Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Pennsylvania mind answering a couple of questions before he leaves? No. 1, I would note, just on the hate crimes legislation, that the perpetrators of the heinous crimes against Matthew Shepard had full justice carried out against them. That is true, is it not?

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today the full Senate will probably agree to legislation--H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007--that constitutes a massive overhaul and expansion of the Food and Drug Administration's authorities. Up until a couple days ago, determining the scope and details of the bill was an open and bipartisan process. Unfortunately, all of that changed at the eleventh hour and we were locked out of discussions to determine what a final product would look like. Now we are forced to either accept what we do not fully agree with or cause thousands of FDA employees to lose their jobs. This is not the way to ensure that we ``get it right'' with drug safety. While this bill achieves the important and necessary objectives of reauthorizing the Pediatric Research Equity Act, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act, the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments, the Medical Device User Fee Amendments, and establishing a scientifically- based surveillance system for drug safety risks. There was still important work to be done to complete a bipartisan product. Because of unfair Democratic Majority tactics I and my colleagues have no opportunity to further amend and perfect this legislation. Furthermore, I am frustrated that certain important provisions were removed from the final language of the bill at the last minute. We lost a provision to provide incentives for developing new antibiotics--a disastrous decision at a time when we are seeing a huge rise of antibiotic resistance in this country. Last minute negotiators also refused to recognize that patients desiring marijuana for medical purposes deserve to know critical information about whether or not marijuana can be safely used. Finally, the final bill did not contain an important Senate-passed resolution to protect American pharmaceutical companies' intellectual property rights around the globe. This legislation is a very delicate balancing act. No drug is completely safe--otherwise a doctor's prescription wouldn't be needed-- but we do have to ensure that lifesaving medicines are able to get to patients. New authorities in the area of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, REMS, labeling, and postmarket commitments should not be taken lightly. These new authorities we are giving the FDA need to be used based on a measured assessment of risk vs. benefit in the intended patient population. For instance, labeling changes should only be undertaken when reliable data clearly shows safety problems that are not already reflected in the drug's label. If that data happens to come from a third party unknown to the application holder they should have the opportunity to review it along with the Agency so that appropriate labeling changes can be made based on sound science. Another new authority granted to the FDA in a REMS is possible restrictions on distribution and use. If used, this restriction has the potential to impede patient access to important therapies and therefore should not be imposed where less burdensome approaches are available. This concept of a ``less burdensome approach'' is an important one and it is essential that product manufacturers have the opportunity to present alternative proposals to the Agency that would accomplish the goal of safety without imposing unduly restrictive actions to products and ultimately to patients. This legislation establishes that the FDA will not limit or restrict distribution or use unless a drug has been shown to actually cause an adverse event. We absolutely need FDA to have all the tools necessary to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs, but doctors need tools as well, and one of those important tools is new drugs on the market. I appreciate the significant changes that were made in this language of the bill between Senate HELP Committee markup and full Senate consideration. These improvements remain in the final bill and are critical to ensure that physicians--not the FDA--can make risk/benefit decisions with their patients. This bill ensures that the FDA has broad and exhaustive authorities to make sure that drug companies are doing the right and scientifically-justified thing when it comes to drug safety and the labeling of their drugs. This authority is placed rightly in the hands of highly-trained scientists at the FDA. It is clear that Congress relies on the scientists at the FDA to assess safety risks and drug labeling and this should be squarely and solely the FDA's role-- that is why we have spent months and months trying to get this issue of drug safety right. The newly expanded role of the FDA does and should preempt State law when it comes to drug safety and labeling. In order to ensure scientific drug safety the last thing that we need is the regulatory nightmare of every State court being a mini-FDA. Let me be clear, the FDA is the expert Federal agency charged by Congress with ensuring that drugs are safe and effective and that product labeling is truthful and not misleading. Appropriate preemption of State jurisdiction includes not only claims against manufacturers, but also against health care practitioners for claims related to dissemination of risk information to patients beyond what is included in the labeling. Product liability lawsuits have directly threatened the FDA's ability to regulate manufacturer dissemination of risk information for prescription drugs. I note a recent case in California, Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham, where trial lawyers tried to assert that a drug company had failed to warn consumers that nicotine-replacement products allegedly cause birth defects--even though there wasn't scientific evidence to back that up. In this case, the FDA had previously told SmithKline Beecham that they should not include such an unscientific warning in its label because it would clutter up the label's warnings that actually were scientifically justified. A California court asserted that more warnings were always better. Subsequently, that assertion was overruled unanimously by the California Supreme Court as the FDA again asserted that its scientific judgment should prevail. The case was not properly before the court by operation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Unless State law is preempted in this area, State law actions can conflict with the FDA's interpretations and frustrate the FDA's implementation of its statutory and scientific mandate. Should the FDA's scientific judgment on drug safety and labeling be set aside, we would risk eroding and disrupting the truthful representation of benefits and risks that medical professionals need to make decisions about drug use. As a physician, I know that exaggeration of risk can discourage the important and right use of a clinically therapeutic drug. Superfluous liability concerns can create pressure on manufacturers to expand labeling warnings to include merely speculative risks and limit physician appreciation of potentially far more significant contraindications and side effects. I note that the FDA has previously stated that ``labeling that includes theoretical hazards that are not well grounded in scientific evidence can cause meaningful risk information to `lose its significance.' Overwarning, just like underwarning, can similarly have a negative effect on patient safety and public health.'' In this bill, we have created a clear labeling pathway between the FDA and a drug sponsor in this bill to ensure that consumers get scientifically accurate and appropriate warning of drug safety risks. Furthermore, if not preempted in drug safety information and labeling, State law could conflict with achieving the full objectives of Federal law if it precludes a firm from including certain labeling information. If a manufacturer then complies with State law, the firm would be omitting a statement required under Sec. 201.100(c)(1) as a condition on the exemption from the requirement of adequate directions for use, and the omission would misbrand the drug under 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1). The drug might also be misbranded on the ground that the omission is material within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 321(n) and makes the labeling or advertising misleading under 21 U.S.C. 352(a) or (n). While it is true that a manufacturer may, under FDA regulations, strengthen a labeling warning on its own, it is important to understand that in practice manufacturers typically consult with FDA before doing so. Otherwise they could risk enforcement action if the FDA ends up disagreeing. Some misunderstand the FDA's labeling requirements to be a minimum safety standard and have used State law to force manufacturers to supplement safety regulation beyond that required by FDA. I want to be clear that the FDA's labeling requirements establish both a ``floor'' and a ``ceiling.'' Therefore, risk information beyond what is required by the FDA could be considered unsubstantiated or otherwise false or misleading. Given the comprehensiveness of FDA regulation of drug safety, effectiveness, and labeling additional requirements for the disclosure of risk information are not necessarily more protective of patients. Finally, I want to specifically comment on language in H.R. 3580 that includes a new mechanism to further encourage the timely and accurate communication of new safety information on prescription drug labels. That mechanism reiterates the FDA's primacy in determining the content of prescription drug labeling, including through the new power to command a safety labeling change. New section 505(o)(4)(I) also makes clear that this enhanced safety labeling mechanism does not affect the obligation of a company to maintain a drug product's labeling in accordance with FDA's regulations, including 21 C.F.R. Sec. 314.70. This provision is meant to confirm the basic obligation of a drug's sponsor to propose--or, in some cases, make--changes to the approved labeling to reflect changes in the conditions established in the approved application and/or new information. Nothing in this rule of construction changes that obligation or FDA's ultimate authority over drug labeling; nor is it intended to change the legal landscape in this area. That is because there is an overriding Federal interest in ensuring that the FDA, as the public health body charged with making these complex and difficult scientific judgments, be the ultimate arbiter of how safety information is conveyed. In this manner, there can be confidence that uniform drug labeling conveys clear, consistent, and scientifically justified safety and medical information. In fact, the courts have repeatedly upheld FDA's supremacy over prescription drug labeling in cases brought under State law. Nearly 20 years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit emphasized that ``. . . manufacturers cannot change the language in the product insert without FDA approval,'' and accordingly ``[i]t would be patently inconsistent for a state then to hold the manufacturer liable for including that precise warning when the manufacturer would otherwise be liable for not including it.'' Hurley v. Lederle Labs. Div. of Am. Cyanamid Co., 863 F.2d 1173, 1179 (5th Cir. 1989). As a more recent Court expressed this bedrock principle, allowing a State to decide what warnings are appropriate, and thus potentially subject companies to liability for otherwise FDA-approved labeling, would upset the careful benefit-risk balance that FDA has struck in approving a product for market, and doing so would ``undermine FDA's authority to protect the public health through enforcement of the prohibition against false and misleading labeling of drug products in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.'' Sykes v. Glaxo-SmithKine, 484 F. Supp. 2d. 289, 312 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (internal quotation omitted) . citizens' petitions

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about something that will come up in the next week or 10 days. That is an extension and expansion of the debt limit. An attempt will be made to do this by unanimous consent. That is wrong. Every Member of the Senate ought to be on record on whether we ought to expand again the amount of borrowing we are going to place on the backs of our children and grandchildren. The current statutory debt limit is $8.965 trillion. It was last raised March 20, 2006. This Senator voted against that. We have been on notice since that time that we needed to make the effort to rein in wasteful Washington spending so that we do not have to, in fact, borrow more money against our children's future. Only 10 years ago it was $5.95 billion. We have increased the debt in the last 10 years by 50 percent. What does that mean? Individually, that means $30,000 for every man, woman, and child. But the important aspect is not just what we owe now but what the unfunded liabilities are for the future which are in excess of $70 trillion. What does that mean if you are born today? That means if you are born today, you will be inheriting at the moment of your birth liabilities of over $400,000. How in the world can our children have an education, a great job, own a home, and give their children the things we have benefited from by being born owing $400,000? It is time for things to come to a stop or to markedly change. This last week the Senate once again failed to make tough decisions about priorities. We chose to fund pork projects instead of repairing bridges. We said peace gardens, bike paths, and baseball stadiums are more important than critical infrastructure. Yesterday a new poll was released. Rightly so, it reflected less than 11 percent of Americans have confidence in this body. It is no wonder. Our priorities are wrong. Congress for years has raided the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to hide the true size of the annual budget deficit. This practice has undermined the solvency of the programs and threatens both the retirement security of today's workers and the economic opportunities and future of our children and grandchildren. It is irresponsible to simply raise the debt limit while at the same time creating or expanding Federal programs that will result in additional borrowing from Social Security trust funds and not accepting the responsibility to make hard choices about what are our priorities. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it is unwilling to prioritize spending. This year multiple times the Senate has rejected amendments to cut spending while authorizing billions and billions of dollars in new spending. The Senate this year twice has rejected amendments stating that Congress has a moral obligation to offset the cost of new Government spending by getting rid of the waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication in current Federal programs. American families don't have the luxury Congress has. They can't get a new loan or new credit cards after they have maxed out their capability to borrow. Yet instead, every day in this body we do essentially that. The moral question is, why should we be proud of stealing from our children? There isn't a greater moral question before this country today than whether we are going to steal opportunity and freedom from the next generation. I am putting the Senate on notice that I will not agree to a UC on the debt limit extension without a debate and full vote by each Member of this body on that debt limit and a recommitment to do what is right for the future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is the amendment that says, let's don't discriminate against the private schools. Let us let the kids go where they want. Let us give them an equal shot at Morehouse, at Tuskegee, at Spelman, and Stillman. Let us let them have an equal shot to go there as well as everywhere else. We have decided you can't. We are going to make you more disadvantaged to go to someplace that is culturally better for you. So I would ask reconsideration on the part of the chairman and the ranking member for this amendment. It makes sense, it is equal, and it treats every sought-after degree the same. We don't discriminate between private and public. It doesn't change where the restrictions are already. It doesn't say every private university in America can have it. What it says is, if we are going to hold this apple out in front of you and say here is your education, we are going to give you a fair shot whether you want to go to a private school or a public school that is on the list. We are going to treat you the same, and we are going to hope that no matter which one you attend that you finish that education and come back and become a productive citizen contributing to DC. That is what this is about. It is not about expanding the realm of private universities. It is saying that if I choose to go to Morehouse State, I should get the same treatment as if I choose to go to Oklahoma State or Ohio State or the University of Hawaii. I get the same treatment. Don't give me part of an apple, give me the whole apple. Give me everything. Amendment No. 2887 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2888 be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2887.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment says if you make $1 million a year, we shouldn't be paying for your kids to go to college. The rest of the American taxpayers shouldn't. I am disappointed to hear from the House that when they get this, when we get to conference, they are not going to accept it. It is amazing to me that anybody in this country would think that the Federal Government--all of us collectively--ought to pay for their children's education. If we are going to do that, then let us pay for everybody's education across the country. But that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about trying to direct funds to those kids who won't have an opportunity for college without these funds. And by giving those funds to the well-to-do families who do not need or require our help to send their children to college, we are stealing opportunity from those kids. There is a limited amount of money. Everybody knows that. There is a limited pie here. And for those 20 times 50,000, that $1 million is not going to be spent on somebody living below the poverty level wanting to get out and wanting to move up. I understand it is the chairman and ranking member's opinion that they will accept this amendment, so I graciously thank them for that, and my hope is you would hold this as we discuss this with the House. It is ludicrous to take this away from people who don't have means. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. So the people of Ohio, who send their children to Ohio State, even though they pay in-State tuition, actually pay more for that college because they pay a much higher percentage of the State budget and the State of Ohio, similar to the State of Oklahoma, has decided that with that increased income, we will grant everybody. But it doesn't cost the same. So the argument is, in terms of the difference in incomes: Those people who make exceptional incomes in Ohio and Oklahoma actually pay more for their kids to go to college in their States because they pay a much higher percentage of the total income taxes in the State. The second point is I think the Senator is right. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This is one of the rare programs that ought to be expanded, but we have terrible priorities in this Senate and in this Government. So we will not take another $10 million to make sure more kids go and get rid of some duplicitous earmark somewhere that is a favor for some politician somewhere so we can, in fact, enhance it. This is a very straightforward amendment. It says why would you discriminate against somebody who wants to go to a private college over a public college? That is what we are doing. The answer is because we don't have enough money. That is the answer. The answer is we do not have enough money, so therefore, if we give the same amount of scholarship to private schools as we give to public, we would not have enough money for 886 people who are getting a full boat now. The answer to that is here is a program that is working, here is where we ought to have priorities, here is where we ought to be putting more money rather than less. But the answer, our closed-minded answer in Washington is: That is all the money we have. Even though this is working and a lot of other programs are not working, we are not going to defund those programs that are not working. We are not going to measure with a metric whether they are effective. We are going to let them go. Here is a good program that is making a difference in people's lives, and we are not going to go fight for more money. To me, that says it all about where we are in Washington today.

Mr. COBURN. I will finish up with this. I thank the Senators for their debate and points of view. The reason the average is $6,500 is because you only give $2,500 to the private. If you took all the private schools out, the average would be $10,000. That is what you get. So to play the game with numbers is not accurate because when you filter in the $2,500, you get that average of $6,500. I would make the point again, you, in fact, are discriminating against a young DC minority child who says I want to go to Morehouse State, and I want to major in X at Morehouse State. I know heroes of mine who went to Morehouse State. Under this bill, you say you can't do that. They may be bright, but $2,500 compared to that education, versus $10,000 in public, doesn't begin to accomplish the level of financing and scholarships--it will be next to impossible. I ask you to reconsider. The intent of what you are trying to do--we can, in fact, appropriate more money for this. If I and George Voinovich and Danny Akaka go for a spending increase on an appropriations bill, that will make history in the Senate. That would make history. We could do that. We could find the money to do that. The point is, why should we take away opportunity? Why should we be the parlayers of somebody's lost opportunity? We ought to give it to all, it ought to be equally based and ought to be based on their aspirations, their hopes for what they want to do. We should not artificially say because you want to go here, this is all the opportunity you get. But if you want to go somewhere that doesn't excite you, doesn't stimulate you, isn't going to give you as good an education, we will give you more money. I think that is inherently wrong and disadvantageous to the very people we are trying to help. Not only should we want them to get the education, we should want them to get the best education, so they can be the best that they can be. I will yield the floor. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN. Do the people of upper income in Ohio pay higher taxes in the State of Ohio?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, my reason for offering amendments is not in opposition to this bill's goal. I think the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Hawaii know that. But there are two really blatant things wrong with this bill. There is a limited amount of money. Everybody will agree we have allocated--it is going to be about $38 million this year that is going to go for this program. That is what the spend-out is going to be. Right now, 20 families who make over $1 million a year are taking an opportunity from 20 families who are below the poverty level. Twenty families right now with household income greater than $1 million a year are taking this program. Why would we have a program that says to the richest in this country that we are going to pay for their college education and we are going to do it on the backs of the poorest in this country? These 20 people who are in college today whose families make more than $1 million a year are stealing an opportunity from 20 kids. Nineteen percent of the District lives under the poverty level. So we are taking from them because we do not have an earnings test on this program. I put in an amendment, which I am going to call up in a minute, because it is ridiculous to think that somebody earning $1 million a year cannot afford to pay for their kid's college. But the amendment should have been at $300,000 or $400,000 a year, because when you extrapolate that number, you get 400 or 500 kids who are now taking the opportunity from kids who have no income or are living below the poverty level. So the idea of helping people in the District and enticing people to come to the District to get an education is a great idea. There is not a thing wrong with this program. But it is very shortsighted to say we don't want to put an earnings test on something because it might change the program. The fact is the program is being changed by the wealthy taking advantage of it to the disadvantage of the kids who can't get this grant. I read in the paper this morning that the House is going to object to a million-dollar-per-year earnings test on this program. Just do a little finger commonsense poll and talk to the American people. Do they think their taxpayer dollars ought to be spent on sending somebody to college whose parents make $1 million a year? The answer to that is a resounding ``no.'' So why would we have any resistance at all in the House or this body to putting an earnings limit at $1 million? It makes no sense. The second problem with this bill is we have discriminated against historically Black, private, nonprofit universities because they are private: Morehouse State, Spelman College, Stillman College, Tuskegee. Yes, we will let you go if you are from Washington, DC, if you want to go to those, but we are only going to give you $2,500. We are not going to give you $10,000 because it is a private nonprofit. We are going to limit your ability to embrace your culture at one of the historically Black colleges because it happens to be a private, nonprofit university. We are going to say you can only have $2,500. And by the way, if you have a good reason that you might want to pursue a field of study that is not offered at one of the universities, the State publicly supported universities, but is offered at a private college, we are going to discriminate against you again. We are going to say we will give you $2,500. What we are doing is we are putting a carrot out there and saying, you can't quite get to the carrot. You can't quite get to that carrot. Why would we discriminate against private and nonprivate, if a child wants to seek a certain level of education that is not available anywhere except that? If we want opportunity for these kids, we ought to give them opportunity and we ought to let the choice be theirs. Let them choose where to go. If they want to go into bioneurologic sciences, where can they get that? A private university. They can't get it at a public university. If they want to go into some other area that is not available to them in a public fashion, through a public university, we are going to say, yes, you can, but you get 75 percent less benefit than everybody else gets because you choose to go into a field of endeavor that may be highly sought after but it is not offered at a public university. So the idea behind the bill is good. The goal of increasing what the chairman and ranking member wanted to do in terms of DC is right, it is right-headed, but if we were thinking about how do we help the most kids, we wouldn't let the first dollar go to parents making $500,000 a year or $300,000 a year. We would let it go to the kids, this 20 percent of the population who lives under the poverty level. That is where we would send the money. What we are saying here is, in the namesake of not wanting to change and not allow the flexibility for more impoverished children to get that college education, we don't want to change. We don't want to allow a young African-American male to go to Morehouse College, because we are going to give him $7,500 less a year to go there than if he chose some other university. Why would we not want to enhance that culture for him? Amendment No. 2888 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2888 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a block of three amendments. It is not a great deal of money, but it certainly will send a message to the American people about our priorities. We can build a new visitors center in Louisiana, where 7,000 people are still displaced from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We can add on to a baseball stadium which has already run over, and the money is to compensate for the overrun--a priority versus building bridges--or we can markedly expand and remodel a peace garden on our northern border. I would put forward to the body that these are not priorities right now. They are not priorities, when our true deficit this year is going to be about $400 billion. We are going to charge to it our kids. We have the largest deficit and out-of- compliance bridges in our history. Yet we are going to make a choice to spend money on these rather than higher priorities. The American people don't have that luxury with their own budgets. We should not be taking that luxury with their money either. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. An investigation by the inspector general found the following: For 2006, there were 8,056 earmarks within the Department of Transportation program, with a total of more than $8.54 billion, or over 13 percent of DOT's appropriation. So for one in seven and a half dollars, we have directed the spending, and for most of them, it is against the highest priority things we should be funding. So thinking about the risks, thinking about the costs, thinking about our standing in terms of doing what we should be doing to make sure the highest ordered priorities are taken care of--that the bridges that are structurally deficient will be addressed, that the highways that do not meet or exceed a good or acceptable level of safety--we ought to be redirecting this money in that direction. That is what this amendment is about. We get three choices. We can table the amendment, as I think the motion will be made so we do not have to deal with it, saying we should not change our priorities. We can say yes, and we can renew the faith in the American people that we understand we are here to do priority work. We are not necessarily here to do the next best thing for our political careers. However you slice it, many of the earmarks are great things. They are great needs which have to be met at some point in time. But most of the earmarks that go for the bridges and roads will not be affected by this amendment at all. The ones that will be affected are those earmarks which are not a priority. I know we are going to have a vote. I want to give the subcommittee chairman, as well as Ranking Member Bond, a chance to answer this debate. I will say I plan on offering this amendment in another form, if this amendment goes down, limiting it and more directing it, if in fact that is the case. But we have a duty to do what is in the best interest of our transportation needs in this country. I realize there is a debate, and I realize there is disagreement with me on this issue. But it is going to be hard for us as a body to justify 500 separate earmarks that do not address the bridges in this country, will not help us assess that. Earlier today, Senator Murray alluded to the $1 billion increase. Well, that is true, but we did not increase the money; we just made it toward the Transportation fund. The trust fund will run out of money a year earlier. So all we did was speed up spending that is allowed in the trust fund that we have today, and that will be consumed more quickly. I agree we probably should do that. But we will, in fact, have to address this issue, and it is about priorities. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2811.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, maybe this will not be as painful an amendment. Again, referencing what Senator Klobuchar said today about repairing the bridge that has collapsed and cost 13 people their lives and many others injuries, we decided not to order priorities with the last amendment but hopefully will give a little bit better consideration to this one. About 2\1/2\ weeks ago, a friend of mine, who has been a friend for over 20 years, talked me into getting a bicycle. I have to say I have markedly enjoyed that exercise. This amendment says that for the $12 million to $18 million in this bill, which is not clear how much is actually for bicycle paths, we should not be spending money on bicycle paths for our own leisure, comfort, and exercise when we have bridges that are falling down. It is very straightforward. It prohibits funding bicycle paths until we have our bridges and highways in order. Through the years, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on bicycle paths. It is great, it is fun, they are enjoyable, but it isn't as important for us to have fun and enjoyment as it is for us to be responsible in repairing the roads and bridges in this country. This is simply a prohibition that says for the funds that are in this appropriations bill for bicycle paths, we are saying, no we won't spend that money; we are going to spend the money on fixing roads and bridges. I guess one could say we could do both. We can fix the roads and bridges and we can have bicycle paths. The problem is this body adopted an amendment creating another billion dollars for bridges just yesterday, and what that does is shorten the life of the trust fund. What it does is move the empty, the zero on that fund to 2009. We have addressed some of that, but we haven't addressed it near to the need I believe we should. I ask my colleagues to give some thought about whether bicycle paths or the safety of our people in cars on bridges and roads in this country is more important. I will give some examples. There is $3 million for three bike trails in Illinois. Illinois has 290 structurally deficient bridges. There is $500,000 for the CEMAR Trail in Iowa. Iowa has 61 structurally deficient bridges. There is $500,000 in Maryland. Maryland has 43 structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System. Mississippi has $2.2 million earmarked for bicycle trails and has 28 structurally deficient bridges. Missouri has $750,000 for the Heart of America bicycle/pedestrian bridge and has 123 structurally deficient bridges on our National Highway System. North Dakota has $800,000 for the Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail and has nine structurally deficient bridges. The State of Washington, the chairman's State, has three bike earmarks, $3 million, and 76 structurally deficient bridges. West Virginia has 98 structurally deficient bridges, but yet $1 million is going to the Paw Paw Bends Trail in Morgan County. That is not the complete list. I can go on. I have five more pages of States around the country. It is interesting that in Chesapeake, VA, the council voted in June to build a 2-mile bicycle path estimated to cost $16 million. That is to be paid for with federally earmarked funds and a match. The mayor of that city, in arguing against this expenditure, cast the lone vote, saying: It reminds me of a bridge somewhere to nowhere. You are talking about Government spending. To spend that kind of money on a bike path that would rarely be utilized is astounding to him. The traffic in that area, pedestrian and bike, is four people per day. I don't deny that it is a wonderful experience that many millions of Americans are getting to enjoy the bike paths we build. The question is, Should we stop for a while and do what we should be doing with our other transportation needs? A quote from Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation, is the following: Americans would be shocked to learn that only about 60 percent of the gas tax money they pay today actually goes into highway and bridge construction. Much of it goes to many, many other areas. Ten to 20 percent goes into areas that are not directly transportation related. Bike paths and trails happen to fit into that category. The highway trust fund was set up to build highways and maintain bridges. When 40 percent of it is not used to maintain highways or build bridges, we have missed the priorities the American people have asked for. The last time the gas tax was increased in 1993, it was 4.3 cents. We have had many people say we need a tax increase on transportation dollars to afford the Transportation bill. I don't believe that is true at all. I believe we ought to be spending the money on true transportation needs--roads and highways and transit--and we should have less of the other. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Minnesota Star Tribune recently that noted the significant amounts of money that have been spent in that State on bicycle paths at the same time the chairman of the Transportation Committee did not allocate the funds, along with the State, to effectively solve the problems of the I-35 bridge.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one moment?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I made an error in terms of calling up my amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendments Nos. 2812, 2813, and 2814 be called up.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I asked for the yeas and nays. The Chair asked whether there was a sufficient second. There was a sufficient second. And then a motion was made to table.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.