Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 2 minutes in favor of bringing this bill forward.

I am very pleased that Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, and their ranking members of the subcommittees and the full committee, the Chairs of Finance and Commerce have worked together to bring us to this moment where we can reauthorize the FAA bill. It has reached the time.

I was very pleased that Senator Hutchison mentioned the Passenger Bill of Rights that I was so pleased to author along with Senator Olympia Snowe. I was so pleased to have the support of so many on the committee. I wanted to remind everyone, it is important that we move forward on this bill.

There are so many things we have to consider now. We see what is happening with our air service. When it works right, it is terrific. Myself, today, it all worked right. I had to take two planes to get here all the way from California. It was smooth. But there are times when it is not smooth. We all know that.

But what we want to make sure of is that passengers are treated fairly, and without the heavy-handed Federal Government in everything. We make sure that the system works. That led me to author the Passenger Bill of Rights.

Kate Hanni was one of the people who got trapped on a plane for, I do not remember if it was 8 or 10 hours with her two little boys. There was no food for them. There were overflowing restrooms. It was a nightmare. People could not access their medicines. They were not allowed to, and certainly people did not have an option to get off the plane. And this happened over and over again.

I think we have all had experiences like that or we know someone who did. There is no excuse for this. People have to have adequate water, adequate food, and be able to use a clean restroom and get access to their medicines.

It seems to me that ought to be a basic rule of the airlines. It is not. And that is why we wrote this Passenger Bill of Rights, and the committee supported it in the underlying bill, and people will be granted those what I consider very minimum rights.

We think we are going to offer a perfecting amendment, because at this point what happens is, we put in there a 3-hour rule. That is the maximum time on the runway, with certain exceptions: safety, weather, other things. But we say: If an airline does not agree to a 3-hour rule, 3 hours of people trapped in the aircraft on a runway, that they have to submit an alternative to the FAA; but we do not require that the FAA sign off on it.

So we may want to strengthen that. I would alert colleagues. I hope they support us. I know I have no time remaining. I hope we will give this a strong ``yea'' vote.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to offer my support for S. 1315, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This is a tremendously important piece of legislation, and I commend Senator Akaka and the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their work.

This bill says to the men and women who have served and suffered horrible injuries and paid the price of war, ``We have not forgotten you. You and your families deserve the respect and care of a grateful Nation, and we will do all that we can to see to it that you live lives of dignity.'' Among other things, this legislation enhances life insurance benefits to disabled servicemembers, improves benefits for veterans who need to renovate their homes to accommodate their injuries, and increases education benefits so our veterans will have an easier time going back to school and getting good jobs when they finish military service.

But just as important as taking care of our newest generation of veterans, this bill also takes care of some of the oldest veterans who were a part of the ``greatest generation.''

In 1941, President Roosevelt issued an order that directed the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines to fight alongside our Armed Forces, as he was authorized to do under the Philippine Independence Act of 1934. Some 250,000 Filipinos would swear allegiance to the United States of America in the months before and the days after Pearl Harbor.

Under our flag, they went on to fight and die on the same battlefields as U.S. troops. They gathered intelligence, organized a guerilla resistance against the Japanese invasion of their island home, and assisted in rescue operations of American prisoners of war.

When the fighting stopped, the members of the Filipino Army were to have been eligible for full veterans' benefits, just like American veterans. In October of 1945 GEN Omar Bradley, who at the time was the head of the Veterans' Administration, affirmed that the Filipino soldiers would be treated no differently and were to receive all the benefits that they rightly deserved.

Unfortunately, the Rescission Act of 1946 changed all that. It stated that the Filipinos who fought alongside Americans had not performed ``active service'' and that they had no standing or claim to any ``rights, privileges, or benefits.''

Mr. President, there are now only about 18,000 of these heroic Filipinos left. About 13,000 of them are still in the Philippines, where they have waited over 60 years for the United States Government to provide the benefits they were promised and are owed for serving our Nation and defending the cause of freedom. That is what this legislation does. It also extends the benefits available to all U.S. servicemembers to the 5,000 Filipino veterans living here in the United States.

Unfortunately, for the past 9 months, the other side of the aisle has balked at allowing this legislation to come up for a vote. I am certainly thankful that they have no problem with extending full benefits to Filipino veterans living here. But sadly they feel that $300 a month for a single person and $375 for a married person is too high a pension for someone who lives in the Philippines but fought for the United States 60 years ago and hasn't received a penny since. Instead they are insisting on no pension at all for these veterans.

However, I am glad that we have now moved to the bill, and we can debate the merits of this vital legislation that will address the needs of those who have paid the price of war.

Senator Inouye, who has so faithfully lead this effort for the past 16 years and knows what it means to have fought under our flag in World War II, recently stated, ``What happened 61 years ago was not right; it was shameful and disgraceful. . . . The legislation is about fairness and dignity--core American values. It is also about correcting an injustice that has stood for way too long.''

I could not agree more, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and bring these well-deserved and urgently needed benefits to those veterans--both young and old--who have fought on our behalf.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity today to solemnly observe the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century. From 1915 until 1923, 1.5 million Armenians were brutally killed by the Ottoman Turks in a systematic effort to eradicate the Armenian people. There were unbearable acts of torture; men were separated from their families and murdered; women and children were put on a forced march across the Syrian desert without food or water.

Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, recalled:

When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these

deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a

whole race; they understood this well, and, in their

conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to

conceal the fact . . . I am confident that the whole history

of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.

The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost

insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian

race in 1915.

Tragically, 1915 was just the beginning. We saw the horrors of genocide in World War II when Jews were subjected to systematic extermination at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his followers. Indeed, Hitler remarked at the outset of this unbridled evil, ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' Unfortunately, the phrase ``never again'' turned out to be a hollow slogan. In the later half of the last century, countries like Cambodia and Rwanda were ravaged while the world was silent. And even now, in this new century, Darfur is the latest place to experience such brutality and inhumanity as the world stands idly by, either incapable or unwilling to do what is necessary to stop the devastation and murder.

Today, the Turkish Government denies what happened in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire and thus this scar on history cannot be healed until history is accurately spoken, written, and recalled. These are lessons that must be told and repeated to each and every generation.

In order for democracy and human rights to flourish, we must not support efforts to rewrite and deny history. In the United States, we strive to make human rights a fundamental component of our democracy. It is long overdue for our Nation to demand that the truth be told. We must recognize the Armenian genocide in the name of democracy, fairness, and human rights.

To that end, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Richard Durbin's S. Res. 106, calling on the President to accurately characterize the Armenian Genocide in his annual message around April 24 and to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide.

It is important that we recognize the Armenian Genocide while its survivors are still with us to tell their stories. We must recognize the genocide for the survivors. We must recognize the genocide because it's the right thing to do. We must recognize the Armenian Genocide to help shed light on the darkness and move toward a more humane world.

Mr. President, tomorrow we will have a vote to proceed-- --

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I thank you all for indulging me.

Fair Pay Act

Tomorrow we will have a vote to proceed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. Four of my Democratic female colleagues spoke on this earlier today--four or five. I wanted to add my voice to their voices because, as I stand on the floor of the Senate some 45 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, it is unfortunate that workers throughout the Nation will suffer pay discrimination based on gender, race, religion, national origin, disability, and age. They still suffer this.

We still have a long way to go on equal pay for equal work. It stuns some people to learn that women still earn 23 percent less than men, and the pay disparity is still so great that it takes a woman 16 months to earn what a man earns in 12 months.

In 2006, an average college-educated woman working full time earned $15,000 less than a college-educated male. According to the American Association of University Women, working families lose $200 billion in income per year due to the wage gap.

This is an important point because so many women now work. We know this. So families are struggling to make ends meet with higher gas prices, higher college tuition, higher food prices, higher health care, all of that. We know there is not an easy solution that will eliminate all pay discrimination, but the bill we hope to go to tomorrow, the Equal Pay Restoration Act, will ensure that when an employer discriminates based on gender or race or any other factor, the employee can take his or her case to court.

There was a very bad decision that was made by the Supreme Court which reversed decades of legal precedent, and this was the Ledbetter decision. With its decision, the Court imposed a serious obstacle for equality, equal pay, by requiring workers to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of when their employer first starts discriminating.

Now, that is an impossible standard to meet. You really do not know when that moment occurs. What was important about this decision is it threw out the law that had always worked well and would have protected people such as Lilly Ledbetter from discrimination.

Her story is not unfamiliar to many female employees. She was a female, she was a manager at an Alabama Goodyear Tire plant when she discovered, after 19 years of service, that she was earning 20 to 40 percent less than her male counterparts for doing the exact same job.

It took her a long time to ferret this information out. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissenting opinion, the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark. In 1997, her last year of employment at Goodyear, after 19 years of service she earned $5,600 less than her lowest paid male coworkers, and she earned over $18,000 less than her highest paid male coworkers.

Evidence submitted at her trial showed that Mrs. Ledbetter was denied raises, despite receiving performance awards, and in some cases female supervisors at the plant were paid less than the male employees they supervised.

So when Ms. Ledbetter discovered this, she took Goodyear to court, and the jury awarded her full damages. But the company, Goodyear, appealed the jury's decision.

In 2007 the Supreme Court made this very bad decision and said she could not sue for back pay despite--and with which they agreed--the overwhelming evidence that her employer had intentionally discriminated against her because of her gender.

But, they said, it took Lilly Ledbetter longer than 6 months to determine she had been a victim of years of pay discrimination. So, in other words, because it took her more than 6 months to figure this out, she was denied any kind of help.

It does take a significant amount of time in many cases for the truth to be known. Here in the Capitol, if you work for the Government, everybody's pay is on record. And you can see it; it is a public document. But in a private sector plant there may be no way to find out.

As Justice Ginsburg pointed out: Compensation disparities are often hidden from sight for a number of reasons. Many employers do not publish their employees' salaries, and other employees are not anxious to discuss what they earn. So this controversial decision is having serious impacts.

In the 10 months since the decision was handed down, the Ledbetter precedent has been cited 207 times by Federal district courts and courts of appeal. So it means, it seems to me from what I gather, from that statistic alone, many people are being denied equal treatment under the law: equal pay, equal treatment.

So what does the bill do that we want to go to, we Democrats on Wednesday, tomorrow? It simply restores the law to what it was in almost every State in the country before the Ledbetter case was decided. It does so by helping to eliminate the unreasonable barrier created by the Supreme Court and allows workers to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of each discriminatory paycheck. That was the law before Ledbetter.

The Ledbetter decision was a giant step backward in the fight for equal opportunity and equal rights. Goodyear engaged in chronic discrimination against female employees, but because of the Ledbetter decision, the Court must treat intentional ongoing pay discrimination as lawful conduct.

Employers who can conceal their pay discrimination for 180 days can continue this practice, and there is no redress. We must ask ourselves: Is this the standard that Congress should be proud of? Is this the kind of standard that we should support, where somebody is treated in an unfair fashion, is paid less than somebody else simply because of their gender?

It is not right. It seems to me, if we are going to have fairness and justice in America today, the least we can do is overturn the Ledbetter decision. Justice Ginsburg told us: ``Congress, the ball is in your court.''

That is why I am so pleased that Senator Reid is bringing this opportunity before us tomorrow. Today, as we reflect upon the importance of fairness and equity to our society with a celebration of Equal Pay Day, we must restore this important protection and return the law to its meaning. I hope tomorrow when we get a chance to move to this bill our colleagues will all vote aye because what is fair is fair and what is wrong is wrong. We need to fix this problem. Equal pay for equal work is a value that we should hold dear.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wanted to have a minute before to explain the lay of the land.

Madam President, for the interest of all Members, we have been working now since Monday to pass a technical corrections bill, which, it seems to me, should have been passed very quickly. It basically makes some corrections to the last big highway and transit bill so certain projects that have been held up for technical reasons can go forward, and others that weren't ready, pushed aside, and another can go forward. This will unleash about a billion dollars' worth of important programs for our Nation.

These projects have been vetted, and they have been posted on the Web page of the committee, as we must do according to our new ethics rules. We are very pleased it looks like we might be able to wrap this up in the next few hours.

As far as I am concerned, we are ready to vote. We have the Coburn amendment and the Boxer amendment, which deal with a real problem that occurred at some point during the SAFETEA-LU consideration years ago. We have corrected the problem in the bill. We want to now have some type of investigation to find out exactly what went wrong and if there were any crimes committed. There were two options. Senator Coburn is setting up a complicated select committee of the House and Senate. We believe strongly that it creates constitutional problems, and we think it might interfere with a Justice Department investigation.

And then Senator Reid had recommended, I think a far better way to get at the problem, which is a Justice Department investigation. I have written an amendment to go along with that. We are hoping to vote on that and then, hopefully, get to a cloture vote and final passage.

So that is the lay of the land, as best I see it. I wish I had more control over this at the moment. If I did, we would be voting in 5 minutes on the whole package. Until then, I will see you as soon as we have an agreement and, hopefully, we will get this matter done today.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order to H.R. 1195, and that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to Boxer amendment No. 4539, and that the amendment be modified to be to amendment No. 4146; to be followed by a vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 4538, and that Coburn amendment No. 4540 be withdrawn once this agreement is entered; that each of those two amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold, and that if neither achieves that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that if either or both achieve the 60-vote threshold, that it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and upon disposition of these listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Boxer substitute, amendment No. 4146; that if cloture is invoked on amendment No. 4146, then the substitute, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, and the bill then read a third time; and without further intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 1195, as amended; that the cloture motion on the bill be withdrawn; provided further that after the first vote, all subsequent votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, because we need to move this bill along. There are 500 important projects in it. I have colleagues who want to add more projects. I want to say, for the benefit of everyone, there are some very legitimate technical corrections that still need to be done. I have committed to my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican--I have spoken to Senator Lincoln, Senator Landrieu, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Hutchison, only a few moments ago--that our committee, myself working with Senator Inhofe and our colleagues, is going to come up with a follow-on technical corrections bill with the time to ensure it is put together right. We do have some different ethics rules these days. We want to make sure we vet everything and everything is put up on the Web site. We have a number of very important technical corrections still to be done, but we are going to do it in the next 3 weeks in committee. We look forward to it.

I read a very complex unanimous consent request, and I don't think anyone within the sound of my voice could possibly follow all of it. So I thought in plain English, for the good of myself as well as my colleagues, I would say where we are. We are going to have a couple of votes on the issue of Coconut Road, which is a real problem for us, and it has been straightened out in this bill. We fix the problem. But there are colleagues who want to have an investigation, and we have two alternatives. One is the Coburn amendment which sets up what I consider a very complicated special select committee with Members from both bodies. It will have public hearings. It will review things in public. It will do all of that. At the end of that time, what the committee will do is refer something to Justice, if they have found a problem. That is the whole point of the select committee.

The problem is, if you read the Constitution, you see the debate clause. We believe, from our constitutional scholars on this side, that that whole committee will fall. It will not be able to do its job. The House has told us they don't see how Senators can investigate House Members and House Members can investigate Senate Members. We think the best way to go, Senator Reid and I and others, is to have the Justice Department get right in there. Ours is not a sense-of-the-Senate approach. We require the Justice Department to move forward. Instead of having a big Senate-House committee, with the press flashing pictures and all the rest, just get to it and ask Justice to investigate. We also worry, if there is a big committee--and there won't be, because the House won't accept it anyway--irony of all ironies, the Coconut Road fix will fall, because we fix it in this bill. If this bill falls because of this committee--because it is unconstitutional--there won't be a fix to Coconut Road. It is going to go back to the terrible change that somebody made in the dead of night. We don't want that to happen.

I hope my colleagues will reject that approach and support the Boxer- Reid approach which I believe is straightforward. It makes sense. It gets right to the heart. If there is a crime, let's find out about it.

On the McCain amendment, I actually was looking forward to debating it. I hope we will be able to, because there is a lot of dispute about how it would actually work in the real world. There is nothing in the McCain amendment that tells the oil companies they can't pocket the 18 cents that is going to come off. We have seen the oil companies. In California, in some places, we are over $4. This hurts our hearts. We see oil company profits soaring. If it were only the cost, they would be having the same profit and passing on the cost. But, no, their profits have gone up. We know about the CEO salaries and all the rest.

There is nothing in the McCain amendment--I would love to talk to John about that--that would say to the oil companies: Don't use this as a moment to raise 18 cents. So where might we be?

We might do this, and we would have to now go to the general fund. All taxpayers would have to pay for this. Let's be clear. There is no pay-for in the McCain amendment--none at all. It goes to the Treasury. Who puts money in the Treasury? My taxpayers, your taxpayers, all taxpayers. So taxpayers are now going to pay for this one way or the other. We take it away from the users and the taxpayers pay, and there is nothing in it that will ensure that the cost won't be nabbed and grabbed by the oil companies. Then they get the extra 18 cents, and we have blown a $9 billion hole in the Federal budget. It is amazing how my colleagues could say, it is a time of stress. We have to do this. We need to be a little bit more responsible.

I am looking forward to this debate. I like to pay for things. Maybe I am old-fashioned. I am an old economics major. I think it is good to pay for things. I think we could figure out a way to pay for things. But to say nobody gets hurt when the tab in the McCain amendment is picked up by all taxpayers is faulty. We will have to make up that $9 billion. We Democrats think there is a way to do it. We see the profits of the oil companies. We say to the oil companies: Good for you, but there is a point at which, when Americans are suffering, you have to do a little bit more.

I, for one, look forward to debating the McCain amendment soon. We will have that debate. But it isn't going to be on this bill. For that, I am grateful for this reason: We are bringing this to a close, and this package is in many ways a ministimulus. It will unleash $1

billion into the economy. It will unleash some of these projects that are so important for our people who got stuck for technical reasons or had to have minor changes for other reasons. This $1 billion, when it is unleashed, will create tens of thousands of good jobs, jobs building highways, bridges, transit systems. We are very happy, and we expect to have this vote at 3:30. We will have first the Boxer amendment, then the Coburn amendment, then a cloture vote, and then a vote on final passage. We should be doing very well.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Graham, Martinez, and Wicker be recognized for a total of up to 10 minutes and that following their remarks, Senator Kennedy be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Madam President, before the majority leader leaves the floor, I thank him very much because he helped me enormously in this whole matter of an investigation. What we all want to do is get to the bottom of what happened with this Coconut Road situation, where it appears as if there may have been some activity that merits punishment.

When we heard that Senator Coburn wanted to take on this issue, we welcomed that because we do believe we have a responsibility to regain the trust of our people. That is why under Senator Reid's leadership we passed the most far-reaching ethics reforms ever.

I see my friend is in the chair. She is part of the new class of Senators who pushed very hard for that legislation. Therefore, when Senator Coburn came forward, we believed we certainly wanted to do something. But what Senator Reid, because he is a distinguished attorney, taught me is, there is a speech and debate clause in the Constitution, and this investigation with a select committee, House Members and Senate Members investigating each other and staff, could fall.

Here is the point, before my friend leaves the floor. The irony of all ironies is, if, in fact, the Coburn solution were to be adopted today and it did go forward, although we think it will bring the whole bill down, it wouldn't.

But let's say it is adopted. Nothing they do would really lead to anything until the end of their hearings. I call it kind of a circus atmosphere where colleagues would come, flashbulbs in everybody's face, and they take testimony. Nothing of consequence would occur, I say to my friend, until the end when they decide if there was something the Justice Department needed to look into.

Why have all that hoopla when you can get to the heart of the matter, which is saying to the Department of Justice: We want you--and this will require them. It doesn't say you ``may,'' it says you ``shall'' look into this. If the bill did fall, here is the totally irony: The fix to Coconut Road would fall. In other words, in the technical corrections bill, we fix the problem. If this whole thing falls because of the Coburn amendment, then we go back to the real problem of somebody changing the route of this particular road or building, freeway, whatever it was that was going to increase somebody's property. That would be the worst of all worlds.

I thank my leader for his help on this matter. He knows when I heard about this amendment, I said to him: Yes, we need to look into this, and he wanted to do it in the right way. He and his staff have been so helpful in getting us to this point where we have a very good alternative. I hope everybody votes for it.

Madam President, I thank my colleague for bringing this issue to our attention. I think he knows that in the beginning there were some voices that said: Let's not deal with this. But we worked together, and we did come up eventually with a way to deal with it.

I think some of our colleagues believe that where there is a constitutional issue and a precedent-setting issue here involving such a delicate matter, such a matter that could lead to a criminal investigation and punishment, we ought to have some type of consensus on it. But I share his concern.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute before we go to the regular order.

I think if neither amendment gets 60 votes--and I certainly hope the Boxer amendment does, and I expect it would, but I don't know, it might not--I am already working on an alternative I would talk to my friend about right now, which is for us to communicate in writing very strongly to the Justice Department and tell them how strongly we feel.

I also wish to make the point that my friend is right. Someday, somebody will write about this. People are already writing about it because of the work we are doing on this matter. The Senator and I have been quite forceful in the way we feel about this. People are writing about it. My hope is that what we do is not create a new kind of select committee. My friend said it has been done before, and he may be right. But why a committee when we can get right to the heart of the matter, which is: Was there a crime? If so, let's get to the bottom of it.

I do want to say, and I say this as chair of the Ethics Committee of the Senate, nothing is more important to me than having a fair Ethics Committee that works hard and is objective. Any Member of the Senate can make a complaint any day of the week and it automatically is looked at. I want to reiterate that. If people have an issue, please, let us know. That is why we are there.

For those of us who care a lot about this matter, we do need, if nobody gets 60--I hope we will, but if nobody does, this issue does not go away as far as I am concerned. It cannot go away.

I think it is very important, the way we deal with this, to understand that if we do something that the House has constitutional objections to and it brings down the technical corrections bill, the irony of ironies is the Coconut Road project doesn't get fixed, it goes back to the crooked way it was handled. We don't want that. We want to fix the Coconut Road problem and we want to have an investigation.

I yield the floor to get to the regular order at this time.

Amendment No. 4539, As Modified

Madam President, we have a very simple amendment. Sometimes in simplicity is strength. Sometimes in simplicity is power. Sometimes in simplicity you get to the place you want to get.

I do not like a lot of words. I believe a few words will say it. Look at what we say here:

Consistent with applicable standards and procedures--

which means everybody's rights are protected--

the Department of Justice shall review allegations of

impropriety regarding item 462 in section 1934(c) of Public

Law 109-59--

That is the Coconut Road project--

to ascertain if a violation of Federal criminal law has

occurred.

I think we know enough to warrant this kind of amendment. I think we know enough to be concerned. I think we know enough to say to the Justice Department: Please pay attention to this. Do your work. Make a determination and get on with it because this is very serious.

I yield the floor.

I ask for 10 more seconds.

I want to make the point, if we pass the Boxer amendment today and this bill gets signed into law by the President and we are requiring the Justice Department to do this, then they will be breaking the law.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Colleagues, this is very important. I wish to commend my colleague for bringing this whole issue to the floor of the Senate. But I think we have done something important. We have taken his concerns to heart, and with a very big vote, we have stated that the Justice Department is now required to open an investigation.

What the Senator does is set up an elaborate commission of Senators, of House Members; it is political on its face. It will only put off the day until an investigation is done by Justice. Because after having this elaborate commission, Senators investigating House Members, House Members investigating Senators, it is unconstitutional on its face on the speech and debate clause.

That will bring down this entire bill. Here is the irony of ironies. If we bring this bill down, the fix of Coconut Road will fall. We fix the Coconut Road problem in this bill.

I urge you, please say no to this idea because I feel we have done the right thing on this matter.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, we are ready.

All we want is an ``aye'' vote. Let's get this good bill passed. Let's unleash $1 billion worth of good, important projects into our communities and create tens of thousands of jobs.

We appreciate we have come this far. We thank you.

I yield to my colleague.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, this is a good day for the Senate. It took us a while to get here. I will thank staff in a moment--floor staff as well, and Senator Reid's staff, Senator Inhofe's staff, and my own staff.

Before that, I have two unanimous consent requests to make.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 403, H.R. 2828, the Foreign Service Victims of Terrorism Act, which will provide compensation to relatives of U.S. citizens killed as a result of the bombing of United States Embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998; that the bill be read the third time, and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act; that the bill be read the third time, and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, we just heard objection, but we didn't get objection, finally, to the technical corrections bill. We are happy about that. You and I serve together on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We know our work is important because we know that no country can be great if it doesn't have an infrastructure that is up to par. The occupant of the chair knows more than most what it means when a bridge collapses. We know what that means. So what we are doing here is a matter of life and death, quite often.

This technical corrections bill will make it possible to continue work on over 500 projects that were stymied for various reasons. It is going to put a billion dollars into our economy, and it will provide tens of thousands of jobs. Senator Inhofe and I are very grateful that--even though this was not an easy week and this bill took so many twists and turns and we had to work our way through many issues--we have arrived at the point where it passed.

Let me say how much I enjoyed working with my staff and the staff of Senator Inhofe. I am going to read the names of those who deserve to be recognized and thanked. From my staff are Bettina Porier, Kathy Dedrick, Tyler Rushforth, Jeff Rosato, Erik Olsen, Paul Ordal, and the rest of my staff. We do work as a team.

I thank Senator Inhofe's staff, and I am sure there are more to be thanked, but the ones I worked with closely are, of course, Andy Wheeler, chief over there, Ruth Van Mark, James O'Keeffe, and Alex Herrgott. We are so grateful to you for being close to us, staying close to us, letting us know when there were problems. We appreciate that.

I say to the majority leader, Senator Reid, how much I appreciated his interest in this bill. He really helped us. Bob Herbert, of his staff, Ron Wynch, and Mike Castellano--we had technical issues and legal issues and they were there.

If I am leaving anyone out, please know it is not my intention. So many others helped us.

Yes.

I thank the Senator. Senator Carper, from Delaware, is one of the senior members on the committee, whom we love working with. He is part of our team. We have a great committee. It is why I like to be a legislator.

I want to say, in closing, to floor staff, all of you here, thank you for your patience. You have to answer questions. The pages have to be available to us. You all let us know what is going on and whether we are doing it right or wrong. Of course, in particular, I thank Lula, Tim, and Dave. Without the three of you, we could not have gotten this done.

Yes, sometimes when you get to this point, it is a little like making sausage--that is what they say about how a bill becomes a law; it is not a pretty thing. But we got it done. The most important thing is all of the people who helped us from the outside groups--I thank them--such as the construction industry, the construction workers, the transit district operators, the sand and gravel people. You know who you are. You made the point that we should not bog this bill down, that we should get it going.

I am delighted we had a victory here with the Water Resources Development Act. We are pleased. Up and coming, we are going to have a markup in a couple of weeks, and then we will get to global warming. I don't know how that will end, but I know it is going to be very exciting. We hope everybody will participate in that debate.

Is the Senator from Virginia going to speak?

I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to be able to offer my most sincere congratulations to the State of Israel as it celebrates its 60th anniversary of independence. I am so proud that Israel has not only survived, but has become one of the most prosperous and successful democracies anywhere in the world.

The Israeli National Anthem, Hatikvah, means, ``The Hope.'' That is really what the modern State of Israel has been about over these 60 years. Founded after the horrors of the Holocaust, the Jewish people created a place where their faith and history could be secured and passed from generation to generation. In this place, never again would dictators or fanatics be able to systematically persecute, terrorize, and murder entire communities or an entire people.

Hope sustained the Jewish people through 3,000 years of persecution that culminated in the evils of the Holocaust. And for the last 60 years, that same sense of hope for the future has allowed the people of Israel to persevere in the face of continual assaults on its very existence, whether they are in the form of war, terrorism, or assassination.

As Israel celebrates this milestone, I am proud to say that the United States has been by its side, offering support and assistance, and watching it grow

into an unparalleled partner in promoting the ideals of democracy, personal freedom, and human rights.

The United States has also tirelessly supported Israel as it continues to seek lasting peaceful coexistence with its neighbors to bring a permanent end to years of suffering and senseless violence. And we will continue to be there to support them in that effort.

When Yitzhak Rabin went before the Knesset in October 1995 to discuss the ratification of the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement, he said the following:

``Here, in the land of Israel, we returned and built a nation. Here, in the land of Israel, we established a state. The land of the prophets, which bequeathed to the world the values of morality, law and justice, was, after two thousand years, restored to its lawful owners-- the members of the Jewish people. On its land, we have built an exceptional national home and state.''

Israel is indeed an exceptional nation state, and this milestone is a great testament to the hope, faith, and perseverance of the Jewish people. I offer my congratulations to Israel on the 60th anniversary of its founding.

Reserving the right to object, we are laying down our bill. Senator DeMint has been waiting for his amendment. He has a time problem. So I am willing to give another 3 minutes to our Republican friends. But, seriously, we need to get going on this bill. We have been on this bill now for 3 days.

We finally have an amendment. We would like to hear it. So I would agree to 3 minutes more.

I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I know my colleague Senator DeMint is here to offer what will be the first amendment to this bill. I thank him, because I know he initially had several amendments. It looks as though he has boiled it down to one amendment. I know Senator Inhofe and I are glad about that. I thanked him previously for calling me and saying that he was pleased with the way we treated the transparency of this bill.

I have been given a copy of the amendment by the Senator from South Carolina. I will listen carefully to his presentation, and I will have remarks afterward. Senator Inhofe may also have some remarks prior to Senator DeMint being recognized.

Senator Inhofe and I are hopeful we can get this completed. This is a bill that overall creates not one more penny of new spending. It will unleash into our economy, however, a billion dollars already budgeted for. That is why so many people are supporting this in real life: Construction companies, workers, transit operators. All of them have written to us. I will put those names in the Record. We are hopeful, if everybody cooperates today, we can get this finished. This bill isn't rocket science. It is very simply making technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU and in places where some projects simply couldn't go forward, replacing those projects without adding a penny of new spending. There is full transparency.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator for his kind comments about the way we have handled this legislation.

This amendment is, first, wrong on its face and, second, it is going to kill the bill. Of all times to try and kill what I consider a mini- economic stimulus plan, this is not one of them. We have a lot of people out of work. Many people have called Senator Inhofe and myself, and others, saying this is an important piece of legislation.

I will read the names of those people, because I believe it is important that we show the breadth of support. It is a very simple piece of legislation, but it will correct some errors. It will say, as an example, in Oklahoma--and we have them in California--and for all these 500 projects, one leg of a project might not have been ready. Let's put the funds where they can be used now, where they are ready to go. Unleashing up to a billion dollars of funds right now means tens of thousands of jobs, and we have to rebuild our infrastructure. We are doing it within the confines of the moneys that were already authorized.

Again I have said this so many times, I am sure it is boring people, but I think it is important to note who has written to Senator Inhofe and myself to move this bill: the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, whose members include the Departments of Transportation for all 50 States; the American Highway Users Alliance, whose members represent millions of highway users; the American Public Transit Association; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; the Associated General Contractors; the Council of University Transportation Centers; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; the National Asphalt and Pavement Association.

This is not one of these bills that is a matter of some intellectual debate. This means real jobs for real people and real infrastructure improvements for all the people of this Nation who count on us to keep their highway and transit systems moving.

What does Senator DeMint do? He would send this bill back to the committee, in essence killing the bill. We passed this bill out of committee on a bipartisan voice vote on June of 2007. Here we are, moving toward June of 2008. Why on Earth would we want to stop the forward progress of this legislation? We can't afford further delay.

I am sorry my colleague has left the Chamber, but Senator DeMint had several projects that he asked for in SAFETEA-LU. I ask unanimous consent to print a list of those projects in the Record.

All of these will bring jobs and improve transportation in the State of South Carolina. That is why I supported it, as did Senator Inhofe. That is why we all supported it. There is a number of projects contained here, 13 projects, $110 million, Senator DeMint has in SAFETEA-LU. Fortunately for Senator DeMint, none of his projects required any technical corrections.

Let's take one: Construction of I-73 from Myrtle Beach, SC to I-95, ending

at the North Carolina State line. Suppose something had turned up in the engineering and they had to stop it further toward Myrtle Beach, but they couldn't go ahead with the project until they made that technical change. Then Senator DeMint would find that the project was stymied. He is fortunate. He didn't have this problem. But a lot of us weren't so fortunate. We did have issues in our States where we had to make changes.

This legislation fixes nearly 500 descriptions for highway and transit projects. Without the changes included in the legislation, many of these projects will continue to be stuck at red lights. This isn't the time to slow down job creation. This is the time to unleash job creation. This technical corrections bill provides a green light that could unleash up to $1 billion in transportation projects. The funding has been approved before, so we are not increasing spending. Given the current slowdown in our economy, we simply cannot afford to allow these funds to remain unused.

At the appropriate time, I am going to move to table the DeMint motion. I think we are working on an agreement to have a vote on that motion at around 2 o'clock.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the DeMint motion to recommit the bill, and that no further amendments be in order to the motion prior to the vote; that following the conclusion of the debate this morning with respect to the motion, it be set aside to recur at 2 p.m., with the time until 2:15 p.m. equally divided and controlled between Senators Boxer and DeMint or their designees; and that at 2:15, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the DeMint motion to recommit the bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, since we have a lull in the conversation about the technical corrections bill--and the reason for that is, frankly, it is a very straightforward bill. We know of two other amendments. We are working with Senator Coburn on his amendment dealing with an investigation into what occurred in the Coconut Road project in Florida. We know Senator Bond has an amendment which is really not a technical correction. It goes to overturning a law that was passed which protects consumers when they are defrauded by furniture moving companies. That is his amendment. We hope he can come down here so we can get going; we can start to debate that.

But in the meantime, I have asked Senator Inhofe if he had any objection if I rose to pay tribute to 19 young Americans who were killed in Iraq who were either from California or based in California, and he had no objection to that. I don't know if I need to ask to speak as in morning business. If that is the appropriate thing, I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask my friend from Iowa if he wants to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Grassley be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, first of all, I make a plea to my friends on the other side of the aisle. There are a couple of amendments out there. Senator Inhofe and I are anxious to get done with the bill. The bill is a mini-economic stimulus. It would release a billion dollars worth of projects for important highway and transit programs. It is a technical corrections bill that stays within the limits we set in terms of spending. When Senator Inhofe and I agree on something, it usually covers the spectrum. So we hope we will have a good vote.

I wanted to say something before Senator Barrasso leaves because he mentioned the President's goals. The President says we should halt the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025--``halt the growth,'' which means 18 years of nothing. What a pathetic response to a crisis that has united evangelical groups, scientists, businesses, and much of the world.

So I am just here to say--I am not going to have a debate with my good friend, whom I really enjoy as a member of our Committee, but I want to say this gives new meaning to doing nothing. When we have a crisis such as we have now and we have a small window to act and we wait 18 years, this is not talking about leaving the problems to the new President, like he is doing in Iraq. It means we are following a recipe for gloom and doom instead of looking at this problem and seeing it for what it is--an amazing opportunity.

It is interesting that my friend, Senator Grassley, is here, who is so strong on ethanol. Well, this is the kind of thing we are going to do so we can get off of fossil fuel. We have other opportunities, such as cellulosic. We have new ways of making cars.

I happen to drive a hybrid. It is amazing. I get over 50 miles per gallon. I sort of wave at the gas stations because I don't have to go there that often. These cars are getting better and better.

We have so many ways, but it is not going to happen if we simply say, by 2025 we will halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. We have to halt the growth very soon. I view it as a great opportunity for an economic renaissance in this country. If you look at Great Britain, they have cut their carbon emissions by 15 percent over the last 10 years or so. Their GDP has grown by 45 percent, and they have added 500,000 new green jobs.

I think rather than being so frightened and meek as the President is about this, we should be leading the world to this new great economic renaissance. America should be in the front, inventing these products. I know the President says he wants to invest in new technology. Unless you have a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, unless your proposal involves a cap so we get down to what is necessary to prevent catastrophe, then you are part of

the problem. You are not part of the solution. You are just making believe you are part of the solution.

I don't want to do any more than is necessary. I want to do what is necessary to reverse a real, serious, horrific problem for the world. As our intelligence community tells us, as our Pentagon tells us, if we do nothing, the ravages of global warming will be the cause of wars, will be the cause of droughts, will be the cause of famine, will be the cause of unrest, and will be the cause of refugees wandering around starving to death.

That is why so many churches have joined us, many of the great religions have joined us in this effort. We have a great group working here. I was a little bit surprised when the President sort of took on the Lieberman-Warner bill in his way. He didn't mention it by name, but he basically referred to efforts in the Senate and the dangers. Mr. President, I have been trying to get to see you on this issue. I have wanted to talk to you on this issue. I know the former Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, spoke to you about this issue. He is coming to speak to me again. We need to work together. This should not be partisan.

Unfortunately, it is. When I and my staff were in Great Britain, we were meeting to understand what steps they have taken and how about a cap-and-trade system and the rest. What we found out was most remarkable. Each party, Labor and Conservative, was staking claim to the issue of global warming and saying to the other party: You are not doing enough. I turned to my staff and said: Oh, if I have one prayer, it is that we have a situation where that happens at home instead of this horrible fight. And if I have another prayer, it is that the Presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic, will argue over who has the best plan. That may happen, and that would be exciting. But I do not want to wait until then. I do not want to do nothing. I do not want to be part of the problem. I do not want my grandkids to say: Where was my grandma? At the moment they had a window to do something, they slammed it shut.

I am glad my friend came to speak about global warming. I hope we can continue to work together to get him on board in a more aggressive way to do more, to do our job, to fulfill our responsibility. We would never take our grandchild, put him or her in an infant seat in the car, go to a parking lot at the supermarket and leave him or her inside with the windows closed and the Sun beating down. We would not do that because we adore our children and our grandchildren, and we want the world to be better. At least we want it to be as good as it was for us.

We are so lucky. We have lived through such golden years for ourselves and our families. We have the American dream. We saw Richard Nixon step to the plate and create the Environmental Protection Agency, and Presidents, Republican and Democratic, who have come after stand up--until now.

I say to my colleagues, we are going to have a moment come June. It is going to be a little bit different than today. Today Senator Inhofe and I are joined at the hip on this technical corrections highway bill. We are not going to be that way on global warming, but I hope we can have some bipartisanship, and John Warner has been leading the way. We need to do more instead of wait until 2025 to halt the growth of greenhouse emissions. That is too late. That is dangerously late. That is the equivalent of doing nothing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I don't see the Senator from South Carolina here, and I don't want to presume to describe his amendment. That wouldn't be fair because he views his amendment as something that will help this bill and I view it as something that will kill this bill. Simply put, what he is saying is we need to recommit this bill to the Environment and Public Works Committee, and what he is basically saying is that we need to scrub out of this bill any changes that were made to projects.

Although Senator DeMint wasn't here at the time, I made the point earlier that in this SAFETEA-LU bill is $110 million worth of projects he requested. He was fortunate: all those projects seemed to be moving forward, and they do not need any technical correction. But many of us--many of us--don't have that experience. For example, Senator Inhofe explained a road project in Oklahoma where one portion of the project wasn't ready for funding and another was. So, yes, we make a technical correction. I have a similar project in my State where we have to make sure the project is changed a little bit or there are going to be some bad impacts on some of my people who live in those communities.

So there is really nothing nefarious going on here. We are just trying to get these projects moving. We are trying to give a green light to projects that are facing a red light. What that means is that about $1 billion worth of projects could actually get started--transit projects, road projects--and we think that, at this particular time when we are suffering a recession, the last thing we should do is try to bring this bill back to the committee because, effectively, that would kill it. So I have respect for my colleague's intention here, but, in essence, if he was being completely straightforward, he would admit this is going to kill this bill.

We know how hard it is to get bills up before the Senate. This bill actually passed when Senator Inhofe was chairman of the committee, but it has languished because we haven't had a chance to bring it to the floor. Senator Reid gave us time. It is a simple bill. I was hopeful it could be finished by now. I am grateful we are having a vote on at least one of the amendments--we know of another couple of amendments.

So that is really what I have to say. At the appropriate time, I am going to make a motion to table this motion, so I will return to do that, as I say, at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint motion to recommit and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, when I learned about this whole issue of what went on in a very devious way related to a highway project, I was very glad Senator Coburn called it to our attention. Where we are right now is the best way to handle this, and this is where there is a bit of a disagreement.

I am concerned, as I look at the Senator's solution here. Essentially, what he has is the House and Senate selecting Members to go on this special committee, and I believe that injects politics into it right away. We can all say we are going to be objective, and so on and so forth, but I think people get the sense, oh, that is a Republican, and he may feel one way; or she is a Democrat, she may feel one way; or I saw that person going to dinner with another Senator or another House Member this way.

I am chair of the Ethics Committee, so I know it is very hard to be totally objective, and you must be in this circumstance. But I think the appearance of a conflict of interest in setting up this committee is something I would rather avoid. So I think that Senator Coburn has done everything in his power to set up a way to investigate this that is fair, but my feeling is there is a better way to go.

As a matter of fact, I am going to offer an amendment to the underlying substitute, and I would ask the Parliamentarian if I need to lay aside the pending amendment in order to do that.

I send an amendment to the underlying substitute to the desk.

Do I need to ask for its immediate consideration?

Madam President, I thank the clerk for reading. That is it in its entirety. We call attention to the exact problem that occurred in the bill, the exact project, without naming it. It is explained here. We know it is the Coconut Road project.

This is not a sense of the Senate. This is a very direct amendment that says the Department of Justice shall review these allegations and they shall ascertain if a violation of Federal criminal law has occurred.

So what we do, by taking it into this realm, we take it out of the realm of politics. Senators selected by the Senate to be on this investigation committee of something that happened over in the House; House Members selected by the House to investigate, to me it injects politics into the process.

Secondly, if you read the Constitution and you see the speech and debate clause, you understand that this raises constitutional issues-- the Coburn amendment--as to whether one part of Congress can investigate another. I don't want to see this whole thing collapse like a deck of cards because we did something unconstitutional. We know that the Justice Department, when there is an allegation of improper behavior, we know when there is a possibility here of laws being broken, they have the clear obligation and responsibility, and now we are, in essence, telling them they must review this.

In our conversations, one of the things Senator Coburn was worried about was that the Department of Justice could not use the subpoena power. I have looked at that and what I have found is that is not true. In the case of the Jefferson investigation, it was because there was no warrant. That was the problem. There was some narrow issue involving that. Clearly, this investigation would be appropriate.

Also, we don't give up anything here, I say to my colleague. Consistent with applicable standards and procedures, that is what we say. The Department of Justice shall review, consistent with applicable standards and procedures. No new rules, no new laws, no new ways, and very clearly done.

Frankly, if I might say, I am so angry about this. I am so upset about this. I am sick about this. I think it is very possible people ought to go to jail here. A Senate and House committee can't send anybody to jail. They simply can't. They could make a referral to Justice, but they can't do it.

I am saying I think what we are doing here, by requiring that the Justice Department--by saying, ``They shall review allegations,'' I think is a much better way to go. It keeps politics out of this, it keeps constitutional questions about the debate clause out of this, and it gets to the heart of this, which is, if there was a crime, the person ought to go to jail or the people ought to go to jail.

Let's get right to the point instead of setting up some political committee. They will call hearings and the press will come and people-- Senators will make speeches and make their careers. I can just see this thing. I can see this coming. I want to avoid a circus. I want to put somebody in jail if they did something wrong. That is why I think this particular amendment I am offering is the way to go.

I do respect my friend. I certainly am looking forward to having votes on both of these, but I do think this simple amendment we have here will get to the bottom of this, which is where my friend wants to go. He wants to punish the people who have done something wrong. That is what I think we do here.

I will be happy to yield the floor because I see my colleague would like to respond.

Is that a question to me?

Madam President, let me just say to my friend, I am the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am not the chair of the Judiciary Committee. I just want to say for the record, in defense of my committee members all, that we fixed this problem in this bill. We fixed the problem in the bill. Do I support the Justice Department going after the evildoers and putting them in jail? You bet I do. But--I hate to say it--in Environment and Public Works, that is not our role. I support what the Senator is trying to do here. So let's get that clear.

On page 86, here it is fixed, in section 110. I want to make that clear, that our committee did the right thing and fixed this problem.

My friend is right, there was a committee to look at the rules. But if all he is doing is looking at rules--and I know he is not--then what is the point? I want to look at what happened. My friend himself talked about fraud. The fact is, we better get to the bottom of this, and all this committee is going to do is look at rules. Frankly, I don't think it is doing much. I would much rather put people in jail. The proper way to do that is to call on the Justice Department to look at these crimes because, to me, it is the crimes that concern me. I think what they did, on the face of it, going in the dead of night, is certainly not allowed in our rules--at least my interpretation of the rules. That, to me, is not.

I tell you right now, in our committee we are pretty tough on this. We are not allowing people to change things.

Everything that is in this technical corrections bill--and that is why Senator DeMint praised us--is on the Web site for all to see. We believe in transparency.

What this is about is getting to the bottom of allegations of serious crimes--bribery. Bribery. That is why I do believe at the end of the day let's keep politics out of this issue.

I can tell you right now, the Senators who get on this committee are going to have the flashbulbs going off in their faces, they are going to make a big to-do about this, and they are not going to talk about rules, they are going to talk about crimes. The sad thing is, even if they got to the bottom of it, at the end of the day the committee cannot put anybody in jail. The Justice Department can.

The speech and debate clause is really clear. I know my colleague in the chair is a very prominent attorney. If you look at section 6, article I, it clearly says:

. . . for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall

not be questioned in any other Place.

So our attorneys are saying the way this is set up, A, you have politics in it; B, you have a constitutional problem, probably; and C, it is a lot of hoopla, a lot of cameras, and at the end of the day we want to put people in jail. That is what we are talking about, really, at the end of the day.

Looking at the Senator's own document on page 5, he says the committee shall share its findings, share its documents, share its information, and so on, with various groups.

I just believe to be tough you have to get the Justice Department involved. When there is a knock on the door from the Justice Department, you will get to the bottom of this. That is what the Boxer amendment does.

I hope people who really want to be tough will do the tough thing, not set up some committee that is going to give Senators and House Members a chance to make political points, and the public will look at us and say this is just a great big show, but really get to the bottom of it and get the Justice Department into this now. There are reports that they are looking at some issues, but there is nothing to say that they are looking at this particular problem.

That is what I have to say. My friend is right to bring this up. I am glad. When the press said: What do you think? I said: Good for him for bringing this up. I am sorry we were not able to agree on the right approach, but I feel very good about the approach I have come up with here. I look forward to our colleagues voting on this at the appropriate time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I might respond to my friend, No. 1, we do not cede a thing. We do not give up anything. As a matter of fact, we stay consistent with applicable standards and procedures, and this cannot be a fishing expedition. We say the Department of Justice shall review allegations of impropriety regarding item 462 in section 193(4)(C) of Public Law 109-

59, to ascertain if a violation of Federal criminal law has occurred.

The question is, to me: Will the people or persons who did something wrong be punished? At the end of the day, that is what I am about. I am not about big committee hearings and special committees and the rest. Listen, I am not about that. I am about: We have a lot of work to do for the American people. My friend used words--``fraud,'' he said. He said ``fraud.'' He already used it. And in his own resolution he says: If they find that there was such fraud, which he already thinks there was--which, by the way, I think it was worse than that, but that is what I think from what I know.

There needs to be proof here. I do not mean to leap ahead too far. He says he is going to refer it to the proper law enforcement. Why can't I say: Well, that is a bad precedent. I do not get it. The difference between what the Senator is doing and what I am doing is I am saying: It looks bad, as if there were a crime committed; we are not sure. Let's get right to the heart of it, and let's go after it.

Here, what my friend is doing, he says: Before we tell them to look at it, we are going to have these hearings. By the way, in his own words, he is going to put the findings on the Internet, he is going to publish them. I have been around here long enough to know what a circus is. I have been involved in a lot of investigations on a lot of committees, and what I want is justice done. I do not want political theatre. I want justice done. I will tell you why. When justice is done and someone goes to jail--we have seen a few people from the other side walk off to jail--that sends the best possible message.

I do not think it ought to be delayed by hearings. Sometimes what happens is, it holds up a Justice Department investigation when there are public hearings going on. I have been in that circumstance too. So I say, here we have two options. One sets up this elaborate committee, and the other one says: Let's get to the heart of this, go after these bad actors, put them in jail. I think that is the better way to go.

I guess I have said it a hundred ways to Sunday. I would stand on those remarks.

I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, the majority leader will be coming out shortly to let Members know what is happening. But I can tell everybody that this bill is being slow walked. This is a simple bill. This is a mini-economic stimulus bill. It would release $1 billion of highway trust fund moneys to build roads, to fix bridges, to run transit systems, and it got caught up in Presidential politics, investigations--everything you can think of--while the people wonder what we are doing.

This bill, simple as it is, would create about 50,000 new jobs at a time when we know--it is worse than a middle-class squeeze. It is really a middle-class struggle that is going on, and people are worried. They are worried about their homes, they are worried about everything, and this bill will create jobs.

So what we have is a classical slowdown, with Presidential politics being involved dealing with the gas tax that funds the highway trust fund. That is fine, but just let everybody know from where it is coming. The only amendments to this bill--the only amendments--come from the Republican side. I offered one as a side-by-side to Senator Coburn's, which I think is a good amendment. My amendment will not bring down this bill. Others will.

Here is where we are. We have a simple bill. It passed a year ago in the House. It passed, I believe it was June of 2007, under the leadership of Senator Inhofe. Actually, it was under my leadership but with the work of Senator Inhofe, both of us working together, bipartisan, bicameral.

I want to show you, Mr. President, who is strongly supporting this bill: the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, that is departments of transportation officials of all 50 States; the American Highway Users Alliance, millions of highway users throughout the country; the American Public Transit Association, transit systems from across the country; the American Road and Transportation Builders Associations, more than 5,000 members of the transportation construction industry; Associated General Contractors, more than 32,000 contractors, service providers, and suppliers; the Council of University Transportation Centers, more than 30 university transportation centers from across the country; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, companies producing more than 92 percent of crushed stone and 75 percent of sand and gravel used in the U.S. annually; the National Asphalt and Pavement Association, more than 1,100 companies that produce and pave with asphalt.

These are real people who are willing, ready, and able to build and rebuild our infrastructure, to build and rebuild our transit systems. This bill is a no brainer. Instead, it is caught up in all of these negotiations right now. Whether we vote tonight or not, we are going to find out soon enough from Senator Reid. But, Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Senator Inhofe and I really wanted to get them a good bill. Senator Inhofe and I really wanted to get this work done quickly. We did all our homework. We put everybody's name on the Web site, so we complied with the new ethical rules. Senator DeMint said he was very pleased with the standard we set for transparency.

These projects are ready to go. They are ready to go in Brooklyn, they are ready to go in Manhattan, they are ready to go in San Francisco, they are ready to go in Atlanta, and they are ready to go in Oklahoma. They are ready to go in every State of the Union. I say to all these good people who told us how much they want this bill to move: Please contact the Republican leadership and tell them to play Presidential politics another day with amendments that are not germane, with amendments that don't belong on this bill. Today pass this legislation.

There is too much talk around here and not enough action. We passed a stimulus bill. We did it in a bipartisan way, but we all know there is more to be done. This little bill will create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs in America, doing something that has to be done. But, no, we cannot finish it. We had one vote so far on an amendment by Senator DeMint. We defeated it, which was important because it was a killer amendment. It says to me people want this bill.

This is the status. We are waiting for some type of agreement. This whole thing is being slow walked. We look forward to hearing from the majority leader as to whether there will be any more votes this evening. But as far as this Senator is concerned--I know I speak for Senator Inhofe--we want to get this bill done. But people are slow walking this bill. We are going to do our best to see if we can get this logjam stopped. But at this point, we have not been able to do it.

Tens of thousands of jobs are in jeopardy, and 500 various transit projects already paid for are in jeopardy. What a shame we cannot go forward. What a shame we are in another slowdown by my friends from the other side of the aisle. It is very discouraging.

Again, as the eternal optimist, I will return to this place tonight, if we can continue working, or tomorrow after we come in after we pay our respects to the Pope.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, today I rise to pay tribute to 19 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since November 6, 2007. This brings to 831 the number of servicemembers who were either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 21 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

SPC Peter W. Schmidt, 30, died on November 13, in Mukhisa, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated during dismounted combat operations. Specialist Schmidt was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA. He was from Eureka, CA.

SSgt Alejandro Ayala, 26, died November 18, of injuries sustained as a result of a vehicle accident in Kuwait. Staff Sergeant Ayala was assigned to the 90th Logistics Readiness Squadron, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY. He was from Riverside, CA.

SGT Kyle Dayton, 22, died December 3 in Ashwah, Iraq, of injuries suffered from a noncombat-related incident. Sergeant Dayton was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from El Dorado Hills, CA.

CPO Mark T. Carter, 27, died December 11 as a result of enemy action while conducting combat operations in Iraq. Chief Petty Officer Carter was permanently assigned as an East Coast-based

Navy SEAL. He was from Fallbrook, CA.

PFC George J. Howell 24, died December 21 in Riyadh, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his vehicle was attacked by an improvised explosive device. Private First Class Howell was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Infantry Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY. He was from Salinas, CA.

SGT Benjamin B. Portell, 27, died December 26 in Mosul, Iraq, of wounds suffered from small arms fire during dismounted combat operations. Sergeant Portell was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, III Corps, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Bakersfield, CA.

PFC Ivan E. Merlo, 19, died in Samarra, Iraq, on January 9, of wounds sustained during combat operations. Private First Class Merlo was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, Fort Campbell, KY. He was from San Marcos, CA.

SGT David J. Hart, 22, died in Balad, Iraq, on January 9, of wounds sustained during combat operations in Samarra, Iraq. Sergeant Hart was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, Fort Campbell, KY. He was from Lake View Terrace, CA.

SGT James E. Craig, 26, died from wounds suffered when his unit encountered an improvised explosive device during convoy operations on January 28, in Mosul, Iraq. Sergeant Craig was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Hollywood, CA.

PFC Brandon A. Meyer, 20, died from wounds suffered when his unit encountered an improvised explosive device during convoy operations on January 28 in Mosul, Iraq. Private First Class Meyer was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Orange, CA.

SGT Timothy P. Martin, 27, died February 8 in Taji, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. Sergeant Martin was assigned to 2nd Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI. He was from Pixley, CA.

SPC Michael T. Manibog, 31, died February 8 in Taji, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. Specialist Manibog was assigned to 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI. He was from Alameda, CA.

LCpl Drew W. Weaver, 20, died February 21 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Weaver was assigned to 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

CPL Jose A. Paniagua-Morales, 22, died March 7, in Balad, Iraq, of injuries sustained in Samarra, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Corporal Paniagua-Morales was assigned to C Company, 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA. He was from Bell Gardens, CA.

PVT George Delgado, 21, died March 24 in Baghdad, Iraq, from wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive on March 23. Private Delgado was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA. He was from Palmdale, CA.

MAJ William G. Hall, 38, died March 30 from wounds he suffered while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on March 29. Major Hall was assigned to 3rd Low Altitude Air Defense Battalion, Marine Air Control Group 38, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

SGT Richard A. Vaughn, 22, died April 7, in Baghdad, Iraq, from wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked using a rocket propelled grenade, improvised explosive device and small arms fire. Sergeant Vaughn was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from San Diego, CA.

SGT Timothy M. Smith, 25, died April 7, in Baghdad, Iraq of wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. Sergeant Smith was assigned to the 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, located at Fort Polk, LA. He was from South Lake Tahoe, CA.

TSgt Anthony L. Capra, 31, died April 9, near Golden Hills, Iraq, of wounds suffered when he encountered an improvised explosive device. Technical Sergeant Capra was assigned to Detachment 63, 688 Armament Systems Squadron, Indian Head City, MD. He was from Hanford, CA.

I would also like to pay tribute to the eight servicemembers from California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since November 6.

SPC Lester G. Roque, 23, died November 10 of wounds sustained when his patrol was attacked by direct fire from enemy forces in Aranus, Afghanistan, on November 9. Specialist Roque was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, Vicenza, Italy. He was from Torrance, CA.

SPC Sean K. A. Langevin, 23, died November 9 of wounds sustained when his patrol was attacked by direct fire from enemy forces in Aranus, Afghanistan. Specialist Langevin was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, Vicenza, Italy. He was from Walnut Creek, CA.

First Lieutenant Matthew C. Ferrara, 24, died November 9 of wounds sustained when his patrol was attacked by direct fire from enemy forces in Aranus, Afghanistan. First Lieutenant Ferrara was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, Vicenza, Italy. He was from Torrance, CA.

SGT Phillip A. Bocks, 28, died November 9 while conducting combat operations in Aranus, Afghanistan. Sergeant Bocks was assigned to Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center, Bridgeport, CA.

SrA Nicholas D. Eischen, 24, died December 24, in Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, in a noncombat-related incident. Senior Airman Eischen was assigned to the 60th Medical Operations Squadron, Travis Air Force Base, CA. He was from Sanger, CA.

SGT James K. Healy, 25, died at Jalalabad Airfield, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when his vehicle struck an improvised explosive device on January 7, in Laghar Juy. Sergeant Healy was assigned to the 703rd Explosive Ordnance Detachment, Fort Knox, KY. He was from Hesperia, CA.

SGT Robert T. Rapp, 22, died March 3, in the Sabari District of Afghanistan, of wounds suffered during combat operations. Sergeant Rapp was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Sonora, CA.

SGT Gabriel Guzman, 25, died March 8 at Orgun E, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device in Gholam Haydar Kala, Afghanistan. Sergeant Guzman was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Hornbrook, CA.

May all these brave soldiers, brave marines, brave Navy SEALS and sailors, brave airmen--brave all--may they rest in peace. I wish to say that if you come to my office in the Hart Building, before you enter, I have listed on big charts the names of all the individuals who are either from California or assigned in California, and if they passed, they are on that listing. We started with one enormous chart, then two, three, and four. I am sad to say it is growing.

The reason I wished to mention their names on the floor is because sometimes we tend to just look at numbers--and we should--but behind those numbers are our children. I am a grandmother. I ache every time I sign a letter. Every single one of these brave Americans died doing something they wanted to do for their country. Their Commander in Chief sent them

into battle, so of course not one of them has died in vain. But I want to do all I can--and I say this from my heart--to ensure that when we get into a conflict, we know there is a way out and that we can bring these conflicts to an end as soon as possible because so many sacrifices are being made, and no more so than the loss of America's finest.

Sergeant Heather Springer

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 16, 2008, at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``Turmoil in U.S. Credit Markets: Examining Proposals to Mitigate Foreclosures and Restore Liquidity to the Mortgage Markets.''

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 16, 2008, at 2 p.m., to conduct a subcommittee hearing entitled ``Affordable Housing Opportunities: Reforming the Housing Voucher Program.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``The Impact of the Credit Crunch on Small Business,'' on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, beginning at 2:30 p.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, Wednesday, April 16, 2008 from 3 p.m.-5 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Challenges and Solutions for Protecting our Children from Violence and Exploitation in the 21st Century'' on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony from military beneficiary organizations regarding the quality of life of active, reserve, and retired military personnel and their family members in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2009 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday April 16, 2008 at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Surface Transportation and the Global Economy.''

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 517 submitted earlier today by Senator Salazar.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12:45 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, April 17; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 1195, the highway technical corrections bill.

For the information of all Senators, we are working on an agreement to have votes in relation to amendments tomorrow. Those votes could be as early as 1:45 p.m.

As a reminder, today cloture was filed on the Boxer substitute No. 4146 and H.R. 1195. Under the rule, the filing deadline for first- degree amendments is 1 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, April 17.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.