are ready to go. They are ready to go in Brooklyn, 
they are ready to go in Manhattan, they are ready to go in San 
Francisco, they are ready to go in Atlanta, and they are ready to go in 
Oklahoma. They are ready to go in every State of the Union. I say to 
all these good people who told us how much they want this bill to move: 
Please contact the Republican leadership and tell them to play 
Presidential politics another day with amendments that are not germane, 
with amendments that don't belong on this bill. Today pass this 
legislation.
  There is too much talk around here and not enough action. We passed a 
stimulus bill. We did it in a bipartisan way, but we all know there is 
more to be done. This little bill will create tens of thousands of 
good-paying jobs in America, doing something that has to be done. But, 
no, we cannot finish it. We had one vote so far on an amendment by 
Senator DeMint. We defeated it, which was important because it was a 
killer amendment. It says to me people want this bill.
  This is the status. We are waiting for some type of agreement. This 
whole thing is being slow walked. We look forward to hearing from the 
majority leader as to whether there will be any more votes this 
evening. But as far as this Senator is concerned--I know I speak for 
Senator Inhofe--we want to get this bill done. But people are slow 
walking this bill. We are going to do our best to see if we can get 
this logjam stopped. But at this point, we have not been able to do it.
  Tens of thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, and 500 various transit 
projects already paid for are in jeopardy. What a shame we cannot go 
forward. What a shame we are in another slowdown by my friends from the 
other side of the aisle. It is very discouraging.
  Again, as the eternal optimist, I will return to this place tonight, 
if we can continue working, or tomorrow after we come in after we pay 
our respects to the Pope.

                          ____________________