[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5945-5965]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




HIGHWAY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very hopeful that our Republican 
friends had a good meeting about this SAFETEA-LU technical corrections 
bill and that they decided to work with us to get this job done. This, 
as we say, is definitely not rocket science. It is a bill that is going 
to correct some mistakes we made in this enormous highway 
transportation bill that was passed several years ago. It is going to 
make very important corrections so the Department of Transportation can 
proceed to investigate the status of our highways, our bridges, and our 
transit systems.
  The bottom line is, as we get ready for our next highway bill--and, 
Mr. President, you are such a key player on our committee. You know 
this as well

[[Page 5946]]

as I do. We see bridges collapsing. We need to know the extent of the 
problems we are facing.
  Because of a problem in the bill, the account that we need to fund 
these investigations and studies is oversubscribed, which is a fancy 
way of saying we need to figure out another way to complete our work. 
That is taken care of in this bill.
  We need colleagues to help us. We are not adding one dime to the 
spending on transportation systems and highways. All we are doing is 
making technical corrections to make sure some of the projects that 
have been stymied--let's say because the environmental report came in 
and said we can't do alternative 1, we have to do alternative 2, and 
alternative 2 was not authorized--will be allowed to move forward.
  I did a press conference today with both management and labor of the 
building trades. The construction workers are hurting out there. We 
know we are in a recession. This is a mini-economic stimulus bill. We 
are not suggesting it is a cure-all by any means. It is a small bill, 
but it will unleash $1 billion across this great Nation of ours. When 
you unleash $1 billion of spending, what it means is tens of thousands 
of workers will get jobs. They are doing important projects--fixing 
bridges, fixing roads, building transit systems--all the good work that 
makes our Nation work.
  I am here. It is about 2:20 in the afternoon. We have been on the 
floor of the Senate since early Monday. Frankly, this bill could have 
been done in an hour or two. We are very willing to take the few 
amendments there are and work with the authors of those amendments. We 
may have to have just an up-or-down vote because, frankly, we are not 
going to entertain anything that changes the law. This is just a 
technical corrections bill. But if there are things we can do to 
accommodate our colleagues, we are happy to do them.
  When I say ``we,'' I not only mean the Democratic members of the 
committee but the Republican members of the committee. Senator Inhofe 
has been working very closely with me, and we feel very good about our 
work together. We managed to get our WRDA bill through, the Water 
Resources Development Act, in 7 months after it languished 7 years. We 
can do it on this too. On that we had to override the President's veto. 
The President sent us a little note that he doesn't love this bill; 
there is one thing he doesn't like. The fact is, the one thing he 
doesn't like was signed off on by Republicans and Democrats on the 
Banking Committee. It has to do with how we prioritize transit 
projects. The desire of the committee to put this in the bill is a 
reiteration of SAFETEA-LU. It really doesn't change anything, it just 
stresses it. The President does not like it, but I am hopeful he is not 
going to veto. He didn't say he is going to veto. He just said he 
didn't appreciate the guidance we are giving him. We don't believe it 
is a veto threat. We believe we can get this to his desk.
  Think about how good we will feel to know that people who are hurting 
can get jobs right now--that is really what it is about right now--and, 
frankly, companies that are hurting can get contracts.
  Again, this is a no brainer, for want of a better term. This is 
something we should do. We should do it quickly. I stand by ready, 
willing, and able to get this work done.
  I do not see anyone else on the Senate floor wishing to speak. Mr. 
President, I will be back when I have to be back.
  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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, here we are. It is 2:15, 2:20. The caucus 
has ended for the Republicans, and there is still no decision on the 
momentous decision on whether we can legislate on a technical 
corrections bill. It is too bad that we cannot move forward; we have so 
much to do in this body to meet the needs of the American people. We 
need to do something about the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation 
Agency. We have an equal pay issue we have to deal with. We have a 
veterans health matter we have to deal with. We have to deal with a 
long list of legislation, and we are being stopped from doing that 
today. We were stopped from doing it yesterday. We were stopped from 
doing it on Thursday.
  I want to be spread on the record that this obstructionism of the 
Republicans has been carried to a fine art. They are doing a great job. 
They are basically obstructing everything, stalling for time to 
maintain the status quo. We have had 7-plus years of this 
administration which has brought this country down, not up. We have an 
economy that is staggering. We have a housing crisis like we have 
rarely seen--maybe during the Great Depression but not since then. We 
have a war that is costing us $5,000 a second, and the Republicans want 
to maintain the status quo.
  The only thing they talk about is let's have the Bush tax cuts go on 
a little bit longer. Let's do tort reform. It is no longer a serious 
debate on legislation. It is a serious debate on how to keep attention 
away from the failed Presidency of George Bush.
  We can have a vote at 11:30 tonight, approximately. It takes a 
majority vote. That is all it takes to move forward on this 
legislation. Until then we can do nothing. We cannot legislate until 
the 30 hours is used. In the 65 or 70 filibusters they have conducted 
in the Senate--my math is not good enough instantaneously to tell you 
how many hours we have eaten up on days like this just doing nothing, 
just letting the statutory 30 hours run out--but during that period of 
time we really can't do anything. They know that. But I believe the 
American people will recognize in November what has happened in the 
Senate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that I speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that 
is very important to the hard-working men and women of our great 
country; that is, tax reform. I believe the Federal tax burden is 
excessive and overly intrusive. Reform of the IRS and the current tax 
system is long overdue.
  If our Democratic colleagues have their way, the Tax Code will 
continue to be excessive and overly intrusive. In recent years it has 
become abundantly clear to me that we have lost sight of the fact that 
the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues to fund 
our Government.
  In its current application, the U.S. tax system distorts the economic 
decisions of families, of businesses, leading to an inefficient 
allocation of resources and hindering economic growth.
  Our tax system has become unstable and unpredictable. Frequent 
changes to the Tax Code have caused volatility that is harmful to the 
economy and creates additional compliance costs. The tax system was 
originally intended to be an efficient and simple system designed to 
raise revenues for our national defense, social programs, and vital 
Government services. However, the current tax system is now so complex 
that approximately $150 billion is spent each year by taxpayers and the 
Federal Government to make sure that taxes are tallied and paid 
correctly. This is an enormous expense and a waste of resources. At 
present, the United States has instituted a tax system that thwarts 
basic economic decisions, punishes wise and productive investments, and 
rewards those who work less and borrow more.
  As it stands, the quagmire that is our existing Tax Code penalizes 
savings,

[[Page 5947]]

contributes to the ever-increasing cost of health insurance, and 
undermines our global competitiveness. More disturbing is the fact that 
Americans spend more than 3.5 billion hours doing their taxes, which is 
the equivalent of hiring almost 2 million new IRS employees; more than 
20 times the agency's current workforce, I might add.
  On average, Americans spend the equivalent of more than half of one 
work week; that is, 26 hours, on their taxes each year, not to mention 
the amount of time they work to pay the taxes themselves. At the end of 
the day, despite our lengthy codified tax law, there is no evidence to 
suggest that Americans know how much they should be paying in taxes in 
any given year or why.
  Our Tax Code should aspire to be clear and transparent, rather than 
multifarious and convoluted. Everyone should be able to have a basic 
understanding of the Tax Code, knowing how and why they are taxed. The 
Tax Code's constant phase-ins and phase-outs are a nuisance at best and 
a negative force, at worst, in the daily economic lives of American 
families and businesses.
  Moreover, taxpayers with the same incomes, family situation, and 
other key characteristics often face different tax burdens. This 
differing treatment creates a perception of unfairness in the Tax Code 
and has left many Americans discouraged.
  At present, how much or little taxpayers pay in taxes is sometimes 
dependent on where they happen to live and the choices made by their 
employers.
  In 1986, President Ronald Reagan, a true visionary in this area, 
signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which reduced top marginal individual 
rates from 50 percent to 28 percent, increased the standard deduction, 
and reduced the top corporate tax from 50 percent to 34 percent. In 
doing so, this reform act simplified the Tax Code, broadening the 
income tax base, allowing for lower marginal rates, and curtailing the 
use of individual tax shelters.
  While the 1986 act was a step in the right direction, unfortunately, 
it did not produce a long-lasting transformation of our tax system. 
Today, our tax system bears little resemblance to the simple low-rate 
system promised by the 1986 reform. This is due to constant tweaking 
over the years. More than 100 different acts of Congress have made 
nearly 15,000 changes to the Tax Code.
  Public opinion polls indicate that Americans believe taxpayers should 
not have to pay more than one-fourth of their income to the Government. 
The current Tax Code hardly reflects this perspective. Depending on the 
level of income, the amount of deductions, and the type of family, 
one's income can be taxed at 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, or 35 
percent.
  I support broad-based tax reform and a simplified tax system. It is 
my belief that any reform to the current tax system should benefit the 
middle class. The vast majority of taxpayers are the middle class, and 
they have borne the burden of the current system.
  While I was a member of the Colorado Legislature, we implemented a 5-
percent flat tax for Colorado. I believe we should take a similar 
approach on the Federal level. While I would be willing to consider a 
flat tax or a sales tax or other plans on the Federal level, it is 
important that any replacement plan be simple and fair. The replacement 
system must provide tax relief for working Americans. It must protect 
the rights of taxpayers and reduce our collection abuse. But most 
importantly, a new system must eliminate the bias against savings and 
investment and against economic growth and job creation.
  No one can deny that our Tax Code is in dire need of reform. Its 
complexity, lack of clarity, unfairness, and disproportionate influence 
on behavior has caused great frustration. Our current Tax Code has been 
shaped by goals other than simplicity, by intentions other than helping 
the taxpayer plan ahead, and by objectives other than expanding our 
economy. Not only has it failed to keep pace with our economy, frequent 
changes have made it unstable and unpredictable. Years of hodgepodge 
Government interference and ad hoc meddling have left our Tax Code in 
shambles. While we cannot change the past, we can learn valuable 
lessons from the same and remedy our mistakes.
  If we do not take steps to immediately simplify and reform the Tax 
Code, it will become more complex, more unfair, and less conducive to 
our economy's future growth.
  Small reforms are not enough. A total overhaul of the existing system 
is the only chance we have of righting this wrong and getting our 
economy and our deficit back on track.
  Raising taxes is not an option. Our Democratic colleagues seem to 
believe that raising taxes or doing nothing about taxes is the best 
policy. Just last month, Democrats proposed raising taxes on the 
average American family by $2,300 per year. Earlier this year, 
Democrats passed a proposal calling for the largest tax hike in 
history. If Democrats continue down this path of tax increases and a 
do-nothing tax policy, more and more American families will suffer.
  It is important to point out that to do nothing on the Tax Code means 
a tax increase is going to happen within the next several years. A do-
nothing policy on taxes will allow for the expiration of several key 
tax provisions. It will further the reach of the AMT, the alternative 
minimum tax. We will see a tax increase of more than $1.2 trillion over 
the next 10 years.
  At a time of economic uncertainty, raising taxes and taking money out 
of the pockets of the American people should not be the goal of the 
Congress. We must act now. We have a responsibility to our constituents 
and the Nation to resolve the predicament the current tax system has 
put us in. If we do not act sooner rather than later in reforming our 
tax system, it will continue to become more complex and cumbersome.
  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.
  Mr. DeMINT. 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak on 
the transportation technical corrections bill, which we will be 
discussing this week. Later on I will offer a motion to recommit, with 
some considerations I would like to address now.
  A lot of us were part of moving this through Congress. It is an 
important transportation bill, when roads and bridges are in desperate 
need of funding for repairs and widening.
  There were over 6000 politically directed earmarks in the original 
highway bill. Now, the corrections bill involves 500 of those earmarks. 
I thought we should talk about the bill and what this means, as far as 
transportation in the United States.
  First, I want to thank Senators Boxer and Inhofe for all of the work 
they have done on transparency on this legislation. While I strongly 
believe we should put an end to the practice of earmarking, if the 
Senate is going to earmark, it must do it in a transparent manner. I 
believe the chairwoman and ranking member have set an example for all 
committees in providing information in a way that people can look at it 
and debate it. It is all right for us to disagree on whether we like 
earmarks. In this case, we can do it with full disclosure of what is 
actually in the bill.
  The American people deserve to know how their elected representatives 
are spending their money, and the way this bill handles earmark 
disclosure helps us do just that. The Senators from California and 
Oklahoma have disclosed the sponsor, the recipient, and the purpose of 
the earmarks in this bill, in addition to letters disclosing that the 
sponsors have no financial interests in the particular earmark. I was 
also pleased to see that disclosures were made in a timely manner so we 
could review them before we began consideration of the legislation. 
They have gone beyond the requirements of the Senate rules, and I 
applaud them

[[Page 5948]]

for their commitment to transparency. I hope the other committees are 
equally committed to transparency.
  My colleagues have suggested on the floor that this bill is needed so 
States can move forward with planning and construction of authorized 
projects from the last highway reauthorization bill. As with all large 
bills, there were typos and other errors in this bill, and the 
technical corrections bill we are discussing this week was designed to 
correct those technical errors and problems. I think that is something, 
obviously, we need oftentimes to do with most of our legislation. But 
instead of correcting the errors from the last reauthorization bill, 
the committee decided to rewrite public law and add contract authority 
as well as add to spending levels for certain projects, essentially 
adding new earmarks to the bill.
  The President's statement of administrative policy regarding this 
technical corrections bill contains strong language critical of this 
legislation, and let me quote some from that SAP.

       The administration notes with strong concern that the 
     majority of the bill is devoted to earmarks. The bill 
     modifies hundreds of earmarks from a bill that passed in 
     2005, effectively creating new earmarks, including a stand-
     alone section that would provide mandatory funding for 
     magnetically levitating rail. The effort through H.R. 1195 to 
     modify these earmarks from an authorization that passed only 
     three years ago is a further reflection of those 
     inefficiencies. Therefore, the Administration urges that 
     these provisions be removed from the bill.

  That is effectively what my motion will address when we offer it 
later in the week.
  Again quoting from the administration's position on this bill:

       The administration urges Congress to restrict the bill to 
     true technical changes. For example, in addition to those 
     noted above, both the Senate-proposed substitute and the 
     underlying bill contain substantive changes to statutory 
     provisions regarding waiver procedures for Buy America 
     requirements that should be removed from the bill because 
     they are not technical corrections. In addition, section 104 
     of the substitute would repeal section 111(d) of title 23 of 
     the U.S. Code, which allows idling reduction facilities at 
     public rest areas in Interstate rights-of-way. This provision 
     is a policy change, not a technical amendment. Repealing this 
     section of the U.S. Code would eliminate a beneficial 
     initiative first proposed by this administration.

  We have heard for the past months, and will continue to hear today, 
that Members of Congress know what is best in their districts--know 
better than some unelected Federal bureaucrat. If a Member of Congress 
knows what is best for their district, then why are we debating a 138-
page so-called technical corrections package? I suppose some of these 
are drafting errors, and I do not deny there should always be room for 
some error in the legislative process. But page after page of 
corrections does not speak well for our whole earmarking process.
  The 1982 highway bill had only 10 earmarks. That number rose to 538 
in 1991, and 1,800 in 1998. The SAFETEA-LU highway authorization bill 
we are talking about today contained an inexcusable 6,000 earmarks, at 
a cost of well over $20 billion and now nearly 500 changes in the 
technical corrections package. A 2007 report by the Department of 
Transportation Office of Inspector General, requested by Senator Tom 
Coburn, found that DOT earmarks have increased in number by 1,150 
percent from 1996 to 2005--an incredible increase--and, as we can see, 
a number that has been very difficult for us to manage effectively here 
in the Congress.
  This administration has projected that the highway trust fund will 
have a negative balance of $3.2 billion by 2009 if we continue on the 
path of outspending the receipts in this account. So piling on the 
additional authorization levels to projects in this technical 
corrections bill will only further deplete the highway account and 
cause the highway trust fund to be bankrupt sooner than projected.
  I know the case has been made that this technical corrections bill 
does not increase the overall amount, but as we went back through this 
and found numerous earmarks that were no longer needed or even wanted, 
instead of moving that money to savings, we moved it to earmarks, and 
new earmarks, and to add to additional earmarks at a time when we need 
to be trying to save money to overcome the projected deficit. Congress 
needs to take a timeout and examine the country's infrastructure 
priorities instead of relying solely on Members of Congress 
transportation earmarks.
  Of most concern is that many of the earmarks requested and funded in 
highway authorization bills are neither the most effective nor 
efficient use of funds. Many of them, such as an earmark for renovating 
the Apollo Theater, have nothing to do with transportation. Senators 
and House Members have picked particular projects for funding that they 
know will result in their gaining political support. They will get more 
votes in their reelection campaigns for bringing home the bacon, but 
funding will be redirected from highway projects where it is most 
needed.
  This is why I have proposed this motion to recommit, that will send 
this bill back to the committee and require that the bill be reported 
back to the Senate with an amendment that eliminates any provision in 
the bill that increases spending for earmarks that are contained in the 
SAFETEA bill. Increasing spending for existing earmarks is simply not a 
technical correction, and such provisions do not belong in this 
legislation, that is intended to only correct the technical aspects of 
the bill.
  Here are a few examples of provisions in this bill that are not 
technical corrections but are actually inserting new earmarks into law 
or significantly increasing funding for existing earmarks.
  Page 18 amends an earmark in current law that provides $800,000 for 
an intersection project in Pennsylvania by striking the $800,000 
designation and increasing the earmark to $2.4 million. That is not a 
technical correction.
  On page 19, we amend an earmark in current law that provides Federal 
funds for widening two blocks of Poplar Street from Park Avenue to 13th 
Street in Williamson County, IL, by striking that description and 
inserting the following new earmark, which is to construct a connector 
road from Rushing Drive north to Grand Avenue in Williamson County. It 
is not a technical correction. It is a new project and it is the 
elimination of another one.
  Page 22 amends an earmark in current law that provides $800,000 to 
widen State Road 80 in Henderson County, FL, by striking the $800,000 
figure and inserting $1.6 million. We double the earmark amount.
  Page 29 amends an earmark in current law that provides $2.7 million 
for upgrades to an interchange in Pennsylvania by striking the $2.7 
million amount and increasing the earmark to $3.2 million.
  Page 35 amend a New York earmark in current law that provides $4 
million for Miller Highway improvements by striking the existing 
earmark and inserting the following new earmark: pedestrian paths, 
stairs, seating, landscaping, lighting, and other transportation 
enhancement activities along Riverside Boulevard and at Riverside Park 
South. This is not a technical correction, and it is one of the reasons 
we are not rebuilding and improving and maintaining bridges in America, 
because we are focused on things that are not basic infrastructure.
  Pages 63 and 64 amend a New York earmark in current law that provides 
$500,000 for design and construction of an access road to Plattsburgh 
International Airport by striking this description and inserting the 
following new earmark: preparation, demolition, disposal, and site 
restoration of Alert Facility on Access Road, Plattsburgh International 
Airport.
  So we found we didn't need the money in one area, but we found a new 
area, instead of saving it, as we apparently need to do to keep the 
Highway Trust Fund on the path of solvency.
  The most glaring example of a nontechnical correction made by this 
bill is the MAGLEV section, which provides $90 million over 2 years in 
mandatory spending for a MAGLEV rail project from Nevada to California. 
Under current law, this project was simply between two cities in 
Nevada, but this technical corrections bill paves the way for extending 
this

[[Page 5949]]

project all the way to California and leaves the Federal Government on 
the hook for paying the price tag.
  How will this project expand Federal spending? Well, first, it jams 
all the funding into the last 2 years, which increases the baseline 
from $30 million in 2009 to $45 million. The way we fund things here is 
based on year-to-year baselines. It turns the funding from an 
authorization to direct spending. In the original bill, it allows the 
funding of a project. Now it requires the funding of a project. It 
extends the Federal project from Primm, NV, to Anaheim, CA, and it 
involves the Federal Government in a dubious construction project that 
will create an unwanted transportation mode, the cost of which will 
likely expand considerably.
  Along this same route, a private company has raised billions of 
dollars to build a high-speed rail corridor from Nevada to California 
without any taxpayer money. Our role in Government should be to make 
the private sector work, not to replace it and to compete with it with 
taxpayer dollars.
  In addition to increasing Federal funding, this provision inserts the 
Government into a business that appears to need no propping up from 
taxpayers. Press reports indicate that the MAGLEV route is nearly 
identical, as I mentioned before, to a completely privately financed 
rail project, which is estimated to cost between $3 billion and $5 
billion. This legislation would use taxpayer dollars to fund a 
government project that is in direct competition with an existing 
privately funded effort.
  The Government does not need to be replacing private sector 
involvement. In 2005, the Los Angeles Times had this to say about 
MAGLEV:

       The long-running debate over MAGLEV trains is a battle 
     between faith and reason. They have to rely on faith because 
     there is very little evidence of the practicality of these 
     systems. Only one commercial high-speed MAGLEV train exists, 
     covering a 19-mile stretch from Shanghai to Pudong 
     International Airport. Why spend so much money, especially if 
     it's from taxpayers, when you might get more bang for the 
     buck out of cheaper alternatives? That the Primm line has 
     gotten this far is a tribute to the power and determination 
     of the Senate Majority Leader, who undoubtedly sees MAGLEV as 
     promising a new transportation system for pork.

  The Associated Press also reported a few weeks ago that the country 
of Germany has canceled its initiative to build a MAGLEV link to the 
Munich airport, citing escalating costs. Germany's transportation 
minister told reporters that it was ``not possible to finance the 
project'' since the cost had more than doubled.
  I guess anything is possible when it is taxpayer money, but, clearly, 
building an unproven experimental project, where private money is 
already accomplishing the same thing, does not make very much sense. In 
this transportation bill, not only will this experimental rail 
provision eventually cost billions in Federal funding and insert the 
Government into the private market, where it doesn't belong, it would 
most likely also be bad for consumers. According to my last check on 
the Internet, the nonstop flights from Los Angeles to Las Vegas are 1 
hour 10 minutes and cost only $118 for a round trip. That is $59 each 
way.
  I ask my colleagues how much these MAGLEV trips will cost. Are we 
absolutely certain it will cost less than $59 each way? If not, why 
would not consumers fly?
  I would hazard a guess here that if we were asking Members of the 
Senate to invest their own personal money in this project, not one 
would reach for their wallet. But this is taxpayers' money we are 
spending on something none of us would do as individuals.
  Even the administration has weighed in on this provision stating that 
the bill modifies hundreds of earmarks from a bill that passed in 2005, 
effectively creating new earmarks, including a stand-alone section that 
would provide mandatory funding for magnetic levitating rail. The 
administration urges these provisions be removed from the bill.
  We are not talking about technical corrections. These provisions 
increase funding for existing earmarks and create new earmarks. 
Proponents of this legislation will argue that the bill spends no new 
Federal dollars and, in fact, even saves taxpayers a few million 
dollars. While that is true, the bill accomplishes this by rescinding 
funds left in the Treasury that were never used by a few earmarks 
previously authorized by Congress. However, it is clear to me that this 
bill is just another way for Congress to create new earmarks, increase 
spending for existing earmarks without actually appearing to be doing 
just that.
  In addition, by shifting existing funding from one earmark to be used 
for a completely new earmark, this bill also creates new projects which 
now rely on the Federal Government to continue their funding in the 
future. In the long run, this legislation encourages wasteful 
Washington spending through the broken process of earmarking.
  Here is an example of a true technical correction included in this 
legislation. On page 24 of the bill, there is a provision that would 
strike the word ``country'' and insert the word ``county'' in an 
earmark for ``New County road on Whidbey Island'' in Washington State. 
The current law refers to this road as ``New Country Road,'' which was 
a mistake, and this bill would correct that error by inserting the word 
``county.'' Clearly, this is a true technical correction and represents 
the spirit of what this bill was intended to accomplish, which is to 
correct technical errors contained in current law.
  Another argument we hear is that earmarking Federal tax dollars is 
our ``constitutional obligation.'' Our colleague, Dr. Coburn, wrote an 
excellent article entitled ``Founders vs. Pork'' addressing this bogus 
claim. I will not read the article in its entirety, but I commend it to 
all my colleagues. It contains some excellent quotations which I will 
share.
  Thomas Jefferson, in a 1796 letter to James Madison regarding 
federally funded local projects, said that ``[O]ther revenues will soon 
be called into their aid, and it will be the source of eternal scramble 
among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; 
and they will always get the most who are the meanest.''
  In a 1792 letter to Alexander Hamilton conveying what he believed to 
be the public's perception of government, George Washington cited 
worries about the ``increase in the mass of the debt,'' which had 
``furnished effectual means of corrupting such a portion of the 
legislature, as turns the balance between the honest voters[.]'' 
Hamilton, who famously clashed with Jefferson and Madison on fiscal 
matters, responded that ``[e]very session the question whether the 
annual provision should be continued, would be an occasion of 
pernicious caballing and corrupt bargaining.''
  The importance of transparency in Government operations was also 
recognized by Jefferson. In 1808, he wrote:

       The same prudence, which, in private life, would forbid our 
     paying our money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the 
     disposition of public moneys.

  As I said before, I doubt very seriously any Member of this Senate 
would invest their own money in an unproven technology over a route 
where there is already going to be private competition.
  Jefferson also astutely recognized that large amounts of spending 
would inevitably lead to outside efforts to redirect that money. He 
wrote in 1801 about the need ``to reform the waste of public money, and 
thus drive away the vultures who prey upon it[.]''
  George Washington noted in 1792 that no mischief is ``so afflicting 
and fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the legislature.''
  Congressional approval ratings, as we all know, are now at record 
lows because taxpayers do not believe we are being honest or open about 
how we spend their money.
  One might argue that earmarking is a simpler system. There is really 
no meddling by bureaucrats, no cost-benefit analysis, no hearing just a 
big pie that is sliced up into pieces of varying sizes, with the senior 
Members getting the biggest slice. But this is no way to run a 
government or a country.

[[Page 5950]]

  This bill proves that the so-called simplicity of the system is not 
all it is cracked up to be. One of the changes in this bill involves 
removing an earmark that was not even wanted but was secretly put into 
a bill after the bill had already passed. Now, that is the sort of 
technical correction we should be passing right now. Why did it take so 
long to identify an earmark that was not wanted or needed? Fortunately, 
in this bill, we could remove it. Senator Coburn has an amendment that 
will force an investigation of this bizarre process by which an earmark 
finds its way into a bill that already has passed. I look forward to 
the findings. I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  I applaud the committee for providing earmark disclosure, more 
earmark disclosure than we have seen out of most committees. Senators 
Boxer and Inhofe are to be commended for their effort they have made to 
comply with the letter and the spirit of the law. As I said, I hope all 
the committees will follow example. However, this bill does not have a 
committee report. In that sense, Senators have been denied the tools we 
customarily rely on to decipher massive catchall bills such as this. 
For example, without the ``changes in existing Law'' document, which is 
contained in all committee reports, we are theoretically supposed to go 
through each earmark and try to figure out what it is amending. Since 
it is almost certain that few Members will actually do this beyond 
projects they inserted in the bill personally, the bill is largely a 
series of meaningless paragraphs. For example, section 105 of the bill 
is 63 pages containing 386 earmarks. These earmarks contain such 
illuminating descriptions as ``In item number 753 by striking 
$2,700,000 and inserting $3,200,000.'' That is all we know unless we go 
back to the original bill to figure it out. The earmark description for 
this one simply says it is from Bill Shuster and gives the SAFETEA-LU 
section it amends. Even with the list of earmark descriptions, one has 
no idea what this amendment does without going to the underlying bill. 
When you look at the law, you see that it has to do with ``Widening of 
Rt. 22 and SR 26 in Huntingdon. Upgrades to the interchange at U.S. Rt. 
22 and SR 26.'' I still have no idea why this project needs a $500,000 
plus-up, but at least I have a general idea what the project is. But, 
again, I do not expect that any of my colleagues actually looked up 
this earmark.
  This bill highlights the fact that this is a terrible way to write 
legislation, where we all decide the different projects we want and 
force them in a single bill. This bill demonstrates to me and the 
American people that earmarking is out of control and that the process 
is inefficient.
  We are spending time on the Senate floor to pass 138 pages of 
``fixes'' to mistakes and errors relating to existing earmarks. I say 
to my colleagues, we have much more pressing needs that deserve our 
time and attention, such as providing health insurance to the millions 
of uninsured across this Nation, making health care more affordable, 
and passing the FISA reauthorization bill to protect our homeland. 
Instead, we are spending precious time fixing earmarks--hardly a high 
priority with taxpayers who are disgusted with the way their hard-
earned tax dollars are being wasted now.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, it does not 
strike any earmarks that are in law. It allows all the technical 
corrections that are included in this bill, but it simply says we would 
eliminate any new earmarks in this bill and any increases in existing 
earmarks. I think that is what a technical corrections bill should be.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I intend to speak for a few minutes on 
behalf of the committee in response to the comments made by the Senator 
from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Georgia then be recognized for up to 5 minutes to talk as in morning 
business and then followed by the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I first thank my colleague from South 
Carolina for acknowledging that the process that was used on this 
technical corrections bill was a very open process, one in which all 
the changes were open for public review and scrutiny, well identified, 
and a process in which any Member or any person could evaluate the 
merits or demerits of what we were attempting to do.
  Second, let me point out that this is a technical corrections bill--
and I am going to respond to one of the projects specifically that the 
Senator from South Carolina has talked about--but that it is a normal 
process when we pass a large bill to go through a technical corrections 
process in order to correct mistakes that were made or clarify or, as 
priorities change, to deal with the regions to make sure the Federal 
programs are properly targeted to the needs. This is a technical 
corrections bill.
  Third, let me point out that the regions have come to us to ask for 
clarifications or modifications of projects within the area, not 
increasing the costs. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for 
pointing out that this legislation does not increase costs; in fact, it 
will save some money. I appreciate him pointing that out.
  So we are in agreement on all those points. We are going to save 
money. It corrects mistakes that were made, and it deals with regional 
priorities that have been requested of us, consistent with prior 
authorizations of Congress.
  I point out one project, and that is the maglev project. I do not 
want to debate the merits or demerits of the maglev project because I 
do not think that would be appropriate on a technical corrections bill. 
But where the Senator from South Carolina is incorrect is that this is 
a technical correction of prior actions of Congress. It provides 
contract authority. That is what we intended to do in the SAFETEA-LU 
Act. So this is not anything new in maglev. The areas that are involved 
were the same areas that were previously identified. It does not expand 
the project and makes technical corrections as far as contract 
authority.
  What the Senator from South Carolina is debating is the merits of 
maglev, and this is the wrong bill on which to debate that. By the 
Senator's own admission, this is a technical corrections bill, and we 
should just be talking about whether the language is what was intended 
by Congress in its previous actions, and clearly it was, to make sure 
we do it right based on previous actions.
  I hope the Senator from South Carolina will heed his own advice; that 
is, let's make the technical corrections bill deal with those types of 
issues. And I am afraid his amendment would not. As now explained to 
us, he wants to eliminate some of these projects, and that is not the 
purpose of a technical corrections bill. I can understand Members being 
concerned about that approach. I am proud of the work of the committee. 
The committee did identify those--and it is relatively few when you 
consider how many authorizations are in the SAFETEA-LU Act--to clarify 
and, in some cases, to make typo corrections and things such as that.
  It is vitally important to move this bill forward so we can move 
forward on vital transportation projects that affect every one of our 
States. I urge our colleagues to support the committee and support the 
process, the very open and fair and transparent process that was used 
by the committee in developing the changes that are in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                            Jackie Robinson

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a seminal 
moment in our Nation's history. On this day in 1947, Jackie Robinson 
broke the color barrier to Major League Baseball after years of 
segregation.
  Jack Roosevelt Robinson was born in 1919 to a family of sharecroppers 
in Cairo, GA. Cairo, the home of the syrup makers, is a small town in 
south Georgia located about 35 miles from my hometown of Moultrie.
  As you can imagine, Jackie was very talented and did extremely well 
at

[[Page 5951]]

sports. At UCLA, Jackie became the first athlete to win varsity letters 
in four sports--football, basketball, baseball, and track. He was even 
named All-American in football.
  Jackie enlisted in the U.S. Army in World War II, and following his 
discharge in 1944, he played the season in the Negro Baseball League 
and a couple of years in minor league ball.
  In 1947, following Jackie's outstanding performance in the minor 
leagues, Brooklyn Dodgers vice president Branch Rickey decided it was 
time to integrate Major League Baseball, which had not had an African-
American player since 1889. When Jackie first donned a Brooklyn Dodgers 
uniform, he led the way to the integration of professional athletics in 
America.
  In his first year, he hit 12 home runs and helped the Dodgers win the 
National League pennant. That year, Robinson led the National League in 
stolen bases and was also selected Rookie of the Year. Robinson 
succeeded in putting racial conflict and prejudice aside to show the 
world what a talented individual he was. His success in the major 
leagues opened the door for other African-American players.
  Jackie Robinson himself became a vocal champion for African-American 
athletes, civil rights and other social and political causes. After 
baseball, Robinson became active in business and continued working as 
an activist for social change. He was the first African-American 
inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame and, in 1997, his number was 
retired by Major League Baseball.
  I can recall, as a small boy, being a Brooklyn Dodgers fan. The main 
reason was because my older brother was a New York Yankees fan and the 
perennial World Series game was between the Dodgers and the Yankees, so 
it was a natural rivalry that my brother and I have. I have very vivid 
memories of watching Jackie Robinson play ball on TV and having great 
admiration and respect for him as an athlete. It was Jackie Robinson 
who paved the way for so many great athletes today.
  Little did he know, back then in 1947, that he would be followed by 
the likes of Larry Doby, Willie Mays, and my good friend, Hank Aaron. 
But what a great inspiration he has been for all of America. Today, I 
honor the man who stood boldly against those who resisted racial 
equality, and I acknowledge the profound influence of one man's life on 
the American culture. Jackie Robinson's life and legacy will be 
remembered as one of great importance in American history.
  I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from North Dakota 
is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if people are by any chance watching the 
proceedings of the Senate this afternoon, they may wonder what on Earth 
is happening or more likely what is not happening. It has become 
customary, when we try to do business in the Senate in recent months, 
that we discover there is a filibuster that requires a cloture motion 
to be filed on almost anything. On the Senate floor today, as I 
understand it, we are on a 30-hour postcloture period on a motion to 
proceed to a technical corrections bill. That is almost unbelievable to 
me.
  It is not unusual. We have had 65 filibusters in this Congress. Why 
would someone require a cloture motion to be filed in order to break a 
filibuster on a motion to proceed to a technical corrections bill? The 
only conceivable reason to do that is to stop the Senate from doing 
anything. I guess those who have been doing this in the minority party 
have been pretty successful.
  Today is tax day, April 15. One might ask, if we were not doing 
this--standing around and gnashing our teeth and wiping our brow, 
wondering why we can't move this--what would we be doing? If we didn't 
have a minority that insists on a motion to proceed, a filibuster, a 
cloture motion and 30 hours postcloture, what would we be doing?
  We would probably be doing some worthwhile things. It is not that the 
underlying bill is not worthwhile, it is. It should be done quickly and 
easily. It is a technical corrections bill. But what, for example, 
could we do?
  I thought, because it is April 15, a day a lot of people recognize as 
a day of obligation to pay their taxes, I would mention perhaps a few 
of the things we could be doing on the floor of the Senate if we had a 
bit of cooperation and if we could get the minority party to agree--and 
in every one of these cases, certainly we could not. But let me 
describe what we might do, just on the Tax Code.
  The Government Accountability Office found that 59 of the 100 largest 
publicly-traded Federal contractors--that is companies that did work 
for the Federal Government in 2001--had established hundreds of 
subsidiaries located in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes to 
the United States of America. They want all the benefits you can get 
from being a contractor for the Government, but they do not want to pay 
taxes to this country.
  I discovered this some long while ago. It actually comes from an 
enterprising reporter named Dave Evans with Bloomberg News. I mention 
that because it is important. He discovered that in this building in 
the Cayman Islands, a 5-story white building on Church Street, there 
are 12,748 corporations that call it home. They are not there. It is 
their post office mailing address for the purpose of saying they are in 
the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
  If we were not spending our time at parade rest, or posing as potted 
plants because the minority doesn't want to move ahead on anything, not 
even a motion to proceed on a technical corrections bill, are there 
other things we can do? We could solve this, couldn't we? We could say: 
If you are going to run your income through a subsidiary in a tax-haven 
country to avoid your obligation to the United States, maybe you don't 
need to contract with the Federal Government. Maybe you don't need to 
get the Federal Government's business. Or perhaps on tax day, we might 
say we will close this tax loophole--just like that. If you are not 
doing substantive business in a tax-haven country, we will not 
recognize you as having gone to a tax-haven country, and you will pay 
taxes as if you never left our country.
  If we were not seeing all these interminable delays, perhaps we would 
pass legislation that I have offered previously, and that is to say to 
American companies: If you shut your manufacturing plant, fire your 
workers and move your operations overseas, you are not going to get a 
tax break anymore. Someone might say: Do they get a tax break for that? 
They sure do. Let me give an example. I assume that almost everyone has 
ridden in a Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon. It was made for 110 years in 
Illinois, in Chicago, IL. Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon was created by 
an immigrant who came here and created a big business.
  The thing is, after 110 years the Radio Flyer Little Red Wagons are 
not manufactured here. They are all gone. They are in China. Every 
Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon is now manufactured in China. By the way, 
the company got a tax break to move the jobs to China.
  I have spoken often on the floor about Huffy bicycles--20 percent of 
the American bicycle market and made in Ohio by workers who were 
earning $11 an hour plus benefits. Not any more. They all got fired in 
Ohio and all these jobs were moved to Shenzhen, China. Huffy bicycles 
are made by people who work 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 30 
cents an hour.
  Do you know what the workers at Huffy bicycle did the last day of 
work, as their plants were closed down? As they pulled out of their 
parking spaces, the workers left a pair of empty shoes where their car 
used to park. It was their poignant way to say: You can move our jobs 
to China, but you are not going to fill our shoes. This company 
received a tax break for moving jobs to China.
  Fruit of the Loom underwear--everybody knows about Fruit of the Loom 
underwear. You remember, they used to do commercials with the dancing 
grapes. I don't know who would dress up as a grape and dance, but I 
guess they got paid to do that, so you have commercials of dancing 
grapes advertising Fruit of the Loom underwear.

[[Page 5952]]

The problem is, there is no Fruit of the Loom underwear made in America 
anymore because they all went offshore to be produced and the company 
got a tax break to do it. Why? Because this specific company did that? 
No, because companies that shut down their American manufacturing 
plants and move their jobs overseas get a tax break from this country. 
It is the most pernicious thing I have ever seen. I tried four times to 
correct it on the floor of the Senate. I ask people to look up the 
votes and see who is standing up for American jobs and American 
workers.
  Perhaps we could do that on tax day, maybe fix that problem and say: 
At the very least, let's stop subsidizing, through the Tax Code, the 
shipping of American jobs overseas.
  Here is another thing we could probably do if the minority weren't 
requiring cloture motions and engaging in 65 filibusters, which take up 
dead time.
  I should point out for anybody watching or listening, nothing can be 
done during this period. We are in a 30-hour postcloture period on a 
motion to proceed--not even on the bill, on a motion to proceed to a 
technical corrections bill. So this 30 hours is dead time, designed by 
the minority because they do not want us to do anything we probably 
could do on this tax day.
  We have a Tax Code that allows almost unbelievable tax breaks to some 
companies. This happens to be a streetcar in Germany owned by an 
American company. Why? Because they are experts in streetcars in 
Germany? No, because they get big tax breaks when they do this.
  This is a sewer system in Germany. Wachovia Bank, a U.S. company, was 
buying sewer systems in Germany. Think of that--do you think it is 
because they are experts in sewer systems? No. Do you think they wanted 
to buy a sewer system and move it to America? No, not at all. They want 
to buy sewer systems in Europe so they can avoid taxes in the United 
States, because if you buy a sewer system from a European city and you 
now own it, you can actually depreciate it and then lease it back to 
the city and everybody makes money--except the American taxpayers and 
the Federal Government loses money. Maybe, since it is tax day, we 
could shut down this tax scam, although the President has threatened to 
veto legislation that shuts down these kind of tax scams, for reasons I 
don't understand.
  But we could try. We could decide, you know, if working folks pay 
taxes, maybe everybody else can pay taxes. Perhaps we can pass a piece 
of legislation that says those on Wall Street who are getting what is 
called carried interest, some of the wealthiest people in the United 
States, should pay a higher income tax rate than 15 percent. Almost 
everybody pays a higher income tax rate than 15 percent, but those who 
are making the biggest money on Wall Street in the form of what is 
called carried interest, they are laughing all the way to the bank. 
They get a 15-percent tax rate. Perhaps we could change that.
  Perhaps another thing we could do this afternoon, if we were not 
forced to 30 hours of dead time, is we could deal with what the 
Internal Revenue Service is doing by farming out tax collections that 
need to be made--these are people who owe taxes--to debt collection 
agencies in the private sector. This is going to be hard for anybody to 
believe or understand, but here is what they have done. This 
administration is so anxious to privatize and farm out everything, they 
have gone into the Internal Revenue Service and said let's farm out 
these collections of taxes owed, so they have contracted with a couple 
of companies. The problem is that this privatization program lost $50 
million in its first year and is expected to lose more this year.
  The IRS's private revenue collection target for the current fiscal 
year was $88 million. But they now project that the program will 
collect only $23 million. After excluding commissions, ongoing 
operational costs and capital investments, the IRS will still be $31 
million in red this year.
  It is unbelievable. How can the Internal Revenue Service contract 
with a company that is going to lose money collecting taxes? I have a 
piece of legislation that says stop it. Maybe we could work on that and 
pass that legislation today--see if we could find some deep reservoir 
of common sense. The National Taxpayer Advocate who works at the IRS 
has said: Had that money been spent for collectors at the IRS, they 
would have raised $1.4 billion. Instead, they invested $71 million to 
use private collectors and returned just $32 million in 2007. So they 
missed it by about $1.368 billion. Isn't that incredible?
  Does anybody care? Apparently not. We are in 30 hours dead time on a 
motion to proceed to a technical corrections bill, guaranteeing nothing 
can be done on the floor of the Senate.
  There are a couple of other things we might consider when we are 
thinking what could we do this afternoon in this dead time.
  This is a photograph of Mr. Efriam Diveroli. He is the chief 
executive officer of a firm that received $300 million in U.S. Army 
contracts. He's 22 years old. His dad actually started a shell company 
back in the 1990s, and then he took it over. He said he was the only 
employee, except it lists a vice president. The vice president is a 
massage therapist. He is 25 years old.
  So here we have a 22-year-old chief executive officer and a 25-year-
old massage therapist running a company in Miami. They got $300 million 
from the U.S. Department of Defense to provide ammunition to the Afghan 
fighters.
  Let me describe where they are. They are in this building. No, they 
do not own this building; they are in a little part of this building 
with an unmarked door. So you have a 22-year-old and a 25-year-old 
massage therapist working out of an unmarked office in Miami, FL; Miami 
Beach, FL, and they are supposed to, with $300 million, provide 
ammunition to the Afghan fighters on behalf of the U.S. Defense 
Department.
  Here is a picture of the ammunition. Some of it is ammunition from 
China from the 1960s. You can see what it looks like. And the Afghan 
fighters were saying: Wait a second. What are you sending us? Bullets 
that do not fire? Now, I must say, the New York Times deserves some 
real credit. Three people wrote this story. The New York Times, I can 
tell from the story, they traveled around the world to get the details.
  Now, we did not do it. We should have. We should have done it in 
something called a Truman committee. The bipartisan Truman committee 
was created in the Second World War, run by Harry Truman. By the way, 
it started with $15,000 and has saved the American taxpayer $15 billion 
going after waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting.
  Three times we have voted on a Truman committee in the Congress, and 
three times it has been turned back by the minority.
  Now, I will come later and give a longer presentation about defense 
contracting and the most unbelievable waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
history of this country. But we do not need more than the picture of 
the president of this company who got $300 million.
  The question I started with today is, What could we be doing in 30 
hours of dead time, if the minority had not required that there be a 
cloture petition and had not effectively filibustered on a motion to 
proceed to a bill that is going to get overwhelming support? I do not 
understand it.
  Finally, we probably could do something about the price of oil or 
gasoline while we are on the Senate floor during this dead time if we 
were not prevented by the minority, prevented by a President's 
threatened veto pen.
  Oil and gas. Well, look, today is Tuesday, and oil is at $113 a 
barrel. Some are going to the bank with a big smile on their face, 
particularly the large major integrated oil companies because they are 
making a massive amount of profit. Then other people are wondering: Do 
I have enough in my gas tank to be able to drive to work tomorrow? How 
am I going to do that?
  So while all of this is going on today, the Federal Government is 
putting 70,000 barrels of sweet, light crude oil underground in the 
Strategic Reserve. And they are going to do it every single day all 
year long, 70,000 barrels a day, stuck underground.

[[Page 5953]]

  Now, the Strategic Reserve is a decent idea. It is 97 percent filled. 
Why on Earth would we, when oil has hit $113 a barrel, continue, 
through this Bush and Cheney administration, to put oil underground and 
thereby put upward pressure on gasoline prices and oil prices? It makes 
no sense at all.
  So, perhaps, were the dead time not required by the minority, we 
could work on that, or perhaps with respect to the price of gasoline 
and oil, we could work on increasing the margin requirements for those 
who are speculating in the futures markets.
  The commodities futures market, especially for oil, is an 
unbelievable carnival of speculation. Do you know that when you buy 
stocks, there is a 50 percent margin requirement. But if you want to 
buy oil, God bless you, it is only 5 to 7 percent. You want to control 
100,000 barrels of oil tomorrow, $7,000 will do that. That is the 
margin. So, as a result, you have unbelievable speculation in these 
markets driving up the price well above that which the fundamentals of 
oil supply and demand would justify.
  Perhaps we can do something about saying to the exchanges: There must 
be increased margin requirements to stop this speculation hurting our 
country. It is driving up the price of oil, driving up the price of 
gasoline in a manner that is completely unjustified. Stop the 
speculation, stop putting 70,000 barrels of sweet light crude 
underground every day. Maybe those would be two things we could do when 
we are required to file cloture petitions to stop a filibuster on 
issues such as a motion to proceed.
  I mean it is unbelievable to me that we find ourselves in this 
position. There is so much to do, and it is such important work. Yet 
here we find ourselves with the American people looking in on the 
Senate and wondering: What on Earth are they doing?
  Well, what we are doing is what we are required to do by the rules 
when one side decides it wants the Senate to stand at parade rest 
almost all the time.
  We have such big challenges in our country. I have mentioned energy. 
I have mentioned the fiscal policy. I have mentioned health care. We 
have such big challenges that ought to be our agenda. This country 
deserves better, and our agenda is, in my judgment, something on which 
the American people expect us to make progress. They do not expect us 
to see every single day, in every way, a filibuster on the floor of the 
Senate, even on motions to proceed. That is the last thing this 
American public should expect from a Congress that ought to come to 
work ready to go to work on issues that really matter in peoples' lives 
every single day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                          Middle Class America

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I commend my friend from North Dakota. 
He is exactly right. The middle class in our country is in deep 
trouble. Some would argue the middle class is collapsing. And the 
people of our country are looking to Washington, to us, to get 
something done. What they are finding is a filibuster on a corrections 
bill and inaction in every single area that faces working people in our 
country.
  A couple of weeks ago in Vermont we held several town meetings on the 
economy. I invited Vermonters to respond to our Web site about what the 
collapse of the middle class means to them personally. I think it is 
one thing for those of us to give a speech, to use huge numbers, to 
talk in an extravagant way; it is another thing to hear directly from 
people in terms of what is going on in their lives.
  What I promised that I would do, and continue to do, is read some of 
these very poignant e-mails I received, mostly from Vermonters, some 
from other parts of the country, where people are simply saying: Look, 
this is what is going on in my life today. I thought I was in the 
middle class, but I no longer am.
  So what I want to do is read a few of the e-mails that I received, to 
put what we are debating and discussing in a very personal tone, in the 
real words of real Americans. This is the collapse of the middle class 
as described by ordinary people.
  We received an e-mail from an older couple in the State of Vermont. 
This is what they wrote. The woman writes:

       My husband and I are retired and 65. We would like to have 
     worked longer, but because of injuries caused at work and the 
     closing of our factory to go to Canada, we chose to retire 
     early. Now with oil prices the way they are, we cannot afford 
     to heat our home unless my husband cuts and splits wood, 
     which is a real hardship as he has had his back fused and 
     should not be working most of the day to keep up with the 
     wood. Not only that, he has to get up two to three times each 
     night to keep the fire going.
       We also have a 2003 car that we only get to drive to get 
     groceries or go to the doctor or to visit my mother in the 
     nursing home 3 miles away. It now costs us $80 a month to go 
     nowhere. We have 42,000 miles on a 5-year-old car. I have 
     Medicare but I cannot afford prescription coverage unless I 
     take my money out of an annuity, which is supposed to cover 
     the house payments when my husband's pension is gone. We also 
     only eat two meals a day to conserve.

  This is a 65-year-old couple in the State of Vermont in the year 
2008, and I suspect this story is being told all over America.
  Here is another story about a woman who lives in our largest county, 
Chittenden County. She writes:

       First of all, I am a single mother of a 16-year-old 
     daughter. I own a condominium. I have worked at the hospital 
     for 16 years and make a very good salary, in the high $40,000 
     range. I own a 2005 Honda Civic. I filled up my gas tank 
     yesterday, and it cost me almost $43. That was at $3.22 a 
     gallon. If prices stay at that level, it will cost me $160 
     per month to fill up my gas tank. A year ago, it would cost 
     me approximately $80 per month. I now have to decide what 
     errands I really need to run and what things I can do over 
     the phone or the Internet.
       But the other issue is, if I use my cell phone too much 
     during the month, my bill will increase and that will cost me 
     more money. I feel as though I am between a rock and a hard 
     place no matter how hard I try to adjust my budget for the 
     month. I am watching my purchases in the grocery store and 
     department stores more closely because of increased prices.
       I am not sure that can I afford to take a summer vacation 
     this year. I usually take a day off during my daughter's 
     spring vacation so we can go shopping in New Hampshire 
     somewhere. I have already cancelled those plans for this 
     year.
       I am hoping that I can take a few days off this summer to 
     go to Maine. We will see how the gas prices are this summer, 
     but I hear it is going to get worse. Not much hope for 
     someone on a tight budget.

  Here we have somebody who asks nothing more than to be able to take a 
few days off with her daughter to go shopping. Somebody who works very 
hard cannot even do that because the price of gas is soaring.
  Here is another e-mail that comes from a woman living in a small town 
in Vermont. This is what she writes:

       Yesterday I paid for our latest home heating fuel delivery, 
     $1,100. I also paid my $2,000 plus credit card balance much 
     of which bought gas and groceries for the month. My husband 
     and I are very nervous about what will happen to us when we 
     are old.
       Although we have three jobs between us, and participate in 
     a 403(B) retirement plan, we have not saved enough for a 
     realistic post-work life if we survive to our life 
     expectancy. As we approach the traditional retirement age, we 
     are slowly paying off our daughter's college tuition loan and 
     trying to keep our heads above water. We have always lived 
     frugally. We buy used cars and store-brand groceries, recycle 
     everything, walk or carpool when possible, and plastic our 
     windows each fall. Even so, if and when our son decides to 
     attend college, we will be in deep debt at age 65. P.S. 
     Please do not use my name. I live in a small town and this is 
     so embarrassing.

  Well, it is not embarrassing. That is the story being told from one 
end of this country to the other. People who thought that after working 
their entire lives, they would be able to retire with a little bit of 
security and a little bit of dignity are now wondering, in fact, if 
they will be able to survive at all.
  After working your whole life and being frugal, you should not have 
to retire in debt dependent upon a credit card.
  The e-mails we receive from people who are young, middle age and old, 
each in its own way is a work of poetry because it comes from people's 
hearts. It is poignant. It is true. This is what a younger person from 
Vermont writes:

       I am 23 years old. I have about $33K of education debt + 
     $12K of credit card debt and

[[Page 5954]]

     only make about $26K a year + benefits. I barely make enough 
     to support myself and whenever unexpected expenses come up I 
     end up having to use credit to cover them. I feel like I will 
     never catch up and now everything is getting even more 
     expensive; it seems hopeless. Meanwhile I listen to the news 
     and how the rich are getting richer and it is making me hate 
     this country. I am not an economics expert but I know that 
     things could be done differently to help people like me who 
     work hard and get little in return instead of rewarding those 
     who have the ability to use their money to make more money.

  We heard Senator Dorgan talk about huge tax breaks that go to some of 
the wealthiest people, people who don't pay their taxes because they 
move to the Cayman Islands and set up phony front offices. This writer, 
who may not have a PhD. in economics, hit it right on the head. This 
young man and these old people are the people we should start worrying 
about, not the wealthiest people who are having it very good.
  Let me talk briefly about a woman. This is another piece of reality. 
She writes:

       As a couple with one child, earning about $55000/year, we 
     have been able to eat out a bit, buy groceries and health 
     insurance, contribute to our retirement funds and live a 
     relatively comfortable life financially. We've never 
     accumulated a lot of savings, but our bills were always paid 
     on time and we never had any interest on our credit card.
       Over the last year, even though we've tightened our belts 
     (not eating out much, watching purchases at the grocery 
     store, not buying ``extras'' like a new TV, repairing the 
     washer instead of buying a new one . . . ), and we find 
     ourselves with over $7000 of credit card debt and trying to 
     figure out how to pay for braces for our son!
       I work 50 hours per week to help earn extra money to catch 
     up, but that also takes a toll on the family life--not 
     spending those 10 hours at home with my husband and son makes 
     a big difference for all of us. My husband hasn't had a raise 
     in 3 years, and his employer is looking to cut out any extra 
     benefits they can to lower their expenses, which will 
     increase ours!

  Here is a woman who has to work longer hours in order to try to catch 
up, and she can't spend time with her husband and son, which is what 
her life is about. How many millions of people are in the same boat?
  What is not usually talked about on the floor of the Senate is the 
fact that here in the United States, our people work longer hours than 
do the people of any other industrialized country. Not talked about 
terribly often is that to make ends meet now, in the vast majority of 
middle-class life, you need both the husband and the wife working long 
hours. Despite those two incomes, people have less disposable income 
today than 30 years ago in a one-income family. But when you talk about 
the collapse of the middle class, one of the manifestations of much of 
it is that people have to claw and scratch and work so hard that their 
family lives deteriorate. In this case, a woman cannot even spend the 
time she would like with her son and husband.
  Here are a few more e-mails. This comes from a veteran from the State 
of Vermont:

       The real killer is the price of heating fuel.
       Up here in northern Vermont we need heat in the winter. 
     With a Military Pension I make too much to get any 
     assistance. We got a 2.8% pension increase in January, and 
     the price of heating fuel has increased by about 50%. We have 
     to cut back on food in order to stay warm. Thank you.

  Somebody trying to live on a military pension that goes up 2.8 
percent, the price of home heating fuel soars, not making it.
  This is another short e-mail we received:

       The company I work for has just announced a ``raise 
     freeze'' which means not even a cost of living increase can 
     be expected this year . . . this will be tough for us, as we 
     were counting on at least a cost of living increase in a year 
     where the cost of living has surely increased, be it 
     groceries, fuel, wood, gasoline, etc!

  Let me finish by reading an e-mail from another young Vermonter:

       As a graduating law student I am particularly concerned 
     with the potential reduction of jobs available to me. I am 
     leaving school with a great amount of debt in student loans 
     and credit cards and entering the uncertain job market.
       I currently pay a tremendous amount of money in rent. I 
     would like to work in poverty law but those jobs only pay 
     about 36,000 so it is unlikely going to happen.

  Here is an example of a young man who goes to law school, wants to 
work in poverty law, but because his debts are so high and the interest 
rate on that debt is so high, he no longer has a choice of careers. 
This is happening to young people all over the country.
  The middle class in America is collapsing. Poverty is increasing. The 
gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider. Today 
we have by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of 
any major country on Earth. We are the only major country on this 
planet without a national health care program. The cost of college 
education is very high, while the oil companies make huge profits. Our 
people cannot afford to fill up their gas tanks.
  As Senator Dorgan said, the time is long overdue for this Congress to 
start focusing on the real issues facing ordinary Americans. The time 
is now for us to develop the courage to stand up to the big money 
interests, the 35,000 lobbyists who surround us every day, the big 
campaign contributors who want benefits for the wealthy and the 
powerful. We have an obligation to stand up for the middle class. I 
hope we can begin doing that as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                             Tax Filing Day

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle have spoken today about tax issues because today is the day for 
filing income tax. I think it is appropriate that we remind each other 
about a lot of tax issues that are very important that we have to 
decide this year, next year, and the following, or we are going to have 
the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. We are taking 
the opportunity on April 15 to talk about those.
  When I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked to get 
through a narrowly divided Senate the biggest tax cut in a generation. 
We reduced income tax rates for individual taxpayers. We created the 
first ever 10-percent bracket for lower income workers so they didn't 
have to pay as much tax as they would at the 15-percent bracket on 
their first dollars earned. We reduced the marriage penalty because we 
don't think one ought to pay more taxes because they are married. We 
created a deduction for college tuition. We also passed a deduction for 
schoolteachers buying supplies for their classrooms. I could go on with 
a lot of other provisions in those tax bills, but they have all had 
good economic consequences. We ought to consider that they should not 
sunset.
  Now I and others are at work to make sure this tax relief is 
extended. If it is allowed to expire, Americans will be hit with the 
biggest tax increase in history. That is one thing. But it is quite 
another thing that this is going to happen without a vote of Congress. 
In other words, on that magic date of sunset, we go back to levels of 
taxation as they were before January 1, 2001, and we automatically, 
without a vote of Congress, end up with the biggest tax increase in the 
history of the country.
  People say: Well, we are going to continue existing tax law. They 
need to be intellectually honest and tell people that when they are 
doing that, they are going to allow the biggest tax increase in the 
history of the country.
  We can intervene. We need to intervene. It is my goal to intervene. 
The last thing families need, the last thing small businesses need, the 
last thing investors need is a tax increase. But that is what will 
happen this year and in 2010, if Congress doesn't act.
  Last week the Senate demonstrated support for extending current law 
tax relief without offsets, when it voted on energy tax incentives, 
things that are meant to make the United States more energy efficient 
and less dependent upon foreign sources of energy. That same approach 
demonstrated last week, extending current tax law relief without 
offsets, should rightfully apply to other expiring tax provisions, 
including the research and development tax credit and the individual 
tax provisions I have already mentioned. I will be working hard to see 
that that does happen so taxpayers don't get hit with even higher 
taxes. I learned a long time ago that you can't raise taxes high

[[Page 5955]]

enough to satisfy the appetite of Congress to spend money.
  Stopping the tax increases that people say we are not voting for, we 
are only allowing present law, which means the biggest tax increase in 
the history of the country will happen without a vote of the people, we 
can do something about it. We ought to do something about it. Stopping 
these tax increases ought to be a major goal. Maybe taxes should not be 
lowered. Nobody is talking about lowering taxes. But we ought to keep 
the present level of taxation, because it has been good for the 
economy. It has been good for the taxpayers, because we do not see a 
revolt going on by taxpayers as we have seen in recent years in the 
Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. What business is pending before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is under cloture on the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 1195, surface transportation technical corrections.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, under cloture, what it means of course 
is we are doing nothing--good speeches on important topics, but we are 
not considering legislation. We are not debating a bill. We are killing 
time, which turns out to be the major occupation of the Senate for the 
last year and a half. Why? Because the minority party, the Republican 
Party, has a strategy. It is a strategy of using filibusters to slow 
down or stop any bill from passing in the Senate. Today we are seeing 
that strategy in the extreme.
  The bill pending before the Senate is H.R. 1195. In the annals of 
legislative history in the Senate, this will not go down as a great 
piece of legislation. This is not a bill that was worked on for years 
by Senators and their staffs, conceived with grand ideas to change this 
great country. This is a bill which by and large changes punctuation in 
the Federal highway bill, a bill we passed several years ago. Then when 
we carefully read it afterwards, we said: We got some of this wrong. 
This should not have been ``trail.'' It should have read ``road.'' This 
section you referred to wasn't exactly accurate. It is another section.
  So we created a technical corrections bill, a bill that cleaned up 
the Federal highway bill. This technical corrections bill is now being 
filibustered by the Republican side of the aisle. They want to stop us 
from voting on a technical corrections bill. They want to delay our 
consideration of even this housekeeping bill. You ask yourself why. 
Frankly, because they don't want us to take up legislation of even 
greater importance. This is an important bill. Don't get me wrong. By 
cleaning up the old Federal highway bill, we can move forward on 
highway projects. We can spend a billion dollars creating good-paying 
jobs right here in the United States, 4 to 500 different projects 
across our country, 40,000 new jobs. That is good. But these were all 
destined to occur. We are just making sure the language is clear enough 
to move forward.
  We are really not generating a lot of controversy and debate, are we, 
about this bill? Two or three little amendments we could take care of 
in a matter of an hour, that is about it. But what has happened is that 
the Republican minority is trying to stop the majority party--the 
Democratic Party--from considering and passing important legislation.
  In the history of the U.S. Senate--this grand body, this deliberative 
body--in the history of this institution, the record number of 
filibusters in any 2-year period of time was 57, until the Republican 
minority decided to take on this strategy. So far, last year and the 
first few months of this year, there have been 65 Republican 
filibusters this Congress, and still counting. They have broken a 
record. Who cares? Well, I think a lot of people should care.
  We heard the Senator from Vermont a few minutes ago. He talked about 
his genuine concern about working people in his State. He talked about 
the impact of this economy on average working families. He talked about 
the impact of gasoline prices, $3.50 a gallon and higher. He talked 
about the impact of food costs going up on families all across America, 
the cost of health insurance, the cost of college education, the cost 
of daycare for kids. He talked about the fact that the majority of 
families have not seen an increase in real income over the last 7 years 
of this administration. He feels, as I do, that this Senate should be 
dealing with that issue. What is keeping us from doing so? The 
filibusters from the Republican side of the aisle: 65 and still 
counting, a record number of filibusters.
  So Senator McConnell, who is the Republican minority leader in the 
Senate, was asked a question at a press conference today. The reporter 
said to Senator McConnell about his Republican caucus:

       Are you and the caucus prepared now to start slowing down 
     work on the floor and legislation in response?

  He answers:

       Well, we are on the highway technical corrections bill. It 
     is open for amendments. We were discussing various amendments 
     at our lunch earlier and I assume amendments are going to be 
     offered and dealt with.

  That was his answer, and unfortunately it is wrong. We are not 
considering amendments to this bill because we are still under cloture 
on the motion to proceed that doesn't expire until 11:30 p.m. tonight.
  So if Senator McConnell really wants us to consider amendments to 
this bill and get it finished, he needs to walk out on the floor and 
agree to a unanimous consent to move to this bill immediately and 
consider it. Then his statement to the press this afternoon will be 
accurate. But until he does, it is not accurate. We are stuck, stuck on 
cloture, stuck, as we have been time and again by this Republican 
minority. I, for one, believe they have pushed it to the extreme--a 
filibuster on a technical corrections bill.
  Can you think of anything else, Madam President, we might be 
considering? Well, how about the policy on the war in Iraq, a war that 
claimed 2 American lives yesterday, a war that has taken over 4,025 of 
our best and bravest, that has injured more than 30,000, that has cost 
this country over $700 billion, that continues to cost us $10 billion 
to $15 billion a month; a war that claims the lives of our soldiers, 
ruins the morale of many troops who refuse to reenlist; a war that has 
stretched our military to a breaking point. Is that worth a few minutes 
of debate here on the floor of the Senate, the policy of this country 
toward the war in Iraq?
  How about the war in Afghanistan? A war that was designed to go after 
those responsible for 9/11, to capture Osama bin Laden; a war which is 
stalled because we have dedicated so many resources to Iraq; a war 
which we must win so that al-Qaida and the Taliban do not resume their 
control over this poor country; a war which sadly has not resulted in 
the capture of Osama bin Laden more than 6 years after the terrible 
tragedies of 9/11. Is that worth a few hours on the floor, maybe a 
resolution, maybe a discussion about policy? I think it is, but we 
can't get to it because Republican filibusters are stopping us.
  Maybe we should spend a few moments talking about our dependence on 
foreign oil and what we can do to bring down gasoline prices across 
America; how we can work on a bipartisan basis to find renewable, 
sustainable sources of energy that fuel our economy without killing our 
environment. Is that worth a little debate here on the floor of the 
Senate? Most Americans think it is an important issue but, sadly, we 
are stuck with a Republican filibuster again. Maybe we could spend some 
time bringing the bill out of the Committee on the Environment, the cap 
and trade bill, a bipartisan bill by Senator Warner, a Republican of 
Virginia, Senator Lieberman, an independent Democrat of Connecticut. 
Maybe we could bring that to the floor and talk about a way to clean up 
this world's environment so our kids have a fighting chance to have a 
planet they can live on, so that we can devise with American ingenuity 
a system using our free market to make this a cleaner planet. Is that 
worth a few hours of debate on the floor?

[[Page 5956]]

  Debate on the Children's Health Insurance Program that the President 
has vetoed not once but twice, a program to extend health insurance 
coverage to some children in America who are not poor enough to qualify 
for Medicaid and not lucky enough to have parents with health 
insurance, is that worth a few hours of debate on the floor? I think it 
is.
  Those issues and so many others are the ones the American people 
expect us to be talking about right here in Washington. But instead we 
have a bill, with grammar and punctuation, trying to clean up a Federal 
highway bill of several years ago, that is being filibustered by the 
Republican side of the aisle. This is shameful. It is such a waste of 
time in this great institution, but it is a specifically designed 
strategy by the Republicans to slow down the business of the Senate and 
to stop us from considering critically important legislation for 
America.
  I would say to Senator McConnell, who said that we are on the highway 
technical corrections bill and it is open for amendments, it will be 
open for amendments when Senator McConnell comes to the floor and gives 
us his consent to stop the filibuster and to give us a chance to pass 
this bill, as we should have last week, and move on to more important 
legislation--legislation the American people ask us to consider. Sixty-
five Republican filibusters this Congress and still counting. The Grand 
Old Party, the Republican Party, the GOP now has a new name. It is no 
longer the GOP, Grand Old Party. From the Republicans in the Senate, we 
have learned that it is the Graveyard of Progress. That is their idea 
of their role in the Senate. Any proposal for change, any proposal for 
progress, they want to kill. This graveyard is going to speak back to 
them in November.
  I think the American people have had it with the obstructionism, the 
slowdowns, and the obstacles we are seeing here in Washington. The 
voters get their chance in November. I hope they will join us. I hope 
they will send more Senators to Washington who are prepared to not only 
debate but vote for change, Senators who are willing to say: Put an end 
to these mind-numbing filibusters and get down to work. Roll up your 
sleeves and do something to make life better for working families. Do 
something about this energy crisis. Make this planet a safer place for 
our kids to live on. Be responsible when it comes to spending, and 
start bringing the American soldiers home. That is what we should be 
doing. Instead, we are stuck in another Republican filibuster.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, today is tax day. People all across 
America are heading to the post office to get that all-important 
``April 15'' postmark. OK, not everybody waits until the last minute, 
but there are enough procrastinators among us that this is sort of a 
rite of spring. The first week in Washington brings the cherry 
blossoms. The 15th of the month brings long lines near midnight in 
front of the main post office just a few blocks from the floor of the 
Senate.
  For some taxpayers, 2007 was a very good year. Huge fortunes were 
made on Wall Street by people who correctly bet against the housing 
market, and some of those of the very wealthiest people were given huge 
tax breaks that the middle class never saw. But for the people who live 
in all of those homes, those homes that Wall Street people were betting 
against in some sense, 2007 was a very tough year. The home ownership 
rate has actually fallen over the past 6 years, both nationally by a 
slight amount and close to 2 percent in the Midwest. What is 
extraordinary about this fact is that it came during a period of the 
lowest interest rates since the Eisenhower administration. With the 
economy expanding, with interest rates at record lows, home ownership 
should have expanded. Instead, it shrunk.
  The reason is another trend that has received too little notice by 
the Nation's newspapers and the Nation's media: economic growth, simply 
put, has not benefited most Americans. Instead, income and wealth are 
more and more flowing to the most affluent in our country. The middle 
class, meanwhile, must work harder and longer to try to maintain its 
standard of living. Real wages have been in decline for the past 
several years. The only way a lot of families have kept up is, first, 
the entry of more women into the workplace--women in greater numbers; 
second, workers in this country working longer and longer hours, 
overtime if they can get it, two jobs, sometimes even three jobs; and 
third, the only way families have kept up is by taking on more and more 
debt. The third strategy can be a recipe for disaster; sooner or later, 
the bills come due. You can't borrow your way very long to a decent 
standard of living.
  Economic security begins with economic opportunity. That means good-
paying jobs. It means the kind of training that enables workers to 
diversify their skills and take on new challenges. It means high-
quality primary, secondary, and, yes, higher education.
  Our Nation is the wealthiest in the world. Overall economic growth 
has been strong. Working families should be thriving. By and large, 
they are not. Working families are struggling to find and maintain 
good-paying jobs to keep their health benefits, to keep their pension 
benefits if they have them, and those benefits, those health and 
pension benefits, are being scaled back. It costs more and more, as 
people painfully know every day, to fill the gas tank. People are 
borrowing in record amounts just to cover day-to-day costs. So many 
Ohioans from Galion to Gallipolis are struggling.
  The Center for American Progress looked at some key statistics over 
the past 5 years and found that the average job growth is one-fifth the 
rate of previous business cycles. The average job growth is one-fifth--
20 percent--the rate of previous business cycles. Wages have been flat. 
Only 28 percent of middle-class families have the financial resources 
to sustain themselves through a period of unemployment. The average 
family took on debt equal to 126 percent of disposable income just to 
manage its day-to-day expenses.
  Having witnessed the weakest economic expansion in modern history--in 
other words, the growth in our economy, the expansion in our economy 
was weaker than the expansion of the economy at any time in recent 
history--we now find ourselves in a recession once again. So we didn't 
have very strong growth when things were supposedly good--when profits 
were up, when there was economic growth--but it wasn't spread around 
very well. Now we find ourselves in a recession once again. We have had 
three straight months of job losses. Consumer confidence in Lima and in 
Zanesville and all over my State is understandably shaken.
  Our Nation cannot afford to take these statistics in stride, just 
hoping that the precarious financial position of working families is a 
temporary phenomenon linked to the ebbs and flows of our economy, 
because it is not. Our economy as a whole is losing ground. As our 
trade deficit skyrockets, energy and health care costs spiral upward, 
good-paying jobs are too often shipped overseas, and our Federal 
deficit climbs higher and higher and higher. Yet, when Congress tries 
to address any of these problems, we find ourselves faced with 
filibusters, one after another after another, as well as veto threats. 
When we tried to react to the Housing crisis last fall, Republicans 
objected. When we tried to tackle the topic in February, the 
Republicans objected and we faced a filibuster. Even today, the 
President threatens to veto the bill passed by the Senate. Sixty-five 
filibusters, as Senator Durbin and others have said, 65 filibusters--
more filibusters already in the year and 3 months this Senate has been 
in session than in any 2-year period in the history of the U.S. Senate. 
Sixty-five filibusters. It means we haven't been able to do what we 
ought to do in education, on health care, on infrastructure, and, most 
importantly, on the war in Iraq.
  Today, as an example, we are simply trying to pass a technical 
corrections bill to a highway bill. Yet our Republican colleagues are 
filibustering and

[[Page 5957]]

slow walking the legislation once again. Sixty-five filibusters.
  We spend $3 billion a week in Iraq, with no questions asked. 
Halliburton can rob us blind, but we avert our gaze. But to try to 
build a road, a bridge, or some other public works in the United 
States, and you will meet with filibusters, delays, and obstructionism 
by the Republicans. In other words, taxpayers are paying $3 billion and 
building hundreds of water systems in Iraq--spending that money with 
Halliburton and Bechtel--and the money goes to these contractors 
instead of that money coming back to local businesses and building 
water and sewer systems in Defiance, Findlay, Bryan, Napoleon, and 
Perrysburg, OH--places that are being squeezed and are not able to 
afford the reconstruction of the water and sewer systems they need.
  We should be doing a lot more construction and a lot less 
obstruction. Our roads and bridges, in too many cases, are falling 
apart. If my colleagues don't like a project, they can make their case 
and offer an amendment instead of the obstructionism, instead of 
blocking these issues, instead of their 65 filibusters.
  The American people are tired of this kind of delay. Their taxes 
should pay for a government that will work on their behalf, rather than 
only on behalf of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this 
country.
  We cannot continue down a path that undermines the middle class. We 
cannot just hope for real economic recovery. You simply cannot get 
there from here.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for that, because this bill before us 
is a job producer. There is tremendous support for it. I wanted to make 
sure my friend was aware--because I have to ask him a question--of the 
support we have. The thing is, when you unleash a billion dollars for 
500 projects, which have been tied up for technical reasons, it is 
going to create jobs. I ask my friend if he was aware of the broad 
support we have. I will read the list of organizations supporting this 
technical corrections bill, which will free up some 500 highway 
projects: American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, 
which is the departments of transportation for all 50 States; American 
Highway Users Alliance; American Public Transit Association, which is 
the transit systems; American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association, which is more than 5,000 members of the transportation 
construction industry; Associated General Contractors, which is more 
than 32,000 contractors, service providers, and suppliers; Council of 
University Transportation Centers, which is more than 30 university 
transportation centers from across the country; National Stone, Sand 
and Gravel Association, the companies producing more than 92 percent of 
crushed stone and 75 percent of the sand and gravel used in the United 
States annually; National Asphalt and Pavement Association, which is 
more than 1,100 companies that produce and pave with asphalt.
  The point is, when we do this work, in many ways we are creating a 
bit of a stimulus. These are the companies and the workers who are 
suffering right now because of the economic downturn. Before my friend 
leaves, I wanted to thank him and also ask him if he was aware of the 
strong support for this bill.
  Mr. BROWN. Yes, there is strong support. I appreciate the comments of 
the Senator from California. There is strong support for this bill, but 
not just in those groups. I had in my office building trades people 
from Mansfield, Lima, Cleveland, Dayton, and Columbus. They were 
talking about the kinds of jobs--good-paying jobs--in our State on road 
crews, such as the operating engineers and laborers and all kinds of 
workers that are paid decent wages. It is a stimulus, as the Senator 
says. It injects money into our economy immediately. These are ready-
to-go projects. We need to fund them so we can work immediately to 
create these jobs, which will spin off and create other jobs.
  But it is the same old story. We have had 65 filibusters from 
Republicans to stop us from moving forward on everything from health 
care, to education, to ending the war in Iraq, to jobs programs such as 
this. This is the best kind of jobs and economic development program. 
Not only will it create jobs immediately, but it makes it much easier 
for economic development and for people to bring new business into 
communities because the infrastructure is more modern.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask something else. The Senator is not on the 
committee of jurisdiction, but I know he is interested to hear this. We 
correct a real problem in this bill. The organization that does the 
evaluation of our Nation's bridges, highways, and all of our byways, 
has run out of funds. The funds they had have been oversubscribed. What 
we do, without adding any new funds, is enable them to get funding and 
to continue their work, as we get ready for the next highway bill, 
which is coming to us next year.
  I wanted to make sure my friend was aware that, as we get ready for 
the new highway bill, we need to know the condition of our highways. We 
have seen collapsing bridges. That is another reason it is so 
important. I am very hopeful that by this evening we are going to see 
some relenting. I have been on the floor since Monday morning. I don't 
mind that, but it is wasting time, truth be known. We can have a few 
amendments and we can wrap this up. My colleagues can go back home and 
say we have done something.
  I want to specifically know if my colleague was aware of this 
particular account that funds the investigation of the state of our 
infrastructure--that they have run out of money, and that we fix that 
in this bill?
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator for this information and for all she 
is doing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.


                              Papal Visit

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator from 
Colorado is in the chair.
  I will begin by simply extending a word of welcome to the Holy 
Father, who, a few minutes ago, landed in our country for his historic 
visit. I feel tremendously honored that I will have the opportunity to 
see his arrival ceremony at the White House tomorrow and, of course, 
then to be with him and, I presume, with the President as we celebrate 
Mass with him at Nationals Park. It is a momentous and historic 
occasion.
  I know I speak for many of us as I say the Holy Father is welcome to 
the United States. We are delighted he is here. We hope his message of 
spiritual renewal, hope, and peace is one that will resonate with the 
American people.


                     Colombian Free Trade Agreement

  Mr. President, the Colombian free trade agreement is of great 
importance to me personally. It is something that I believe requires 
the attention of this Congress, and it is something whose time has come 
for us to act and make a determination.
  There has been a great deal of attention focused on the future 
prospects of this trade agreement with Colombia. The core question is 
whether we think people in the United States should be able to 
effectively compete in Colombia. What is at stake is whether we want to 
create jobs here in the United States, create additional wealth in the 
United States, and export more goods and services to Colombia.
  The fact is that a free trade agreement with Colombia benefits all of 
the stakeholders involved. It is good for the United States, it is good 
for Colombia, but it also is good for the Western Hemisphere.
  The United States would reap immediate benefits of a free trade 
agreement with Colombia in our level of exports--one of the strongest 
and more positive areas of our economy today.
  I know the Senator from Ohio was just speaking about the economic 
hard times in our country. I know and respect him greatly. I am not 
sure he agrees this is a good agreement for us to sign. But what better 
way is there of

[[Page 5958]]

improving economic circumstances than to export and sell more of our 
goods to a country that wants to be our friend and our partner.
  By leveling the playing field and eliminating the tariffs on products 
we export to Colombia, this agreement would benefit those responsible 
for the $8.6 billion in merchandise the United States exported to 
Colombia last year.
  Currently, more than 9,000 United States companies export products to 
Colombia. Of those, 8,000 are small and medium-sized firms. In the 
absence of a free trade agreement, these firms must pay up to 35 
percent when sending their goods to Colombia. On the other side of the 
equation, more than 90 percent of imports from Colombia coming into the 
United States arrive here duty free.
  This agreement will immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 80 
percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods, and then 
reaching up to 100 percent over time.
  This is an agreement that will bring more business to American firms, 
and it will bring higher demand for products from farmers in Louisiana, 
machinery manufacturing workers in Alabama, transportation equipment 
providers in Illinois, and electronics makers in California.
  My own State of Florida--home to what we think of as the ``gateway to 
the Americas'' in Miami--was responsible for $2.1 billion in exports to 
Colombia in 2007, the second largest export total in the Nation.
  The free trade agreement would benefit the more than 28,500 companies 
in my State that provided products in areas such as computers and 
electronics, machinery manufacturing, and transportation equipment.
  The trade agreement makes sense economically, but also from a 
national security standpoint, it strengthens our relationship with a 
key Latin American ally and demonstrates our commitment to supporting 
nations who choose their leaders through free and fair democratic 
elections and who support the rule of law.
  In fact, the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees our forces in 
Central and South America, sees the Colombian free trade agreement as a 
critical component of our Nation's Latin American policy.
  A few days ago, I saw Admiral Stavridis, head of the Southern 
Command, who was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 
I asked Admiral Stavridis whether he felt the Colombian free trade 
agreement was an important component of our overall policy for the 
region and whether it would add to our ability to increase U.S. 
influence and security in the area. He wholeheartedly agreed.
  Recently, a group of SouthCom military leaders, including GEN Peter 
Pace, expressed their support of the agreement in an open letter to 
Congress.
  These officials know of the diplomatic opportunities this trade 
agreement represents, especially given their unique perspective on the 
current climate in Central and South America.
  In their letter, they affirm that passing this agreement ``will build 
upon [Colombia's] recent advances to enhance the long-term prospects 
for peace, stability, and development in Colombia.''
  They also argue that it is in our ``national interest to help 
Colombia along the road toward democratic consolidation and economic 
development.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Open Letter to Congress From Former Commanders of the U.S. Southern 
     Command Supporting the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement

       We are writing to urge your support for the U.S.-Colombia 
     Trade Promotion Agreement. This vital agreement will advance 
     U.S. interests in Colombia, a strategically located country 
     that is arguably our closest ally in Latin America. It will 
     also underscore our deep commitment to stability and growth 
     in the strategically important Andean region, which depends 
     on Colombia's continued progress as a resilient and 
     democratic society.
       Colombia's transformation over the past decade is a triumph 
     of brave and principled Colombians. It is also a remarkable 
     achievement of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy. Violence has 
     fallen to its lowest level in a generation, and 45,000 
     fighters have been demobilized as the country's narco-
     guerrilla groups have lost legitimacy. While drug-trafficking 
     poses a continuing threat, Colombia's leaders have eliminated 
     two-thirds of its opium production, and more than 500 
     traffickers have been extradited during the Uribe 
     administration--by far the most extraditions from any country 
     to the United States.
       Colombia's economic resurgence has been a critical factor 
     in its recent progress, Robust investment has boosted 
     economic growth and development. The creation of new jobs has 
     provided tens of thousands of Colombians with long-term 
     alternatives to narcotic trafficking or illegal emigration.
       The US.-Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement will build upon 
     these recent advances to enhance the long-term prospects for 
     peace, stability, and development in Colombia. Providing new 
     incentives for investment and job creation, this landmark 
     accord will help ensure that Colombia stays on the path of 
     economic openness, the rule of law, and transparency.
       It is in our national interest to help Colombia progress 
     along the road toward democratic consolidation and economic 
     development. This trade agreement will advance U.S. security 
     and economic interests by forging a deeper partnership.
       Finally, approving this agreement will meet our duty to 
     stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Colombians as they have stood 
     by the United States as friends and allies. For all of these 
     reasons, we strongly urge Congress to approve the U.S.-
     Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.
           Sincerely,
     General James T. Hill,
       Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command 2002-
     2004.
     General Barry McCaffrey,
       Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 1994-1996.
     General Peter Pace,
       Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 2000-2001.
     General Charles E. Wilhelm,
       Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 1997-2000.
     General George Joulwan,
       Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 1990-1993.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, Colombia remains one of our strongest 
allies within the region. It is the strategic center of Latin America, 
of all of the Andean countries. Geographically, it is in a precise and 
important spot in the region. It is a country of 40 million people. It 
is a very significant country.
  Fostering this important relationship holds strategic importance to 
advancing our security and economic interests in South America and also 
with the Colombian Government. Colombia's Congress voted twice in favor 
of passing this trade agreement.
  It would honor the commitment we made when signing the agreement last 
year and would provide greater stability and security to the Colombian 
people as their quality of life continues to improve. I know some 
critics of the trade agreement point to some of the violence against 
labor organizers that has occurred over the years as the reason not to 
ratify.
  In doing so, I believe they fail to recognize the progress that has 
occurred in Colombia in recent years. Colombia has had a violent 
history. I can recall in younger days when I used to travel to Colombia 
frequently. It was not only a beautiful and wonderful country, but you 
were perfectly free to go throughout the country. Over the years, the 
violence brought upon the people of Colombia by FARC, or the 
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, has wreaked havoc on that 
country. It was to the point where the violence was incredible.
  Six years ago, as President Alvaro Uribe delivered his inaugural 
address, mortar shells landed near the Presidential palace in Bogota 
and killed 14 people and wounded another 40. That was the level 
violence had reached in this country.
  These events and crimes against labor organizers were common prior to 
when President Uribe came into office in 2002. Since that time, 
violence has dramatically decreased in Colombia, and the Colombian 
Government's presence is being felt in cities and towns across the 
nation.

[[Page 5959]]

  Let me point out that one death of an innocent civilian or one death 
of a union leader or union organizer is one death too many. Colombia 
has seen more than its share of violence.
  I point to this chart which I believe is accurate in pointing out the 
actual figures when it comes to union leader violence. Notice the high 
point in 2001. This is before President Uribe was President. Then he 
comes into the Presidency and look at the dramatic drop since his 
Presidency down to where it is today. This is not just violence against 
union leaders. President Uribe has been effective in pacifying the 
country.
  The violence against unionists has declined 86 percent during his 
time in office from 2002 to 2007. The reason for this decline is 
President Uribe's attention and response to concerns over these 
attacks. The President established an independent prosecutor unit and 
created a special program to protect labor activists. They can actually 
seek protection from the Government and be provided with armored 
vehicles, with protection for union halls, and personal protection for 
them as they go about the country.
  There has been significant progress in other areas of Colombia as 
well, which is improving the lives of the Colombian people.
  It is astonishing to see homicides are down 40 percent, kidnappings 
are down 83 percent, and terrorist attacks are down 76 percent. This is 
as a result of what, in fact, has been a very successful partnership. 
One of those moments of bipartisan agreement that the President and I 
so often yearn for in this Congress started under President Clinton 
with support from the Republicans, continued under President Bush with 
support from Democrats.
  We had Plan Colombia. This has been a way of helping the Colombian 
Government and the Colombian people to continue to strengthen their 
democracy. President Uribe was elected to office with over 60 percent 
of the Colombian vote, and he is a democratically elected leader who is 
fighting an insurgent group that seeks to destroy his Government and 
democracy in Colombia by means of violence.
  When we stand with President Uribe, when we stand with the duly 
constituted Government elected by the people of Colombia, we are 
standing on the side of those who respect democracy, freedom, and human 
rights.
  When we talk about the kidnappings, these kidnappings have now been 
limited to poor peasants, although that has been part of it, but it has 
also included Government officials. Miss Betancourt, who has gained 
international notoriety because of efforts by the French Government to 
free her, was a Presidential candidate in the midst of a Presidential 
campaign when she was kidnapped. Also, members of the Congress of 
Colombia, businesspeople--they have shown no mercy. Today it is rumored 
they maintain about 700 kidnapped victims with them in the jungles of 
Colombia. Colombia's Foreign Minister is someone who was a victim of 
kidnapping who escaped 5 years ago, maybe more, from the jungles of 
Colombia and has regained his freedom.
  Public school enrollment in Colombia has increased 92 percent. The 
child mortality rate has decreased dramatically as the Government 
turned its focus to human rights and also living conditions. The number 
of tourists visiting Colombia has doubled in the last 5 years.
  Colombia is on the rise. Colombians enjoy a better quality of life 
because they have been living in a country that is more peaceful. For 
that, I think the Colombian people are very grateful to the United 
States. There is no country in the region that is more pro-U.S, that is 
more pro-American, and so much wants to interact and work with us. 
Enhancing that relationship will continue to bring prosperity at a time 
when Colombians continue to face destabilizing forces of terrorism.
  There is a second aspect of Plan Colombia. It is not just about 
building the Colombian military, as important as that is. There is a 
second phase. It is about people, it is about job generation, job 
creation. That is why it is important to enter into this free-trade 
agreement so that U.S. investment dollars might flow to Colombia and 
increase jobs in Colombia as we increase jobs in America as well.
  One of the most prominent narcoterrorist organizations operating 
within their borders is the FARC. ELN is another one. FARC is an 
organization that supports a brand of terrorism much like al-Qaida.
  FARC's greatest enemy is stability, the same sort of political and 
economic stability provided by trade agreements such as these.
  They oppose the democratically elected Government, and they would 
love nothing more than to return Colombia to the days of corruption, 
chaos, murder, and mayhem. It would be unwise to abandon this vital 
alliance in the face of a difficult time for them.
  A trade agreement with the United States would deal a blow to those 
attempting to hinder Colombia's growth, to those who offer a misguided 
vision of the future of the region to those who hear their cry.
  The fact is, there is a battle of ideas going on in the hemisphere, 
and this battle of ideas is one we cannot shrink from but must engage. 
By entering into this agreement, we would join a growing list of 
partners in the region that have demonstrated commitment to human 
rights, free and fair elections, and strengthening trade relations with 
us.
  We have a very strong partnership. NAFTA, I must confess I find it a 
little difficult to understand how NAFTA, which has created jobs all 
over America, could be faulted for jobs going to China. And I cannot 
believe, on a serious note, those who seek to be the President of our 
country would walk away from that trade agreement. The fact is, this 
trade agreement is one that would enhance and advance the interests of 
the United States.
  I do not believe in a country that would be afraid to compete with 
those abroad. I believe in the America that is proud and strong and can 
compete with anyone in the world. We cannot just shelter within our 
shores. We cannot just retreat to fortress America. Those days are 
gone. We created the global trade we live in today and to retreat from 
that would be a misguided mistake.
  Over the weekend, both the New York Times and the L.A. Times ran 
pieces urging Congress to ratify this important and historic trade 
agreement. According to the New York Times, ``rejecting or putting on 
ice the trade agreement would reduce the United States' credibility and 
leverage in Colombia and beyond.''
  And the L.A. Times characterized the House's decision to halt the 
vote by stating ``it wasn't about the U.S. economy and it wasn't about 
Colombia. It was politics.''
  I don't want to dwell on that issue because I believe the best way 
for this to take place is for us to continue to work together in a 
bipartisan fashion to try to bring about an agreement that would be 
good for America, good for the region, good for Colombia, good for the 
United States, good for our people, good for their people. This is the 
kind of trade agreement that is a win-win.
  I was talking about NAFTA. We then moved to Central America and the 
Dominican Republic, and we have CAFTA. That trade agreement is creating 
and generating jobs in that region. We have a free-trade agreement with 
Peru and Panama, and if Colombia joins in, that would create a 
powerful, mighty trade alliance creating and generating jobs and 
exports from the United States to this region.
  I was meeting this morning with a gentleman who is hoping to be the 
next Ambassador of the United States to Honduras. I asked him how has 
CAFTA impacted our relationship with Honduras. He said there has been 
several billion dollars a year of trade between us and Honduras, and it 
had increased U.S. exports to Honduras by 18 percent. That is good for 
America. That is good for American jobs.
  So I hope calmer voices will prevail. It would give us a chance to 
vote on this important trade agreement. It was signed by Colombia and 
the United States well over a year ago. There is

[[Page 5960]]

never a perfect time for these agreements. I believe the votes are 
there. I believe it is time to allow the votes to take place instead of 
utilizing procedural maneuvers that, at the end of the day, are not 
particularly democratic.
  Mr. President, I hope we can move forward to consider this agreement, 
to study the elements of it, to see the merits of it. It goes beyond 
stating the obvious: that this is something that not only would help 
economically, but it would also be a tremendous boost to our 
relationship in this region of the world that all too often feels 
forgotten, that all too often feels our eyes are focused elsewhere in 
the world, but are always our closest neighbors, are always our people 
who each and every day signify more and more to us.
  A great many people of Colombian heritage live in the State of 
Florida and in other States of our country. They are great contributors 
to the American experiment. I am proud to have them among my 
constituents. I know in the southern part of my State, this is a big, 
important issue. It is one whose time has come. I hope the Speaker will 
reconsider. I hope we will move forward with this important trade 
agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of passing the bill 
that is on the Senate floor; that is, the SAFETEA-LU technical 
corrections bill. When we look at the bill that is of the magnitude of 
the SAFETEA-LU bill and its extraordinary importance in our economy, 
there are bound to be some drafting errors and issues. I am glad we are 
taking the time to correct these errors so we can continue to 
strengthen our national infrastructure and our economy.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I applaud 
Senator Boxer's leadership in getting this bill to the floor. This bill 
is a step in the right direction as this Congress focuses more and more 
attention on our national infrastructure.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, as well as future 
efforts, to strengthen our national infrastructure.
  The Presiding Officer, being a Senator from Colorado, knows and I 
know there is a new economy in the future. It is the energy economy. 
But if we are going to move forward the next century's economy, we 
cannot be stuck in the last century's transportation system.
  I believe when you invest in infrastructure, you invest in the 
American economy. Rebuilding Main Street means revitalizing Main 
Street. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 
billion of Federal highway investment, it creates over 30,000 jobs. So 
when we rebuild our roads, we strengthen our economy.
  As you know, a bridge collapsed one day in the middle of Minnesota. 
It was something no one could ever believe would happen in the middle 
of our major Interstate Highway System.
  As I said that day, a bridge should not fall down in the middle of 
America, especially not an eight-lane interstate highway, especially 
not one of the most heavily traveled bridges in our State, and 
especially not at rush hour in the heart of a major metropolitan area, 
and especially not in my front yard. As you know, Mr. President, as you 
have seen, the area of that bridge was only 8 blocks from my house.
  Unfortunately, it has taken a disaster of this magnitude to put the 
issue of infrastructure investment squarely on the national agenda, and 
it is long overdue.
  The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W bridge has raised many 
questions about the condition and safety of our roads and bridges. In 
fact, we just had a bridge that was similarly designed shut down in St. 
Cloud, MN, about an hour and a half away from the bridge that 
collapsed. It was designed by the same designer, with the same problem 
with the bent gussets. The investigation is still going on into the 
exact cause and triggering events that led to the collapse of the I-35W 
bridge.
  The fact a bridge closed down so near, and the State of Minnesota 
decided to replace that bridge rather than repair it, shows this is not 
an isolated incident. Critical investment in the maintenance and 
construction of our Nation's transportation is imperative. 
Strengthening and maintaining our national infrastructure must be a 
national priority.
  At the moment, our priorities are not in the right place. We spend 
$12 billion a month in Iraq, with no end in sight, but our bridges fall 
down in the middle of America. We have tax cuts for the top 1 percent, 
but it is getting harder and harder for the middle class to get by. We 
need to better prioritize our national spending.
  Our robust, well-maintained, up-to-date highway system is vital to 
the continued expansion of our economy. It is, in fact, an essential 
driver of our economic prosperity. As President Kennedy once said:

       Building a road or highway isn't pretty. But it's something 
     that our economy needs to have.

  And nowhere is this truer than in rural America.
  In Minnesota, the relationship between highways and the economy is 
most obvious in our rural areas. Transportation is absolutely essential 
to their viability and to their vitality. Rural Minnesota is now in the 
midst of an economic revival that promises to grow even stronger. We 
are seeing this all over America with the energy revolution, whether it 
is wind or solar or geothermal or whether it is ethanol or biodiesel.
  As our Nation demands greater energy independence and security, the 
rural parts of our country are poised to benefit enormously with the 
further development of home-grown energy. I believe we need to be 
prepared to maximize the opportunities offered by this renewable energy 
revolution. It is only beginning to emerge, but it promises major 
economic and technological changes for our country.
  Already the development of wind farms and ethanol plants has 
rejuvenated many rural areas in our State. We are third in the country 
when it comes to wind energy. But at the same time, these wonderful new 
energies are placing new demands on our transportation infrastructure. 
Here is one example: Demand for ethanol has increased dramatically. 
This Congress has pushed it. We are now with corn ethanol, but we know 
we will also expand into cellulosic, switchgrass, prairie grass, and 
other forms of biomass. For the first 6 months of 2007, ethanol 
production in the United States totaled nearly 3 billion gallons--32 
percent higher than the same period last year.
  Currently, there are 128 ethanol plants nationwide, with total annual 
production capacity nearing close to 7 billion gallons. An additional 
85 plants are under construction. As we know, this is just the 
beginning. We look at places such as Brazil, which are completely 
energy independent because of what they have done with sugarcane. We 
know corn isn't the only answer. We will expand into other kinds of 
ethanol. But we do know this is going to place demands--demands we want 
to have--on our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  Total ethanol production in the United States is projected to exceed 
13 billion gallons per year by early 2009, if not sooner. What does 
that mean in terms of transportation? Well, this means an average 
square mile of land in southern Minnesota, which now generates the 
equivalent of 80 loaded semitrucks per year, could soon produce double 
that--160 loads of grain per year. As more homegrown energy is 
produced, rural roads and bridges will have greater demands placed on 
them, as will rural rail.
  I have had members of my own State of Minnesota--constituents--come 
up and show me these old rail ties that are breaking down. I have seen 
myself the bridges that are in need of shoulders. I have seen the 
highways that are in need of repair. Some of our roads in Minnesota are 
in such disrepair they have actually been letting them go to dirt. We 
are going the opposite because they do not have the money to repair 
them.
  The ethanol plant in Benson, MN, now has over 525 fully loaded semis 
hauling either corn, ethanol or other forms of biodiesel from their 
plant every week. This is a 45-million gallon

[[Page 5961]]

ethanol facility. Their production falls around the middle of 
Minnesota's 16 ethanol plants.
  SMI Hydraulics is a company in rural southwestern Minnesota that 
manufactures the bases for the wind towers you see all across southern 
Minnesota. I have visited the company. They basically started in a 
barn, and they are building these huge wind towers. The heavy trucks 
that bring the steel to the company put an understandable heavy burden 
on the roads they travel and are putting their durability to the test.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates truck freight in rural 
America is going to double--double--by the year 2020. The continuing 
trend toward greater reliance on trucking to support these industries 
raises concern about the wear and tear on rural roads and bridges. Many 
of these roads and bridges were built before this trend was evident. 
Whoever thought they would be carrying this huge wind tunnel? No one 
ever thought it would happen, but it does. They were not designed for 
this type of traffic.
  Much of the rural road network in the United States was constructed 
during an era of slower travel and lighter vehicles. Current traffic, 
which is heavier and wider, has accelerated the rate of deterioration 
and made these types of roads less serviceable. In many important 
grain-producing States, such as Minnesota, more than 40 percent of the 
major highway system is rated as being in less than fair condition. Our 
transportation systems need to support the development of these 
industries, so we need to look at the full spectrum of transportation 
options.
  I truly appreciate Senator Boxer's leadership, looking not just at 
truck travel, not just at roads but also at mass transportation and 
other ways we can transport our goods to market. With more than half 
our State of Minnesota's total population now living in the seven-
county Twin Cities metro area, the need for more transportation options 
has become very clear to all of us.
  It is not just about the rural areas in our State. Increasing traffic 
congestion has become a major threat to Minnesota's quality of life and 
our prosperity, costing precious time and money for both commuters and 
businesses. There is enormous support in our State for something called 
Northstar rail, which would bring people basically from the Twin Cities 
to the area of St. Cloud--Big Lake, to be exact. St. Cloud is the area 
I explained where the bridge had been closed because of safety 
concerns. And if you drive that 94 Interstate right now, I can tell 
you, you waste so much time sitting in traffic you practically feel 
sick to your stomach if you are there in rush hour.
  We need that mass transit, and legislators and people who were 
originally completely opposed to this project are now standing up in 
front of the line because they know how important it is for their 
constituents. This is a case where I have to tell you the constituents 
were there before the elected officials and led the way to try to get 
this Northstar rail in. And because of the Federal help, it is now 
getting built.
  The bottom line for any business is you lose money when your people 
and your products get stuck in traffic, and you also lose the ability 
to attract topnotch, talented workers if they must contend with 
aggravating and time-consuming traffic jams. To combat this threat, we 
must commit to broadening our transportation options, developing the 
right mix of multimodal solutions to serve our emerging needs, while 
maintaining our existing systems and highways. This mix, of course, 
includes not just rail but rapid bus transit, high-occupancy toll 
lanes, and anything we can do to try to move the people to the places 
they need to go.
  Our Nation has faced this challenge before, a half century ago, and 
we succeeded in building a new modern transportation system for a new 
modern economy. At the heart of it all was the interstate highway 
system. In his 1963 memoir, ``Mandate for Change 1953-1956,'' President 
Eisenhower famously said this of transportation:

       More than any single action by the government since the end 
     of the war, this one would change the face of America. Its 
     impact on the American economy--the jobs it would produce in 
     manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open 
     up--was beyond calculation.

  He was right. It is our responsibility to restore Eisenhower's vision 
of a transportation infrastructure that works for all of America. I can 
tell you this firsthand, from my heart, having seen what happens when 
you don't invest as you are supposed to; having seen a major bridge 
fall down one day in the middle of America; having seen the promise in 
the rural parts of our State of the new energy revolution but then 
hearing how they can't get their goods to market because they have a 
bunch of single-road highways, when they have trucks that are trying to 
bring wind towers in, when they are trying to be part of the solution 
to this energy crisis.
  It is our responsibility to restore that vision that Eisenhower had--
to build this transportation infrastructure in our country. That is why 
I am so proud to support Senator Boxer and her work on this bill, and I 
hope our colleagues will support this bill and that we get this bill 
passed for the good of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am sitting here and listening to Senator 
Klobuchar, and I am so proud of her work on the committee that I am 
fortunate enough to chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
This committee is so interesting because we do everything from global 
warming legislation, protecting endangered species, to rebuilding the 
infrastructure of our Nation on the public works side.
  It is kind of an interesting divide, because when it comes to 
rebuilding the infrastructure, we have more bipartisan support right 
now than for protecting the environment; where Senator Warner, on 
global warming, has frankly been our hero on the other side of the 
aisle, joining with us. But on the infrastructure, Senator Inhofe and I 
have worked very closely together, and with the help of members of the 
committee, such as Senator Klobuchar, we are making progress.
  Before the good Senator leaves the floor, I wanted to make sure she 
was aware of something in this bill that is so crucial and is very much 
apropos to her reminding us about the bridge collapse in Minnesota. We 
fix an oversight in SAFETEA-LU that resulted in a particular account 
being oversubscribed. That account was the surface transportation 
research development and deployment account.
  Now, what does that do? It is a very fancy name. Basically, that 
particular account funds research into the status of our 
infrastructure. It takes a look at our infrastructure, and it tells us 
what we need to do to keep up. Do we need to reinforce our bridges, for 
example. That is one of the aspects they look at. The appraisal of our 
highways. How do we fund transit? What is the physical condition of our 
roads? How do they operate? What is their performance level? It is so 
crucial that we have the information.
  My colleague from Minnesota wrote the carbon registry bill that is 
part of our global warming bill because she knows that before you can 
solve global warming, you need to know how much carbon and other 
greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere. We can't write a new bill in 
2009 unless we know the status of our roads, our freeways, our bridges, 
and our highways. So that is why this bill is so important.
  We have been here for 2 full days now. I have been ready, willing, 
and able to take any and all amendments. We have said the bill is 
closed. We are not adding anything new because we want to keep this 
bill the exact same cost as the SAFETEA-LU bill. We are not adding 
anything. We are, in essence, making technical corrections to make sure 
we don't stymie a billion dollars' worth of projects, which is going to 
create tens of thousands of new jobs, and we are going to free up the 
frozen level of this research because they can't research anymore. They 
can't do any more research on the state of our infrastructure. We want 
to unfreeze that.

[[Page 5962]]

  So here we are for 2 days, standing on our feet begging our 
Republican friends not to filibuster this bill. What is the point? 
Everybody wants this bill, except maybe one Senator who doesn't like 
one provision in it. We had the vote to proceed. I think it was 93 to 
1. So everyone wants this bill. This bill doesn't add any new spending, 
it unleashes a billion dollars of important projects. That is why we 
have extraordinary support--and I don't have the chart here--from all 
our construction trades people, the management side, the labor union 
side, the worker side. We have it all. We have the heads of all the 
transit agencies across the country. They all want this bill. It is 
very impressive.
  Oh, good, we have it back. I will show it one more time, because when 
you hear who is backing us--and they are not backing us quietly, they 
are on the phones, they are calling Members and saying: Let this bill 
go.
  When my kids were young, they would call something a no-brainer. That 
is what this bill is, a no-brainer. This bill makes eminent sense.
  Here is the list: The American Association of Highway and 
Transportation Officials--from all 50 States--support us; the American 
Highway Users Alliance--millions of highway users; the American Public 
Transit Association--transit systems from across the country; American 
Road and Transportation Builders--that is more than 5,000 members of 
the transportation construction industry; Associated General 
Contractors--that is 32,000 contractors; Council of University 
Transportation Centers--more than 30 university transportation centers 
from across the country; The National Stone, Sand and Gravel 
Association--these are the companies that produce more than 92 percent 
of crushed stone and 75 percent of sand and gravel used in the United 
States annually; and the National Asphalt and Pavement Association--
more than 1,100 companies.
  These are the folks who are suffering right now. These are the folks 
who have gotten caught in this recession we are in. These are the folks 
who are calling Senators and saying: Please, let this bill go.
  Senator Boxer supports it, Senator Inhofe supports it, Senator 
Klobuchar supports it, Senator Baucus supports it, Senator Isakson 
supports it. I could list members from our committee--almost all. As I 
said, we had a vote of 93 to 1 to proceed to this bill.
  Calling all Republican friends: Please, please, please, relent. 
Please, let's get going. People are counting on you. They need the 
work. They need the jobs. Our country needs the infrastructure built. 
This doesn't cost a penny more. These are funds that are sitting in the 
trust fund.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will be glad to yield to my colleague.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask the Senator, how long has she been trying to get 
this bill through? I know she has been waiting. I know it has been 
months.
  Mrs. BOXER. The House passed it 1 year ago, and we passed it in the 
committee in June 2007. This is not something that--this has been 
around. We have been asking Senator Reid. He wanted to bring it up, but 
it is getting caught up in other matters. It has been a long time.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. It seems to me, when there is so much bipartisan 
support, the other side of the aisle would try to advance this bill. I 
know in our State we have had this tragedy. They see this not only as 
you talk about it--as a way to figure out, do an analysis of what we 
really need to meet our transportation needs but they also need it as 
investment. As you know, we were unable, on the stimulus package, to 
get some of the things we wanted on the Democratic side, so we did get 
the check in the mail to people. But long after those rebate checks are 
cashed, we need a long-term investment strategy in this country that 
invests in jobs.
  I thank Senator Boxer for bringing up that piece of the bill. I was 
very focused on the nuts and bolts on the roads, the wear and tear on 
the roads that we all think about when driving on the highway, but we 
also have to think about this as an investment strategy. I thank her 
for bringing out that important point.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do it, I say to my friend, and I am glad 
she asked me when we passed this bill out of committee--June 2007. June 
2008 is fast upon us. The House also passed it a year ago.
  This is a long time in coming. You are so right, we all talk about 
the need to make sure there are good jobs for people. This is a 
ministimulus package right here. There are 500 important projects that 
will move forward. This means real jobs, real jobs in the U.S. of A. 
When you are building a road here, you are building a road here. This 
is important.
  It is unusual to see all of these folks team up together. We had a 
press conference this morning, management and labor together saying: 
Please, here is an opportunity.
  There is nothing negative to say about this bill, as far as I am 
concerned. You may have one or two projects you wouldn't vote for, but 
the fact is they have come from the Members of Congress who know their 
districts and know their States.
  I was very glad Senator DeMint called and said he was pleased with 
the way we did our disclosure under the new ethics rule, that our 
committee had set the standard. I was very happy to hear from him about 
that. He said we did it right, we made it public. Everybody signed on 
to whatever project they requested--very open, very transparent, very 
necessary. This is a very necessary bill.
  I guess I am talking to colleagues who may be in their offices and I 
am saying, especially to my Republican friends, come join us. Let's do 
something good for the people. This is very important for your States. 
You have the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials--that's the department of transportation for all 50 States--
calling on us to act. There is no reason to hold this up. We are 
wasting precious minutes. We are wasting precious hours. We are wasting 
precious days. We have a lot of other work to get done.
  My goodness, I don't understand filibustering this bill which, again, 
is within the budget. It doesn't add a penny more than we were supposed 
to spend. I am a little perplexed as to why we are sitting here at 10 
to 6 at night and we can't get anybody to come here to offer an 
amendment. But I am ever hopeful, because it is my nature, that people 
will realize, as they go back to their offices and see their phone 
messages from all these people, that this is real. This is real. We 
need to get it done.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I will be back as 
soon as I have some news to share with colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the matter before the Senate now that 
is currently being blocked by the minority is a bill that would permit 
work to proceed on hundreds of highway and transportation 
infrastructure projects, creating tens of thousands of construction 
jobs, and pouring $1 billion into our economy. This is timely 
legislation to repair our roads and bridges now, while our economy 
needs the work. Yet this bill is stalled in this body because 
Republicans in the Senate will not allow it to move forward.
  Unfortunately, we have seen this movie too many times. The minority 
has engaged in no less than 65 filibusters in this Congress--an 
astounding number that lays bare the minority's lack of interest in 
solving the real problems America faces. What a record--65 filibusters, 
the most ever. That is what the minority has to contribute to the 
problems America is facing.
  A number of our Republican colleagues have come to the floor of the 
Senate to speak today, but we have

[[Page 5963]]

 heard very little in the way of substantive or reasonable objections 
to the highway bill. Instead, what we have heard is a lot of talk about 
taxes. Of course taxes are on the minds of many Americans today. It is, 
after all, April 15, filing day, the deadline for Federal and State tax 
returns to be filed. Today, we should remember that the work of 
Government does not just cost money, it costs our money. For that 
reason, we should ask how this Government is spending our hard-earned 
money and whether the priorities reflected in the Federal Government's 
spending are truly the right priorities for our people and for our 
time.
  These are difficult days. Today, families throughout my State of 
Rhode Island and all across this country are reading their bank 
statements, opening their bills, reading their local newspapers, and 
finding that the looming downturn in the economy leaves them struggling 
to make ends meet. Everywhere we look, prices are rising, from the 
groceries that feed our families to the gasoline that fuels our cars. 
Every day, more Americans face the disaster of foreclosure. Every day, 
more Americans face the nightmare of catastrophic health care bills.
  In these days of insecurity, the people of this country are looking 
for answers, for solutions, for a new direction. Democrats in the 
Senate are working overtime to provide that new direction. We passed an 
economic stimulus package, legislation to address the housing crisis, 
and a budget plan to put our Government back on the path to surplus and 
cut taxes for middle-class families. We know we need a change of course 
and, most particularly, a change of leadership in the White House to 
get our country back on track.
  But Senate Republicans today are making it clear that they do not 
agree. Instead of putting working families first, instead of getting 
our infrastructure repaired, they want to protect the massive Bush tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans, a fiscally irresponsible policy that 
has left our country trillions of dollars in debt. Instead of a budget 
that focuses Federal Government spending on our children and our 
veterans, Republicans want to stick us with the status quo, pouring 
hundreds of billions of dollars into an endless war in Iraq without 
spending a dime here at home to fix the problems that face American 
families.
  Senate Democrats support tax cuts for middle-class families, 
including targeted help for families with children or seeking to adopt 
a child. Indeed, the budget resolution this year would provide those 
tax cuts in a fiscally responsible way, without digging our country 
deeper into debt. But President Bush and his Republican allies in the 
Senate want to extend the extravagant portions of the 2001 to 2003 Bush 
tax breaks that are weighted heavily toward the wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. President, 71 percent of the value of the tax cuts in 2009 will 
go to the wealthiest fifth of Americans, and 28 percent of the value of 
the tax cuts goes to the top 1 percent, a group whose incomes average 
around $1.5 million a year--clearly people who are hurting and need a 
lot of help from our Government right now. Almost nothing at all goes 
to the lowest earning fifth, families who earn $15,000 a year or less. 
This is the George Bush idea of fair tax policy.
  The President's insistence on forcing through these cuts without 
making up for the lost revenue, to defer that pain to later 
generations--to our children, to our grandchildren--was not only 
cowardly leadership, it left our budget in precarious straits. The Bush 
tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 cost a staggering $1.9 trillion, and they 
account for 25 percent of the $7.7 trillion Bush Debt. The $7.7 
trillion Bush Debt is the difference between the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office projections as President Clinton left 
office compared to the budgetary nightmare George Bush created--$7.7 
trillion.
  I am from Rhode Island. One trillion dollars is an unthinkable amount 
of money in a small State such as Rhode Island. I do not know what $7.7 
trillion is. So I have tried to scale it for myself. I have here in my 
hand a simple penny. A simple penny. If this simple penny were $1 
billion--now, even in Rhode Island $1 billion is big money--if this 
simple penny were $1 billion, $7.7 trillion is a stack of these simple 
billion-dollar pennies that is 39 feet high, takes us right to the top 
of this room with a simple penny being a full billion dollars.
  It is an astonishing burden for this country to have to bear. It is 
the responsibility of George Bush and the Republicans, and we have to 
get serious about it. But are the Senate Republicans willing to get 
serious about it? No. If they have their way, the wealthiest Americans 
will continue to profit to the tune of trillions of borrowed dollars 
while those most in need receive virtually nothing. According to the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the poorest Americans--the 
lowest 20 percent of income earners would receive less than 0.5 percent 
of the value of extending Bush tax cuts between 2009 and 2018. The top 
20 percent, on the other hand, would receive a staggering 74 percent of 
the value, a total of nearly $4 trillion over that 10-year period.
  And, of course, this is Bush tax policy, so the higher the income, 
the greater the benefit. Close to $1.2 trillion in Bush tax cuts would 
accrue to the top 1 percent of American households. Households with 
annual incomes of more than $1 million a year, those alone receive $834 
billion, $834 billion in extended Bush tax cuts.
  The reckless fixation on tax cuts for our wealthiest folks that the 
Bush administration has pursued is driving us to a bad place, to a 
divided America with two economies, a gilded economy for the wealthy, 
and a worried struggle for everyone else. That is not good for America. 
In fact, that is not America. But this does not seem to bother our 
Republican friends. They have hitched their wagons to the big winners 
in the gilded economy: the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, 
the billionaires. The two economies, well, that is fine with them so 
long as their friends are winning. But that is not good for America.
  In fact, that is not America, not the one we know. The tool they have 
used over and over and over is the filibuster. With a $7.7 trillion 
Bush Debt foundering us, with families across the country in their home 
States, everyone struggling, you would think they would want their role 
to be more productive than being the biggest filibusters in American 
history. You would think they would want a more productive record and 
legacy than that. But, no, they want to dig a $7.7 trillion hole and 
then filibuster the folks who are trying to get America out of it. It 
is so clear that Senate Republicans would prefer to engage in 
overheated and overhyped tax rhetoric than they would roll up their 
sleeves, sit down, and get to work on legislation solving the real 
problems working Americans are facing across our country each day.
  I will tell you, it is clear and it is disappointing.
  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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, the record has been made clear today. We 
wish we had been doing some legislating. We have not been. I have had a 
number of conversations with my distinguished counterpart, Senator 
McConnell.
  Senator McConnell, following the caucus he had with his Senators, as 
I have with mine every Tuesday, my understanding is a concern was 
raised in the caucus about the number of judges who have been or not 
been approved by the Senate in these last few months.
  As you know, one day last week we approved five judges, one circuit 
court judge and four district court judges. We thought that was a step 
in the right direction. What are we going to do the rest of this year? 
You know, there is a Thurmond doctrine that says: After June, we will 
have to take a real close look at judges in a Presidential election 
year.
  June is fast approaching. I believe that is the time set forth in the 
Thurmond doctrine. So today Senator

[[Page 5964]]

McConnell and I in our conversations talked about all of the various 
judges who could be brought up, should be brought up, may be brought 
up, and we went over the different circuits and talked in some detail.
  Following my first conversation with Senator McConnell, I called the 
Judiciary Chairman, Senator Leahy. He and I have a wonderful 
relationship. He defends me on the floor, I defend him on the floor. 
Our wives are friends. He is a good person. I think the world of him. 
So I called him so there would be no misunderstanding. He came over to 
my office following the telephone conversation. And after the telephone 
conversation I called Senator McConnell. Senator Leahy came to my 
office and we visited again about the judges. We believe we need to 
make more progress on judges.
  As we have said before, we do not want the minority to be treated the 
way we were treated during the Clinton years. We have done a pretty 
good job. At this time we have probably approved 90 percent of 
President Bush's judges, lots and lots of judges, well over 100 judges 
we have approved.
  The Republican leader asked me: What can you do before our Memorial 
Day recess? What I have told him is we are going to do our utmost, we 
are not going to talk about district court judges, we are going to 
approve district court judges, the exact number of which I do not know, 
and Senator Leahy and I are going to do everything we can to approve 
three circuit court judges by Memorial Day.
  I would like to be able to guarantee that. I cannot guarantee it. A 
lot of things happen in the Senate. But I am going to do my very best. 
I want to live up to what I am saying here on the floor right now. 
Senator Leahy knows I am here speaking before the American people today 
and to Senator McConnell. So we are going to do our very best to 
approve three circuit court judges by Memorial Day. That is about the 
best I can do. Which ones, I have told Senator McConnell. There are a 
number of alternatives we can have. He knows some by name, I know them 
by name. I do not want and I do not choose to go over them name by name 
at this time. But we have a number to choose from to get to those 
three. I will do the best I can, working with Senator Leahy and the 
Judiciary Committee. And when I say ``bring to the floor,'' that means 
confirm the judges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my good friend, the majority leader, 
and I, I think at the beginning of this conference--and I believe this 
is a correct characterization of where we were; I am sure he can 
disabuse me of the notion if it is not a direct characterization of 
where we were--we felt at the very least, President Bush, with regard 
to circuit court nominees, should be treated as well as President 
Reagan, President Bush 41, and President Clinton were treated in the 
last 2 years of their Presidencies.
  Each of those Presidents found themselves with the following dilemma: 
The Senate was in the control of the opposing party, so there was a 
certain symmetry to this President. George W. Bush ends up the last 2 
years of his Presidency similarly situated to President Reagan, 
President Bush 41, and President Clinton. The average number of circuit 
court judges approved for all of those Presidents was 17. President 
Clinton was on the low end of that at 15.
  As of today, April 15, we have approved in this Congress seven 
circuit judges. Except for last week, there had not been one since last 
September. I am sure the majority leader would agree with me that we 
are running dramatically behind. We know there is an election coming up 
in the fall.
  The majority leader mentioned the so-called Thurmond rule which at 
some point here will probably be implemented, indicating there will not 
be any circuit judges approved.
  We currently have before the committee two judges, one from North 
Carolina and one from South Carolina. The one from North Carolina has a 
unanimously well qualified from the American Bar Association and has 
previously been confirmed to his current position as a district court 
judge by the Senate. The blue slips are back on both of these judges. 
We anticipate there will be a nominee from Virginia who will have blue 
slips returned and, in the near future, two nominees from the State of 
Michigan whose blue slips will be returned. As we all know, in Michigan 
there are two Democratic Senators and in Virginia there is one 
Democratic Senator and one Republican. In South Carolina and North 
Carolina, there are two Republican Senators. The chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee has made it clear he is not likely, almost 
certainly not likely, to move a nominee from a State for which there 
are no blue slips. So we have blue slips in on North and South 
Carolina, and both nominees have been waiting for quite some time. So 
there are nominations ready to go.
  What I have said is there is a great interest on my side in seeing 
three circuit court nominees confirmed by the Senate before the 
Memorial Day recess. The majority leader has indicated he is 
comfortable with that. We have not picked the candidates, but let me 
suggest it would be unfair to discriminate against a State which has 
two Republican Senators with blue slips in and has had nominees pending 
for quite some time in favor of nominees only recently with blue slips 
in or only recently nominated. The principle should be the same 
regardless of whether a State is represented by two Republicans, two 
Democrats or one Republican and one Democrat. If the blue slips are in, 
the blue slips are in. If the nominee is otherwise qualified and 
noncontroversial, I would hope, I say to my good friend, the majority 
leader, he would share my view that we should not discriminate against 
a nominee from a State with two Republican Senators, the nominees 
having been pending for quite some time, in favor of recent nominees 
who happen to be from States with two Democratic Senators or one 
Democratic and one Republican Senator. I wonder if my friend, the 
majority leader, has any observation about that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a number of places from which the 
Judiciary Committee can move matters to the floor. We have North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Maryland. We have Pennsylvania. 
The Pennsylvania situation, we have a Democrat and a Republican there. 
As I recall the judge's name, the nominee there is a man by the name of 
Pratter. We have someone from Virginia. We have, as of today, two from 
Maryland. We have a wide range to choose from. I say to my friend from 
Kentucky, no, it should not be because you have two from the same party 
from one State and they are not our party, that should not cause them 
not to have their nominee approved. As I indicated last week when we 
got into a discussion about this, we should measure the quality of the 
nominees, not the quantity. We are today talking about the quantity of 
nominees. But we also have to be concerned about the quality of these 
nominees. We should confirm capable, mainstream nominees who are the 
product of bipartisan cooperation. With this committee, to get 
something out of the committee, it has to be bipartisan. I guess it 
doesn't have to be, but that is the way we would like it.
  So we have done a pretty good job. Last year, we had a very 
controversial judge. One of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee 
decided she would vote with the minority. As a result of that, a 
controversial judge was reported to the floor and ultimately approved. 
So we are working very hard to arrive at three judges by the time of 
our break, which is 5 weeks from now, I believe. I said when I got this 
job, that if the nominations of judges are important to my friend, the 
Republican leader, they are important to me. I have some knowledge of 
difficulties with judges on the floor, having survived, as the 
Democratic leader, the so-called nuclear option. So I understand how 
people feel strongly about judges. Democrats feel strongly about them. 
Republicans feel strongly about them. When Senator Lott was majority 
leader, he said words to the effect: Why

[[Page 5965]]

should we worry about them in the Senate? People don't care about 
judges. This is something that is just within the Senate.
  I, personally, don't feel that way. I feel these men and women who 
have lifetime appointments are extremely important and that we should--
even though Senator Lott might be right, maybe people outside 
Washington don't care about judges, I care about judges. The Republican 
leader cares about judges. I will try my best to get three judges 
approved by the Senate before the Memorial Day recess.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the only thing I would add with regard 
to my earlier comments, just picking, for example, the North Carolina 
judge, the Fourth Circuit is a judicial emergency. The chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee has set forward some standards. His first standard: 
If a vacancy is deemed to be a judicial emergency, it should be 
addressed quickly. That is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In 
the case of the Fourth Circuit, it has been declared a judicial 
emergency. It is one-third vacant. The nominee from North Carolina, to 
pick an example, is not controversial, has a unanimously well qualified 
from the ABA. The blue slips are back from both North Carolina 
Senators. My only point to my good friend, the majority leader, was it 
would seem not to be fair, when you have a nominee pending for a long 
time who is not controversial, upon which the blue slips have been 
returned, where there are two Republican Senators, for that nominee to 
be in effect moved to the back of the bus while you handle nominees 
nominated more recently from a State with two Democratic Senators or a 
State with one Democrat and one Republican Senator.
  What I am pleading for is a sense of fairness. I believe in the case 
of both North Carolina and South Carolina, with the judicial emergency 
existing on the Fourth Circuit, you could make a strong case that they 
should be dealt with first under the standards of the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee. But in particular I cite the nominee from North 
Carolina because he has been declared noncontroversial, had the 
unanimous ABA approval rating, and has been pending for hundreds of 
days. I don't know why we couldn't meet the goal the majority leader 
has set out of doing three circuit court nominees before Memorial Day. 
There is no reason not to. There are enough ready to be dealt with who 
don't require additional paperwork.
  So I guess my question of the majority leader is, What is his view as 
to the likelihood that we would get three circuit judges confirmed 
before the Memorial Day recess?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, Chairman Leahy understands. If 
there is an emergency in a circuit, he understands the importance of 
doing something about that. He has expressed that publicly and 
privately. Also, in this overall process, let's make sure we 
understand, there are vacancies out there in the circuit courts that we 
have no nominees for. We are waiting for them. I say to my friend, as I 
have said before, I am going to do everything to work with the 
Judiciary Committee. Senator Leahy said he would do that too. I think 
we can say we would work very hard to make sure there are no holdovers. 
That is, if somebody is reported out, we will do our very best to make 
sure they don't waste that week on that. I am going to do what I can to 
fulfill what I have said. I will do everything within my power to get 
three judges approved to our circuits before the Memorial Day recess.
  Who knows, we may even get lucky and get more than that. We have a 
number of people from whom to choose. Maybe the President can send us 
down a few more names on some of those vacancies that are there now. I 
don't know what more I can say than to say what I have said. I have to 
work with the committee, within the rules they have, and do the best I 
can.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I guess the only thing I would add, 
would the majority leader agree with me on the following principle: 
That a circuit judge from a State with two Republican Senators, who is 
completely qualified and upon which two blue slips have already been 
returned and have been pending for a long time, does the majority 
leader share my view that those type nominees from States with two 
Republican Senators should not be discriminated against in trying to 
meet our responsibility? We have only confirmed seven circuit judges 
throughout this Congress. We are a long way from coming anywhere close 
to what President Clinton got at 15.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope the record will reflect the smile on 
my face because the fact is, we had, for years, two Democratic Senators 
from a State and those nominees of President Clinton weren't even given 
a hearing. More than 60 weren't even given a hearing. They were pocket 
vetoed, for lack of a better description. So, yes, I think if you have 
two Senators from the same party, they should not be discriminated 
against. I mentioned their names. Their names are Matthews and Conrad. 
I have spoken to Senator Leahy. The first time I talked to him was 
today. Of course, we will take a look at those.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, I certainly understand what the intention of the 
majority leader is. We will need to discuss this further, I guess 
privately. I certainly understand his intention. I know he is a person 
who operates in good faith. I trust him. We have had a good 
relationship over the last period during which we have been in our 
respective positions. I guess the calculation I have to make, at some 
point, is what is the likelihood of this occurring, because there is a 
deep-seated unrest on our side related to this low number of circuit 
court judges. I think that is understandable. It is a paltry number in 
comparison to how President Reagan, President Bush, and President 
Clinton were handled in a similar situation. But I understand the 
representations my good friend, the majority leader, has made as far as 
he is prepared to go today. We will continue to discuss the matter.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only thing I would say, my good friend 
asked the odds. I am from Las Vegas. I don't bet. I hope they are good 
odds. I am going to do everything I can to live up to what I have said 
this last 5 or 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield, my leader yield to me for a 
question?
  Mr. REID. Surely.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was pleased to see this dialog back and forth. Because, 
frankly, I have been wondering, as chairman of the Environment 
Committee, what was going on. We have a very straightforward bill on 
the floor. I didn't understand. We have a few amendments. We are very 
happy to deal with them. We have every group in the country, every 
construction group, management, labor, everyone, we have every State 
asking us to do this bill. I didn't understand, frankly, why we were 
waiting around. I wonder, I ask my leader--and I would be delighted to 
hear from the Republican leader as well, given this colloquy you had 
back and forth--and I know the Senator from Nevada as well as anyone 
here. When he gives his word like this and says: I am going to do 
everything I can, listen, I think that is as good as it gets around 
here. I am hopeful, and I would ask my leader to tell me and the 
Republican leader as well, Senator Inhofe is here, I am here, we are 
very anxious to move our bill forward, 500 transportation projects, not 
one penny of added spending; it will unleash a billion dollars' worth 
of jobs, I am wondering whether you could let us know tonight what are 
the chances that we are going to be able to move forward.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I wish we had moved to this bill 
Thursday night, legislated yesterday and today. We haven't done that.

                          ____________________