[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24008-24013]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3074, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 2790

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended 
be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments, 
and that no points of order be waived for purposes of this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2790) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is now 
debating the Senate amendment to H.R. 3074. This is the Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for this coming 
fiscal year. This bill has been supported by the broadest possible 
bipartisan majorities. The Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development Appropriations subcommittee has 21 members, more than one-
fifth of the Senate. It is one of the largest subcommittees in the 
Senate. Despite the diversity of views on our very large subcommittee, 
back on July 10 we voted unanimously to report the bill to the full 
Appropriations Committee, and 2 days later, each and every one of the 
29 members of that committee voted to report this bill to the Senate.
  This bill has broad, bipartisan support because it addresses 
pragmatically the very real housing and transportation needs of 
American families across all regions of the Nation. Rather than endorse 
the many arbitrary and destructive cuts called for in the 
administration's budget, we worked in this bill to target our limited 
resources on getting citizens out of traffic jams and home to their 
families; keeping our low-income tenants in their homes and out of 
shelters; providing housing for the elderly and the disabled; investing 
in crumbling infrastructure, and improving safety on our runways, 
highways, and railways.
  Much has been said recently about a looming battle between the White 
House and Congress over spending priorities and the funding levels in 
these

[[Page 24009]]

appropriations bills. There is no question that the bill before us 
spends more than the level sought by the Bush administration, both for 
transportation and for housing. Yet this bill still has broad 
bipartisan support, and I believe the Senate would benefit greatly from 
a detailed explanation as to why that is the case.
  More than any other reason, this bill spends more than the 
administration's budget because it rejects many of the most punitive 
and misguided cuts that were proposed by the White House. The 
President's budget that he sent us for fiscal year 2008 proposed cuts 
across the board. Those included cuts that would put low-income tenants 
and their children on the streets. It proposed cuts that would 
undermine transportation safety, especially when it comes to aviation 
and railway safety; cuts that would worsen congestion on our Nation's 
roadways and runways; and cuts that undermine the community development 
efforts of mayors and county executives and Governors across this 
country.
  So this bill spends more than the President's budget, not because it 
includes vast new spending initiatives but because it simply refuses to 
acquiesce to the President's reckless cuts. These are the very same 
cuts that have been proposed in recent years by the Bush administration 
and rightly rejected by the then-Republican-led Congress. That is why 
every member of the Appropriations Committee voted to support this 
bill.
  In addition to restoring funding to the cuts that were proposed in 
the President's budget, there are a limited number of selected funding 
increases in this bill. Those increases are targeted on efforts to 
maintain the current service levels for the HUD section 8 program, so 
tenants do not lose their homes. It continues to make investments in 
highway infrastructure so we can address our crumbling bridges and 
highways. It addresses the critical housing needs of homeless veterans, 
including veterans who are struggling after returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan. And it addresses the current crisis in the mortgage market 
by boosting funding to counsel subprime borrowers who are today facing 
default and foreclosure.
  As appropriators, we have an obligation to ensure that with our 
limited resources we are addressing the most critical and current needs 
we face in transportation and in housing. I believe we can all agree 
the needs of our returning veterans, especially those in need of 
housing while they struggle with physical or mental illness, have to be 
paramount. I believe we can all agree that with billions of dollars of 
mortgages about to reset to higher interest rates in the next few 
quarters, we have to do everything we can to help our borrowers keep 
their homes.
  I have been greatly fortunate to be joined by my ranking member, 
Senator Bond, in crafting this package. Senator Bond's long service on 
the Appropriations Committee, as well as his work on the Public Works 
and Banking Committees, has made him one of our leading experts in the 
areas of both transportation and housing. Senator Bond's leadership and 
his commitment to the mission of HUD takes a back seat to no one. I 
could not have a better or more experienced partner in this effort.
  The bill that Senator Bond and I put together contains 
congressionally directed earmark spending. Consistent with the 
instructions of Senator Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran, those earmarks 
have been substantially reduced from prior years.
  For the first time in a great many years, the committee has reported 
a bill that will leave dollars available to initiate national 
competitions among all eligible applicants for discretionary 
transportation programs. For the first time in several years, this bill 
requires every earmarked project to be fully eligible under the basic 
authorizing statute for the pertinent program in which it is earmarked.
  Those projects must also conform to other strict criteria newly 
imposed by our subcommittee this year.
  Now, as I said earlier, this bill spends more money than the 
President's request, principally because it rejects a great many of the 
cuts that were proposed in the President's budget cut, that by the way 
have been rejected year by year by Republican Congresses.
  I want to take a few minutes of the Senate's time today to discuss 
those cuts in greater detail. The President proposed to cut community 
development efforts in all our States and communities across the Nation 
by slashing the CDBG Program by $735 million or 20 percent.
  Now, at a time when our changing economy is imposing unprecedented 
challenges to our mayors and our governors in preserving their 
struggling cities and towns, the President wanted to slash this effort 
by almost three-quarters of a billion dollars.
  I have yet, personally, to meet a mayor or governor of any political 
party who endorses that approach. So our bill restores every penny of 
that cut. The President's budget also proposed to cut housing funding 
for the disabled by $112 million, almost 50 percent. At a time when our 
social service networks are trying to give our disabled citizens the 
chance to live independently, the Bush administration wants to slash 
that program in half.
  Now, if that is not bad enough, at a time when the number of senior 
citizens is growing, the President's budget for HUD seeks to cut 
housing for low-income seniors by $160 million or 22 percent. So the 
bill before you restores every penny of those cuts.
  The bill also rejects the President's proposal to completely 
eliminate funding for the very successful HOPE VI Program. Senators 
Bond and Mikulski deserve a great deal of credit for the success of 
that program. We have again restored funding for it so we can demolish 
some of the most decrepit and crime-ridden housing projects with new 
mixed-income developments that are cleaner, safer, and promote stable 
community living.
  The bill before us rejects several punitive cuts proposed for the 
Department of Transportation. The President's budget proposed to slash 
funding for Amtrak by almost $500 million or 40 percent in a single 
year. This subcommittee heard testimony back in late February that a 
cut of that size would cripple the railroad and push it into certain 
bankruptcy. That was not just the view of Amtrak supporters, that was 
the view of the DOT inspector general who audits Amtrak's books every 
quarter.
  The bill before us also rejects the President's proposal to cut 
subsidies for the Essential Air Service Program, which would eliminate 
all flights to dozens of rural and midsized communities in about every 
State.
  At a time when our commercial airlines are terminating air service to 
small- and medium-sized cities, the President's budgets worsens the 
situation by slashing subsidies to keep some of those cities on the 
national aviation map.
  As anyone who has taken a flight recently can attest, the number of 
air travelers has now well exceeded the levels we experienced prior to 
September 11. Flights are packed and are too often delayed. Planes are 
landing to find there are no gates to accommodate them. Consumer 
complaints are growing. Our air traffic control infrastructure is 
increasingly showing its age, with equipment outages and near misses 
occurring with frightening frequency.
  Yet, as in past years, the President's budget for the FAA proposes to 
slash over $800 million from our programs that invest in airport 
capacity, safety projects, and modernizing the air traffic control 
system.
  Maybe if the President flew commercial instead of on Air Force One we 
would see a much different budget here. But thankfully, as was the case 
in past years, our bill that is before us today rejects those proposed 
cuts.
  Finally, as I mentioned before, the bill before us includes some 
select but critically needed funding increases. The President's budget 
proposed an absolute freeze on the amount of money available for tenant 
housing vouchers for the coming years, completely ignoring inflationary 
costs and rising rents. This bill provides a $500 million increase for 
tenant-based rental assistance. That is the amount we estimate

[[Page 24010]]

will be needed to ensure that all currently federally assisted tenants 
can stay in their homes.
  Senator Bond and I joined forces to add $78 million for the HUD-VASH 
Program. That program was designed to target both housing assistance 
and support services to our homeless veterans, including our veterans 
who are returning today from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  We have coordinated this increase in voucher funding with a 
comparable increase in supportive services funding in the 
appropriations bill for the VA and military construction. This is a 
program that has not received funding for several years. I am very 
proud to say that our new initiatives will provide critically needed 
funding to support at least 7,500 homeless veterans.
  This bill has also included small and selected increases to address 
critical and worsening problems with transportation safety. Small 
increases above the President's budget are provided to hire more air 
safety inspectors. At present, these inspectors cannot inspect all the 
maintenance facilities they are responsible for, and we are especially 
concerned about these facilities that are overseas.
  We have also provided small increases for rail safety, highway 
safety, and pipeline safety. Our subcommittee, in fact, had a special 
hearing on the rising level of highway fatalities. We have worked to 
respond to some of the needs that were cited during that hearing.
  We have also provided increased funding to enable the Department of 
Transportation to investigate the growing backlog of customer service 
complaints by airline passengers.
  In summary, this bill rejects reckless and misguided cuts that 
Republican-led Congresses have also rejected before, cuts that would 
harm our infrastructure, our communities, and our citizens. It also 
contains modest targeted increases on programs that are tackling 
emerging and growing problems, programs that will help our veterans, 
our safety and our efforts to keep our families in their homes.
  In doing all this critical work, this bill does spend more than the 
President's request. But in that sense, it is no different from the 
transportation and housing appropriations bills that were passed by the 
House and Senate when my Republican colleagues across the aisle chaired 
our committees.
  This bill has broad bipartisan support because it takes a practical 
approach in addressing real needs we found in the transportation and 
housing sector. I urge all our Senators to support this bill and move 
us rapidly to final passage.


                           Amendment No. 2791

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before I turn to my colleague for his 
opening remarks, I would offer an amendment to the bill to clarify the 
authority of the Secretary of Transportation to collect damages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin.) The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2791.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To strike a provision of the bill and insert authority for 
                    the Secretary of Transportation)

       On page 129, strike section 218 and insert the following:
       ``Sec. 218. The Secretary of Transportation may receive and 
     expend cash, or receive and utilize spare parts and similar 
     items, from non-United States Government sources to repair 
     damages to or replace United States Government owned 
     automated track inspection cars as a result of third party 
     liability for such damages.''

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2792 to Amendment No. 2791

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to my 
amendment on behalf of Senator Landrieu and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself and 
     Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 2792 to 
     amendment No. 2791.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To expand the extension of authority of the Secretary of 
  Transportation and provide additional obligation authority for the 
                        highway bridge program)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 218(a). The Secretary of Transportation may receive 
     and expend cash, or receive and utilize spare parts and 
     similar items, from non-United States Government sources to 
     repair damages to or replace United States Government owned 
     automated track inspection cars and equipment as a result of 
     third party liability for such damages, and any amounts 
     collected under this subsection shall be credited directly to 
     the Safety and Operations account of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, and shall remain available until expended for 
     the repair, operation and maintenance of automated track 
     inspection cars and equipment in connection with the 
     automated track inspection program.


                    Additional Obligation Limitation

                           Highway Trust Fund

       (b) For an additional amount of obligation limitation to be 
     distributed for the purpose of section 144(e) of title 23, 
     United States Code, $1,000,000,000; Provided, That such 
     obligation limitation shall be used only for a purpose 
     eligible for obligation with funds apportioned under such 
     section and shall be distributed in accordance with the 
     formula in such section; Provided further, That in 
     distributing obligation authority under this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that such obligation limitation shall 
     supplement and not supplant each State's planned obligations 
     for such purposes.''

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment that I sent 
to the desk further expands the Secretary's collection authority and 
provides additional funding for the bridge rehabilitation program. I am 
going to be discussing this amendment in detail later this afternoon 
after Senator Bond has completed his opening statement.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for his work and 
his staff's work on this very complex and very important bill. Again, I 
urge all our colleagues to bring their amendments to the floor. As 
everyone knows, we are in a very short timeframe this week because of 
the Jewish holidays. We are going to be working late in getting our 
amendments done. We encourage everyone to get to the floor. I thank my 
colleague for his work on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to Senator Murray for 
being such a good partner on this bill. It is a very challenging bill, 
particularly under the constraints in which we are supposed to work. It 
is always a difficult bill and many complex and controversial issues.
  I begin by echoing her comments; we know there will be amendments. We 
urge our colleagues to come down as soon as possible and offer those 
amendments so we can deal with them. We have a hard deadline of 
Wednesday noon. I hope we can get the issues resolved before then. But 
that is a deadline which the Senate schedule imposes on us. We do want 
to get it completed.
  Senator Murray deserves a great deal of credit for balancing the 
tough issues that are included in this bill; she referred to them. 
These are important programs that help build our communities and 
without which a lot of persons would been placed at the risk of 
homelessness.
  This would have been particularly harsh on seniors and persons with 
disabilities. I also especially am grateful for the programs Senator 
Murray described that we were able to include $75 million in Section 8 
funds for the VA Supportive Housing Program.
  I think it is a critical program that calls attention to some of the 
many needs that face our returning service people. There are far too 
many returning service men and women who come back and are without 
housing. This is a start on dealing with this serious problem that I 
know the VA and HUD are familiar with.
  We want to give them the authorization and the direction to move 
forward on it. I think the worth of this program will become even more 
evident as

[[Page 24011]]

young disabled service men and women try to make the difficult 
adjustments to civilian life.
  Now, the next item that is going to be discussed is the Minnesota 
bridge collapse. This was surely a catastrophic event. Our hearts go 
out to all of those families who lost loved ones in that horrific 
tragedy. In response to the bridge collapse, Congress immediately 
authorized $250 million in emergency relief spending to rebuild this 
vital infrastructure in Minnesota.
  I think a welcomed awareness has arisen from this event, brought a 
higher degree of understanding and appreciation that new methods for 
inspecting and rating our bridges are necessary. People are even 
talking about infrastructure and the need for infrastructure.
  Well, that is what we have been talking about in this committee and 
on this floor for many years. We are delighted to have our long-time 
supporters and some new friends agreeing with us on it.
  Now, as far as this bridge collapse, we are anxiously awaiting 
further information from the National Transportation Safety Board on 
what the root cause of this tragic accident was and how we can further 
improve our Federal oversight of critical infrastructure. There are a 
number of items which have been raised which may point out specific 
causes for this collapse and which will be a warning to other States 
and other localities as well of steps they must take and things they 
must do to avoid bridge collapses.
  But I understand why my colleague, Senator Murray, has offered the 
amendment that would add $1 billion in obligation limits for bridges in 
reaction to this tragic event. I share that concern. But I do have a 
feeling we should not overreact to the Minnesota bridge collapse by 
spending more money out of the highway trust fund than is available 
until we have time to work on a comprehensive reauthorization of the 
underlying legislation, SAFETEA.
  Part of this process must be a comprehensive review of our Nation's 
infrastructure problems, including how best to prioritize and fund 
those needs. Obviously, we are going to be looking at bridge safety as 
well as the other aspects of transportation safety.
  I know in my home State of Missouri, and I assume in every State 
transportation department across the country, this event brought 
renewed attention to bridge inspection. In my State, the department of 
transportation is embarking on a major program to rehabilitate 800 
bridges that are of varying levels of deficiency. But while we need to 
avoid and prevent a future repeat of the Minnesota tragedy, we also 
must minimize the risk of death or injury posed by the broad spectrum 
of our aging infrastructure.
  This measure would cause serious problems with the declining balance 
in the highway trust fund and leave us with an additional $1 billion 
greater shortfall for highway trust fund funding in the 2009 
appropriations cycle. Everybody in this building, all my colleagues 
know or should know that we have significant problems in the highway 
trust fund because we have seen the impact of higher gas prices on fuel 
consumption. People are driving less. Economics does work. But when 
they drive less and use less gasoline, use more efficient conservation 
measures, which is all to the good, it results in less money coming 
into the highway trust fund than had been anticipated and lessens the 
amount of revenue we have available to use on bringing our highway and 
bridge infrastructure up to the needs of the 21st century. We are not 
there yet.
  Chairman Murray and I held a hearing in April on the question of 
rising highway fatalities. We agree--and everybody would agree--we 
cannot ignore the fact that 43,443 Americans were killed on the 
highways last year and some 2.7 million more were injured. From my 
State, our highway transportation department estimates that one out of 
three of these people is killed by reason of inadequate infrastructure. 
In our State, the major problem is too many two-lane roads carrying 
traffic which should properly be on four-lane roads. I suspect other 
States are fighting that problem.
  The vast majority of highway fatalities are not on the Nation's 
bridges but, rather, on the highways. The best estimate we have from 
the U.S. Department of Transportation is that approximately 2,200 out 
of the 43,000 deaths occurred on bridges. This leads me to suggest that 
we cannot overreact to such a horrible and tragic event such as that in 
Minnesota by micromanaging our Federal aid dollars solely to bridges, 
unless that is where a State, through its unique local vantage point 
and knowledge of its situation, wants to focus its efforts in Federal 
apportionment.
  So this is something we will be discussing further. We are both 
concerned about safety on highways and bridges. We look forward to 
working with our colleagues to see how this can be resolved.
  With respect to the Federal Aviation Administration, I again thank 
Senator Murray and her staff for their close cooperation in working 
through these issues. The chronic delays experienced by numerous 
travelers this year and specifically this summer have not gone 
unnoticed by the committee. As ranking member, having spent a wonderful 
2\1/2\ hours sitting on an airport runway after we landed, I have a 
personal interest in dealing with this. The bill continues to support 
the beginning stage of the NextGen Air Transportation System, which we 
believe is a much needed step toward providing additional capacity and 
relieving many of the delays at our Nation's airports. The bill also 
contains funds above the administration's request for flight inspection 
and certification personnel. Almost all of us use airplanes frequently, 
and we understand the need the flying public has for greater assurance 
of safety. We think these funds will ensure continued safety for the 
National Airspace System.
  I also note additional funds for the Airport Improvement Program. 
That remains an important bipartisan priority for this subcommittee. I 
can't tell my colleagues how many small airport operators and community 
leaders in those cities and towns around my State have expressed their 
strong support for the program.
  There are some issues we will have to address as the bill moves 
forward. For example, we include revenue aligned budget authority, that 
which we call RABA. When Members hear the term ``RABA,'' it is not the 
name of a dog or somebody's pet name; it is ``revenue aligned budget 
authority.'' This was not included in the President's budget.
  The bill also contains a $2.89 billion rescission of highway contract 
authority apportionments to the States used as a budgetary offset to 
meet the other pressing needs my colleague already described. The bill 
includes an additional $43.359 million in administrative contract 
authority and another $172 million in the unused transportation 
innovative financing infrastructure account--the TIFIA--contract 
authority, for a total offset of spending of $3.495 billion. In the HUD 
section, we include a rescission of $1.1 billion.
  Finally, I raise one issue we have not been able to address; namely, 
HUD and OMB's failure to provide adequate funding for HUD's section 8 
project-based housing program for fiscal year 2008. To my colleagues 
and to OMB and to HUD, I say: Let's get serious. This is a critical and 
important program which serves many of our most vulnerable citizens--
low-income families, extremely low-income families, seniors, and 
persons with disabilities. If we don't fund it, they are out on the 
street. None of us wants to see that result. HUD has been unable to 
fund in a full and timely fashion many of these contracts during fiscal 
year 2007, and this problem is only going to get worse in 2008 to the 
extent that HUD could have a shortfall in its budget of as much as $2 
billion or more which is needed to meet its obligations to these 
contracts in the next fiscal year. If we don't act in this bill, we are 
going to see a $2 billion shortfall. Think of the number of people who 
would be put out on the street if we don't solve that problem. It is 
unacceptable.
  I know this program enjoys wide support, and I expect and hope that 
OMB

[[Page 24012]]

will provide the necessary funds for the program through a budget 
amendment or as part of a continuing resolution or through emergency 
supplemental legislation. To my good friends at OMB, I say: You cannot 
walk away from this problem. This problem is real. It must be addressed 
or we are going to see a tremendous tragedy for the Nation's lowest 
income and most needy housing residents.
  While I am pleased with much of the bill, especially spending in 
critical programs, I have to say that we are on a collision course with 
the White House on the spending levels contained in this bill. Both 
sides are going to have to make adjustments. Some of the adjustments we 
have outlined are absolutely essential, and we cannot lose the benefit 
of the positive investments we have made in this bill. This is a very 
important bill. It is a very difficult bill because we have some 
extremely serious challenges to face. We understand the need to be 
sensitive to the budget needs, but there are real pressing human 
problems we must meet in this bill.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks my 
colleague made regarding the HUD tenant-based housing. I will have more 
to say on that later. I appreciate his comments.
  We do have now before the Senate a pending amendment about which I 
would like to make a few remarks. I am hoping we can set a timetable 
for a vote on that fairly shortly. I do want my colleagues to know 
about the amendment now pending.
  Less than 6 weeks ago, our entire Nation--really, the entire world--
watched in horror as the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, MN, collapsed 
into the Mississippi River. Given the scope of that disaster, it is 
miraculous that the fatalities were not greater. Thirteen people lost 
their lives and over 100 were injured on that horrible day. We are all 
going to remember the horrendous vision of that yellow schoolbus full 
of children that came within a few feet of tragedy.
  The National Transportation Safety Board is still, of course, 
conducting its investigation into the exact cause of the bridge 
collapse, but the horror of that incident has appropriately focused the 
Nation on whether we are investing adequately in a national highway 
system that is fragile and aging. The troubling conditions of our 
Nation's highways and bridges should not have been a surprise to the 
media or to policymakers. This has not been a story kept under wraps 
for years. This is not a case where the true conditions were suddenly 
revealed in a groundbreaking study.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation has by law been required to 
publish regular reports on the conditions and performance of America's 
highway infrastructure. That report is submitted to Congress and posted 
on the Web. The DOT's report was used extensively in the debate we had 
with the Bush administration 4 years ago over the appropriate amount of 
funding that should be authorized in the highway bill. This report from 
the DOT is amplified by regular annual report cards published by the 
American Society of Civil Engineers, along with regular studies by 
other groups. The difference today is that the nightmare became a 
reality for the people of Minnesota and Americans across the country as 
we watched it live on television.
  We have built a national highway system that is the envy of the 
world. But it is now no secret that our Government has failed to 
adequately fund the maintenance needs of that system. Increasing 
traffic has put added stress on a system that simply was not designed 
for it. As a result, our bridges are deteriorating far faster than we 
can finance their replacement. This is why more than one in every four 
bridges on U.S. highways is rated as deficient. Put another way, fully 
27 percent of our 600,000 bridges have aged so much that their physical 
condition or their ability to withstand current traffic levels is 
simply inadequate. Roughly half of these deficient bridges or about 
78,000 across the Nation are structurally deficient. That means the 
Department of Transportation considers the physical condition of these 
bridges to be poor or worse.
  These bridges require immediate attention, and many of them will need 
to have weight limits to keep them in service. For a portion of these 
bridges, their physical condition is so bad that they are unsafe and do 
need to be replaced. The other half of deficient bridges or another 
80,000 across the Nation are functionally obsolete. They don't meet 
today's design standards. They don't conform to today's safety 
requirements, and they are handling traffic far beyond their original 
design.
  These deficient bridges are not just found off the beaten path, by 
the way. In fact, over 6,000 bridges considered deficient are located 
on the National Highway System, the roadway system that is designated 
as most important to our Nation's economy, defense, and mobility. There 
are deficient bridges found in every State in the Nation. My home State 
of Washington has more than 2,300 deficient bridges. But certain of our 
States are struggling a lot more than others. Iowa has more than 6,600 
deficient bridges. Oklahoma has more than 7,400 deficient bridges. 
Pennsylvania has almost 9,600 deficient bridges. Texas has more than 
10,000 deficient bridges. California has more than 7,000 deficient 
bridges, with more than 2,000 on the National Highway System.
  The Department of Transportation evaluated the complete picture 
across the Nation last year when it published its Conditions and 
Performance Report for 2006. That report concluded that there is a 
$65.3 billion backlog of repairs needed on U.S. bridges by all levels 
of government. Unfortunately, the challenge of addressing this issue 
comprehensively is going to have to wait for the next highway 
reauthorization bill. But today I have offered an amendment to this 
bill that will add $1 billion to the resources available to all 50 
States to help address their most critical bridge replacement and 
repair needs.
  This amendment will not bust the budget. It can be accommodated 
within the budget ceiling that governs our subcommittee bill. It does 
not bust through that ceiling or through the discretionary spending cap 
that has been imposed by our budget resolution.
  Working with Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran, our 
subcommittee was allocated additional outlays that were not used by 
other subcommittees specifically to accommodate the cost of this 
amendment I have offered.
  My amendment would distribute the $1 billion strictly according to 
the formula that already exists in the code for the bridge replacement 
and rehabilitation program. That formula by law takes into account the 
physical conditions of the bridges in each State, the cost to 
rehabilitate or replace the deficient bridges, current safety standards 
and traffic demands, and the role of the bridges in the overall 
transportation system.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
distribution of this funding to all 50 States be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION AUTHORITY UNDER THE MURRAY AMENDMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Bridge Oblig. (Murray
                                                        Amendment)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................               15,555,494
Alaska.........................................                3,039,702
Arizona........................................                3,928,042
Arkansas.......................................               12,472,923
California.....................................              100,000,000
Colorado.......................................                7,465,758
Connecticut....................................               33,545,876
Delaware.......................................                3,028,428
District of Columbia...........................                7,058,550
Florida........................................               22,508,320
Georgia........................................               13,900,183
Hawaii.........................................                5,398,718
Idaho..........................................                4,125,863
Illinois.......................................               28,349,052
Indiana........................................               12,756,193
Iowa...........................................               14,572,001
Kansas.........................................               10,848,673
Kentucky.......................................               13,366,925
Louisiana......................................               40,207,373
Maine..........................................                7,512,716
Maryland.......................................               23,292,258
Massachusetts..................................               42,442,187
Michigan.......................................               23,539,287
Minnesota......................................                6,849,173
Mississippi....................................               13,486,737
Missouri.......................................               26,396,149
Montana........................................                2,822,240
Nebraska.......................................                5,692,805
Nevada.........................................                2,500,000

[[Page 24013]]

 
New Hampshire..................................                5,569,814
New Jersey.....................................               37,919,229
New Mexico.....................................                2,978,426
New York.......................................              100,000,000
North Carolina.................................               25,321,588
North Dakota...................................                2,500,000
Ohio...........................................               32,918,739
Oklahoma.......................................               15,962,296
Oregon.........................................               18,096,746
Pennsylvania...................................               93,887,593
Rhode Island...................................               15,224,139
South Carolina.................................               11,626,086
South Dakota...................................                2,880,383
Tennessee......................................               12,035,612
Texas..........................................               32,362,327
Utah...........................................                2,568,480
Vermont........................................                7,013,688
Virginia.......................................               20,440,584
Washington.....................................               34,839,647
West Virginia..................................               11,554,093
Wisconsin......................................                5,138,903
Wyoming........................................                2,500,000
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................            1,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, consistent with the rules that are 
already in law for the bridge program, these additional funds we are 
covering under this amendment will be available to the States for 
bridge replacement, bridge rehabilitation, preventive maintenance, 
seismic retrofitting, bridge inspections, and the installation of 
countermeasures designed to protect bridges and extend their lifespans.
  Importantly, my amendment does include one restriction that is not 
included in current law. My amendment will require the Secretary of 
Transportation to ensure these additional funds be used to enhance 
planned expenditures by the States for bridge construction and repair.
  Under current highway law, States have the flexibility to use 
obligational authority for many different uses. States may transfer 
funding between program activities so they can target Federal funds on 
their most urgent needs. My amendment would not disturb that 
flexibility for the over $40 billion we are allocating to the States in 
regular Federal aid funding. However, my amendment would require the 
States to use the additional $1 billion we allocate with this amendment 
solely for their most critical bridge activities.
  This amendment is a very measured response to a very big problem. I 
know our States need even greater resources to address their bridge 
repair needs, but my amendment will allow for an historic increase in 
Federal bridge funding--a boost of 25 percent. And it will do so while 
working within the constraints of our budget resolution.
  I urge our Senators to support this amendment. The American people 
deserve to feel safe on our roads and our bridges. We should be taking 
every step necessary to ensure they are.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Ohio is recognized.

                          ____________________