Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007

Floor Speech

PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - October 25, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the past few months we have sent the President critical legislation that invests in our country's transportation, economy, health and safety needs. Funding these priorities will make our country safer, our communities healthier, and our economy stronger. Unfortunately, it seems the President doesn't share these priorities. He has proposed to this Congress harmful budget cuts, and now he says he is going to veto several of these vital bills because we are asking for $22 billion more than he requested. He says our domestic spending is ``irresponsible and excessive.''

I personally find that hard to understand when, at the same time as he is saying that, he wants $196 billion in emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, that does not include any money for our veterans. In fact, the $22 billion we want to invest at home represents less than what the President spends in Iraq in 3 months. That, not these bills, is what I think is irresponsible and excessive. We have to make sure we are not ignoring our needs here at home. The appropriations bills have the support of both parties. They ensure that our roads and our bridges, our airports, our railways are in good condition. They assure that our workers and families are healthy and our children have a chance to succeed. They assure that we have enough law enforcement officers to keep our communities safe. These bills simply restore some of the money the President cut and take a modest step forward after years of going in the wrong direction.

A healthy transportation system is vital to a healthy community. We need to ensure that our families can get to school or get to work and that goods move from place to place. But when he says no to our bill that provides money for transportation and housing and urban development, what the President is saying no to is the investments that ensure that our communities are strong, that prevent disasters--such as the bridge collapse in Minneapolis--from happening in this country again.

I am baffled, frankly, that the President's request for the war includes about $200 million for the construction of secondary roads in Afghanistan. He wants to spend $200 million on roads in Afghanistan but he is upset about our amendment to fix bridges in the United States.

Clearly, this administration thinks these projects are a priority for Iraq and a priority for Afghanistan; otherwise, the President would not have included them in his emergency spending bill for the war. So I ask, why doesn't the President think the roads and bridges are a priority in our country, in the United States?

At the same time the President is waging war overseas, we are here trying to make sure our employers have workers, that our families have access to health care, that our children get a good education. Tuesday night an overwhelming majority of this Senate voted to spend $11 billion over the President's request on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education programs so we could do that. That bill we passed would invest in cutting-edge medical research for diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes and cancer, research that brings hope to millions of Americans. In taking that vote the other evening, a bipartisan group of Senators agreed to restore funds for education, for jobs training, for health systems, when President Bush would have left them to cope with yet another year of unfunded mandates and empty promises.

The children's health insurance bill that we approved earlier this year also is intended to help millions of our children. That bill, too, achieved a majority of support in the House and in the Senate but not from the President. Those bills would make Americans healthier and the economy more competitive. But the President disagrees. He says these programs are ``irresponsible and excessive.''

But guess what he proposes in his $196 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan. He asks for $25 million for economic development projects to foster job creation--in Iraq. And $60 million to fund economic projects to sustain development in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Let me say it another way. He plans to veto job creation and economic development right here at home, but he is asking us to spend millions of dollars in emergency funding on similar programs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The President says $196 billion that he is requesting for the war is necessary to make our world safer. We believe we also need to invest more in safety here at home. Our bill funding Commerce, Justice and Science programs works hard to ensure that our communities have enough FBI agents and police on our streets here at home. Like the other programs we want to fund, that bill restores the cuts that the President had proposed. Few bills are as important to the safety of our communities as that one.

I am especially concerned that the President is threatening to veto that bill because of how it affects my home State and the Nation. Six years after 9/11, the administration still has not replaced 2,400 law enforcement agents across the country that it reassigned to counterterrorism after 9/11.

In my home State of Washington, we were hit very hard by that. According to an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, our Seattle newspaper, we have a critical shortage of FBI agents: 2.1 agents for every 100,000 residents or about half the national average.

The shift to counterterrorism has left our law enforcement shorthanded. Local police and sheriffs told me that the FBI has ``virtually disappeared'' from white-collar crime investigations. They told me the FBI does not have the resources today to adequately staff antigang task forces.

Criminals have not stopped robbing our banks or dealing drugs or stealing identities. An amendment I included in that bill would take steps to get more FBI agents into my community and wherever they are needed.

But the President said he is going to veto that bill. In so doing, he is going to veto our amendment. If we can spend $10 billion a month for the war in Iraq, we should be willing to spend a fraction of that to ensure the security of our citizens at home.

Clearly, the President is the one who is being ``excessive'' and ``irresponsible.'' This might be an abstract debate about Federal funding for the President, but I think all of us know here it is about real people; it is about hard-working parents who are searching for a way to get health care for their own families when it has not been provided by their employers. It is about citizens out of traffic jams, and ensuring that our roads and bridges are safe to drive on. It is about making sure the people we represent can trust that enough law enforcement officers will be there to fight crime in their neighborhoods.

When I travel around Washington State, people tell me they want hope and they want change. Whether it is the war in Iraq or gas prices or access to health insurance, people today feel a real weight on their shoulders. They are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel. By vetoing those important bills, and failing to invest in the safety, health, and economic future of all Americans, the President keeps putting out that light. We are investing $22 billion over last year in the future of our country.

I urge all of my colleagues to support these bills as we move forward on behalf of the millions of American children and families who would benefit. I hope the President is listening.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source