Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before my friend from Oklahoma leaves, we talk a lot about safety. This is one of the problems when we try to take a meat ax to all earmarked programs in the States that have been worked out. I was working on another amendment, so I didn't hear whether he mentioned the $750,000 for the Heart of America Bridge in Kansas City. But in the interest of full disclosure, yes, we put in a retrofitting of a bridge to provide a barrier-separated crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the Missouri River from north Kansas City to downtown Kansas City.

Mr. BOND. I will be happy to yield. Amendments Nos. 2812, 2813, and 2814, En Bloc

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, shortly, I hope we will be able to clear my amendment No. 2832, which deals with mitigation assistance to eliminate the default and foreclosure of mortgages of owner-occupied single family homes. As we all know, the subprime market collapse has caused great distress in the marketplace and in many of the entities that are engaged in issuing these subprime loans, and others, including hedge funds, which were dealing in the secondary market with them. I am not so much concerned if large institutions made bad gambles. We don't want to engage in the moral hazard of bailing out large financial institutions that get out too far on the fringe and find out that interest rates rise and they can't make the profits they thought. But we are very much concerned about the individual homeowners who may find that this subprime crisis is costing them their housing. Therefore, this amendment we propose would take $100 million from the HOME program within HUD to allow for foreclosure mitigation activities. The amount would go to organizations such as FHA, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, and State Housing Finance agencies to help identify foreclosure alternatives and offer some homeowners, specifically in subprime mortgages, an alternative to the prospect of foreclosure. Recently published data from the Mortgage Bankers Association for the second quarter of this year shows that one in seven U.S. homeowners was delinquent in their payments. Delinquencies in general rose to the highest levels since 2002, to 5.1 percent of all mortgages, not just subprime. These estimates also show that more than 600,000 homeowners are facing the prospect of foreclosure and repossession. These numbers are the tip of the iceberg. Action needs to be taken to ensure that where possible, good borrowers who happen to be in the subprime category are not unfairly hurt by the housing downturn facing this Nation. While price corrections are natural, and perhaps needed in some markets today to balance against speculation and overt risk- taking, rapid rates of foreclosures will only build additional inventory in an already flush housing market and may lead to an overcorrection and a true recession in the housing market. Depending on the severity of the housing downturn, this could create a major drag on other aspects of our economy and pull us into a recession. However, we should not be quick to attempt to bail out or otherwise create moral hazard in the mortgage markets. This amendment, therefore, seeks to build cooperation between entities and the Federal Government needed in the future in terms of preventing foreclosures and preventing a truly catastrophic mortgage crisis. I strongly believe this is a good step forward to help stem the tide of foreclosures without bailing out risky lenders and speculators from the market. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. I would also note that sometimes people who have limited incomes may not be in a position to buy a home but may be better off renting. I have been in rental housing in my lifetime, as many of us have been. I think the recent efforts by the administration to push for home ownership without regard, in too many instances, to the ability of the homeowners to meet the payments is pushing the envelope too far. Some of the no-downpayment schemes that have been offered have put not only homeowners at risk but whole neighborhoods at risk, where one or two foreclosures may totally cripple a vulnerable, but otherwise healthy, housing neighborhood. So we need to take a look carefully at the subprime market. We also need to look at those practices which unnecessarily put at risk families of modest income who may not be able to take on the responsibilities and the financial burdens of home owning but would be better off renting. So with that, I yield the floor, and I look forward to hearing our colleagues talk about Mexican trucks. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. No objection on this side.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. It is cleared on this side.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2823

Mr. BOND. There is no objection on this side.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had a good discussion with the Senator from Oklahoma earlier in the day. Just to recap for those who may have missed it after he gave his eloquent pitch, I would say on behalf of those of us who worked on the bill--certainly the great leadership of our chair, the distinguished Senator from Washington-- that when we put in earmarks, when we target specific investments to our State, they reflect the judgment of each Member of this body on what is important in his or her State based on what we hear from elected officials, transportation officials, and community leaders who say these are their top priorities. Now, my friend from Oklahoma is earmarking money for bridges. If he believes Oklahoma is not putting in an adequate share of its money for bridges, then we would be happy to entertain earmarks. But don't tell us to earmark ours. I work with the Missouri Department of Transportation officials. They say our highest needs are mostly in highways. We don't want to lose that money from highways.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the reason we put in a barrier on this bridge between north Kansas City, a vibrant growing community, and, of course, the heart of Kansas City, MO, is that many people cross that bridge on foot and on bicycles. The traffic is getting so heavy that there is great danger to the pedestrians and bicycle riders. For those who like exercise and like conserving energy, many people commute between north Kansas City and Kansas City, MO, by foot or on bicycles. But for them to continue to do that, they need to be separated from the traffic. I drive on the streets of Washington, DC, where bicyclists are not separated from traffic. It is always with great fear and trepidation as I am driving in two lanes of traffic coming to work in the morning and I see a bicyclist riding down the street between us. I just hope and pray that I am not the one who hits that bicyclist and that nobody hits them. But if we are going to have bicyclists using roadways, please, let's put a barrier to separate the bicyclists and the pedestrians from the traffic. If we are talking about safety, I believe this is one of the easiest points to understand, and that is why I object so strongly to saying that any earmark we put in our States that deals with bicycles should be struck. Where is the sense in this body to tell the people of Kansas City and north Kansas City they cannot have a protected pedestrian and bicycle means of ingress and egress between north Kansas City and regular Kansas City? It makes so much sense that I really hate to bring it up. That is what this amendment would do. That is why I will strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Change of Vote

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He has been a very effective advocate on housing and the wide range of topics he has discussed. His assistance and support for the bill is very important. We work with him on many issues and appreciate the opportunity to do so. Yesterday, we had some very interesting discussions. I am sorry the Senator from North Dakota is not here, but I am hoping he will perhaps be watching because I do have some answers to the questions he raised about the Department of Transportation's inspector general report. The first thing he asked was how could the Department of Transportation-- the DOT--act so quickly when they received the IG report on Thursday night, September 6, and came out with their truck order for the pilot program on Friday, September 7. Well, the fact is that the DOT, similar to Congress, had been fully briefed on the contents of the report on August 27. I think everybody who is familiar with audits knows that before the audit is released, there is an audit conference and the auditee--in this case the DOT--gets an opportunity to comment on it. The report that the DOT issued was based on the inspector general's draft. We were able to confirm--they were able to confirm they felt they had complied with the concerns raised by the inspector general. Specifically, on the inspection of every truck, every time, the IG said that as of July, the DOT didn't have a plan in place with DHS to make sure Customs and Border Protection checked all the trucks. Since that time, however, DOT has executed agreements with Customs and Border Protection so every truck, every time is checked. That is departmental policy, rather than a statutory requirement, but that is what is being done. The third item: It was alleged that DOT does not have independent access to accident, driver's license, and other data if it is not voluntarily provided by the motor carrier. DOT tells us that is not true. Motor carriers who want to participate in the program willingly and promptly turn over all records pertaining to their proposed operation. If the Federal Motor Carriers Agency feels there is a need for more indepth data, the Mexican Government will provide it. That is exactly the same process that is in place for Canadian carriers, Canadian drivers who come from north of the border. There was a question about State enforcement and DOT has addressed that. The Federal Motor Carriers Agency has developed a significant program to train State officials on the enforcement where FMCSA officials are not available, and it would include testing English language proficiency. Having covered that, I think it might be useful for our colleagues to know there is some strong support for allowing these trucks to run in the United States. I had a letter that was e-mailed to me, and I assume to others, today. It is actually dated June 6; I think it is one they had previously issued. But it says: The undersigned U.S. food and agriculture groups are deeply disturbed by congressional efforts to block the 14-year-old commitment of the North American Free Trade Agreement to allow Mexican and U.S. trucks to deliver international cargoes . . . And they state: These efforts imperil U.S. food and agriculture exports, which have grown dramatically under the NAFTA, and could inflict serious harm on U.S. farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses. They go on to say: The NAFTA is a huge success story for U.S. farmers and ranchers. U.S. exports of food and agricultural products to Mexico have tripled under the NAFTA, climbing from $3.6 billion in 1993 to $10.9 billion in 2006. Mexico is now the top-value export market for U.S. beef, dairy, rice, corn sweeteners, soybean meal, soybean oil, apples and dry edible beans and the second largest for U.S. pork, corn, poultry, soybeans and a stable and reliable market for U.S. cotton. They go on to talk about how this action is unwarranted. It would signal to the world that the United States is willing unilaterally to renegotiate terms of existing trade agreements. Secondly, they say it enhances the likelihood that Mexico will likewise disregard commitments that it made in the NAFTA, such as terminating the remaining tariffs on American agricultural exports, and it notes that Mexico could legally retaliate against the United States and retaliate against U.S. exports to Mexico. That is why Mexico's U.S. Ambassador correctly calls this a powerful symbol of the state of our bilateral relations. I think that if you will humor me for just a minute, I want to tell you who is behind this letter. For anybody who has agricultural interests in your State, the people supporting it are the American Bakers Association; the Cotton Shippers; Farm Bureau Federation; Frozen Food Institute; Meat Institute; Soybean Association; Corn Refiners Association; International Dairy Foods; National Barley Growers; Cattlemen's Beef Association; Chicken Council; Corn Growers; Milk Producers; Oilseed Processors; Pork Producers Council; Potato Council; Sorghum Producers; Turkey Federation; North American Equipment Dealers; North American Export Grain Association; American Millers' Association; Produce Marketers; Sweetener Users; Fertilizer Institute; U.S. Apple Association; Dairy Export Council; Wheat Associates; Dry Bean Council; Hide, Skin and Leather Association; Dry Pea and Lentil Council; and the Rice Federation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read this because if they are concerned about what NAFTA has done for U.S. agriculture, I think this is a fairly impressive list of agricultural associations, touching almost every facet of American agriculture, that see the amendment pending on the floor as a great threat to the trade that keeps agriculture strong and provides revenue farm families in rural communities need throughout America.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, what is amendment No. 2810?

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I always enjoy a discussion with our colleague and neighbor from the State of Oklahoma. His comments that earmarks have caused bridge deficiencies and tragedies is a bridge too far. I believe as well-intentioned as this amendment is, it fails to understand how the States go about rehabilitating their bridges and maintaining the bridges in their States. There are many points I can make about this amendment, but I think it is important to note that according to the conditions and needs report of the Department of Transportation in 2006, we need to invest approximately $12.4 billion annually to eliminate the existing backlog and correct other deficiencies, and we are currently spending over $10 billion a year. As Secretary Mary Peters said in testimony on September 5 before the House Transportation Committee, the number of structurally deficient bridges has been declining significantly from 18.7 percent in 1994 to 12.0 percent now. Obviously, that is still too much, but it is not just deficient bridges. As I pointed out yesterday, we have tremendous highway safety needs. The Chair and I and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Committee, the THUD Committee, held a hearing on highway fatalities. We kill about 43,000 people a year on our highways. We went back and asked the Department of Transportation how many people were actually killed on bridges, either bridges that collapsed or bridges that were too narrow. Over a 5-year period, it came out to about 400. We kill 400 people a year on bridges, and roughly 43,000 on highways. Why is this important? As the occupant of the chair, my colleague from Missouri, knows, we have done a study of what causes highway fatalities. Our Missouri Department of Transportation has estimated that approximately one-third of the deaths on our highways are caused by inadequate highways, outmoded, old-fashioned highways. We have two- lane highways that are carrying traffic that should be on four lanes. Those two-lane traffic jams get people to take unnecessary chances. When we are talking about the problems of safety, we cannot forget the fact that the biggest safety dangers are the inadequate highways and not just the bridges. In our State, the department of transportation has embarked on an ambitious program to bring 800 bridges up to standards, and every department of transportation in this Nation realizes they have bridge problems, that they need to inspect them, and, as I said yesterday, it is important that we find out what caused this particular collapse. Were the inspections adequate? Was the design adequate? Were there unusual loads that were put on the bridge? These are the kinds of issues we need to deal with immediately. But we also have money going, under the bridge program, to States to deal with these deficient bridges. Earmarks are not taking away money from bridges. I can tell my colleagues about earmarks in the State of Missouri. Every single earmark in our State, everything that has been earmarked is on the State implementation plan. It is a priority, and most of them are highly significant priorities for safety, whether it is bridges or highways. I am not surprised that an executive branch agency doesn't like earmarks. Way, way a long time ago in the dim past, I was an executive, and I did not like the legislative body exercising its power of the purse. As a matter of fact, I had all kinds of problems when the General Assembly would pass something, and I vetoed a couple of them. So legislative earmarks are efforts to exercise the legitimate control over the purse and are always resisted by the executive. Let's take a look at what happened in last year's Transportation appropriations bill. There was about $853 million worth of high- priority projects that Members had asked for in their States and the bill contained. That bill never got to final passage. So the Department of Transportation took that money. They took the money from high- priority projects all across the Nation and put it into something called Urban Partners. They are going to reduce congestion. In one city they are going to use the money to start having rush-hour traffic drive in breakdown lanes. What happens when somebody breaks down in the breakdown lane? They have a tremendous jam. There are many things going on. Oh, and by the way, under Urban Partners, $853 million went to Miami, New York, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle. As far as Oklahoma, Missouri, and other States, we were left out. Frankly, I think I can do a better job of working with my colleagues to determine where some of that money should go rather than what I think is a not very well thought out Urban Partners program to just five cities. My colleague from Oklahoma says he really likes authorized projects. I have been an authorizer, too, but the bridge to nowhere, which gained such infamy, was an authorized project. It was put in by the chairman of the conference committee on SAFETEA. Three months later, the Transportation appropriations bill that year unearmarked that earmark, and we are pleased to say that it is no longer federally earmarked. I know our colleague from Oklahoma doesn't like putting in money for bike paths. It may surprise him to know I am not a fan of that either. I voted against it. But it was in the authorized bill. Yes, that is what the authorizers put in, $100 million to go to bike paths. I think bike paths have their place, but given the state of congestion on highways, I think with the danger on highways and bridges, we probably should not be putting $25 million there. But since the money was in there, I did, in the authorization project, get $25 million for bike paths, and that has been spent. If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to change that, I think we need to change the underlying authorization, and I would certainly vote for that. I think trying to blame earmarks on deficient bridges is a bridge too far, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, I regret we have not been able to clear this request on this side. As much as we would like to, I have to object at this point.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am under no illusion that I can change the mind of my good friend from North Dakota, but maybe I can ease his concerns, at least in several areas, because he did raise some things that I think should be noted. Prior to 1982, Mexican trucks did operate throughout the United States without restriction. Since then, Canadian trucks have continued to operate through the United States. Surprisingly, even some of the Mexican carriers who were authorized to operate beyond the commercial zones in 1982 have continued to operate in the United States. As best we can tell, they have as good a safety record as the U.S. drivers. But, obviously, there are lots of arguments in terms of efficiency, in terms of commitments made under the North American Free Trade Agreement for carrying this out. But I want to focus just a minute on a couple of items of concern about meeting safety standards. Mexican trucking companies, drivers, and vehicles participating in the demonstration program have to abide by stricter safety standards than U.S. and Canadian trucking companies, drivers, and vehicles operating in the United States. These safety standards include they have to have a U.S.-based insurance policy, full compliance with hours of service regulations, vehicle maintenance, driver qualifications, including the ability to communicate in English, and drug and alcohol testing. Every carrier satisfactorily completing the test has to have its drivers drug tested by U.S. labs. In addition, as many of us would be concerned about the tremendous accident with hazardous materials, these carriers are prohibited from transporting hazardous materials in the United States. They cannot transport passengers, and they cannot pick up domestic freight going from point to point. Every Mexican truck participating in the program has to pass a rigorous 39-point, front-to-back inspection and is required to display a valid Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance--CVSA--inspection decal that indicates it has passed this inspection. The decals are valid only for 3 months and can be renewed only by passing another inspection. As far as who is going to verify that the trucks are following U.S. regulations, U.S. Federal inspectors perform, and Mexican trucking companies must pass, a preauthorization safety audit to get into the program, conducted in Mexico prior to granting the authority to operate beyond U.S. commercial zones. The audit includes inspections of vehicles the company intends to use in long-haul operations in the United States and a thorough inspection of the company's records to ensure compliance with Federal safety regulations. Vehicles not inspected by the U.S. Federal inspectors cannot be used for long-haul operations in the United States. Every inspector reviews Federal safety regulations with the carrier, including those concerning driver hours of service, to ensure the carrier is knowledgeable of and comprehends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. All the motor vehicles and drivers in the cross-border demonstration program will be subject to roadside inspections, just like U.S. and Canadian vehicles and drivers, and will be placed out of service, as any carrier would be, if they fail critical portions of the inspection. I thought that might be of some comfort to my colleague who raised questions about safety inspections. I suggest that be taken into consideration as we review the appropriateness of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask another question? We are not talking about packing houses where there was obviously a failure of sanitation. We are talking about a situation where U.S. Federal inspectors go down, conduct a pretest, a preinspection of the Mexican trucking operations, the vehicles coming in have to go through a U.S. overseen or implemented safety inspection every 3 months. Now, I do not think we require Canadian trucks, and certainly we do not require U.S. trucks, to be inspected every time they travel on our roads. But we do have inspections, random inspections that will apply to United States, Canadian, and Mexican trucks. What I am asking, if U.S. Federal inspectors are doing this--nobody ever said they are going to do it every time. Nobody expects to have inspectors inspecting every truck. But what is the difference, I would ask my colleague, between having U.S. inspectors every 3 months in Mexico and having random safety inspections--in what situation do either the Canadian or the U.S. trucks get the same degree of inspection?

Mr. BOND. I join with my colleague from Washington, the chairman of our committee. I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to bring in their amendments. Because of the timeline we are working under, we will be much more willing and able to work out the amendments that come in early. We may be able to cut off the time for filing amendments, I would hope, as early as sometime tomorrow afternoon. But I suggest that in case that happens, people come forward with their amendments as early as possible because we are facing a time deadline and need to get this bill amended, if desired, and passed. I would appreciate the cooperation of colleagues on both sides.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to Senator Murray for being such a good partner on this bill. It is a very challenging bill, particularly under the constraints in which we are supposed to work. It is always a difficult bill and many complex and controversial issues. I begin by echoing her comments; we know there will be amendments. We urge our colleagues to come down as soon as possible and offer those amendments so we can deal with them. We have a hard deadline of Wednesday noon. I hope we can get the issues resolved before then. But that is a deadline which the Senate schedule imposes on us. We do want to get it completed. Senator Murray deserves a great deal of credit for balancing the tough issues that are included in this bill; she referred to them. These are important programs that help build our communities and without which a lot of persons would been placed at the risk of homelessness. This would have been particularly harsh on seniors and persons with disabilities. I also especially am grateful for the programs Senator Murray described that we were able to include $75 million in Section 8 funds for the VA Supportive Housing Program. I think it is a critical program that calls attention to some of the many needs that face our returning service people. There are far too many returning service men and women who come back and are without housing. This is a start on dealing with this serious problem that I know the VA and HUD are familiar with. We want to give them the authorization and the direction to move forward on it. I think the worth of this program will become even more evident as young disabled service men and women try to make the difficult adjustments to civilian life. Now, the next item that is going to be discussed is the Minnesota bridge collapse. This was surely a catastrophic event. Our hearts go out to all of those families who lost loved ones in that horrific tragedy. In response to the bridge collapse, Congress immediately authorized $250 million in emergency relief spending to rebuild this vital infrastructure in Minnesota. I think a welcomed awareness has arisen from this event, brought a higher degree of understanding and appreciation that new methods for inspecting and rating our bridges are necessary. People are even talking about infrastructure and the need for infrastructure. Well, that is what we have been talking about in this committee and on this floor for many years. We are delighted to have our long-time supporters and some new friends agreeing with us on it. Now, as far as this bridge collapse, we are anxiously awaiting further information from the National Transportation Safety Board on what the root cause of this tragic accident was and how we can further improve our Federal oversight of critical infrastructure. There are a number of items which have been raised which may point out specific causes for this collapse and which will be a warning to other States and other localities as well of steps they must take and things they must do to avoid bridge collapses. But I understand why my colleague, Senator Murray, has offered the amendment that would add $1 billion in obligation limits for bridges in reaction to this tragic event. I share that concern. But I do have a feeling we should not overreact to the Minnesota bridge collapse by spending more money out of the highway trust fund than is available until we have time to work on a comprehensive reauthorization of the underlying legislation, SAFETEA. Part of this process must be a comprehensive review of our Nation's infrastructure problems, including how best to prioritize and fund those needs. Obviously, we are going to be looking at bridge safety as well as the other aspects of transportation safety. I know in my home State of Missouri, and I assume in every State transportation department across the country, this event brought renewed attention to bridge inspection. In my State, the department of transportation is embarking on a major program to rehabilitate 800 bridges that are of varying levels of deficiency. But while we need to avoid and prevent a future repeat of the Minnesota tragedy, we also must minimize the risk of death or injury posed by the broad spectrum of our aging infrastructure. This measure would cause serious problems with the declining balance in the highway trust fund and leave us with an additional $1 billion greater shortfall for highway trust fund funding in the 2009 appropriations cycle. Everybody in this building, all my colleagues know or should know that we have significant problems in the highway trust fund because we have seen the impact of higher gas prices on fuel consumption. People are driving less. Economics does work. But when they drive less and use less gasoline, use more efficient conservation measures, which is all to the good, it results in less money coming into the highway trust fund than had been anticipated and lessens the amount of revenue we have available to use on bringing our highway and bridge infrastructure up to the needs of the 21st century. We are not there yet. Chairman Murray and I held a hearing in April on the question of rising highway fatalities. We agree--and everybody would agree--we cannot ignore the fact that 43,443 Americans were killed on the highways last year and some 2.7 million more were injured. From my State, our highway transportation department estimates that one out of three of these people is killed by reason of inadequate infrastructure. In our State, the major problem is too many two-lane roads carrying traffic which should properly be on four-lane roads. I suspect other States are fighting that problem. The vast majority of highway fatalities are not on the Nation's bridges but, rather, on the highways. The best estimate we have from the U.S. Department of Transportation is that approximately 2,200 out of the 43,000 deaths occurred on bridges. This leads me to suggest that we cannot overreact to such a horrible and tragic event such as that in Minnesota by micromanaging our Federal aid dollars solely to bridges, unless that is where a State, through its unique local vantage point and knowledge of its situation, wants to focus its efforts in Federal apportionment. So this is something we will be discussing further. We are both concerned about safety on highways and bridges. We look forward to working with our colleagues to see how this can be resolved. With respect to the Federal Aviation Administration, I again thank Senator Murray and her staff for their close cooperation in working through these issues. The chronic delays experienced by numerous travelers this year and specifically this summer have not gone unnoticed by the committee. As ranking member, having spent a wonderful 2\1/2\ hours sitting on an airport runway after we landed, I have a personal interest in dealing with this. The bill continues to support the beginning stage of the NextGen Air Transportation System, which we believe is a much needed step toward providing additional capacity and relieving many of the delays at our Nation's airports. The bill also contains funds above the administration's request for flight inspection and certification personnel. Almost all of us use airplanes frequently, and we understand the need the flying public has for greater assurance of safety. We think these funds will ensure continued safety for the National Airspace System. I also note additional funds for the Airport Improvement Program. That remains an important bipartisan priority for this subcommittee. I can't tell my colleagues how many small airport operators and community leaders in those cities and towns around my State have expressed their strong support for the program. There are some issues we will have to address as the bill moves forward. For example, we include revenue aligned budget authority, that which we call RABA. When Members hear the term ``RABA,'' it is not the name of a dog or somebody's pet name; it is ``revenue aligned budget authority.'' This was not included in the President's budget. The bill also contains a $2.89 billion rescission of highway contract authority apportionments to the States used as a budgetary offset to meet the other pressing needs my colleague already described. The bill includes an additional $43.359 million in administrative contract authority and another $172 million in the unused transportation innovative financing infrastructure account--the TIFIA--contract authority, for a total offset of spending of $3.495 billion. In the HUD section, we include a rescission of $1.1 billion. Finally, I raise one issue we have not been able to address; namely, HUD and OMB's failure to provide adequate funding for HUD's section 8 project-based housing program for fiscal year 2008. To my colleagues and to OMB and to HUD, I say: Let's get serious. This is a critical and important program which serves many of our most vulnerable citizens-- low-income families, extremely low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. If we don't fund it, they are out on the street. None of us wants to see that result. HUD has been unable to fund in a full and timely fashion many of these contracts during fiscal year 2007, and this problem is only going to get worse in 2008 to the extent that HUD could have a shortfall in its budget of as much as $2 billion or more which is needed to meet its obligations to these contracts in the next fiscal year. If we don't act in this bill, we are going to see a $2 billion shortfall. Think of the number of people who would be put out on the street if we don't solve that problem. It is unacceptable. I know this program enjoys wide support, and I expect and hope that OMB will provide the necessary funds for the program through a budget amendment or as part of a continuing resolution or through emergency supplemental legislation. To my good friends at OMB, I say: You cannot walk away from this problem. This problem is real. It must be addressed or we are going to see a tremendous tragedy for the Nation's lowest income and most needy housing residents. While I am pleased with much of the bill, especially spending in critical programs, I have to say that we are on a collision course with the White House on the spending levels contained in this bill. Both sides are going to have to make adjustments. Some of the adjustments we have outlined are absolutely essential, and we cannot lose the benefit of the positive investments we have made in this bill. This is a very important bill. It is a very difficult bill because we have some extremely serious challenges to face. We understand the need to be sensitive to the budget needs, but there are real pressing human problems we must meet in this bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate all the comments of my colleague. He had some very interesting things to say. I don't believe I can let it pass, as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, without clarifying some of what has been said about the danger to this country. First, we have never taken our eyes, our efforts off getting the leaders of al-Qaida. There were times in the past, in the nineties, when we had an opportunity to get him, and apparently, according to published reports, from one of the people who was with Osama bin Laden, we came close, but we have not been able to find him. I can assure you, without going into the details, that we continue to make a major effort to find Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 man. If any Senator wants to come to the Senate Intelligence Committee in Hart 219, we will be happy to brief them on the efforts made there. As far as the threat to the United States, the greatest threat to the United States from abroad is having al-Qaida establish a safe haven where they can recruit, have training facilities, issue command-and- control orders, and develop weapons of mass destruction. We have no better authorities than Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri that they still seek to establish that headquarters for their effort in Iraq because this is where they believe their caliphate should be headquartered. They would be far more capable of operating against the United States and others if they could go back to establishing their safe havens in Iraq, as they had in Afghanistan prior to our eliminating the Taliban. I believe anybody will tell you that this country is safer because we have denied them a safe haven. Yes, some of the leaders are hiding out in the rugged mountains in that region. Their communications are very difficult. Their training facilities have been interrupted from time to time by our and allied efforts. We continue those efforts. They know they cannot operate safely there with impunity, but they are denied the operational freedom of a safe haven in Iraq. That is their goal--that and attacking the United States. Establishing a foothold in Iraq would give them not only the training facilities and recruiting and command- and-control capacities, but it would give them access to tremendous oil reserves, so they would have the funding from the oil resources, potentially putting tremendous economic pressure on us if they cut off Iraq's oil supply to the free world. But they would have the oil resources. As far as Iraq is concerned, the intelligence we had before we went in was not good. We pointed out in the Intelligence Committees where it fell short. But we have also had the report of the Iraqi Survey Group, David Kay, which said Iraq was a far more dangerous place even than we knew. Before we went in and took out Saddam Hussein, we did not know the chaotic system in that country. The fact that there were terror groups operating in that country who sought weapons of mass destruction--and we know Saddam Hussein not only manufactured but used weapons of mass destruction--those terrorist groups in Iraq were seeking to get weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's operations and his just-in-time inventory system. There is a lot more to the story than we just heard, but I can assure my colleagues, from the intelligence standpoint, we are not giving anybody any safe haven where we have any reasonable knowledge of where they stand or in what way they are operating. I wanted to make those comments. I thank the Chair. I note another colleague has asked to speak. I yield the floor.